Drone technology is moving from tactical to strategic use

 

Most of those interested in military and aviation history know how bombing forces developed.  At first bombs (very small ones) were dropped on front lines and support positions behind those lines - because the aircraft of the day couldn't reach any further.  As aircraft grew bigger, faster and more powerful, strategic bombing - attacking the enemy's population centers, factories, ports, etc. - became the new paradigm.  It mattered not whether your bombs actually hit a military target, because every target was now considered to be supporting the enemy's war effort.  Destroy an orphanage because it was built right next door to an industrial estate?  No problem.  Those orphans became "collateral damage" - unintended victims of the war.  Those who killed them bore no moral responsibility for their deaths.  They were simply "taking the war to the enemy", and that was a justifiable action.

Nuclear weapons didn't alter that scenario, except for the fact that one bomb could now destroy an entire city.  Air forces didn't need to send hundreds of aircraft to drop thousands of bombs (and be attacked as they did so, losing many aircraft and their crews to enemy defenses).  Instead, aircraft need not be sent at all.  A missile could drop a warhead accurately enough to spare the bomber crews from the losses they would otherwise incur.

However, drone technology is evolving so fast that it's changing the nature of technology in war.  It's not so much new as evolved . . . but that evolution is happening so quickly that it seems nobody can keep up with it.  Take Ukraine, for example.  When Russia invaded, Ukraine had effectively no air superiority to speak of, and few modern, high-technology weapons.  In their absence, Ukrainians had to develop new technologies as quickly as they could - and they did so very effectively.  We all know how Ukrainian drones stalemated the Russian advance in the Donbas area, and have led to a World War I-style trench warfare where neither side dares to advance in strength, for fear of the massive drone counterattack that would ensue.

What's more, Ukraine has now developed much larger, long-range attack drones that have gone far beyond what anyone had expected.  Indeed, they've blurred the distinction between "drone" and "cruise missile" until the terms are almost interchangeable.  Consider that a few days ago, Ukraine attacked a Russian oil refinery in Saratov, more than 1,700 miles from the launch site of the FP-5 Flamingo drones.  The FP-5 is claimed to have a maximum range of some 3,000 kilometers (1,900 miles).  Is it a drone, or a cruise missile, or both?

Smaller drones have so altered the shape of modern conflict that they may even render nuclear weapons superfluous (at least in terms of the destruction of a nation's ability to wage war).  HMS Defiant commented recently:

I see that some people who ought to know better are still nattering about the state of our munitions and our general unreadiness to wage war against China. Yes, yes, I know, dead horse, thoroughly beaten already but I did want to point out that the country that can turn out 80,000,000 iphones in a couple of months probably has no trouble turning out 40,000,000 high end killer drones with 300 mile ranges and 250 pound warheads.

The goal of the SIOP was to bathe in [nuclear] fire targets that needed to be destroyed affirmatively. If one could achieve the same effect by applying precise 250 pound bombs directly to the actual target and not just the neighborhood or city, then the same effect is achieved without all the excess radiation.

This poses a logical mans thinking problem for the evening. Every single HQ and logistics warehouse and fuel dump in Asia and the Western Pacific is in a precise, down to the inch known location on a target map. The putative bad guys have 40,000,000 drones. The other bad apples north of the 38th are known to be making lots of drones of their own and furnishing to their very good friends in Moscow.

. . .

You know another place where the heads lie uneasy at night? Yeah, Taiwan is in easy flight range of 40,000,000 expendable killer drones.

It does make me wonder though. Just what the hell is our answer to those 40,000,000 drones? ... We treat all weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, etc) as nuclear weapons and will retaliate if they are used against us. What possible form will retaliation take if drones alone are enough to execute a complete decapitation strike at just about every level of government overnight?

There's more at the link.  Go read it all.

He poses an excellent question, to which (I suspect) nobody in the US government has developed any concrete, practical response as yet.  Perhaps they should move faster on that . . .

Peter

I've seen this for myself. It's scary!

 

Courtesy of a link provided by Zendo Deb at 357 Magnum, we find this video report on the growing problem of e-bikes that are powerful enough to do highway speeds - but still require no license or training to operate them.  I've seen this for myself more than once.  These kids come hurtling down driveways or out of alleyways, going far too fast to brake or turn, and barrel right across one or even two lanes of traffic.  I don't know how I've missed a couple of them - it was that close.

The video is from StacheD Training.  The blurb reads:

Kids across the US are being seriously injured and killed while riding e-bikes — but in a lot of these cases, what they're actually riding isn't legally an e-bike at all. In this video, I break down a string of recent crashes in Metro Detroit, what the data says about who's actually at fault, and why some of these "e-bikes" are really unregistered electric motorcycles capable of highway speeds.

CPSC Report — E-Scooter and E-Bike Injuries Soar: 2022 Injuries Increased Nearly 21%

https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2024/E-Scooter-and-E-Bike-Injuries-Soar-2022-Injuries-Increased-Nearly-21

The comments below the video on YouTube are pretty sobering.  Clearly, this is a problem that's only going to get worse, unless and until someone cracks down on the unrestricted availability of these unregulated e-bikes.

Peter

AI as Skynet - panic hype, or realistic warning?

 

Over the past couple of days several researchers and "experts" (?) have warned that artificial intelligence (AI) risks running out of control and threatening the very survival of humanity.  Rather than post individual links to all the articles, click over to Ted Gioia, who's summarized them all in a single Substack post.

I'm not convinced by all the hype suddenly being whipped up on this subject.  Eight warnings in 24 hours (or is it 48)?  Eight alleged experts all preaching AI doom, gloom and disaster?  The simultaneous onset of all these warnings makes me wonder about the timing.  Is someone trying to panic our politicians and/or business leaders into acting before they can figure out what might work?  "Don't just stand there, do something!" is a very time-worn statement . . . particularly when the "something" isn't clearly outlined or understood.  I'm suspicious.

On the other hand, consider all the hacking exploits, data penetrations and other cybercrimes that have been increasing in frequency for a few years now.  There's no doubt that even without AI, they're a threat to many aspects of our modern society.  Indeed, just a few weeks ago we saw that many water utilities were recently hacked, in some cases severely enough to interrupt the flow of that commodity to customers.  It's gotten bad enough that the FBI has issued a formal warning about "cyber actors" causing "operational disruptions".  In the event of a major international conflict, up to and perhaps including war, it's not hard to imagine enemy nations actively trying to attack all our utility infrastructure in the same fashion, disrupting our entire economy (not to mention our armed forces).  The more AI is used to run our economy, the more risk that "rogue AI" instructions might be fed into their systems to corrupt and disrupt their operations.

So, I think we can agree that there's a genuine risk to our automated systems . . . but is AI itself that risk, or is it merely an added element to risks of which we're already aware?

Some "AI prophets" seem to think that AI will ensure a better future for the whole world.  Elon Musk is a prime example, seeing AI as one vital future component along with space travel and other engineering challenges.  In that sense, his views are a counterweight to "AI-doom-and-gloom" predictions.

So . . . AI as threat or promise?  I don't know enough to comment, but experts seem more than willing to tell the rest of us what to believe.  What do you think, readers?  Please discuss in Comments.

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  Zero Hedge reported at noon today:  "Perfectly Timed AI Panic Resurrects 'Bipartisan AI Safety Bill'."  Click over there to read the report.  Briefly, it appears that the rush of alarmist AI reports may be a deliberately planned political pressure tactic designed to rush controversial AI legislation through Congress.  Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

A grim warning from Europe about financial security - and what it might mean for the USA

 

In my first post this morning, I mentioned the possibility that Europe might take action against private bank accounts to fund its ever-increasing deficit and ever-growing social programs.  As if to echo that warning, here's what Zero Hedge had to say a few hours ago.

In the view of the EU’s chief Eurocrat, private property as a protective wall shielding citizens from an overreaching state has served its purpose as a pillar of civilization.

Central planning, subsidy madness – this is Brussels under the magnifying glass.

. . .

A ruthless expropriation or the decreed redirection of cash, as the finest bureaucratic German puts it, is supposed to solve the problems Brussels itself has caused through its stubborn climate policy, its overregulation and its continuing insanity of interventionism.

Von der Leyen was explicit before the business leaders: Europe has savings, she said, but unfortunately those savings are sitting on the sidelines. Ten trillion euros are sitting as cash savings in the hands of private households in bank accounts, lectures von der Leyen in the manner of a classic central planner who can no longer take her eyes off citizens’ wealth. The European economy must now put this capital to work for its companies, the chief bureaucrat decreed.

. . .

Von der Leyen is following the path of the German chancellor. Friedrich Merz, too, discovered the cash holdings of Germans as political capital for himself more than a year ago – thoroughly socialist, indeed almost dictatorial, the chancellor also pointed to the possibilities opened up by what he called an activation of this money.

Ursula von der Leyen and Friedrich Merz reveal not merely an ethical and ideological abyss; they are contemplating dictatorial control over the private wealth of citizens who are still sovereign.

There's more at the link, including a video recording of Ursula von der Leyen's address.

Don't think that this is only a European problem.  Look at the size of America's deficit, and then consider that we could wipe out two-thirds to three-quarters of it simply by "nationalizing" the retirement savings of Americans, by confiscating the shares and bonds in which they invest.  That's precisely what some US politicians have been saying for years, and are still saying today.  If they get into power, our private savings and investments are under grave threat.

Peter

Surviving the active shooter: a situation more and more urban dwellers are facing

 

Just following news headlines will make it clear that more and more people living in cities are confronted by so-called "active shooters":  criminals and/or lunatics who start shooting for whatever reason, and often don't stop until they are neutralized.  Consider these few headlines (out of many more I could have used) from the weekend just past:

• Mass shootings rock 2 US cities, leave 3 dead, 18 injured
• Judge signs murder arrest warrant for suspect in Forest Hill homicide
• Armed man captured after shootout with Oakland police
• Tulsa Teen, 19, Shot Outside Event Center as Suspect Remains at Large

If we find ourselves in the middle of such a situation, what can we do about it?  What should we do?

Ed Monk has many years of experience in planning for such situations, and has trained not just individuals, but also police departments and major institutions, in how to handle them.  He's written a short but very informative book titled "First 30 Seconds: The Active Shooter Problem".

Part of the blurb reads:

The author served as an active-duty US Army officer for over 20 years. Throughout this career, planning to give and receive deadly violence was a common, required task. Ten days after his Army retirement, he began teaching public high school, where violence was never allowed, discussed, or planned for. He was STUNNED when school leaders told him the school’s planned response during an Active Shooter attack was to gather in groups and wait to see if the killer or cops got to you first.

This experience started his study of the Active Shooter problem. This book is about what he found.

Massad Ayoob, well-known to readers of this blog, is one of the most authoritative and experienced firearms, self-defense and law enforcement instructors in the United States.  He's released this nine-minute assessment of Ed Monk's book, and recommends it highly.

I've already bought my copy of Ed Monk's book.  I recommend that any reader living in a major urban area should do likewise, and if you live in a more peaceful area, buy one anyway - because you never know who may end up in your area.  It might be a very useful tool to initiate discussions with law enforcement, schools, libraries, etc in your part of the world.

Peter

Autonomous drones: looks like I was right

 

A week ago I put up an article titled "Drone warfare developments - it's a scary future".  In it, I looked at autonomous AI-guided drones that found targets with a minimum of human input, then made the kill/no-kill decision on their own without a "man-in-the-loop" to make the final call.

It's happening already.

Three Ukrainian civilians were slaughtered by Russian drones that were guided by artificial intelligence, marking an ominous escalation in warfare’s robotic age.

Tetiana Bubynets, 19, a university student, and two others were blown to bits last month at a gas station in the city of Zaporizhzhia by a drone outfitted with an experimental artificial intelligence system that decides, without a human operator, where to strike, the New York Times reported.

The drone, which looked like a model airplane, was programmed to fly towards the gas station, but once it closed in, an AI system autonomously chose its target — most likely propane tanks —  based on its training to recognize such objects, experts and military officials told the paper.

“This is a risk for the whole world,” said Col. Serhiy Minaiev, the commander of Ukrainian air defenses in Zaporizhzhia.

“In a few years, we will be living in a ‘Terminator’ movie. It’s no joke. Machines are making decisions to strike.”

Debris recovered from the gas station and other strike sites around the city revealed that the drones were running on Nvidia minicomputers that determined where the drone would detonate, officials and experts said.

There's more at the link, including photographs of Russia's autonomous AI-guided drone.

What's particularly ominous about that report is that the drone deliberately targeted three civilians, who would not have been wearing uniform and would not have been in a military location.  Instead, they were at a "gas station", where "an AI system autonomously chose its target — most likely propane tanks —  based on its training to recognize such objects".  Those three civilian deaths can't be classed as "collateral damage", as so many official statements so often label such incidents.  They were deliberate damage, selected by the AI in accordance with its programming, because they happened to be convenient targets to spread terror and fear among the local populace.  Furthermore, the NVIDIA chips powering those Russian drones are officially not allowed to be exported to that country . . . but they got there anyway.  If governments can smuggle them through embargoes, so can non-governmental threat groups and criminals.  It's not all that difficult to do.

What's worse is that AI-driven drone technology, and the tactics to use it, are now spreading from Ukraine and Russia to the rest of the world.  For example, Finland is buying and using Ukrainian drone technology, and hiring battlefield-experienced Ukrainian experts to show them how to use it.

Finland is directly integrating Ukrainian battlefield data into its defense industrial base, with President Alexander Stubb emphasizing that Kyiv possesses unprecedented expertise in modern high-intensity warfare.

Speaking on the strategic value of frontline data, Stubb noted that Ukraine holds more real-world combat insights than the rest of Europe combined. Helsinki is now actively applying these hard-learned lessons across its defense sector, drawing critical data on the tactical deployment of drones, missile systems, unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), and combat casualty care under modern fire conditions.

By systematically absorbing Ukraine’s operational data into Nordic defense manufacturing, Helsinki is rapidly adapting NATO’s northern flank to modern, sensor-saturated combat without having to learn those lessons through direct conflict.

Again, more at the link in the X thread - read the many comments from others.  Nor is Finland alone in such measures.  As mentioned last week, a US company is now supplying Ukraine with AI guidance systems for its drone hardware, making them much more deadly on the battlefield.  I've seen reports from at least a dozen countries talking about how they need to learn from Ukraine, and/or buy drone hardware and software from Ukraine, in order to ensure their own national security.  (One of them is Taiwan, which is arming itself to repel a threatened Chinese invasion.  Imagine what a cross-beach amphibious landing would suffer, in terms of both lives and matériel, if it were attacked by a hundred thousand or more autonomous drones before even one enemy soldier had set foot on shore!  Needless to say, China isn't terribly enthusiastic about this.)

It's time we all faced up to the reality of this threat - not just from nations, but from terrorists, and cross-border criminal enterprises such as drug cartels, and even from internal dissident groups such as ANTIFA, BLM and others.  Many of them are extremists, and won't hesitate to garner publicity for their cause by murdering their opponents, or anyone whom they perceive as an enemy.  Think how this might impact routine law enforcement activities.

• A drug cartel in Mexico might find it useful to send a few autonomous drones across the border to attack local, state and federal patrols, so they could sneak their illegal wares into the USA under cover of all the fuss as law enforcement tries to help its comrades.  They're already murdering their own police in Mexico, so why should they hesitate to do the same to ours?
• Rival gangs such as the Crips, the Bloods, the Mexican Mafia, etc. would probably not hesitate to use such weapons against each other (and possibly even against local law enforcement agencies) in their ongoing, never-ending fight to control urban territory for their criminal activities.
• Extremist political groups could use them to attack rival groups and/or individuals.  For example, Charlie Kirk was killed by a sniper while addressing a public gathering.  What if a future speaker could be killed by a high-explosive autonomous drone?  The "shooter" could launch it from several miles away, and be in little or no danger of detection or arrest.

Those are just a few possible examples, and they're all entirely feasible.  I think that in as little as three to five years from now, we're going to see attacks on civilian targets by autonomous drones in many countries, from who knows how many sources.  There's no guarantee that we, personally, might not become a victim of them.

Peter

Drone warfare developments - it's a scary future

 

Many of my readers doubtless took note of a report earlier this month about a US-Ukrainian military exercise earlier this year.

Ukrainian drone teams demolished a brigade of US Army tanks and armored vehicles during a live war game held this year—but the US soldiers were lucky enough to get “respawn” attempts while learning from the experience.

The semiannual military exercise, called Combined Resolve, gave the US military a firsthand taste of how modern drone warfare has evolved on the battlefields of Ukraine. The Ukrainian drone operators participating in the exercise were easily able to spot and destroy US armored vehicles by mimicking the actions of dropping bombs from above or moving close enough to simulate a kamikaze strike, according to US officials and a participant who spoke with The Wall Street Journal.

. . .

... by repeating the training scenario throughout the two-week exercise, US Army troops got better at figuring out how to disperse and hide from the drones while using countermeasures such as electronic warfare.

The US military is not alone in learning such lessons from battle-hardened Ukrainian drone operators.

Ukrainian drone teams also participated in a Swedish-led military exercise for NATO, called Aurora 26, that was also held in May. A mock mechanized assault by NATO tanks and infantry fighting vehicles allowed Ukrainian drones to take out dozens of the attacking armored vehicles, which eventually forced planners to reset the war game, The Kyiv Independent reported.

There's more at the link.

While trying to find out more, I came across this 45-minute video article from Deutsche Welle.  Itfeatures both a drone operator's perspective (a British soldier fighting for Ukraine) and drone casualties speaking of it from their point of view.  It also goes into how the technology is developing, and how China already has a commanding lead in the field.  As wars become more widespread, what will this mean for soldiers?  I recommend the report very highly if you aren't up to date with recent developments.

The technological advances referred to in the video report are already making headlines.  Earlier this month, we learned that US AI technology is now "enhancing" conventional Ukrainian drones.

In mid-July, the Ukrainian military began receiving Shrike drones made by the Ukrainian company SkyFall equipped with AI-powered autonomy hardware and software developed by the US company Auterion. The companies plan to deliver 50,000 drones equipped with Auterion’s Skynode S strike kits in the coming months.

That allows human operators to manually fly the Shrike first-person view (FPV) drones into a battlefield area, designate a target up to half a mile away, and then “flip the switch to turn it into fire-and-forget terminal guidance mode,” Lorenz Meier, co-founder and CEO of Auterion, told Ars.

The operator can abort a strike or choose a different target as long as they have a radio signal connection with the drone, Meier explained. But the drone can still automatically track and fly into targets without any human guidance, even if it loses its connection with the operator due to buildings or terrain blocking the signal or because of enemy jamming on the same radio frequencies.

To home in on targets, Auterion’s software relies solely on the visual information available from the Shrike drone’s main onboard camera. That means the Shrike drones can track and strike moving targets without any reliance on GPS—a crucial advantage on modern battlefields, where GPS jamming has also become common.

Again, more at the link.

When I think back on my own days in uniform, I can only be devoutly grateful that we didn't have to face such devices on African battlefields almost half a century ago.  I think my odds of surviving such combat would have been a whole lot lower if they'd been around!

The scary thing, to my mind, is that all this technology has already devolved to individual user level, in manufacturing as much as in operation.  A private person can buy just about all the drone propulsion and guidance technology used in military battlefield drones, and assemble his own versions.  A warhead isn't difficult to devise, given a little chemical knowledge and/or access to stolen military or commercial explosives.  What might happen if a well-organized terrorist outfit such as Al Qaeda or ISIS, or their various and sundry offshoots, were able to get hold of drone "swarming" technology and launch fifty or a hundred explosive drones against a major target?  I'm thinking sports stadiums, or government buildings, or even key targets such as the President when he's traveling by vehicle.  What if some of the drones could try to obstruct the takeoff or landing of the Presidential aircraft?  What if they did the same to a normal commercial flight, potentially causing hundreds of casualties and disrupting the entire air transport network for who knows how long?

I fear we haven't even begun to witness how dangerous such technology might be in the wrong hands.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #1,129

 

An "influencer" in Nebraska appears to have generated entirely the wrong kind of influence in the firearms community.

A Lincoln, Nebraska, wannabe influencer had his girlfriend film him while instructing his followers on how to properly handle a newly purchased 9mm pistol.

Then while racking the gun, and ignoring multiple rules of firearm safety (treat every gun like it's loaded, know where your gun is pointing, and keep your finger off the trigger), his pew pew went pew right through his leg.

There's more at the link.  Here's a brief video report about the incident.

Apparently the victim shot himself through the femoral artery (one of the largest blood vessels in the body) and nearly bled to death before responding officers could apply a tourniquet (a very difficult part of the anatomy in which to do that) and get him to a hospital.  He's said to be in critical condition.

Dare one say his prospective career as an influencer went with a bang?

Peter

True dat

 

Healthranger observes that most people have no idea about how the world functions - or why it's that way.

While I am blessed to be able to interview some of the smartest people in the world, I remain aghast at the utter lack of knowledge among the "ignorant masses."

• Most people don't know a thing about food ingredients.
• They don't know where energy comes from.
• They don't know where their own organs are located in their own body.
• They don't know how mechanical things work, not even at a basic level (like combustion engines).
• They don't know basic first aid or emergency medicine for self-treatment.
• They are completely clueless when it comes to geography.
• They don't know what money is. (And they certainly don't understand compounding interest.)
• They don't know how computers work, or how storage devices function.

The average person is a walking biological shell of cognitive emptiness. And their lack of fundamental curiosity prevents them from ever making the effort to learn anything that matters.

But they are total experts in fashion, sports and celebrities, of course. They know all the latest trends pushed by shallow influencers, but they have zero knowledge of what's happening in the world and why their life is becoming more difficult by the day.

There's more at the link, and in the comments that follow.  Worthwhile reading.

I've noticed the same thing (although not among most of my readers, who wouldn't waste their time on my scribblings unless they shared my interest in when, where, who, how, why, etc.).  It really is frightening to listen to some of the terminal inanities spouted by some of our politicians (on both sides of the aisle - Republicans have idiots among their number, just as Democrats do).  That applies particularly to the Kumbaya school of international relations . . . "If we just leave Iran/Russia/China/North Korea/wherever alone, they'll leave us alone!  After all, everyone wants peace!"  Yeah.  Riiiiight.

What to do about it?  There's the rub.  I have no idea how to make people understand when they're not interested in understanding.  All one can do is "preach to the converted", sharing ideas and concerns with those who are prepared to think for themselves, and then take whatever steps are possible to protect ourselves from the ignorance of others.  On the other hand, that stores up troubles of its own.  Remember Aesop's fable about the ant and the grasshopper?  Jim Quinn updated it to reflect modern times.  I suspect his is more accurate than the original!

Peter

Be careful what you pick up on or near a battlefield...

 

There's a video on X.com showing a Russian army officer opening some of the candies and chocolate that have been found in the battle zones in Ukraine.  If you're logged into X, here's the link.  If you aren't a member of X, here's an alternative link that will let you play the video.  The candy is loaded with explosives and a detonator, proving that too many sweets really are bad for you!

There are plenty of comments following the video that are worth reading.  My favorite is from user Bitcoin Wizard - mavensbot:

"I'm starting to think that these processed foods are not healthy."

You can say that again!

Peter

So much for the New York City property market...

 

This news is several days old, but it only caught my eye yesterday.

Months before New York City approved a historic two-year rent freeze, Google co-founder Sergey Brin quietly exited a struggling real estate fund at a steep loss.

In December, Brin sold his stake back to A&E Real Estate, the fund's manager, for six cents on the dollar, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg.

The fund holds 5,900 rent-stabilized apartments, with Brin's stake being valued at roughly $79 million, a drop in the bucket when viewed next to his $280 billion net worth.

"A&E bought out one of our long-term investors, who was willing to accept six cents on the dollar on their original equity investment to divest itself from the New York City multifamily sector," a company representative told Bloomberg in a statement.

"The simple and deeply troubling fact for renters is that institutional capital – both equity investors and lenders – are fleeing New York City’s rent-stabilized apartment sector," the A&E representative continued, according to Bloomberg. "They understand New York is in a doom loop."

There's more at the link.

Think about that for a moment.  Working backwards from "Brin's stake being valued at roughly $79 million" at the sale price - i.e. at six cents on the dollar of his original investment - that means he originally invested about $1.3 billion in the real estate fund.  He's lost almost all of that money, thanks to New York City's cratering real estate market, undermined as it is by the socialist communist policies of newly-elected Mayor Mamdami.

If a man as economically savvy as Mr. Brin walks away from a $1.3 billion investment, writing it off as unrecoverable, what are smaller investors to think?  Can they afford to follow his example?  For that matter, can they afford not to follow his example?  Makes you think, doesn't it?

If I were unfortunate enough to live in or near New York City, or have money invested there, after hearing that news I'd be taking steps (rapid ones) to move myself and/or my money somewhere (anywhere!) else . . . before I lost all my investments, too.

Peter

Not such apex predators

 

I had to laugh at this blog post from fellow South African expatriate Kim du Toit.  He and I see eye to eye on many issues (not surprising, given our similar backgrounds).

This morning he wrote about an article titled "One Super Predator in Africa Instills More Fear Than Lions".  The super predator, of course, turned out to be humans.  We use brains and tools to conquer our environment and the nasty things that we find there.  We've done it for millennia, and will doubtless go on doing it until the extinction of our species and/or the entropy death of the universe.

Kim doesn't mince his words.

We are, in the animal kingdom, like marshmallows.  Pork-flavored marshmallows, to be precise, just the thing to make lions sharpen their claws before putting on a dinner napkin.

So why do these dangerous animals think that we are the apex predators?

Because we don’t fight fair.  As though fighting for one’s life, or hunting down food requires us to be all Marquis-of-Queensbury types;  what foolishness.

**** that.  If a pride of lions wants to target a few humans for brekkie, well… say hello to an A-10 Warthog or an Apache attack helicopter, and let’s see who’s really the apex predator, Fluffy.

Click over there to read the whole thing.  It's giggle-worthy . . . and true, too, for the most part.

Of course, if one of those predators catches you alone and unarmed in the bush, you're toast, but that's your fault.  Being a successful apex predator requires remaining on the apex, so to speak.  Step off it, and there will be consequences.

Peter

An "angry bear" opines on the soaring stock market - and what may bring it down

 

We've met Jared Dillian before in these pages.  He's an investment adviser and analyst with a highly respected track record in the industry.  He's not a happy man these days.

You should never let your emotions get in the way of investing, but I am starting to get angry at this bull market ... You want my thoughts—I will give you my thoughts. But the one data point that you should know is that the stock market is now the most overvalued in history, more so than 2000 or even 1929.

. . .

My friend Helene Meisler tweeted recently that if you weren’t around for the dot-com bubble, now you know what it was like in the dot-com bubble. The difference being that so many more people own stocks this time around. It is estimated that 62% of Americans own stocks. If we have a 50% bear market, it’s going to be Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. We are really going to be questioning the wisdom of plowing all our savings into the stock market via 401(k)s. Let’s hope that doesn’t come to pass because the consequences would be too terrible to contemplate, but knowing markets and karma, that is probably exactly what is going to happen.

. . .

I mean, the consensus view is that all this [AI] capex is going to go to waste, so maybe the out-of-consensus view is that it is actually needed. This is one of these situations in which I am glad I am 52 years old. The internet was also the future of the human race, but capitalism being what it is, there was overinvestment and malinvestment, and eventually supply caught up with demand, and everything crashed.

It looks like a tiny blip on a log chart (which is one reason why I hate log charts), but trust me, the crash was no fun. I lived through it and barely held on to my job. This time is no different. This time is never different! Whether it’s railroads, industrials/utilities, the Nifty Fifty, Japan, or any other bubble. The difference is that this one is bigger than all of them, and it looks like it’s not stopping.

. . .

Back when I was at Lehman in 2006, I’d drive out in the country and take pictures of all the housing developments under construction that were completely vacant and then send them out in my Bloomberg messages. Maybe I should take a road trip and take some pictures of all the data centers under construction that will be Spirit Halloween stores in a few years.

I ordinarily don’t like to write rants. I like to write reasoned, thoughtful pieces. But I’m currently on a plane to Minneapolis, and S&P futures, which opened lower (because oil was up), just ripped to new highs… again. It’s truly incredible that the market goes up every day. It will be equally incredible when it goes down every day because that is what it felt like in 2002. A bear market without end.

There's more at the link.

I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Dillian.  Stock market prices have been soaring into the stratosphere year after year, without any sound economic underpinnings.  It's all been a leap of faith.  "The Fed will provide!"  Well, what happens when the Fed can no longer provide?  What happens when the economic consequences of the Iran war begin to bite?  What happens when international market turmoil makes it clear that, despite all the positive punditry from paid opinion writers, the emperor has no clothes, and nothing is or can be guaranteed?

The very real dangers confronting any and all Western economies aren't limited to the Iran war.  Ambrose Evans-Pritchard focuses on China, and points out:

Europe's leaders are waking up to the terrifying danger that China could obliterate much of their industrial base within less than a decade, shattering the old political order and the EU project itself.

The Rhodium Group says the Chinese Communist Party is digging in its heels, doubling down on a strategy of systemic over-investment and over-reliance on exports that cannot be absorbed by the rest of the world, and certainly not a Europe already in semi-slump.

The original "Made in China 2025" plan a decade ago targeted a clutch of specific technologies. Beijing is now expanding this into an "industrial policy of everything": cars, machinery, chemicals, pharma, software, AI, you name it.

China is pursuing this ruthlessly, aiming to capture a larger share of global value added with vertical control of the entire lifecycle.

It is moving towards autarky in its home market while undercutting the West in its own market and in third countries – everywhere and in every product. It devours foreign technology without releasing its own. The Rhodium Group said the foundations of G7 manufacturing are under comprehensive threat.

The "China Shock 2.0" is bigger and more sophisticated than the original China Shock in the 1990s and early 2000s, which flooded the world with cheap goods and wiped out swathes of blue-collar manufacturing in the West.

America bore the brunt of the first shock. The pauperisation of the Midwest Rust Belt set the stage for Donald Trump.

This time China cannot dump its excess capacity on the US market so easily because of trade barriers. The tsunami is instead being displaced into the softer target of Europe. It is hitting with even greater intensity. China's trade surplus hit a record 1pc of global GDP last year. No country has ever reached such an imbalanced position in modern economic history.

Again, more at the link.

My wife and I aren't rich.  Right now, our savings - and some extra debt through a second mortgage - are funding medical care.  Assuming all ends up that ends well, we'll have to rebuild our savings, but I tell you right now, with the stock market as it is, we won't be putting one red cent into it.  I want a store of value that will retain its value in a stock market slump, and for me that means precious metals.  Even before that, I want to make sure we have enough of the essentials to survive a severe, prolonged economic downturn.  If you want a useful list that most of us can use, click over to Lawrence Person's Battleswarm Blog and see his helpful list from last November.  It makes a good start to review our preparations.

Want to invest in something that is likely to offer a reasonable return on investment in the short to medium term?  Look at domestic essentials that may be in short supply during a prolonged downturn, and lay in a supply of them as trading material.  Baby diapers.  Feminine hygiene essentials.  Soap.  Toothpaste.  Basic, essential canned food.  Flashlights and battery powered domestic and camping lanterns.  Think of what your family can't live without, and you've got the start of a useful investment list, right there.

Am I a pessimist?  I don't think so.  I'd rather call myself a realist.  Regular readers will know that I, and many others, have been uneasy about our economy for years, if not decades.  The numbers have been getting worse all that time, and now they're getting worse a lot faster.  Forewarned is forearmed.

I'll leave the last word to an astute observer.  Click the image to be taken to the original post on X.com, and read the more than 600 replies (so far).

Word.

Peter

Tab clearing

 

Over the past few days I've come across several very useful and informative articles.  I haven't got time to make each one into a detailed blog post, so I'll link to them here.  I'm sure some of them will interest you.

1.  What is the British military actually for?

This is about the British military, not the USA's, but nevertheless there are many common factors in the problems confronting each of them.  I daresay we on this side of the Atlantic should pay equal attention to the reasons for the existence of our armed forces, and whether (and how well) they are structured to implement those reasons.

2.  What happens if the State decides you're too expensive to keep alive?

A very thought-provoking academic study of Canada's Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) program, and the pro's and con's of expanding it to provide involuntary euthanasia - in other words, a doctor or medical panel will decide whether your life is worth saving.  If you're a net expense to the government or medical insurance, here comes the lethal injection.  The abstract opens with this chilling statement:

"This study explores the potential economic savings from expanding medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada, where it is currently a leading cause of death, to include vulnerable groups that cost the government more than they contribute in taxes. These groups include individuals with severe mental health issues, the homeless, drug users, retired elderly, and indigenous communities. Both voluntary and non-voluntary scenarios were analyzed, projecting total savings of up to CAD $1.273 trillion by 2047."

So, if the Canadian government thinks you're worth less to them alive than what it would cost them to treat your medical issue(s) . . . enjoy the euthanasia polka!

3.  The Declaration of Dependence

We are amid a significant shift in the cultural messaging around parenthood, and we can’t throw shame or money at the problem if we hope to solve it. A growing number of people in younger generations have decided that having children simply isn’t worth it. Why? ... The biggest shift ... is the acceptance of the idea that having children is merely one among many viable choices available if one is to live a flourishing adult life; indeed, it might lead to greater personal growth if one doesn’t have children at all. In very short order, the social pressure that used to insist that people who did not have children were selfish has shifted to its opposite—the idea that having children is selfish, given the world’s unsolvable problems and the need to pursue one’s own goals. From here, it is a short leap to viewing children as a burden, a cost to personal autonomy that is not worth paying. 

4.  The Loophole That Put Drunk Truckers Back On The Road

"A federal database built to flag and remove drunk and drugged truckers from U.S. highways used the equivalent of an "honor system" as its last line of defense between a family in a minivan and a substance addict steering an 80,000-pound mass of steel ... But what if a current alcoholic or drug addict could immediately get back behind the wheel by paying a third party to simply check off a box inside the database, rather than complete and pass follow-up drug or alcohol testing?"  Looks like thousands of truckers have been doing precisely that - posing a grave danger to other American drivers.

5.  Stop Nick Shirley!

Instrumental in exposing sufficient fraud so it could no longer be ignored by local or state officials is independent journalist Nick Shirley, who exposed the infamous “Quality Learing Center” day care fraud in Minneapolis, as well as many less well-known fraudulent day cares. So effective was Shirley, and so quickly did his work anger local fraudsters and state officials, Shirley received so many death threats he apparently decided to give California a try ... In Minnesota and California, honest public employees tried for years to expose fraud, but their superiors and the state Attorney General’s Office ignored them. But with Shirley’s discovery of incredible levels of fraud, the California Legislature was prodded into action: they’re criminalizing exposing fraud ... why would legislators, people sworn to protect the public, presumably at least in part by catching criminals defrauding taxpayers of billions, want to protect those criminals? It’s a puzzler, unless, perhaps, those NGOs and nonprofits are primary funding sources of the Democrat Party and Democrat politicians?

6.  Things don’t happen to me.  They happen for me

Rita is a personal friend of long standing, and shares a Substack with Lawdog, whom most of us know.  I was touched by her recent essay, and thought it worth sharing.

I want to share something that has been much on my mind of late, but I want to preface this with the caveat that there’s a sea of pretty ideas out there that appeal instantly but that don’t stand up to intensive scrutiny ... The story I share with you below is about making a choice to perceive things from a more objective standpoint, rather than seeing every curveball as the ultimate disruptor that could have occurred, and making life a misery ... I’ve always tried to embrace the joy of living, but I’ve not always understood how to go about it. I think now I understand that this joy is not having the right things or the stylish possessions that the world dictates are the measure of a life well-lived. I think one can have a joyous life in the most humble of circumstances, if one chooses.

There you go, friends.  I hope you found at least one or two of those articles worth your time.

Peter

The lower the cost, the easier the proliferation

 

I was struck today by the title of an article:

10,000 Low-Cost Cruise Missiles In Three Years

Procurement Plan Laid Out By Pentagon

You can read the details for yourself at the link.  Of particular food for thought to me was this:  if "low-cost cruise missiles" are now a mainstream item, how long can it be before they become cheap enough - and easy enough - to be manufactured almost anywhere?  And, if and when that happens, how long will it take renegade religious or tribal groups (e.g. the Houthis in Yemen), or terrorist organizations (e.g. Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.) to start manufacturing their own equivalents?

It's not as hard as it sounds.  Remember Bruce Simpson?  More than two decades ago, he designed and built a low-cost cruise missile (LCCM) in his home garage, using off-the-shelf components bought from Internet retailers.  He wrote an article about how easy it was to do it, including the following excerpt:

... during the past decade, huge strides have been made in commercializing much of the technology on which the cruise missile is based and it is my firm belief that building a low-cost, autonomous, self-guided, air-breathing missile with a significant payload capability is now well within the reach of almost any person or small group of persons with the necessary knowledge and skills.

Targeting/Guidance

As mentioned above, one of the key components of a cruise missile's guidance system is a mil-spec satellite-based GPS system.

Today, compact, high quality, high accuracy GPS receivers are readily available for just a few hundred dollars. The inclusion of an easily used computer interface in many of these units makes them well suited for use in a low-cost cruise missile (LCCM).

While the GPS provides information necessary for tracking waypoints and identifying the final destination, smaller course corrections (for stability) can be provided by the solid-state gyro systems now readily available for use in model helicopters and aircraft.

Instantaneous measurement of altitude and groundspeed can be provided by a semi-forward looking radar and doppler radar units (possibly built around components such as these and these. This allows the LCCM to fly lower than would be possible if relying solely on GPS and offers a degree of contour-hugging even when the exact nature of the terrain is not available.

The gyroscopic and radar-based systems could also provide an inertial backup guidance facility in the event that the GPS system was lost, blocked or simply turned off when an attack by such LCCMs was imminent or underway.

Onboard Computing

As Moore's law continues to produce a rapid rise in the speed and fall in the cost of computer chips, we've already reached the point where obtaining sufficient number crunching capability is no longer difficult or expensive.

Single-board computer systems are another readily available off the shelf component that can be recruited for use in an LCCM. Even the sophisticated realitime operating systems necessary for supporting the type of software needed to interface the guidance/targeting systems to the control servos are just a download away.

. . .

The total component costs for an LCCM (less payload) could be as little as $6,000 for the smallest, simplest version, with a larger, more sophisticated design still requiring little more than $10,000 worth of parts and materials.

There's more at the link.

That technical data, and those prices, date back to May 2002 - twenty-four years ago this month.  In those intervening years, components have become much, much smaller and lighter, much more capable, and much cheaper.  They're still freely available as elements of radio-controlled models (aircraft, boats, vehicles, whatever).  Plastic sheeting, 3D printed components, and ultra-light structural elements are easy to buy and often just as easy to make yourself.  Heck, people have built and flown in ultralight aircraft made out of packaging cardboard!  I'd say it's likely the cost to home-build a LCCM today might well be less than $2,000, and at most $3,000.  Cargo delivery drones can be even cheaper:  for example, a drone capable of delivering 20-odd pounds at a range of 6+ miles costs only a little over $500 in quantity.  Longer range?  Heavier cargo capacity?  No problem.  A warhead would be extra, of course, but with the advent of powerful "home-brewed" explosives, a warhead strong enough to demolish the average house - but still small and light enough to be carried by a LCCM or light delivery drone - could probably be assembled in a domestic bathroom or kitchen.

So, if our armed forces are talking about buying thousands of low-cost cruise missiles, what are the odds that terrorist and/or extremist groups aren't planning on doing exactly the same thing?  How would we defend against such simple, terrifying weapons if a wave of them were launched into the average American city?  It could be done by driving a rented truck or trucks to a suitable launch site, a few miles from the target zone (e.g. a park or golf course, particularly at night, or putting them onto a boat a couple of miles offshore);  erecting a wire or wood frame to hold the missiles at an appropriate angle for launch, and aimed in the right direction;  and setting them off at the chosen time.  Unless the perpetrators were seen during the preparation phase, it's doubtful they'd be detected in time to stop them;  and once the missiles had been fired, they'd simply abandon the trucks and drive away in other inconspicuous vehicles.  For that matter, they may not care about getting away.  They may have a martyrdom mentality that would welcome a final shootout with the cops (on television, of course, for the whole world to see).

That scenario is entirely feasible and practical.  I think we've got a whole new threat to our security to consider.  What we can do about it (if anything) remains to be seen.

Peter

Shocking news - except to Africans

 

I note the following news report.

A South African hotelier is believed to have been eaten by a 15ft crocodile after human remains were found inside the swollen reptile.

The animal was shot from a helicopter and airlifted from the crocodile-infested Komati River in a daring police operation before a post-mortem examination was carried out.

A ring was found inside the belly of the 500kg apex predator and is thought to have belonged to Gabriel Batista, 59.

The businessman was swept away in floodwaters while trying to drive across the Komati River in the north-east of the country a week ago.

Investigators will carry out DNA tests on the bones and flesh found inside the crocodile.

. . .

 As well as the body parts, six different types of shoes were found, according to Capt Potgieter.

There's more at the link, including images.

The comments from friends and acquaintances in the USA have been amusing.  A surprising number are absolutely horrified that a man who'd just escaped drowning had promptly been eaten by a wild animal.  It's almost as if it was unfair, somehow.  They weren't comforted by my assurance that in large parts of Africa, that sort of thing happens on an almost daily basis.  As for the "six different types of shoes" . . . yeah, I'd say Mr. Batista was far from the only human meal that croc had enjoyed.  Local tribespeople were doubtless greatly relieved by the news that it had been caught.

Rural Africa remains a very dark continent, filled with very deadly animals.  Actual examples:

• A man visits a neighboring village, gets drunk, and decides to walk back to his village along a deserted path at night.  Halfway there, a passing leopard finds him and decides that he'll make a satisfactory supper.
• A man goes looking for a lost cow along a river bank.  A hippo, grazing on long grass a short distance away, decides that she doesn't want him (or anyone else) getting between her and the water, which is her security blanket.  She bites him in half.
• A hunter gets too close to an elephant, which promptly tramples him into pink slush in the mud.  He isn't able to shoot her in time to save himself, and in the stress of the moment, only wounds her.  While she's recovering from the bullet wound, she kills several local villagers who get too close to her, on the general principle that if a man did this to her, she's going to presume that any man she sees is going to try to do likewise.
• An armored personnel carrier is driving through thick brush and trees.  The vehicle commander is standing with his head and shoulders outside the turret, trying to see through the thick growth to plot his course.  A boomslang (tree snake) is jarred off its branch by the APC as it brushes against the tree.  It falls onto the vehicle commander, bites him (injecting a full dose of poison, which proves fatal) and then falls through the turret hatch into the interior of the vehicle, biting two other soldiers before it's killed by a rain of rifle butts.  The two survive, but only because it had already injected much of its venom into the vehicle commander.  They're sick for several weeks.

All those incidents were personally known to me.  I was nearby when they all happened.  That's the norm in wild rural Africa.  The cities can be a lot tamer, but not always.  A few decades ago, I remember two leopards who set up house in the concrete basement and utility spaces of the biggest soccer stadium in Soweto, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people.  They lived off local cats and dogs.  When their presence was deduced (due to the rapid decline in other local pets and wildlife, and the presence of their tracks after rain) the local police were asked to hunt them down and shoot them.  Freely translated and interpreted, the local cops' reply was along the lines of, "You want us to go into a concrete labyrinth, with no light at all, to hunt two big cats that can see in the dark?  Oh, hell, no!  Here, take our rifles and show us how it's done.  We'll watch.  In fact, we'll sell tickets on pay-per-view!"

I'm very sorry for Mr. Batista, and for his family, of course . . . but that's Africa:  and in Africa, the good guys don't always win.  It goes with the territory.

Peter

"Pie in the sky" prepping - or, getting real about our chances

 

I'm a relative lightweight in the "prepping" world.  I have emergency food, water and other supplies to keep my wife and myself alive for a few months in a disaster situation, and (hopefully) enough to share with friends for at least the short term;  but that's based on "bugging in", staying in our home and not venturing far unless and until it's safe to do so.  We don't have a "bug out" location, or remotely stored supplies, or anything like that - it's simply unaffordable for us.

Nevertheless, I'm often surprised to hear from people who are very much in our situation that they have these grand plans to "bug out" to the sticks, establish a survival homestead from scratch, grow their own food, herd a few cows, steal a travel trailer from somewhere as a place to live, and so on.  Frankly, I think they have no idea at all of just how much effort will be involved in making that plan work.

Eaton Rapids Joe has put up a couple of recent blog posts in which he lays out precisely what skills and resources are needed (and vitally important) if one is to homestead successfully.  In the first article, "A man has to know his limitations", he looks at all the skills needed to successfully homestead (some required all the time, others for specific situations).  In the second, "Why 'Russian' Dachas all look alike", he examines what successful country farms have in the way of facilities and equipment, and also what they don't have (because it's either way too expensive, or too resource-heavy, or unnecessary).  Both articles, and both of the lists he provides, are well worth reading.  If, after reading them, anyone still thinks it'll be easy to set up an emergency homestead . . . well, you're probably going to learn the hard way how wrong you are!

Another aspect of the problem is that too many people stock up on "second-best" gear, food and equipment for emergency use, because it's cheaper and they can afford more of it.  Commander Zero discusses this approach with respect to firearms:

... if you need to resort to your hideaway stash becase you can’t get to your primary gear, then its safe to assume that your life has just taken a turn for the spectacularly ungood, agreed? So, in that time of (literally) existential crisis doesn’t it seem to make sense that you would want the best gear you can have?

It does, indeed, make sense.  That's a lesson I learned the hard way in Africa over many years.  If you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mother Nature is a stone cold bitch who's out to kill you, wouldn't you want the best gear you can get in your emergency stash, to help you withstand her advances?  Quality can save your life.  Economy can kill you.  That applies to all our emergency preps, not just firearms.

(On a related subject, Commander Zero recently bought some land in the back country of Montana, and is beginning to set it up as a private retreat.  He recently blogged about his first weekend excursion to begin preparing it for use.  So many things went wrong that one can almost feel his pain, but he's not afraid to discuss all the mistakes he made, and what he's learned from the experience that he'll apply in future visits.  A very useful discussion, and a very useful reality check for the rest of us.)

Preparation isn't just physical.  One's outlook on everyday living - and what it costs - is a foundational element.  SNAFU links to a social media comment from a teacher who's complaining that she can't come out on $7,500 net income per month - while spending over $1,500 on a vehicle payment, and over $3,000 on rent!  Some commenters at his site question whether the original post is truthful, because the payments seem extraordinarily high, but he makes the very valid point that "Financial Education needs to be a REQUIRED course in school (along with NOT chasing luxury items to impress people that don't give a damn)".

On that subject, here's some brutally frank (and very truthful) advice from the TV series House Of Cards.  Kevin Spacey plays Frank Underwood, a highly immoral yet realistic politician.

Yes, that is brutal advice:  but in this world of easy-fulfilment dreams, hire purchase, leasing, and all the other debt instruments out there, it remains true.  If you're in debt, you're a financial slave to those who own your debt, and most of them will be utterly ruthless in coming after you to get what they're owed.  Being prepared for emergencies is as much about financial preparation as any other type of preparedness:  and one of the first and most fundamental steps in financial preparation is to get out of debt as far as possible.  As Spacey's character says, "The moment you get in debt, you're enslaving yourself until you buy back your freedom with interest."  Believe it.  It's true.

(Sometimes, of course, we can't afford not to go into debt.  We had to replace my wife's car in early 2022, because her old one had been driven into the ground until it was no longer viable.  The impact of COVID-19 had led to a drastic shortage of all types of vehicles, partly due to the reduction in dealer inventory, partly due to the shortage of used vehicles thanks to President Obama's "Cash For Clunkers" scheme, which scrapped tens of thousands of otherwise worthwhile cars.  We ended up buying a new car, and paying above the manufacturer's MSRP, because nothing else worthwhile was available to us:  and, to finance that very expensive purchase, we took out a loan.  It was a loan neither of us wanted, but under the circumstances, it was necessary.  Under such circumstances, one does what one must.  We bought an entry-level model without all the luxury features, and that helped lower the price and keep payments down.)

All of the above articles are food for thought.

Peter

Points to ponder about small handguns

 

With the seeming increase of random criminal violence in society, to say nothing of politically inspired unrest, I've been dealing with more than a few queries about the pro's and con's of carrying small handguns.  It's a complicated issue, and I thought I'd address some of the key points in this article.

First, as a general rule small handguns are harder to shoot well than larger handguns.  There are several reasons:

• The smaller grip is less easy to grasp firmly, draw smoothly, and get a strong firing grip, particularly for shooters with larger hands.
• Smaller handguns are typically carried in what's called "deep concealment", such as in a pocket or handbag.  That's logical, of course, since larger handguns would be hard to conceal in such places.  However, it's usually harder to get to such guns in a hurry, and then withdraw them and bring them to a ready position.  It's "fiddly".  To draw a larger handgun from a more accessible holster and bring it into a ready position is usually rather easier.  I strongly recommend using a holster even for pocket or handbag carry, to keep the firearm in a predictable position, ready to draw, and to prevent anything getting into the trigger guard and risking an accidental discharge.  (More on this later.)
• Smaller, lighter handguns transmit more recoil energy to the shooter than larger, heavier weapons.  As an example, try firing a .38 Special cartridge through a medium-size K-frame or L-frame Smith & Wesson revolver (or equivalent), then firing the same cartridge through a smaller J-frame snubnose revolver.  Do the same with a 9mm cartridge from a Glock 17 (full-size) or 19 (compact) pistol (or equivalent), and then through a Glock 43 sub-compact pistol (or equivalent).  The smaller, lighter firearm will always deliver heavier perceived recoil than the bigger weapon.  In some cases (for example, firing a full-power .357 Magnum cartridge from a Smith & Wesson 340 snubnose revolver, made with ultra-light-weight Scandium) you'll regret doing so after even one shot.  Hel-loooo, carpal tunnel syndrome!
• Because of their abbreviated sights and shorter sight radius (i.e. the distance between front and rear sights), smaller handguns are harder to aim accurately (unless you add better sights, which may render them bulkier and/or less easily concealed).  Furthermore, their light weight makes it more difficult to shoot them accurately, rapidly and repeatedly during a defensive encounter.  It's not impossible, but it's definitely more difficult than with a larger weapon.  If anyone doubts that, try the comparison for yourself at your favorite shooting range.  There's a reason early short-barreled firearms were known as "belly guns" - because that was the sort of range at which they were used.  One didn't need long-range sights to aim at a target across a card table or desk, or literally stick it into someone's belly, and let fly!
• Snubnose revolvers are typically slower to reload than small pistols, and both are more "finicky" than larger handguns, where the firearm and its replacement rounds (in a speedloader or a magazine) are easier to handle.

Another point is that smaller handguns are easier to lose.  That may sound silly, but I've seen it happen to three people I know.  One chose a small handgun to fit in her handbag.  She hung the bag on the back of her chair at a restaurant.  When she finished her conversation with friends and turned to pick it up, it was gone.  Another friend left a small handgun in a jacket pocket when he hung it up at a social gathering;  it was so light he didn't remember it being there.  When he reclaimed his jacket, the gun was gone.  There have also been cases where people have left firearms in a public toilet.  Larger weapons are more likely to be retained on one's person in a holster, and thus are less likely to be lost.

You'll need to practice more often to master (and retain mastery of) a smaller handgun than you will with a larger one.  That's why it's generally a bad idea to start your shooting education using a smaller weapon and/or a heavier-recoiling cartridge.  I've seen many novice shooters get frustrated and disillusioned because they can't master it, and give up.  If only they'd started with a larger, easier-to-handle firearm, they could have got the basics down pat and been given a thorough grasp of the fundamentals before trying a more difficult firearm.  That's what I usually do when teaching other shooters.

That leads to my first recommendation for a small (indeed, for any) handgun.  Make sure the gun fits your hand as well as possible before you buy it.  Handle different models, go to gun ranges that rent out firearms and use as many different models as possible, ask your friends to let you try their guns.  In particular, ladies, do not allow some idiotic male (yes, they're out there, as I'm sure you know all too well) to try to insist that this, or that, or the other firearm is right for you.  Make sure it feels comfortable in your hands, and that the sights come readily to your eye when you lift it to aim at a target.  Shoot several rounds through it to see how the recoil feels.  (Revolvers are easier to fit to your hand than pistols, because there are different grips available for them, and you can choose those that best suit you.  Revolvers also have Crimson Trace Lasergrips and similar products available for many models, which are an absolutely outstanding accessory for emergency, close-range shooting when you may not have space or time to line up the sights conventionally.  More about that later.)

As well as the gun fitting your hand well, see how the recoil feels to you.  If the grip is too small or too large for you to grasp it comfortably, the gun will move in your hand under recoil, forcing you to readjust your grip before the next shot.  This will slow you down and make it more difficult to hit your target, because you have to concentrate on something else.  The selection procedure outlined in the previous paragraph will apply also to choosing a caliber you can handle.  A heavy-recoiling round is probably not optimum in a small handgun unless you're a trained, experienced shooter and know what you're doing.  Choosing a less powerful, lower-recoiling cartridge (for example, a .38 Special instead of a .357 Magnum) is recommended for novice shooters, who can also choose a much lighter caliber if they wish (e.g. .22LR instead of .38).  Lighter calibers are less likely to stop a hopped-up attacker, but if they're what you can handle, you can learn to use them well enough to compensate for that handicap.  I promise you, a few .22's in and around the eyes will deter even the most aggressive assailant!

It's also useful to know that certain ammunition manufacturers make both heavier-recoil and lower-recoil rounds in a given cartridge or caliber.  A few examples:

• Hornady makes its 9mm 115gr. FTX Critical Defense round for standard use, but for those who can't tolerate heavy recoil, it also offers its 9mm 100gr. FTX Critical Defense Lite load.  The latter may not be as effective as the former, but it's still a viable option - and it has rather less "kick" than the former round.
• Black Hills Ammunition offers the Honeybadger "scalloped" bullet in two 9mm loads;  a 100gr projectile, faster and more energetic, and a 125gr. bullet, slower and less energetic (and offering lower recoil).  I prefer the latter load in small 9mm pistols, as it remains very effective despite being more controllable than its faster brother.
• Federal offers its 9mm HST defensive load in a 124gr. +P (i.e. high-pressure) round, and a 147gr. standard-pressure cartridge.  Again, the latter load recoils less energetically than the former.  Both are widely used by law enforcement agencies, which speaks highly of the HST range.

There are other manufacturers offering similar choices.  Do your own research, and choose the round that best fits your level of knowledge and experience.  I've been shooting for many decades, and I feel no shame in admitting that as I grow older and slower, I prefer a lower-recoil round in a smaller, lighter weapon.  Arthritis and heavy recoil are not very compatible!

One's choice of weapon should be directed by the threats one is likely to face.  If a potential attacker is likely to be alone (e.g. a nutcase on public transport), or one or two men hanging around outside a shop or bank or cinema, a smaller handgun may well be enough to deal with the problem.  If you're more likely to face an angry riot, with violence being offered indiscriminately by groups of feral protesters to everyone they meet, no handgun is likely to be sufficient, no matter how large it may be or how many rounds it may hold!

A small handgun is designed to be carried to deal with occasional threats that are not very likely to occur.  A more dangerous threat requires a tool more suited to deal with it - which is why police officers usually carry full-size service pistols holding anywhere from fifteen to twenty rounds, sometimes even more.  We, as civilians, can do the same, but we'd better know how to conceal them (to prevent others hitting us over the head to steal them) and use them (to protect ourselves and our loved ones).  If we look like a threat to others, they're likely to respond as if we are a threat.  Therefore, discreet carry and low-key behavior are more likely to protect us than a macho, manly swagger while displaying our supersized Felon-Stopper Magnum-Blaster Mark XVIII handgun!

If I leave the house, I'm armed as a matter of course.  I'll usually be carrying a small handgun that I can shoot well enough at short range to defend myself and/or my wife.  It won't be suitable for long-range use or to handle more than one or two opponents, because the odds of my facing such a threat are minuscule.  If I lived in a big city (particularly a so-called "blue" city where left-wing sympathies predominate, making the authorities "soft" on crime), that would not apply.  I'd be carrying something larger and more powerful, and have spare ammo available for rapid reloads as well.  If mob violence is a possibility, I'll always try to not be anywhere near there;  but if I absolutely have to be there, I'll be carrying more than a handgun.  When I travel, I take into account the environments through/in which I'm likely to pass and/or stay, and equip myself accordingly.  In other words, I arm myself to meet the threat(s) I'm most likely to encounter in a given place at a given time.

Another factor to consider is aiming a handgun under the pressure of an attack, or in a more widespread, confused situation such as a riot.  In a high-stress situation, with one's adrenaline pumping, it's very hard to aim accurately at a moving target while other people are obscuring the range and perhaps also threatening you.  For that reason, I highly recommend a laser sight such as a Crimson Trace Lasergrip for most revolvers.  Sight it in to cover the most likely ranges at which you may need it (I suggest 10 yards for a small gun), then train with it until you can bring up the weapon, put the dot on target, and fire an accurate round as fast as possible.  That'll generally be faster than trying to line up front and rear sights on a moving target.  Similar laser sights are available for some small pistols as well.  Shop around and see what you can find.

I usually don't recommend a red dot sight for a small handgun if deep concealment is going to be necessary.  They are very useful indeed, to be sure, but they stick up above the weapon and make it harder to draw it in a hurry from a pocket or inside a handbag.  You'll be surprised at how easily the sight can catch against clothing or nearby objects, slowing your draw quite drastically.  Its sight advantage may be less worthwhile than its other disadvantages;  you'll have to make that call for yourself.  My preference is usually to carry a handgun with a red dot sight in a holster on my belt, to minimize that problem.

While on the subject of deep concealment, I strongly recommend the use of either a double-action handgun (such as a snubnose revolver) that has a relatively heavy, long trigger pull, or a firearm with a safety catch that must be released in order to pull the trigger.  Both cases are to prevent something in a pocket or a handbag snagging on the trigger and accidentally discharging the gun.  This isn't an idle fear, either:  I can recall reading of several incidents where it's happened.  That's also a very good reason to use a pocket or handbag holster that covers the trigger guard, and prevents anything getting inside before the firearm is drawn.  Safety is a critical aspect of firearms handling that's too often honored more in the breach than in the observance.  Don't become an accidental discharge statistic!

On most days, a small, easily concealed handgun is all I need.  However, I take care to make sure I keep up my practice with it, so that if I should have to use it, I can be reasonably sure of solving my problem.

Peter