Sounds very African to me...

 

I'm amused to read about a Dutch drug hitman who has apparently "captured" the entire African nation of Sierra Leone, effectively making its government and security forces dance to his tune.  The Economist reports:

In the shadowy world of international narco-trafficking, Jos Leijdekkers is a gangster of flair. Over the past five years, bricks of cocaine stamped with his underworld moniker—“Holly”, short for Hollywood—have been found everywhere from the Ecuadorian banana port of Guayaquil to the North Sea. In his native Netherlands, his exploits have spawned biographies, podcasts, comedy skits, battalions of YouTube sleuths and, this February, a portrait of his unsmiling face and a seven-foot knife blade, spraypainted on a railway carriage in the somnolent city of Eindhoven. For criminologists, Leijdekkers’s career is a marvel. Less than a decade ago he was a hitman stalking the streets of Antwerp. He has since created a trafficking network spanning Latin America, Europe and the Middle East that brings in more than $2bn a year.

Leijdekkers’s greatest caper yet looks to be the takeover of a country. In half a decade Leijdekkers has turned Sierra Leone, a place previously best known for blood diamonds, into a hub for billions of dollars’ worth of Colombian cocaine, disguised as rice or plantain chips, which pass through each year en route to Europe. By funnelling a share of the profits to Sierra Leone’s political elite and funding large parts of the state itself, Leijdekkers has amassed perks that would be the envy of a Bond villain. He is believed to have a Sierra Leonean diplomatic passport. The police and military establishment bow to him, squadrons of container ships and submarines ply the shores at his command, and he is escorted in a motorcade by the presidential guard beneath a cloud of drones. Leijdekkers is celebrated in krio rap, the English-based creole spoken in Sierra Leone—“Ar change di game e name lek Umar Sheriff” runs a lyric of Drizilik’s recent hit “Sabi Road”—and, last September, he fathered a child with Agnes Bio, the president’s favourite daughter.

Go to Freetown today and behold a nation in the throes of narco-capture. Its beaches thrum with nightclubs, its skyline bristles with empty highrises, its streets shimmer with Corvettes and Tesla trucks. It took gangs decades to transform Mexico and Montenegro. In Sierra Leone it has taken just four years for a 35-year-old Dutch convict, boasting little more than a smartphone and a network of suppliers, to transform a beautiful stretch of west Africa into his personal fief. How did he do it?

There's much more at the link (which may be behind a paywall:  if so, you'll find an archived, paywall-free version here).

It's yet another variation on an old, familiar African theme.  A strong man arises, and forces or subverts a tribe or clan or entire nation to bend the knee to him.  How he does it may vary from criminal or military force, through tribal loyalties, to plain old-fashioned bribery and corruption.  Sierra Leone is a very clear example of the latter.  (It's nothing new there - consider the RUF catastrophe a few decades ago.)

How do we fix such situations?  There are two ways.  One is to cut off the offender's supply of cash, so that he can no longer bribe his way to the top.  That's difficult to do when it comes to illegal drugs, because that business is awash in "dirty" cash, and it has myriad ways to flow around the globe.  It can be done, but it's an enormously complicated (and expensive) process.  The other way is much simpler:  remove the bad guy from society.  You can do that like a Maduro, snatching him from his secure compound, or you can do it by the judicious application of ballistics and/or high explosives.

Whatever method you choose, it presents the problem that it only removes one offender.  Pretty soon, others will be lining up to replace him.  The most vicious, most corrupt, wealthiest and most ruthless of them will rise to the top of a new sewer, until his turn comes to be replaced . . . and then the process will repeat itself ad nauseam.  It always does.

I suspect Mr. Leijdekkers is going to find out, very shortly, that he's become too conspicuous in his success.  Western governments don't like being upstaged or embarrassed by flamboyant criminals.  I think he'll shortly either have to disappear into obscurity, or be disappeared into eternity.  As for Sierra Leone itself?  Well, if they really want to solve that country's problems, they could always hire the modern equivalent of Executive Outcomes.  That company sorted out Sierra Leone's security issue very quickly, and very successfully, in the 1990's - until international squeamishness and political correctness got in its way.  Bring it back, and there'd be much less turmoil in West Africa as a whole.  (There would also be a whole lot of pissed-off leftist politicians and diplomats, which would be a satisfactory bonus.)

Peter

Yet another reason to update your emergency supplies

 

Yesterday the Dutch railway network was brought to its knees by coordinated sabotage attacks across the country.

There have been no trains at all across swathes of the northern and central Netherlands after objects were attached to the rails in at least 30 known locations. Remarkably, the national railway operator says that in some places where the obstacles had been cleared, new ones were quickly placed in the same location again once engineers and police had left the scene.

The nationwide coordinated sabotage campaign has used the railway’s own safety systems against it, with metal objects “deliberately placed” across the two tracks. Modern railways use electrical circuits between the two rails to detect where trains are and are not, the presence of a train’s wheels and axle spanning the two tracks closes the circuit and alerts the signalling system to its location.

By manually shorting the circuit, the saboteurs were able to trick the automatic system into turning the signals across the network red to prevent phantom trains from crashing into each other, which in turn forced the real trains to halt as well.

. . .

Because of the nature of the sabotage, which introduced phantom trains to the network, in several locations, level crossings were automatically activated to protect drivers from approaching trains that didn’t exist, spreading the network chaos onto the roads too.

. . .

As well as railway networks, climate extremists have targeted power infrastructure. The decentralised nature of both networks and the widespread disruption possible makes them apparently attractive targets for would-be extremists and left-wing terrorists, given that the widely spread infrastructure is difficult to closely watch, harden, or fortify.

In at least one case, European railways have been sabotaged by state actors, with Russia blamed for a bombing of a Polish railway in a “false flag” attack last year.

Germany’s power networks have also been repeatedly sabotaged by the hard left in recent months. Just last week, it is believed an extremist used dozens of homemade rockets to knock out high-voltage power substations to sabotage coal power plants nationwide, and Berlin’s power network is sometimes subjected to acts of arson with considerable knock-on effects.

There's more at the link.

Americans tend to forget (or ignore) the fact that we've had precisely the same sort of sabotage in this country for a long time now.  That may be because the US is so much bigger than most other countries that we don't notice (or take notice of) what's happening in areas other than our own.  The methods may differ, but the results are the same - disruption of vital infrastructure.  For example:

• Attacks on the US electrical grid;
• Cyberattacks on water systems;
• Vulnerability of US mass transport and passenger rail systems;
• Terrorist threat to U.S. highway system.

Follow those links for more information.  There's no need to mention the vulnerability of airline transport, so close to the anniversary of 9/11.  Things have improved since then, but they're far from foolproof.

The thing is, so far we've experienced relatively uncoordinated attacks against the infrastructure on which our entire society and economy depend.  Electricity may be cut in one area, water in another, rail traffic in a third, but until now they've been relative pinpricks from the perspective of the nation as a whole.  That won't necessarily remain the case;  in fact, it's very unlikely to stay that way.  Terrorist nations such as Iran and enemies such as North Korea have had all the time in the world to infiltrate operatives across our southern border, and I've no doubt that several thousand such people are already here.  If they were "activated" or "mobilized" by their source nations, they could do immense damage to our society by striking in a coordinated fashion across multiple critical systems.

• How could a fire department rush to extinguish a blaze caused by a terrorist bomb when the traffic management system has been disrupted, and the rail system sabotaged to cause all level crossings to shut down, and the water supply to a city to be interrupted by a cyberattack on the main pumping stations?
• How could emergency services cope with such a rash of issues all arising at once, particularly if the roads were further disrupted by spreading caltrops (which can easily be produced in mass quantities at negligible cost, using backyard garages and workshops) in strategic locations on the city's road network, disabling enough vehicles to block the road almost completely?  They can be dumped out of the back of pickups or rented vans using buckets.

We don't know whether the attacks on Holland's railways were state-sponsored (probably by Russian agents trying to disrupt support for Ukraine) or arose from domestic political terrorism, but it doesn't really matter to those affected by them.  Much of the country was brought to a halt at once, without warning.

That could happen to any major city in this country, and even to whole states, if enough people struck at enough critical infrastructure nodes.  It would take weeks, if not months, to restore everything to normal operations.  During that period, if you rely on critical supplies such as medication, special foods for kids or invalids, or enough gasoline or diesel to get from a remote location (e.g. a farm) to the nearest source of supply, you'd be S.O.L.  That's why I make sure that my wife and myself maintain a year's supply of all critical prescription medication, including basic antibiotics in case they should be needed.  That practice has come in very useful in the past, for ourselves (being able to take an antibiotic for repeated infections) and to supply friends with medication (for example, during the COVID emergency).  Oh - and don't forget critical OTC supplies like painkillers and allergy medications.  How miserable would you be if an emergency arose that forced you to spend many hours outside, or without air conditioning or filtration, during peak allergy season?  Since both my wife and I have allergy problems, you can bet we stash enough of those meds to see us through a couple of months.

For that matter, it's worth keeping at least one month's worth of food and water on hand, in case of an emergency.  Forget the commercial "72-hour" kits (like these, for example);  they're better than nothing, but don't hold all you'll need, even for so short a period.  They're designed to make you feel like you're prepared, while enriching those who make and supply them.  Get the foods you normally eat, particularly canned or dry foods, and put an extra supply away for a rainy day.  Also, keep on hand a way to prepare that food if your electric or gas stove suddenly stops working;  and have a way to dispose of garbage and human waste.  (Yes, that does mean a reserve supply of toilet paper and paper towels, plus a spade to bury everything critical, because it's unlikely regular garbage collection will happen.)  Think of all the little things we take for granted in our everyday lives, and ask yourself:  "What would I do if I could no longer get this?  What would I no longer be able to do?  Can I live with that?  What about alternatives or substitutes?"

I want to re-emphasize the importance of water supply.  We've just seen, in recent weeks, multiple attempted cyberattacks on water supply systems in several states.  I'm sure we'll see more.  Plan on needing at least two gallons per person per day for all purposes (double the "official" recommendation, which is a minimum to preserve life, and doesn't include luxuries such as washing yourself, laundry, etc.).  Unless using sealed containers, empty and refill your water supply every six months or so.  Water containers are freely available;  some (such as two-liter soda bottles) are free, once you've used up their original contents and cleaned them thoroughly.  A very economical solution is to buy 5-gallon buckets with lids (preferably made from food-grade plastic) and reserve them for water storage only.  They're not ideal, but they'll do the job.  (A full bucket of water weighs over 40 pounds, so if lifting heavy weights is a problem, buy 2-gallon or 3.5-gallon buckets instead.)  Finally (and particularly if you can't keep more than a few days' worth of water on hand), have a good-quality water filtration system in case purified water runs out.  They range from a few dollars to several hundred.  Buy the best your budget can afford, and then buy another one (or a less expensive backup system), because you simply cannot afford to be without drinking water.  For almost all of us, it's our single most critical emergency resource - and one of the most neglected.

It's not just natural disasters we have to worry about:  it's all the others that can catch us unawares.  The Netherlands is finding that out right now.

Peter

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.

Points to ponder

 

Several points of interest today (and all are well worth your time).

1.  DiveMedic discusses the Lindsey Clancy (mis)trial, including the evidence of psychiatric medications and other factors.  I agree entirely with his conclusion.

2.  Remember the Ig Nobel awards?  This year's winners have just been announced.  My favorite category:  Biomechanics.

Citation: Matilda Brindle, Catherine Talbot, and Stuart West for devising a more precise definition of kissing—“non-agonistic interactions involving directed, intraspecific, oral-oral contact with some movement of the lips/mouthparts and no food transfer”—in ants, birds, polar bears, and humans.

"Darling, come here.  I want to practice biomechanics with you!"  

3.  Chiefio warns:  "IF you have Money in the EU – Take It Out Now."

The simple fact is that the EU is flat broke, having squandered €Billions on the Ukraine Folly. They have tried regularly to steal the Russian money entrusted to Euroclear, but that mostly failed. They handed a “loan” to Ukraine that doesn’t need to be repaid until Russia pays “reparations”, that will never happen, so kiss that off ... So [Ursula von der Leyen] has stated that people’s savings accounts are a problem (ignoring that savings accounts are what allow banks to make loans for things like cars and mortgages and business working capital). She has stated that this money must be put “to the service of European Companies” (not realizing it already is as prudent business loans IF appropriately vetted). That she wants to “securitize them” and “supervise them” – which means steal your money for her desired expenses.

Remember what happened during the Cyprus banking crisis of 2012-13?  The EU forced the Cypriot government to close that country's second-largest bank, imposing a one-off levy on all uninsured deposits there, and seize many uninsured deposits in the Bank of Cyprus.  Almost 48% of all bank deposits above €100,000 were seized, without compensation.  If the EU could do it once, during a much smaller financial crisis, I wouldn't bet they won't do it again, and more, in the present circumstances.

4.  If you, like me, are wondering about the vast numbers of data centers under construction, it's worth examining the phenomenon on a worldwide basis.  Statista has compiled the figures for Number of data centers worldwide as of June 2026.  Here are the top ten nations:

For more information, see the Statista link above.  My question:  if the rest of the world isn't frantically building these things by the hundreds, why are we doing so in the United States?  Follow the money, and see who profits... and who pays.

Let us know your reaction(s) in Comments.

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

Is the UAE taking combat warship lessons from Israel?

 

Some years ago, I said about the Israeli Navy:

I like the Israeli approach, which crams lots of hitting power into even small hulls (see, for example, its Sa'ar 5 class corvettes, which as far as I know are the most heavily armed ships of their size [just over 1,000 tons] anywhere in the world, and on an armament-per-ton or tons-per-weapon basis might be the most heavily armed warships since the age of the dreadnought).

That approach has since been epitomized even more in Israel's Sa'ar 6 corvettes, almost twice the displacement of the earlier Sa'ar 5's, but even more heavily armed.  There are probably more weapons and weapon systems aboard a Sa'ar 6 than aboard any two, or even three, typical NATO frigates.

I thought about this when reading an article about the new Falaj 3 class "patrol boats" of the United Arab Emirates.  Their displacement is only about 670 tons, but they've packed an awful lot of firepower into that small hull.

Photos of the United Arab Emirates’ Falaj 3 class patrol boat are a reminder that a vessel doesn’t need to be a corvette or even a frigate to be armed like one. At a little over 200 feet long, the Falaj 3 is officially designated an offshore patrol vessel (OPV), but it boasts a weapons suite that would be impressive on a missile corvette and, in some respects, even a light frigate. In fact, at around 670 tons full load displacement, and a crew of just 39, it may be one of the most heavily armed warships anywhere in the world for its size.

OPVs are generally built for constabulary duties rather than high-end naval combat. Their primary missions include enforcing exclusive economic zones, countering piracy and smuggling, fisheries protection, search and rescue, and humanitarian assistance. As a result, they typically prioritize endurance, seakeeping, and low operating costs over heavy armament. Many Western designs in this category carry little more than a medium-caliber gun and a handful of remotely operated weapon systems, with no dedicated anti-ship missiles or significant air-defense systems.

The Falaj 3 takes a very different approach, as is immediately apparent from these photos.

Forward sits a Leonardo 76mm OTO Super Rapid gun equipped with the STRALES guided ammunition system, giving the ship a weapon capable of engaging everything from surface targets to fast-moving aerial threats ... Directly behind the gun is an eight-cell vertical launch system loaded with MBDA VL MICA surface-to-air missiles. This ‘fire and forget’ missile can intercept targets at a range of up to around 12 miles and at altitudes of up to 30,000 feet.  Further aft is a 21-cell Raytheon Mk 49 launcher for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), giving the vessel a second, independent layer of point air defense. Most OPVs are fortunate to carry an adapted man-portable air defense system, if they have any dedicated air-defense system at all.

The offensive fit is equally notable. Four MM40 Exocet Block 3C anti-ship missiles provide over-the-horizon strike capability, while two 12-cell Low-cost Guided Imaging Rocket (LOGIR) guided rocket launchers offer an inexpensive way to engage drones, uncrewed surface vessels, and fast attack craft without expending much more costly missiles ... Completing the package are two Electro Optic Systems (EOS) R400-M 30mm remote weapon stations and two 32-barrel Rheinmetall Multi Ammunition Soft-kill System (MASS) decoy launchers, providing close-range firepower and survivability against incoming guided weapons, respectively.

There's more at the link.

I entirely agree with a powerful weapons load-out like that.  It remains a perennial worry to some naval observers (including me) that so many corvettes, frigates and destroyers in US and European service are relatively lightly armed for their size.  There isn't enough depth to their defenses, particularly if they face a swarm of incoming drones or missiles.  If they miss even one, they may suffer severe, disabling damage.  They can't even reload missiles at sea, meaning that in a serious engagement, they'd shoot themselves dry in a relatively short space of time.  After that . . . they're expensive targets.  (Compare them to their equivalents in the former Soviet Union and/or the Russian Navy today.  The Russians have not forgotten the lessons of history, and arm their ships accordingly.  See, for example, that nation's Steregushchiy and Gremyashchiy classes.)

I hope the example of the Falaj 3 class of patrol vessels is studied, and spreads.  We live in an increasingly dangerous world, particularly the ocean passages through narrow straits like Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, etc.  To defend them, we need larger numbers of considerably more powerful vessels than have so far been employed.  Air power has its place, of course, but in the end ships at sea are like infantry on the ground.  You need them to take and hold strategic areas.

Peter

Things are getting interesting in narco-Mexico...

 

According to a report in the Atlantic (paywalled, but an archived version is here), the politicians in Mexico who have for years - probably for generations - been bribed and/or cajoled and/or threatened by the drug cartels into turning a blind eye to their criminal activities, appear to be changing their tune.

(BIAS WARNING:  The Atlantic is notoriously anti-President Trump and routinely criticizes the policies and actions of his administration.  This article appears to be unusually positive, despite that reservation.)

... the governor of the strategically important border state of Baja California was just caught on tape offering to become an FBI informant. The remarkable thing here is that she would not be the first; the list of current and former Mexican officials and drug traffickers who have offered to cooperate with the U.S. government is now lengthy.

. . .

Since his second term began, Trump has periodically threatened military action inside Mexico, alluding to air strikes or operations that would “take out the cartels.” Mexican officials have repeatedly rejected the possibility. “There will be no invasion of Mexico,” President Claudia Sheinbaum said last year. But quietly, Mexican officials have discussed what it would mean if they were attacked by their neighbor and largest trading partner. Would it be a special-forces operation, like the one that seized former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro? A drone strike on a fentanyl lab? Some Mexican officials are reading books about the Mexican-American War, searching for historical precedent.

Because the threat of military intervention is so dramatic, not enough attention has been paid to a type of intervention that is already taking place, one that could pave the way for strikes. In a break with long-standing precedent, American prosecutors have used informants to pursue members of the Mexican government, apparently “moving up the food chain,” as one U.S. official described it to me ... Several former Mexican officials facing U.S. charges have turned themselves in, apparently agreeing to cooperate with authorities to reduce their sentences. Dozens of newly extradited drug traffickers, too, are believed to be cooperating. Their accounts appear to have allowed U.S. investigators to build cases against members of Sheinbaum’s Morena political party. At least four have been indicted. Many more have had their visas revoked.

It’s a high-risk escalation in the Trump administration’s fight against narco corruption—and possibly also a pretext for a unilateral attack. Trump could use evidence of the government’s links to organized crime in an attempt to justify using force in Mexico. This week, the Trump-appointed head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Terry Cole, gave a speech describing “the deadly connection between cartel networks and the Mexican government.”

“They are one [and] the same,” he said.

. . .

Last week, the State Department designated two lesser-known drug cartels—the Juárez Cartel and Los Viagras—as “foreign terrorist ⁠organizations” and “specially designated global terrorists.” Some within the Trump administration believe that those designations would offer some kind of legal authority for an attack, though international-law experts largely differ ... The campaign against cartel leaders has been so successful that, even if the United States wanted to decapitate a drug-trafficking organization, it’s unclear whom they would target.

There's more at the link.

This has mostly been taking place "under the wire", so to speak.  We've known for years that the entire government structure of Mexico - local, regional and national - is corrupted by drug money from the cartels, who effectively run most of the country.  However, if the cartel leaders, and political leaders, are rendered ineffective (or imprisoned), what's going to happen to the social fabric of Mexico?  So much of it is cartel-corrupted (including almost every element of the police and armed forces, the emergency services, etc.) that ordinary citizens have learned to live without most of the social structure we take for granted.  If the replacement structures of the cartel are suddenly removed, will Mexico survive in its present form?

I think there are three possibilities.

1. Mexico will collapse into a "failed state", with widespread chaos and anarchy.  It will be almost impossible for business to function without paying massive bribes to local strongmen, but those strongmen will be at war with each other, so that an effective regional or national government simply won't be possible.
2. Mexico will limp along as it does at present.  The cartel structures will continue to use their financial wealth (very considerable, having amassed it over decades) to buy the cooperation of the civil authorities.  However, the competition between cartels to take over those resources will devolve into civil war in parts of the country, and will likely spill over into the southern United States.  I'd expect southern California, Arizona and New Mexico to become very dangerous areas, even more so than at present.  (I daresay Texas will probably cope better than they do, because Texas law enforcement authorities aren't handcuffed by liberal politicians who'll do everything in their power to restrict them.)
3. Mexico may break into several smaller nation-states, based on divisions that go back centuries.  Don't forget, "modern" Mexico was "created" out of a series of revolutions and civil wars that imposed unity out of the barrel of a gun, and killed anyone who argued with the concept.  With the number of guns in circulation there now, it'll be harder to impose authority in that way.

I could be completely wrong, of course.  Time will tell . . .

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

The Saudi nuclear program: what else did anyone expect?

 

I'm cynically amused by the brouhaha over the US deal with Saudi Arabia to help that country develop a peaceful - underline, peaceful - nuclear energy program, including (it seems) enriching nuclear fuel.

Consider the facts of the current situation, in no particular order.

• Saudi Arabia bankrolled much of Pakistan's nuclear program, including its nuclear warheads and missiles.  It's long been rumored among "those in the know" that Pakistan has guaranteed Saudi Arabia that it can have nuclear warheads at twenty-four hours' notice, in an emergency.
• Saudi Arabia has bought Chinese ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads.  By strange coincidence, they're the same type of ballistic missiles that Pakistan has in its nuclear silos.  Odd, that . . .
• Iran has launched missile attacks on Saudi Arabian territory from the north, using cruise and ballistic missiles.  Its Houthi allies have done the same from Yemen in the south.  That would be enough to make any nation a little paranoid.  What if the Iranian Revolutionary Islamic Guard, or whatever it calls itself these days, were to figure out how to put nuclear payloads on those missiles - either a full-blown nuke warhead, or a "dirty nuke" using conventional explosives to spread radioactive material around, say, Riyadh or a major military base?
• Israel has for decades maintained that it will neither confirm nor deny that it has nuclear weapons.  Anyone with two working brain cells to rub together is quite confident that they have more than a few, almost certainly including major thermonuclear weapons.  See my comments in these pages from time to time concerning the so-called "Vela incident".
• Given those various and sundry realities and threats, it was obvious that Saudi Arabia was going to go ahead and greatly expand its nuclear program(s).  It didn't really have any choice but to do so, if it was to survive in an environment like that.

That being the case, why is anybody surprised that President Trump would try to get involved with Saudi Arabia's plans and help them along?  Saudi was going to do it anyway.  We could have sat there and criticized, or expressed concern, or whatever - which would have bounced off Saudi's national interests like water off a duck's back.  This was a case of making the best of two very difficult and unpalatable choices, and I think the President acted wisely.  I'm sure he, and the US establishment, would rather not have made that choice, but as I said earlier, this was going to happen whether or not we were involved.

As for the fat-headed reports that the President was/is at odds with his Energy Secretary over what was done, and how it was done . . . yeah, right.  As if any Secretary in the President's cabinet is going to land a surprise like that on his boss's desk, without so much as a "by your leave"!  Sure, there may have been friction in the give-and-take between the White House and the Energy Department, but what else is new?  The very fact that the Energy Secretary still has his job is sufficient evidence that any such friction was relatively minor.

I'm also enjoying outraged suggestions from the left that the President is trying to stretch the agreement in new ways by pressuring Saudi Arabia to accept the Abraham Accords in exchange for US nuclear help.  There's nothing new in this:  President Trump has been trying to persuade Saudi Arabia to sign on to the Accords ever since he took office.  It might be a very useful talking point to mention that if Israel finds Saudi Arabia diplomatically cooperative, some of the former's nuclear warheads may no longer needed to be targeted at the Arabian peninsula.  In Saudi's position, I'd find that a very thought-provoking consideration . . .

Overall, I think America joining Saudi's nuclear program as a partner nation has far more positives than negatives.  It will also make Iran rethink its nuclear ambitions, given that the existing Saudi-Pakistan nuclear relationship might put them between two actinic fires, so to speak.

What's next in the Middle East?  Your guess is as good as mine . . . but it's likely to be "interesting", in the sense of the fabled ancient Chinese curse!

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

Yet again, a command economy is derailed by human greed

 

We've seen innumerable examples, from local, state and national governments all over the world, that human greed and malfeasance can undo any amount of good that might otherwise be achieved.  It looks like a fundamental element of the human condition.

It seems that the latest country to discover (yet again) the truth of that statement is China.

In late May Chinese leaders travelled to the Zhoushan National Oil Reserve and discovered the nation’s strategic oil reserves weren’t there. For over a year, the disruption of oil supplies from Venezuela and Iran had left Chinese oil reserves reduced. Despite that, government documents indicated that China still had 1.2 billion tons of oil reserves. That’s equivalent to 8,756,117,022 barrels.

China’s strategic oil reserve, to the surprise of the government officials who went to verify the reserves in May, was instead composed of water, sludge, various debris and overflow from nearby sewer lines.

. . .

What happened to Chinese oil? It was soon discovered that corrupt government officials and oil reserve personnel had sold the oil and pocketed the proceeds. The local buyers were often operators of small, locally owned refineries that turned the oil into commercial products that were sold throughout China. Most of these oil criminals then fled, often leaving China for sanctuary states that would welcome any affluent Chinese and their new wealth. The only winners were a few conniving Chinese and the Americans, who continued to dominate the global energy system.

. . .

The theft of China’s strategic oil reserves is only the latest of several recent awful discoveries of massive corruption impeding the ambition of its leader, President Xi, to conquer Taiwan. The last one concerned military corruption in building equipment to invade Taiwan, and was discovered in 2023. Missile fuel tanks were found to be filled with water, missile silo lids could not be opened, and the protective concrete missile silos themselves were so defective they might as well have been made of wood. The air force and navy lacked sufficient spare parts for even a week of operations against Taiwan and many aircraft and naval vessels were outright inoperable. This postponed the earliest possible date for the invasion of Taiwan from 2025 to 2027.

The non-existence of China’s strategic oil reserve will probably have the same effect ... There are at least major possibilities that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan has been postponed for another two years, to 2029, and perhaps indefinitely due to further discoveries of calamitous-scale corruption.

There's more at the link.

I've been unable to confirm this article from Strategy Page through independent sources.  Other reports at about the same time don't mention missing oil reserves - only that the reserves exist.  Is the situation as bad as Strategy Page believes?  I'm not sure . . . but the history of corruption in government enterprises that has come out of China over the past few decades would suggest that there's no smoke without fire.

If true, this might help to explain why China has not been extremely vocal in its reaction to developments spearheaded by the USA in Venezuela and Iran.  If it didn't have the reserves to allow it relative independence of action, that would certainly put a crimp in China's style.

Will we ever know the truth?  I suspect it'll be carefully censored and filed away.

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

A military procurement nightmare: Britain's Typhoon fighter and its successor

 

In a long and very detailed article, Lewis Page argues that "Britain’s next-generation fighter jet is a disaster in the making".  He goes into detail on the background to the present project, and the aircraft that have preceded it in Royal Air Force service.  It's far too long an article to reproduce here, so I've selected as an example just one cost comparison between the current front-line aircraft of the US and UK air forces.

The Eurofighter Typhoon, as flown by the RAF, is the most expensive tactical aircraft ever built by the human race. When the last Tranche 1 planes are gone next year (disposed of with half their lifetime hours unused) the RAF will possess 107 aircraft.

Recent statements reveal that the size of an RAF front-line squadron has fallen from 12 to “up to 10” jets. Officials have recently congratulated themselves that they typically have “65 to 70” Typhoons “available” nowadays for the seven RAF front-line Typhoon squadrons that exist on paper.

Some more Typhoons are in the training and test units but it’s clear that others, probably more than 20, are in a long-term un-flyable condition: in deep maintenance, with parts robbed from them to get others flying, or both.

Each of the 107 Typhoons, according to the National Audit Office, cost well over £215m to obtain in 2011 money, or around $355m (£264m) if we use contemporary exchange rates.

By comparison, the undisputed, most powerful fighter jet in the world is the US Air Force’s F-22 Raptor. Only 183 Raptors were made in the end, as opposed to the 600-plus Eurofighters so far.

But despite this much shorter production run and the fact that it is an entire generation more advanced than a Typhoon, the acquisition cost of one Raptor to the US taxpayer was somewhat lower than the cost of one Typhoon to the UK taxpayer. The Raptor throws into stark relief the almost unbelievably bad value for money offered by the Typhoon.

In short, the Typhoon was a procurement disaster.

There's much more at the link.  Highly recommended reading for aviation and military enthusiasts.

The article helps us understand why military hardware has become so expensive.  The deadweight of bureaucratic and political control interfered so much with the Typhoon's development, and the lack of vision among military leaders in making it a single-purpose rather than a multi-role aircraft, effectively doomed it to operational irrelevance for much of its service life.  Furthermore, the astronomical costs of not just each aircraft, but spare parts to keep it flying, wasted so much of the Royal Air Force budget that funds were not available for different types of aircraft, or urgently needed upgrades.  (For example, for the past two decades almost every major frontline strike fighter has had AESA radar, offering vastly improved performance over older types:  but the RAF's Typhoons are only now beginning to get one - and, at that, only enough to fit to less than half the fleet.  Without it, if they had had to fight against other modern fighters, they would have been at a huge disadvantage.)

I suppose we could draw parallels between Britain's fighters and the US Navy's ships.  The USN has had so many problems developing new designs that it's had to scrap almost all of them as being too complex and/or too expensive, after its "experts" had spent years gold-plating them and adding every feature they could think of.  It's now been forced to bodge together a "frigate" that is basically a slightly more heavily armed Coast Guard cutter, because the much more sophisticated Constellation class frigates have had to be abandoned due to their design becoming bogged down in excessive complexity.  Will something similar happen to Britain's proposed new fighter aircraft?  I think there's a very good chance that it will.

China is producing new aircraft and ship designs in multiples every year, and building them by the dozens.  One hopes that both Britain and the USA will wake up to reality and start moving faster . . . but if the politicians insist on sticking their oar in, that's not very likely.  Can Secretary of War Hegseth cut through the entrenched bureaucracy and layers of control that have bedeviled US military design?  That remains to be seen.

Peter

Another perspective on the latest Trump assassination attempt

 

A little late, perhaps, but worth repeating nonetheless.  From Peter Girnus, "a senior coordinating producer for the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner".

I was backstage at the Washington Hilton when the shots were fired.

The first thing I heard was not the gunfire. It was glass.

A champagne flute hit the floor of the International Ballroom at approximately 9:47 PM. Then a second. Then the sound that I have since been told was a 12-gauge shotgun, which from inside the ballroom sounded like a heavy door slamming in a parking garage. Then the Secret Service moved. They moved the President, the Vice President, the First Lady through the east corridor in under ninety seconds, which is protocol, which is practiced, which is the one part of the evening that worked exactly as it was designed.

Everything else was improvised.

I know this because I ordered the wine. 94 tables. Two bottles per table. 188 bottles of a Willamette Valley pinot noir that the Association selected in February after a tasting committee spent three meetings debating between Oregon and Burgundy. Oregon won. The budget was $14,200. I signed the invoice. I can tell you the vintage. I can tell you the distributor. I can tell you the per-bottle cost because I negotiated it down from $89 to $76.

What I cannot tell you is how 147 of those bottles left the building during an active shooter evacuation.

I can tell you what I saw. A correspondent from a network I will not name picked up two bottles on her way to the east exit. Full bottles. One in each hand. She was wearing heels and she did not spill. A man in a tuxedo tucked one inside his jacket the way you'd shoplift a paperback at an airport bookstore. A woman picked up a bottle, looked at the label, put it back, and took a different one.

She checked the vintage. During an evacuation. That's editorial judgment under pressure.

. . .

2,600 guests were directed to the exits by Secret Service agents, one of whom had just taken a shotgun round in his ballistic vest and walked to the ambulance on his own feet.

The agent's vest costs approximately $800. The wine that left the building was worth $11,172 at Association cost. At restaurant markup, roughly $29,000. The guests saved more in wine than the vest that saved the agent.

That's priority.

. . .

I have produced eleven of these dinners ... I have never, in eleven years, seen a guest leave a $76 bottle on the table during an evacuation. I have also never seen a guest check the label first. Both observations are consistent. The bottle is worth taking. The evacuation is worth surviving. The instinct is to do both simultaneously.

188 bottles placed. 41 recovered. 147 unaccounted for. One agent shot. Zero guests injured. Zero bottles broken.

A free press for a free people. The press is free. The wine was $76 a bottle. They took it anyway.

There's more at the link.

Mr. Girnus' post on X (formerly Twitter) has so far attracted over 4,000 replies and comments.  Click over there to read them if you're interested.  I particularly liked his reply to one comment:

They took the wine at a pace that suggested familiarity with hotel evacuation corridors. That's not elite behavior. That's logistics under pressure. I've seen worse at a Marriott fire alarm in Phoenix.

Word!

Needless to say, my opinion of most alleged journalists has not been improved by this fiasco . . .

Peter

Are we looking at a world-changing series of events?

 

I haven't posted much by Peter Zeihan in recent months, because much of his work has disappeared behind a paywall.  I know many readers disagree with his perspective on geopolitics and economics, but I think he brings out a demographic emphasis that many other analysts lack.

In this video interview, about an hour and twenty minutes long, he postulates that many things that we've taken for granted, or assumed to be true, are not certain any longer.  Change is accelerating, and our perspectives need to take that into account.  If you want to look for specific issues, this is how the video breaks down:

0:00 Is China Really on the Brink?
6:19 Has China Been Lying About Their Data?
11:08 Can AI Save Us From Population Decline?
17:21 Can We Survive Demographic Collapse?
25:19 How Politics is Impacting Population Data
34:23 The Future of Global Energy
41:03 Are Electric Vehicles Truly Sustainable?
51:24 Where the Green Movement is Really Headed
01:03:40 How Technology is Impacting Modern Warfare
01:08:40 Could China Ignite the Next Global Conflict?
01:15:09 The Power Alliances Reshaping the World
01:18:50 Where to Find Peter

The video loaded correctly when I tested this before publishing this post.  If it doesn't (as sometimes happens), you can find it on YouTube.  Highly recommended - in particular, the second segment mentioned above.

Do you agree with his points?  If you don't, where do you think he's going wrong?  Let us know in Comments, and let's discuss.

Peter

The economy: order, counter-order, disorder

 

There's tremendous disagreement right now over whether or not we're careering towards an economic cliff, and about to fall over the edge.  Much of the evidence offered is convincing, but much is duplicitous propaganda designed to stampede us into precipitous action before we've had a chance to think things through.  If anyone says to you, "This is how it's going to go down!  Guaranteed!", I suggest you ask them what they're selling, because they're out to convince you to buy it.

Rather than advance my own views on our and the world's economy (which are and have for some years been negative, as regular readers will know, but for very different reasons than the Iran war alone), here are a few articles that caught my eye over recent weeks.  I suggest you read each of them, and make up your own minds.  I've included a few key paragraphs beneath each link.

1.  We’re on the brink of a global recession, but it’s not Iran we need to worry about

With the Strait of Hormuz impassable, a widespread inflation spike is looming, which would seriously damage the global economy.

Along with a fifth of the world’s oil and gas supplies, this dual Iran-US blockade also prevents a third of the world’s seaborne fertiliser feedstocks from reaching global markets.

That points to lower crop yields this summer – a serious energy-price spike with a food-price surge too.

A third of global helium supplies – which is is vital when making semiconductors – pass through the strait. Those chips, comparable in strategic terms to oil, enable trillions of dollars of downstream economic activity – from manufacturing to energy structures, wireless and computer data storage and defence.

On top of all that, multiple sovereign bond crises are brewing across the G7, as Western nations struggle with high fiscal deficits, tightening demographics and big government, while failing to constrain runaway welfare spending.

2.  U.S. Wheat Futs Hit Two-Year High As Wall Street Sounds Alarm Over Drought Shock

Hard red winter wheat climbed to a two-year high by the end of the week, as our coverage of the drought shock now hitting America's Breadbasket raises serious alarm bells on commodity desks.

The concern is not just reduced crop yields and quality. It is colliding with fertilizer shortages and elevated diesel prices, creating a broader inflationary transmission channel that could work its way through the food supply and translate into higher supermarket prices down the road.

3.  I Am Calling It Now: THE EVENT Has Happened

Michael Yon has spoken of "flash-to-bang"—that delay between seeing a distant explosion and feeling/hearing its shockwave. I witnessed this firsthand in Iraq. Out on the highway in front of COB Speicher, a massive car bomb detonated miles away. I saw the giant mushroom cloud rise first—a silent, horrifying spectacle—before the low, guttural bass thump finally rolled in. You feel it in your chest as much as hear it. The bigger the blast, the longer the delay when you're observing from afar.

That same principle applies here with the Strait of Hormuz. The "flash"—the initial explosions, ship attacks, blockades, and seizures—has already lit up the horizon. The "bang"—the full economic, energetic, and societal shockwave—is still traveling toward us. It will hit hardest in the months ahead as fuel shortages cascade into transportation failures, fertilizer disruptions, higher food prices, and broader supply chain collapses. Global food systems are already under pressure, and this energy crunch could tip vulnerable regions into outright crisis.

I know extremely hard times lie ahead for millions. In places like the Philippines, the challenges will be especially brutal—not just because of external shocks, but because of deep cultural and societal realities on the ground.

4.  The Economic Destruction of Trump’s War Goes Far Beyond High Gas Prices

A lot of economic pain has already been locked in by this war. But to really understand it, it’s necessary to keep a few important economic truths at the front of our minds.

First is the fact that the entire purpose of the economy is to produce goods and services that consumers value enough to pay for. All of the production happening anywhere in the economy is geared towards that end ... Every consumer good can be viewed as the end of a long chain of production stretching all the way back to the cultivation of raw materials like iron or timber, or the creation of basic components like resins or plastics. Economists call those basic capital goods at the beginning of the chain higher order goods.

. . .

And second, production takes time. That’s true for the production of any given good, but it’s especially true if we look across that entire chain of production. The higher order goods that are currently being produced won’t help bring about finished consumer products until months or even years down the road.

All of this is important to understand and keep in mind because the war with Iran is, so far, primarily impacting the production of higher order goods. And it goes far beyond oil.

And, to show how left-wing "thinkers" (you should pardon the expression) are relating economic issues to their own pet ideological hobby-horses, here's what a New York Times opinion columnist had to say about older people and the economy.  The original is behind a paywall, so the link goes to an archived copy.

Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential

It is not ageist to ask whether older people should be required to give more to younger Americans and national priorities — it is critical to the future of our democracy and society. America needs to confront gerontocracy before the system collapses under the weight of its inequality and injustice.

Older Americans deserve a say over the future even when they might not live to see it. But they do not deserve the stranglehold over it they currently enjoy through overrepresentation in elections, which produces too many regressive policies and too many seniors in the highest offices.

Older Americans are owed the care that everyone else funds. Indeed, they should get more of it than they get now — including funding for long-term care at home or in nursing homes. But they also need incentives to give up accumulated housing, jobs and wealth.

Considering that I'm now numbered among "older Americans", that does not give me warm fuzzy feelings about my economic future under a progressive left government in this country, should one come to pass.  The above screed sounds more to me like "We're young!  We don't want to wait our turn!  Give us the keys to the kingdom right now!  And while you're handing them over, give us all your money as well!"  Greedy, much?

I'll give the last word to the inimitable Karl Denninger.

How Much Further?

The real problem for ordinary people in the economy is that anything that is unsustainable over a sufficient amount of time will blow up in your face.  But when will it blow up?  That's a more difficult problem.  For example we know that housing is largely locked up in a large part of the country -- indeed, most of it.  In those places where it sort-of-isn't there are other serious problems including property tax and insurance concerns that might as well have it locked up from a standpoint of actual affordability.  Add to this that many formerly thought of as "safe" professions which earn a nice wage, including computer science and medical, are rapidly being destroyed in terms of forward earnings capacity by both AI and foreign worker imports.  There are plenty of stories already of people living quite high on the hog having accumulated a lifestyle with mandatory monthly spend commensurate with $250,000 wages suddenly being laid off and finding no replacement for that wage at even half what they formerly made.  If you've managed to get yourself into a leveraged position with a forward requirement for such earnings and they disappear you're in very serious trouble indeed.

True dat.

Peter