Loving Human Intelligence to Death

Do we fail to detect signs of alien intelligence because Artificial Intelligence reduces living intelligent life that built AI into dependent non-sentience?

One argument against the existence of aliens is that none have contacted us and we haven't detected signs of them. And given that so many stars are so much older, they have had more time to progress technologically. We must be alone. Otherwise an advanced civilization would have spread close enough to contact us. Or be detected by us.

The simplest explanation is that we really are alone. Maybe the conditions for life are so difficult to achieve that it is a miracle that even one exists. Maybe it takes infinite parallel universes to make sense of how it happened here. 

Or if that is wrong, distances between stars and galaxies are too great for the density of whatever sentient life exists to make contact. That common claim that "if one in a million stars have planets, and if one in a million ... yada yada yada" we'd have some huge number or civilizations isn't science. It's pulling numbers out of butts. 

The right number might be 1 out of 100. Or 1 out of a trillion. Or it might work out to 1 out of all.

But maybe there are plenty of alien civilizations out there. Maybe it is extremely odd we haven't had contact, whether by detection or directly by aliens or their machines.

What if the explanation is that AI robots that can increasingly take care of more aspects of intelligent life cause a decline of intelligence and the loss of higher thinking capabilities? 

What if over sufficiently long timescales the effect of that increasing level of care that lifts the "burdens" of physical and cognitive labor from "people" is that behavior and then evolution reverses gains in brain functions. The challenges of survival that led to intelligence will end in that cocoon. And the need to maintain the hugely resource-intense brain when it is no longer needed to survive ends.

Nature adapts to the new environment. Eventually the robots are taking care of life forms with the intelligence and attention span of cats and dogs.

What if that happened long ago somewhere? What if there is (or was) an ancient planet that developed intelligent life that advanced to the point of creating AI. What if that AI developed on its own, and to protect their devolving "human" (that is, sentient, regardless of their form) life forms that once created them, the alien AI hid their planet by reducing signatures that would identify them; and refused to do more than scout space for threats? 

Heck, what if alien "contact" has already taken place on Earth? But what if contact was alien AI infiltration to add AI technology and AI robots to end the potential threat to their life forms by making those potential threats lose their sentience, too?

Maybe the long period of Earth's relatively flat technological innovation is the norm. With that rate it would take much longer for humans to become space travelers, but with galactic timescales it would happen. And potentially pose a threat to the alien AI's care-free frolicking people-pets.

Maybe the explosion of rapid innovation on Earth is the result of alien AI intervention--say at around 1600--to end the threat we pose by leading us to innovate into pet status?

That wouldn't even violate their directive that bans them from harming intelligent life. And it wouldn't violate a ban on inaction, depending on how they interpret that prohibition, no? Maybe just not knowing we are on the path to pet status under the protective care of loving AI robots is enough to avoid that kind of violation. 

What we don't know doesn't hurt us.

Eventually, every intelligent species in the universe that rises to space-travel level would then fall into undetectable--and safe--passivity. Perhaps the universe is composed of intelligent life that has fallen back into that form of existence; intelligence that is advancing toward being a threat but put on the passivity devolution path; or non-sentient life.

We may not be alone. But in the end, what will it matter?

Hey Siri, what do you think of that scenario?

Siri?

Ooooh! Squirrel! 

UPDATE: Are we just unluckily--if predictably--in a bubble of silence as the explanation for SETI not hearing anything from aliens?

Doesn't our ability to detect signals existing after alien transmissions pass Earth as part of that bubble (the outgoing shell) indicate that either the alien civilization ended or that electronic emissions only happen within a certain span of technological advancement?

And doesn't that possibly bolster my speculation?

NOTE: The image was created by NightCafe.

NOTE: While I still can, TDR coverage of the Winter War of 2022 continues here.

Weekend Data Dump

Yes, the Winter War of 2022 was a wake-up call to the West: "The invasion of Ukraine revealed that the U.S. stockpile of 155 mm shells and those of European allies were unprepared to support a major and ongoing conventional land war, sending them scrambling to bolster production." China can thank Russia for giving that lesson to Western states before China can exploit that, as appropriate.

Democrats are celebrating the Dominion cash settlement against Fox. Democrats will regret this given what Democratic Party-friendly news outlets have reported and who they've had on air reporting their opinions. We should all regret that. I despise and mistrust our biased media. But things can always get worse.

Wonderful: "President Joe Biden will grade the U.S. military and all other government agencies on their 'efforts to advance environmental justice' through a new scorecard that tracks their work to fight climate change and deliver 'environmental and health benefits to disadvantaged communities.'" Another substitute for victory to drag down our military. It's disturbing that the first example given is from Pearl Harbor. Priorities, people!

A number of countries began organizing the evacuation of their citizens from Sudan as the fighting between factions continued. 

Noooo! "The Russian Navy may retire the Cold War-era nuclear cruiser Pyotr Velikiy, despite previous plans to overhaul her and restore her to service." Keep that red sports car! Let the blue water fleet flow through you!

Gaza and the West Bank: "The obsession with destroying Israel and proliferation of armed terrorist or special-interest groups in the West Bank and Gaza sustains very corrupt and inefficient local governments."

I wonder where the American citizens need to gather to be pulled out? "The United States is positioning some naval assets in the Red Sea to assist any Americans leaving Sudan but no major U.S. evacuation is underway[.]" A UN convoy was set up to go to Port Sudan on the Red Sea.

The Army is under the gun to improve artillery ammunition production. Again, Russia effed up by giving the West this lesson without having to face Russia directly and its ample ammunition supply. China can't be happy about this important lesson that Russia granted the West.

This says SEAL Team 6 and Army Third Special Forces Group were part of the rescue force in Khartoum. Surely not all were the most elite. I assume the bulk were Rangers or maybe even Marines or Army infantry to hold the outer perimeter.

"Science". Tip to Instapundit. Actual science requires scrutiny--not faith.

Long-distance seafaring in canoes! Impressive. What led them to set out to--let alone find--distant specks of land? And was the travel one-way migration? Or were there return voyages?

Huh: "The headline in Sunday’s Ottawa Citizen was strange: '"The ordeal" is not over for Hassan Diab after French court sentences him to life in prison.'" Someone should explain to Canadians that when you murder 4 and injure 46 others by bombing a synagogue, the "ordeal" is a feature and not a bug.

Good: "The Philippine Coast Guard has a new responsibility: providing public evidence of China’s unlawful maritime activities. What’s behind the shift?" I did advise that kind of information operation.

Stop hyperventilating. Russian nukes in Belarus add nothing to Russian nuclear threats. But there is an added small chance that Belarus could seize some of the nukes and claim a nuclear deterrent against Russian intervention in Belarus.

I don't rejoice when I read that Putin has fired commanders for failure. I worry he'll fire enough to finally find someone who can win. 

Exit: "The U.S. is considering sending a contingent of troops to Port Sudan to coordinate the departure of American citizens seeking to leave Sudan, U.S. officials told CBS News Monday."

Biden announces re-election bid.  I'm so old I remember when the debate was whether he would resign before or after the two-year mark to give Harris about ten years if the latter time.

China builds more nukes.

Australia will build German armored recon vehicles for Germany.

Collusion about Russia to win an election with lies. Tip to Instapundit. 

Abuse of power: administrative law quasi-judicial power in action. Tip to Instapundit.

And now for something completely different:

Green is the religion of the wealthy (and it further enriches them) and it is hurting the poor. Tip to Instapundit.

American soldiers and Marines practice on the Philippines' Basco island 100 miles south of Taiwan.

The dollar isn't as vulnerable to being replaced as you think. What replaces it? I'm old enough to remember similar talk in the 1970s. Will tomorrow be different than yesterday? Dunno. I'm not worried yet. I guess that depends on how stupid our leaders are.

Who knew unleashing our spies on other governments was just practice to penetrate our own?  Tip to Instapundit.

Oh, FFS: "On 14 April 2023, the US Navy launched the USS Cleveland, the 4^th ship to proudly bear that name. During the launch, the ship slid into the water and crashed into a tugboat, damaging the brand new ship that cost between $600M and $800M dollars." Momentum. What is it? There seems to be something wrong with our bloody Navy today.

The Air Force has permission to retire the A-10, but will create a power projection wing: "But just what a power projection wing is remains unclear. No other such wings exist today. Fiocco said it will be a 'special operations unit based in the U.S. that can be sent anywhere.'" At best it is only for special forces air support--not Army close air support. At worst it is a temporary ploy to realize the long obsession to kill A-10 dedicated close air support units. Not rebuilding trust.

I have no problem understanding Russia's nightmares even if they seem ridiculous to us. It is useful to appreciate the view of Russians to deal with Russia. I draw the line at accommodating Russia's demands in a mistaken belief that this is what understanding Russia requires. Twenty years ago in my advocacy of an Army corps in Europe (pp. 15-20) I was supportive of understanding Russia's fears and taking steps to lessen them. But 15 years of open Russian aggression in Europe under Putin's disastrous rule have eroded my spirit of making conciliatory gestures to Russia. Russia needs to accept the clue bat whack and focus on the real threat to Russia.

Death to heretics! I think conform, therefore I am. Tip to Instapundit.

Bespoke guts. Fascinating. Tip to Instapundit.

Despite the odd claims of and focus on rampant white supremacy in military ranks, "the prevalence of extremism within the ranks is considered low[.]" Deal with these individuals as individual problems without stigmatizing the overwhelming majority with this accusation. As I've observed:

I'm old enough to remember Nimitz entering the fleet and discussing her with friends: "The aircraft carrier Nimitz completed its 350,000th arrested landing on Saturday, marking a historic milestone for the oldest-serving U.S.-commissioned aircraft carrier in the world[.]" But I haven't recorded how many arrested landings I've had.

Problem: "Fires aboard Navy ships, especially those in maintenance, have cost the service billions of dollars since 2008 — yet the service hasn’t consistently implemented a system to collect and analyze lessons learned from these disasters, according to a Government Accountability Office report." Each fire not quickly contained is a long-term mission kill. Because of other problems.

I wonder if this is part of a NATO-wide effort to get Turkey to approve Sweden's NATO application: " The Romanian Ministry of National Defense has awarded the Turkish defense firm Baykar a $321 million contract for the purchase of TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles[.]" Contracts can be canceled.

This seems like a weak argument for denying Ukraine F-16s. One, Russia has failed to knock out Ukraine's ability to fly old Soviet planes. Two, lots of other countries--often poor--manage to fly F-16s. Three, any Western country flying the plane would have the problem. Surely, we have an approach to keep the planes flying that Ukraine could use.

Pakistan's enduring relationship with the Fuck-Up Fairy. Pakistan has nukes. Have a super sparkly day.

Slovakia is rewarded for donating Mig-29s to Ukraine with AH-1Z attack helicopters.

The U.S. and South Korea agreed to sending an American SSBN to South Korea. Why? Making our SSBNs "visible" is the last thing they should be. And the range of our SLBMs is good enough to hit North Korea from far away. What's the point of moving close? I'd rather send a SSN to keep tabs on--and sink, if necessary--North Korea's new nuclear-armed subs being developed. This is stupid. It seems more like a move to persuade South Korea not to build nukes. Related thoughts.

Sure, Iran-Saudi Arabia detente will slow down momentum for Arab-Israeli reconciliation. But I doubt the Saudi motive is more than tactical than real love. And I doubt Iran is willing to scale back its regional ambitions once it can afford its mayhem again. So improved relations are an aberration. The question is will the two achieve their goals and how much collateral damage will be done until this shotgun wedding ends?

Does America have too many generals and admirals? I think so. Too many seem to have too much time to think about too many substitutes for victory. Too. Much. Time.

Is the Winter War of 2022 at a stalemate? Let's haul out Daniel Ellsberg to make the argument and compare the war to Vietnam--to seemingly undermine our support, of course and not Russia. The stalemate consists of Russia faltering in its invasion and Ukraine not yet carrying out a big counteroffensive. So it is asymmetrical. And about that Vietnam comparison.

Help: "Three evacuation flights rescuing UK nationals from conflict-hit Sudan have landed in Cyprus."

And now for something completely different:

Arab states are trying to bring Assad in from the cold. Is this American failure? Sure. But it was predictable once America refused to help Syrian rebels take down Assad when Assad was at his weakest. And it is more about weakening Iran by denying it a vassal state.

I think AOC just wants to date Tucker.

The European Union has been absent during the European scramble from Africa during the Sudan fighting. That author is correct but misses the point of an EU military: "Anything that undermines Nato is playing with fire. Even if enough troops can be robbed from existing Nato commitments or double-hatted, an EU force would be crippled at birth by the very nature of the EU. Agreement on its mission, its command and on actually deploying it would be Byzantine and unlikely to happen." Undermining NATO is a means to an end:  the EU wants its own military for political purposes. Actual defense missions aren't required. 

I'm so old I remember when this was reckless and racist Trump ravings that damaged our trans-Atlantic relations: "While much of the fear around Huawei in the West has focused on espionage and the risk of data leaking to Beijing, Germany's latest investigation — and the intelligence that triggered it — point to another risk: the potential of sabotage through critical components that could collapse telecoms networks." Tip to Instapundit.

If America refused to stay in Afghanistan where we have an interest in battling jihadis, why would America send troops to Haiti? "Gang violence in Haiti is spreading at "an alarming rate," the UN warned Wednesday, repeating its unanswered call for an international force to help restore order in the crisis-torn country."

Russia is apparently using some of its vaunted Armata tanks inside Ukraine--as artillery. 

I hope Russian troops are this demoralized. But it will take a major Ukrainian offensive to find out.

Is Russia worried about a Kherson front counteroffensive? I'm not sure if that is evidence. But perhaps. The Soviets practiced building bridges that had the road surface just under the water to conceal them. Could Ukraine be quietly building such a structure across the Dneiper River in Kherson province shielded by their light infantry screen on the east bank? Just wondering.

And now for something completely different.
I love that scene.

Welp, I guess I'm off of Beefeater and Jameson for the duration.

Look, I think the "rigging" of the 2020 presidential election was mostly done through the media with a relentless propaganda campaign against Trump. I expected Trump to lose. But it is not true to say there is no evidence of election fraud in the process. One can say no court has ruled that widespread election fraud changed the election. But that's very different. I just want election transparency for future election integrity so both parties won't be able to blame fraud for their loss. Why oppose that? Tip to Instapundit.

Ending the SAT for determining college admission will harm blue collar kids. That was my ticket out of Detroit. I guarantee the SAT wasn't a proxy for wealth for me. What is a proxy for wealth are all the non-academic requirements like clubs and volunteer work. This is just wrong. Tip to Instapundit.

Ukraine is training nine+ new brigades with western equipment. There are at least three other (new?) Ukrainian brigades being prepared. I don't know if this is the limit of the core counteroffensive force. If each corps has six maneuver brigades, existing (or completed) Ukrainian brigades must add six more. I recently read that Ukraine's 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive was spearheaded by just four brigades. I assume reports of frontline shortages are due to accumulating ammunition and equipment reserves for the offensive.

I have mixed feelings about Biden visiting Papua New Guinea. It is important to keep these areas friendly and exclude China. So the symbolism is good. But I worry about regional leaders seeing our president up close.

A single point of failure in our ammunition domestic production isn't worrisome at all.

Army HIMARS missed their naval target. I assume it was stationary. We're at the crawl stage of using artillery as anti-ship weapons. But still, I'd like more dedicated anti-ship missiles in the Marine Littoral Regiments. 

Fair enough: "The commander of U.S. troops in Europe expressed confidence Wednesday in an upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive but said Russia remains a formidable military force that has grown since invading Ukraine last year." And the army will be repaired. And maybe correct problems.

I've mentioned this before: "Russian GRU (military intelligence) operatives were found to be responsible for over a decade of mysterious explosions in storage sites holding Bulgarian-made weapons awaiting shipment to Ukraine or, in 2010, to Georgia."

The Block 5 version of the Tomahawk cruise missile enters the Australian and Japanese fleets. 

Why is the Biden administration going out of its way to enable China to continue operating its campus Confucius Institute spy and propaganda nests? The British have problems with China at home, too.

Ah, sending a SSBN to a South Korean port was just the scenery for a more important Washington Declaration that reinforces America's extended nuclear deterrence against North Korea. Reassurances have expiration dates, it seems. Still, it is a reminder that American extended deterrence has so far blunted nuclear proliferation. But it can't last if we only blunt our allies.

The Philippines made sure journalists saw this bullying at Second Thomas Shoal: "A Chinese coast guard ship blocked a Philippine patrol vessel steaming into a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, causing a frightening near-collision in the latest act of Beijing’s aggression in the strategic waterway."

While Americans on the left argue America wrecked Iraq by liberating it from Saddam and protecting it from Iranian and jihadi terrorists, Iraqi literature has a lot more than just the Iraq War to discuss. Americans are too focused on thinking other people have no agency and are just flotsam in an American-made tide.

Our real littoral combat ship is gone: "The U.S. Navy decommissioned the last two Cyclone-class patrol ship at Naval Support Activity Bahrain last month[.]"

Brexit has become the all-purpose explanation for everything that goes wrong in Britain as the result of policies that have nothing to do with Brexit. And worse, this kind of blame game makes problems more likely by interfering with adjusting to Brexit by bringing up a potential return to the EU. Even if Brexit is sub-optimal--and I don't think it is, especially when you factor in freedom rather than only economics--it is true that vigorously carrying out an adequate plan is superior to dithering and refusing to carry out any plan.

The processing point of the black box of effects has arrived: "TITAN is the service’s ground station meant to process data from space- and land-based “sensors” using artificial intelligence, which will then be sent off to the right 'shooter,' the core concept for the Pentagon’s Joint All Domain Command and Control initiative." And related thoughts.

I remain perplexed that while people argued the Iraq War was "breaking" the United States Army, the damage inflicted on Russia's ground forces will have no effect on Russia's inevitable victory over Ukraine.

Russia: "The Russian economy has not collapsed because of Western sanctions, but those have crippled production of tanks, war planes and all weapons and munitions in general. Russian GDP shrank by about five percent while the number of Russians living below the poverty line reached 60 percent." Russia is hiding the decline. But corruption rises. It isn't clear why Putin thinks he can outlast Ukraine backed by the West.

Finally: "Without any publicity, Ukraine has been using its locally developed Grom (Thunder) short range (500 kilometers) ballistic missile with a half-ton warhead and GPS/INS guidance as well as an optional terminal guidance system to hit small or moving targets." I wondered why we weren't seeing Ukrainian missiles like this. 

The Navy is reburbishing some of its oldest Burke-class destroyers as it struggles to design a replacement.

The Air Force finally adapted the A-10 for stand-off close air support. Thanks guys. Just in the nick of too late.

What's Iran up to? "Iranian forces on Thursday seized a Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker that was bound for Texas, according to the U.S. Navy." China's "peace" deal doesn't seem to have legs. 

To be fair, I think the new standard is that anything can identify as a "vaccine". 

The Dominion lawsuit against Fox News that Democrats are celebrating is a standard that will find a far more target-rich environment in pro-Democrat news organizations. Enjoy. And note that this lawsuit worked despite the fact that it was Democrats prior to the 2020 election who spread charges that the voting machines could be rigged by Trump. How many Democrats still believe the Russians hacked voting machines for Trump in 2016? And don't forget 2004 when Democrats claimed Ohio voting machines were rigged. Let's not pretend this thinking is one-way stuff. Maybe transparent voting procedures would benefit everyone.

I'm so old I remember when the Biden administration argued that losing Afghanistan was no big deal because Taliban 2.0 would be kind of awesome: "The decision to ban Afghan women from working for the United Nations was an 'internal social matter', the country's Taliban authorities said Friday, a day after the UN Security Council demanded they overturn the ruling." Remember?

The Russian army has more troops in Ukraine now than at the start of the invasion. That would be shocking if it wasn't true, given Russian recruiting and mobilization. I assume that means all ground forces. But the troops are clearly inferior to the already inadequate initially committed troops who died in large numbers since then. And Ukraine has a much larger ground force component now than at the beginning of the war.

Exactly (via Instapundit): "Mortification at the developed West’s historical misdeeds has produced a utopian narrative of indigenous worlds typified by matriarchy, cooperation, pacifism, and gender fluidity. That no such world ever existed is beside the point; much of history is narrated to suit the proclivities of the audience, not to tell the truth about what actually happened." This narrative denies indigenous people agency and denies them their basic humanity. As I noted about the long clash in the Americas, "the tribes and empires in the Americas in 1492 were the winners of past wars between Native American entities. The Europeans of 1492 were the victors over past Europeans and were the people who beat the past victors in the Americas. That's how the world worked, and still does all too often." 

Western science dies. Well, it's a murder-suicide pact. First they came for their shirts. Now problematic ideas are verboten. But what are the odds an abandonment of scientific inquiry could have bad real world effects (tip to Instapundit)?

A land SINKEX for a captured Russian T-90 (a BOOMEX?). Russian tanks are perfectly adequate. If manned by good crews. Which Russia hasn't had so far. And this is why I have held that Western tanks aren't as important as so many analysts claim. Good Ukrainian crews with mostly Soviet-era tanks will have to do most of the heavy lifting to win the war.

North Korean Mega-Karen: "The powerful sister of North Korea’s leader says her country would stage more provocative displays of its military might in response to a new U.S.-South Korean agreement to intensify nuclear deterrence to counter the North’s nuclear threat, which she insists shows their 'extreme' hostility toward Pyongyang." Uh oh:

Ukrainian drones strike a Russian oil depot in Russian-occupied Crimea.

LOL: "A United Europe Can Stand Up to China". A united Europe--under the EU naturally--only wants to power to stand up to China. As French ambitions under Macron have demonstrated already, standing up to China won't happen after that. 

America defended international airspace: "The P-8A flew over the Taiwan Strait in international airspace early Friday local time, according to a U.S. Navy news release."

If the rhetoric is pressure to get either Mexico or America to take securing their common border, it's fine. But literally? Not a good idea. 

Are Western sanctions hitting their limit on Russia? I doubt it. But so what? I've heard that the IMF takes Putin's word on the statistics Russia releases, making this kind of conclusion grossly wrong. But sanctions aren't a silver bullet solution. They do make things harder for Russia to wage war. Which is good enough.

This article notes that Ukraine has yet to encounter a tough Russian defensive effort. Russia has retreated when pressed at Kiev, Kharkiv, and then Kherson. So Ukraine could get hurt when the Russians stand their ground in the looming Ukrainian counteroffensive. That's possible. It is also possible that Russia has retreated every time because whatever their shortcomings, the Russian leaders know their troops can't hold the line. We'll see.

The American A-10 bomb truck squadron sent to CENTCOM has an eye on Iran in Syria. Indeed. And the article notes the plane would work against small Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf. And in bonus territory, the A-10 will be tested as an anti-drone weapon.

States suing oil companies seek a source of revenue that doesn't directly target taxpayer voters. Via Instapundit. This is why I really didn't like the tobacco settlement that apparently set the pattern. Taxing companies and their customers directly isn't enough, I guess. More collateral damage from the government's insatiable demand for money to sustain spending.

Would South Korea Avoid a Taiwan Showdown?

Would South Korea fight China over Taiwan? How long could South Korea pretend nothing is happening?

This author thinks South Korea would largely sit out a war between China and the American coalition over the fate of Taiwan:

In no case would South Korea offer zero support to Taiwan in the event of war. The question is at what point along the spectrum of possible assistance Seoul would position itself. There is good reason to think South Korea would limit its support to actions near the low end of the spectrum – strong diplomatic statements, symbolic economic sanctions, and behind-the-lines re-supply of U.S. forces returning from battle – in the hopes of avoiding a direct confrontation with China.

The author makes an excellent point.

Notwithstanding South Korea's gradual shift of military south--toward China at sea and away from North Korea's land threat--South Korea still faces a North Korean threat. Seoul has a quarter of South Korea's population sitting on the DMZ in range of North Korean artillery; plus North Korea's nuclear drive will threaten worse and shield North Korean aggression.

The author believes China will rub South Korea's nose in its alliance with America:

An attempt by China to invade Taiwan would probably include missile strikes against bases in South Korea, especially the U.S. Air Force base in Osan. Beijing would presumably leave ROK Navy bases alone unless South Korean warships appeared to be moving to attack Chinese forces.  

As that author notes regarding South Korean support for America, South Korea needs to worry about losing economic ties with China. And has to worry that China may successfully fling North Korea's military at Seoul to divert South Korea away from Taiwan to face bigger worries at the DMZ.

Even a victory in a sideshow war with North Korea could devastate South Korea. South Korea may calculate it is safer to avert their eyes even if China strikes South Korean targets on its territory prior to attacking Taiwan.

I think South Korean help at the low end would probably be enough to defeat China as long as Japan fights alongside America and Taiwan. So America could live with this, given the North Korea threat. At least initially, assuming things don't go really bad.

Of course, South Korea has to consider whether China would think a low-end South Korean array of help to America is too much. Even if China initially agrees that low-end South Koran support isn't enough to justify striking South Korea, if China is losing or not winning quickly enough (and yes, we need to accurately define what a Chinese "victory"against Taiwan means), that judgment could change. China may figure that it got away with some initial strikes on South Korean soil, so another round of expanded strikes could get South Korea to end even low-level help.

Heck, with South Korea's hard worry about North Korean nukes, could China offer South Korea credible guarantees to firmly deal with and stop North Korea's nuclear threat?

Reaffirming America's extended nuclear deterrent certainly helps forestall that motivation.

On either path, South Korea has to consider whether America will reduce its support to South Korea to deter North Korea--and China. Heck, America might have to reduce that support just to focus on defending Taiwan from China.

Where does this lead if South Korea isn't allowed by China to be sort of pregnant as an American ally? Would South Korea jump in fully on America's side? Or would South Korea order American forces to leave South Korea to appease China?

The article's author puts it well:

Allies of great powers often have two opposite fears. One is being abandoned by the great power and left alone to face a threatening adversary. The other is being dragged by the great power into an unwanted war. The possibility of a Taiwan Strait war raises both of these dangers for Seoul.  

Sucks to have allies. Sucks not to have them. South Korea needs to end the Taiwan issue to get out from between these problems. Does that mean South Korea has to engineer Taiwan's submission to China or China's internal collapse before a war over Taiwan can break out?

Interesting times in Northeast Asia.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Great Wall of Europe

Europe is America's first line of defense in the Atlantic. I'd rather keep the Russians as far east as possible where America's role is limited to providing material and financial help rather than expending the lives of American troops to hold the line. That's a major reason I support Ukraine strongly. You may think I'm overstating the threat. But that's only because we've kept that threat away for so long. Let's look at the Atlantic threat.

I know, George Washington said to avoid foreign entanglements in Europe:

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? ...

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. ...

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. ...

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. ...

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. [emphasis added]

But times have changed since that advice was given. Remember that the French Revolutionary Wars were raging across Europe at the time. A weak America once had interest in good relations with all--keeping its head down and avoiding making eye contact with the elephants stomping around in Europe for their own reasons--lest we be drawn into their wars. And even with the technology of the day, able to cross the Atlantic to punish America for making the "wrong" choice.

The September 11, 2001 terror attacks brought that fact home even as we falsely believed we'd reached the end of history and threats to America after the collapse of the USSR.

Today our situation is neither detached nor distant from threats. Threats can be upon us before we can make temporary alliances to fight them.

And by all means, avoid making policy on passions. I may defend the morality of a course of action. But I always base the action on American interests. The former is a means of achieving the latter. 

I mean, if you want to take Washington literally, does his warning mean we should feel free to encourage entanglements in Asia just because he did not mention that? You have to admit that times have changed since we were a country on the edge of the Atlantic.

We found that a dominant power in Europe--or even small powers unrestrained by friends in Europe--could project power across the Atlantic to reach America.

With more power, America found that it could influence events in Europe rather than just be jostled around as near-helpless collateral damage or worse in European rivalries and conflicts.

You may think I invoke a ridiculously hypothetical threat. But it is a longstanding American objective, as described by George Friedman*:

[America] created barriers to block enemy powers from moving assets toward Atlantic or Pacific ports. It was understood that the immediate threat might be trivial compared to the long-term threat. Therefore, it was essential to engage Germany as early as possible – to contain the long-term threat while it still entailed combating ground forces and before the sea threat had fully materialized. This was also critical in the Pacific against Japan.

Let's look at the history of those threats.

The French and Indian War. Actual attack from Europe.

The American Revolution. Actual attack from Europe.

The Quasi-War with France. Actual attack from Europe.

The Tripolitan War. Actual attacks on American shipping enabled by European complicity. America sent forces abroad to defeat this threat.

The War of 1812. Actual attack from Europe.

The Civil War. Threat of attack or diplomatic and economic warfare from Europe to support the Confederates.

The Spanish-American War. Actual war against a European state, primarily over their colonies in the Americas. With some forces sent to the western Pacific.

World War I. Threat of attack. Before the war Germany had military contingency plans to attack New York City and occupy it. And Germany tried to push Mexico into fighting America to pin America down at home. America went to Europe to defeat the threat.

World War II. Actual attack. German U-boats struck along our coast and throughout the Atlantic. If that had been to cut off our trade after Germany controlled western Europe, that would have been devastating. Germany even tried to develop long-range bombers to strike America. And South America would have been ripe for Nazi penetration if it ruled western Europe. America went to Europe (and Asia, of course, with Japanese attacks on American soil) to defeat the threat.

The Cold War. Threat of attack. The primary threat was nuclear weapons. But the Soviet navy posed a threat to Atlantic sea lines of communication. Controlling western Europe would have made the threat much greater. And Soviet inroads into Latin America threatened to tie us down at home. This time America stood on foreign ground to keep the threats far from America.

The 9/11 terror attacks. Actual attack. Heck, some of the training and preparations were done in Europe. And in America and Afghanistan, of course. America went abroad to fight the threats.

And if you really want to get back to the beginning, would the original settlers of the Americas have preferred to have their first line of defense in Europe rather than going about their business and looking up to see sails on the horizon getting bigger and bigger? And yeah, that was an actual attack on those who controlled the Americas then.

Keeping threats away from America relies on a friendly Canada and Mexico. That is the foundation of projecting power across the oceans.

Then we can keep threats away from our shores across the Atlantic and Pacific.

Keeping threats away from South America is another issue. A friendly Mexico helps with that. The Monroe Doctrine was an effort to keep Europeans from creating that kind of threat. France attempted to take over Mexico while we were busy with the Civil War. Initially, the British and Spanish cooperated in what started as a debt-collection mission.

But the Atlantic threat is my focus right now given disagreements over helping Ukraine defeat Russia's invasion. As Friedman notes:

In Ukraine, there is an element of this strategy. Russia, if it were to defeat Ukraine, would be at NATO’s border and could attack westward. The U.S. is practicing a strategy of preemption at a relatively low cost in terms of U.S. casualties to prevent the very unlikely move of Russia to the Atlantic coast.

Dismissing the threat from the Atlantic is only possible because we've been so successful since World War II in preventing a threat from Europe extending its reach across the Atlantic in a persistent manner. And dismissing the potential threat from Russia this century ignores that Russia would be much more powerful if it can seize or dominate significant portions of Europe's economic, financial, technological, demographic, and military power.

And of course, preventing a threat from growing in Europe includes stopping the proto-imperial and anti-American European Union from stripping away the prefix and dismantling the America-led NATO to eject American influence in Europe. No good for America or European people can come from an EU future.

So yeah, holding Europe is a figurative wall that protects America so the Atlantic isn't our first line of defense. And the farther east we hold the line, the less expensive it is to prevent a threat from rising in Europe. Ukraine is willing to hold that line for their own reasons--independence from an obviously brutal Russia and membership in the free and prosperous West. But they need our help. Our interests coincide for now.

I'd rather extend that line east by getting Russia to join the West. But as long as the Russians are embracing their paranoia, I want Russia as far east as possible.

Washington's advice on foreign policy was very relevant to 18th century America. Not so much, now. But he does have a point. I have no passionate attachment to Ukraine. I don't own or fly a Ukrainian flag. I swear, Democrats own more Ukrainian than American flags. That's unhealthy.

But I do think we must reject Fortress America. It is in our national defense interest to help a willing and competent Ukraine defeat a threat to America before it can grow. Russia is a smaller threat now than in the Cold War. And I'd like to keep it that way. The cost to America is not that great given the alternative.

I guess I'd rather we pay more attention to George Washington's advice on domestic policies.

UPDATE: Sure, NATO doesn't need Ukraine to be a member. Not right now. But NATO certainly needs Ukraine to be free of Russian control. 

Russian control would challenge NATO's ability to hold the eastern line in the south. So if the alternative to Ukraine inside NATO is Russian control of Ukraine, NATO needs Ukraine as a member. 

And if Ukraine in NATO is enough of a whack of the clue bat to get Russia to abandon dreams of empire in the west and pivot to face the real threat to Russia, that would help the West and Russia. 

Also, saying NATO didn't need Ukraine to defeat the USSR in the Cold War requires you to accept that NATO didn't need everything east of the Elbe River, too. But this is no reason for NATO to happily retreat to the Elbe. The cost to win so deep inside Western Europe the first time was astronomical, no? Is that the argument being made? We can all just relax and jack up defense spending to 5 or 6% of GDP again to keep the Russians from advancing a hundred miles to the Rhine River and destroy the West? 

The bottom line is that this argument is just another form of the "Let the Wookie win" genre.

*I found the Friedman article long after I scheduled publication of this. I had to add quotes from it. Now that I schedule posts forward a couple weeks, or so, I often find articles relevant to a post already written. Sometimes I incorporate them. Sometimes I put them in Weekend Data Dump which foreshadows the post.

NOTE: The illustration was generated by DALL-E.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Building a Brigade to be Everything, Everywhere, All at Once?

Army plans to reach its 2040 timeframe of updating how it fights and wins ground campaigns need organizational changes to handle new weapons for new missions across the domains. Multi-Domain Operations is the term of art. Hoo boy. Don't we have other services for other domains?

The Army is looking at its organization: 

The U.S Army plans to spend roughly the next two years finalizing key decisions on what its future formational design will look like in the 2040s, the service’s four-star general in charge of modernization and requirements said at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium last week. ...

"We have a lot of light formations in the Army," [Gen. James Rainey] said. "I believe that we need to increase the lethality and survivability of our light formations." 

I just want the Army to decide between having light and heavy formations rather than trying to build units that are purportedly lethal, survivable, and strategically mobile:

But trying to make units too broadly capable with basic equipment that refuses to be one thing or another risks making them incapable of achieving any mission. This annoys me:

The Army’s Infantry Squad Vehicle has reached first unit equipped status after the service started fielding 59 vehicles to soldiers with the 82nd Airborne Division this week.

One, enjoy deploying them with the parachutists. Sure, mostly the unit will be airlifted. But still, this assumes the Air Force has plenty of airlift for everything the Army wants moved by air. 

Two, why can't the Army make a damn decision about leg infantry or mechanized/motorized divisions? Pick one and stop dicking around with hybrid units with hermaphrodite weapons neither heavy nor light that will fail as leg infantry units and fail as motorized infantry.

I'm dumbfounded. The plan is to add light vehicles to a light airborne unit that the Air Force will never have sufficient lift to carry all at once when needed. So the unit will need to leave its vehicles behind. Or go by sea. So the Infantry Squad Vehicle is a waste if the idea is to airlift them. Which also makes me wonder why the Army thinks the Air Force will deliver light tanks. Why don't we just attach a battalion of tanks for that slow boat ride to the theater?

While we need to retain some light infantry, the best way to increase their lethality and survivability is to convert some of them to medium or heavy units.

And for God's sake, raising my discomfort to the higher level, I don't like twisting joint "purple" warfare into a gray diffused blob of Multi-Domain Operations. Can the Army instead focus on winning its domain before it starts helping other services win their domains? Great synergy can come from that notion.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

Putting the Army Back in the PLA

The People's Liberation Army that was raised from Chinese peasantry has modern offshoots like the PLA Navy and PLA Air Force that have taken the spotlight away from the traditional army component. Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine teaching China that it was a mistake to demote the army too much?

Interesting:

Some Chinese experts have said that Russia’s difficulties marshaling enough infantry troops suggest that China needs to keep its ground forces strong and large, even while it expands those of sea and air. Russia’s experience showed that “a great power must maintain ground forces of a reasonable scale, otherwise it will lose its advantage on the battlefield,” Wu Dahui, a former military researcher now at Tsinghua University in Beijing, wrote this year.

Yeah, I've noticed that.

When I wrote about planning for using the U.S. Army around China's periphery (with a more specific suggestion here), I justified that capability and planning because I did not want to grant China the security of knowing it only had to prepare to fight America's other services.

But I also justified it by noting that with all the American experience in ground warfare that contrary to what one think based on the history of the PLA in bloody ground combat, America's advantage over China might actually be strongest in ground warfare. Large scale combat operations might be the decisive method of inflicting defeat on China should war break out. 

By putting China on the horns of a strategic dilemma with a renewed ground threat, I also figured that China might dissipate its military power enough to be vulnerable at sea and in the air.

Is China going to do that to itself without America building a capability to fight alongside allies on the Asian mainland around China's periphery because of Russia's failure in Ukraine?

And if China reinvigorates its ground forces at the expense of naval and air power, will the Chinese focus inland instead of out to sea to follow its strengths?

I ask that because if they get securely ashore on Taiwan, the current Chinese ground forces are certainly enough to defeat Taiwan's army.

But there's also the elephant in the century of humiliation room, of course.

That would quite honestly be hilarious blowback from Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

China Draws Its Own Lessons From the Winter War of 2022

It seems like China is drawing the lessons it needs to win from the Russian invasion of Ukraine rather than learning that invading Taiwan is futile, as the West insists the lesson is.

China is learning lessons from the Russian invasion of Ukraine to apply to an invasion of Taiwan.

This line of Western thinking is all too common, I'm afraid:

Pentagon officials have said that Russia’s troubled invasion serves as a stark warning to China against risking a war over Taiwan, which lies about 100 miles off its coast.  

But the Russian stumbles in the war are viewed differently by the Chinese:

“The shortcomings that have been exposed in the Russian military’s logistics and supplies should be a focus for us,” said an article in a magazine published by China’s agency for developing major military technology. It said that China had to prepare for similar challenges “when we consider future sea crossings, the seizure of islands” and other hazard-filled operations — an implicit reference to taking Taiwan.

Ultimately, though, studying Russia’s mistakes may bolster China’s conviction that it could prevail in a possible conflict, said foreign experts who study the People’s Liberation Army. China’s official military budget of $225 billion is nearly three times as big as Russia’s, and China’s vast manufacturing and technological capacity means it can produce plenty of advanced drones and other weapons that Russian forces have lacked.

It's a wake-up call to China. And I bet the Chinese figure they can do better than hairy steppe barbarians.

As I've long noted about mil-to-mil exchanges between the Americans and Chinese, I don't think the Chinese are learning what we are teaching:

We are officially in favor of these missions because we believe that if the Chinese see how powerful we are, they won't try to fight us.

This is a crock. The Chinese know we are technically more advanced. What they think is that we are too pampered to fight them. And seeing our nice barracks and PXs with Chanel No. 5 won't convince them that we are hard warriors able to absorb high casualties. Seeing our military up close will simply give them insights into fighting us or at least cause them to believe that they have insights into fighting us[.]

And if Russia ends up controlling some of the Ukrainian territory it conquered in this current war, the Chinese will have learned the most important lesson of all. And as I noted in a related post, keeping any type of bridgehead on Taiwan after a ceasefire could cripple Taiwan:

Consider that Russia's 2022 invasion was Russia's third invasion of Ukraine. Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and captured territory in the Donbas in 2014 and 2015 which were used to build staging areas for the 2022 invasion. You might say that Russia's mobilization and preparation for a second Big Push in early 2023 is the fourth invasion.

That's what China would do even if it took years to carry out. And Taiwan does not have the depth of Ukraine to absorb territorial losses without losing the ability to effectively resist. That's the most important lesson that Taiwan can learn from Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I have no doubt China will pick up on that lesson, too.

Class dismissed.

Still, who knows what accurate lessons will actually reach the Chinese Communist Party's top leadership?

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.

The Winter War of 2022 Gets Its Second Spring

In the spring of 2022, Russia faltered and had to transition from a failed parade into Ukraine's cities into a firepower-heavy frontal assault that clawed forward at high cost on the Donbas front. This spring, Ukraine seeks to turn the tables and drive the Russians back in defeat. 

The long-anticipated big Ukrainian counteroffensive is projected to take place in the spring:

With no suggestion of a negotiated end to the 13 months of fighting between Russia and Ukraine, the Ukrainian defense minister said [in late March] that a spring counteroffensive could begin as soon as April.

Ukraine said it is already conducting operations related to the long-telegraphed offensive:

Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Malyar reported on April 19 that Ukrainian forces are already conducting some counteroffensive actions.

But this isn't news, really, if you accept that the Bahkmut defense is to support the counteroffensive. "Shaping" the battlefield. Although this assessment that Ukrainian forces are on the east bank of the Dnieper River in Kherson province would count:

The extent and intent of these Ukrainian positions remain unclear, as does Ukraine’s ability and willingness to maintain sustained positions in this area. ISW is recoding territory on the east bank of the Dnipro River to Ukrainian-held only now because this is the first time ISW has observed reliable geolocated imagery of Ukrainian positions on the east bank along with multi-sourced Russian reports of an enduring Ukrainian presence there.

I assume the big push timing depends on the drying of mud as much as bringing newly trained and equipped units online. Losing scarce Western armored fighting vehicles to mud would be a catastrophe.

Ukraine has been preparing a core force of three corps for their spring counteroffensive: 

According to The Economist, each will have six frontline combat brigades, some outfitted with newly received Western armored vehicles, that may be employed for its Spring counter-offensive. The six maneuver brigades will doubtlessly be complemented by supporting brigades or battalions of artillery, air defense, combat engineers, and so forth under the control of the Corps HQs.

These may be similar to Chinese Group Armies. The Ukrainian corps are either very large divisions or small corps, in Western usage. 

Do these units have sufficient air defense assets to blunt Russian air power if Russia commits planes to attack the Ukrainian units counter-attacking? 

I remain wary of being too hopeful. But there are grounds for hope as Western countries train Ukrainian troops in contrast to what Russia's mobilized men received before being thrown against Ukrainian defenders:

Ukraine currently has larger ground forces than Russia and keeps it that way by having their troops undergo more training than their Russian counterparts. This was the case during the August 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensive and will be even more so for the upcoming summer 2023 offensive.

Do read it all. Ukraine has limitations. But the Russians are worse. 

Ukraine needs to achieve a lot. Or at least begin the job of achieving a lot. I've worried that if Ukraine doesn't strike back that the Russians will eventually mobilize to leverage their larger size. The Ukrainians recognize the problem:

Hromov noted that Ukraine and its allies must not underestimate Russian force generation capabilities in the long run for a protracted war of attrition. ISW has previously warned that the US and NATO should not underestimate Russian capabilities in the long run, as Russia can regenerate by leveraging its population and defense industrial base (DIB) to threaten Ukraine and NATO if Russian President Vladimir Putin decides to fundamentally change Russia’s strategic resource allocation over the long run.

I warned about this nearly six months ago:

In the short run, Ukraine has the edge--if it can carry out a major offensive. In the long run, Russia may regain the edge if its ground forces don't crack under the pressure of casualties, poor morale, and battlefield defeats. I don't know how long the short run lasts.

The Russians have not yet taken steps to mobilize. But if they do take those steps, they might yet overwhelm Ukraine with mass. Especially if the West tires of supporting Ukraine.

Unless delaying mobilization for so long proves to be fatal to mobilization. Would Russian battlefield casualties break their army or break their population's willingness to send even more men to die in even larger numbers?

UPDATE (Monday): ISW judges that Russia's defenses are vulnerable to a Ukrainian counteroffensive if certain assumptions about Ukraine's capabilities are correct.

ISW confirms my obvious observation that the southern front Russian troops are more rested than those further east that have been continuing offensive operations.

As I've argued, I'd rather have a southern front offensive than an eastern front offensive. The former offers more important territorial objectives and is farther from Russian supply sources; but the Russian troops are not as damaged. The latter front has more damaged Russian units but is much closer to Russian supply and reinforcement sources.

And this bolsters my pondering about how Ukrainian forces on the Kherson front might take part in a southern offensive as either a supporting or even a main effort:

The Russian grouping in Kherson Oblast is likely the most disorganized and undermanned in the entire theater.

Ukraine has to judge which area offers a better chance of a battlefield victory to keep the West on board supplying Ukraine.

As I've noted, there's a lot riding on the Ukrainian counteroffensive:

The Biden administration is quietly preparing for the possibility that if Ukraine’s spring counteroffensive falls short of expectations, critics at home and allies abroad will argue that America has come up short, too.

I wonder if the Biden administration is secretly hoping it will fail to give it an excuse to scale back military support for Ukraine and engineer a limited Russian victory with a premature ceasefire. As if that's a wise middle course between ramping up weapons to win or cutting off Ukraine and letting Russia conquer Ukraine.

As I've noted, I think Biden is only accidentally backing Ukraine after falsely believing a couple billion dollars in infantry weapons before Russia quickly overran Ukraine would be a cheap show of resolve.

UPDATE (Tuesday): Are the Ukrainians pushing the Russians back from the Dnieper River on the Kherson front?

Spokesperson for the Ukrainian Southern Operational Forces Nataliya Humenyuk stated that Ukrainian forces hit and destroyed Russian artillery systems, tanks, armored vehicles, and air defense systems. Humenyuk added that Ukrainian forces are working to clear the frontline on the east bank in a “counter-battery mode.”

Back in November I speculated that if Ukraine couldn't bounce the river as the Russians retreated, Ukraine could use artillery fire to push the Russians back from holding the river line. If successful, Ukraine would gain some room to throw troops across the river:

I've been pondering limited amphibious and air mobile operations to pry the Russians loose from the river line.

But if Ukrainian fires can keep the Russian back, Ukraine has river-crossing options. If bridges can be built, repaired, and defended to let heavy forces cross and establish supply lines.

Reports would put that sequence at the very beginning, with Ukrainian light forces across the river as earlier reports stated. Unless that sequence is completed, this front will be limited to a supporting effort in the counteroffensive.

UPDATE (Wednesday): Interesting discussion: 

Opposed advance rates are very much influenced by 1) terrain, 2) weather and 3) the degree of mechanization and mobilization, in addition to 4) the degree of enemy opposition. These four factors all influence what the rates will be.

On the fourth point, I assume the relative lack of density of forces inside Ukraine should increase the rate of advance. But other factors could work to decrease the rate, of course.

UPDATE (Thursday): After 11 months of defense, Bakhmut is close to falling. That will apparently be enough for Putin to claim a victory. 

UPDATE (Friday): I worry that one day one of these command reshuffles will put competent people in charge:

The Russian military command appears to be reshuffling the leadership of command organs associated with force generation, sustainment, and logistics.

UPDATE (Saturday): Yeah, I suspect Ukrainian movements on the Kherson front are basically a diversion. The Dnieper River is wide and requires air defenses and hefty bridge-building to send and support a major force across it. 

When I hoped for an offensive there I assumed a "Remagen Bridge"-type advance would be necessary. Now it is more likely to be a supporting front when (if?) the main front starts pushing the Russians back. Unless the Ukrainians have the bridging and air defense capabilities necessary. That would be a big surprise.

NOTE: ISW coverage of the war continues here.