China passes the US

The most important, powerful, and effective weapon in the US arsenal is a fifty year old plane firing seventy year old cannons scoured from museums and looted from ancient forgotten overseas arms depots.

Some people may say that the most important, powerful, and effective weapon in the US arsenal is nukes, but after all these years, who knows if they work any more? We can no longer make tritium, we can no longer make Pu238, why should nukes have fared better?

Russia has been called a gas station masquerading as a country, because total GDP is very low, and per capita GDP unimpressive.  Its civilian technology is not especially impressive, but it produces military technology that is as good as the US at a considerably lower price, and is hoping to soon surpass the US in ways that will deny the sea and the air to the US.

China’s total GDP has passed the US, though the US official statistics are in denial.  Per capita GDP remains well below that of the US, but the gap is rapidly shrinking, with increasing numbers of westerners seeking Chinese jobs.  Technologically, China has focused on buying, stealing, and copying US civilian technology and Russian military technology.  But in civilian technology, the pupil has surpassed the master.  All Chinese CPUs are based on the Arm design that they purchased from the US long ago, but they are now improving on this design in ways that arguably leave the US behind.   They are at least equal in CPU design and fabbing, arguably superior.  They are still copying, but are less reliant on copying.

Meanwhile US academia focuses on combating masculinity and raising female self esteem by showering them with unearned credentials.

Tags: , ,

225 Responses to “China passes the US”

  1. […] China passes the US […]

  2. Frederick Algernon says:

    Jim, could you clarify which jet you are speaking of? Also, are you asserting that the US weapons manufacturing complex cannot make Pu238 anymore, or that they were never able to and the nuclear weapons testing era was a fabrication in terms of substances used (obviously the tests occurred)?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Production
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238#Production

    • Severian says:

      “Jim, could you clarify which jet you are speaking of?”

      F-16 I would guess.

      • pdimov says:

        AC-130?

        • jim says:

          Yes. They are scouring the world for ancient cannons as the existing cannons on the A130 wear out.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            If one is willing to drop stacks Bofors has been making the new L/70 model 40mm and 57mm automatic cannons for a while now that would work great in a gunship.

            The shell for the new 40mm is larger than the one for the L/60 model, which would mean buying more ammo instead of using ww2 era stockpiles, which would also bring up again a willingness (ability) to drop stacks.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              ‘shell’=>complete round

            • jim says:

              Those who need close air support to stay alive prefer seventy year old Bofors cannon, and indeed insist rather firmly on using those museum pieces.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                Procurement types have kept wanting to replace the bofors guns with 30mm bushmasters, like in the ‘latest’ AC-130J model.

                This always struck me as wrong-headed and a side-grade at best though; ‘medium bore’ canons in the 1.5 to 3 inch range (37-76mm) occupy a sort of ‘sweet spot’ in terms of combinations of range, rate of fire, and bursting charge or armour penetration, that lends a versatility and effective applicability to many different use-cases.

                The 4 inch/105mm howitzer has a much larger bursting charge, but lacks the rate of fire to saturate an area and keep it saturated.

                20mm vulcans have a much higher rate of fire, but lack the bursting charge to turn near misses into sure kills. Also, lesser range means the envelop you can ably cover is reduced (and or that you must expose yourself to return fire from the ground).

                In the hypothetical scenario that you and your crew were defending a hill in Korea from hordes of chicom conscripts, a weapon system like the bofors gun would be exactly the sort of thing you’d like to have (incidentally, the 40mm mk 19 automatic grenade launcher was originally designed with exactly this sort of scenario in mind).

                In a case where you and your crew are defending a wadi passing through ridges in the desert from durkas riding in a fleet of toyota technicals, a weapon system like the bofors gun would *also* be exactly the sort of thing you’d like to have.

                If you’re the guy who’s *making* those technicals, then of course *once again*, something that would let you engage footmobiles, or vehicles, or snooping helicopters all at once would be a great thing to load on your truckbed.

                It’s a question min-maxing and sometimes a small sacrifice in one parameter can greatly increase effectiveness in another (pertinent to the desired application). Researchers in Germany during the second war of tranzi aggression for example, found that while it took about 15-20 hits from the fighter’s 20mm cannons to down a 4 engine bomber, it took only 3-4 hits from the 30mm cannons, thanks to their geometrically greater bursting charge, which crested vital tipping points in target effects (the MK 108 cannons with minegeschoss shells were basically flying rapid fire grenade launchers, designed around maximizing ‘throw weight’ from a lightweight delivery system [number of rounds times mass of rounds {or even more particularly, their payload}]).

                Throughout the war trends in AAA development reflected a need for weapon systems that stretched range as long as possible while also able to deliver a constant stream of automatic fires; from 20mm flak 38s and 37mm flak 36/37s at the start of the war, to devices like the 50mm flak 41 investigated to address engagement gaps where existing smaller diameter weapons would fall short on the slant angle to planes flying around ranges and/or altitudes beyond them, yet still too close for larger 88 and 128mm guns to be quickly and easily laid upon using fire directors, ultimately culminating in the 55mm Gerat 58.

                Similar dynamics were also observed on the Anglo side; statistical analysis by the US Naval War College found that of all planes downed by anti aircraft fire in the pacific theater, roughly 25% were downed by the 5 inch dual-purpose guns, 25% were downed by the 20mm Oerlikons… and a whole 50% were downed by the 40mm Bofors. Experience with kamikaze plane attacks ultimately culminated in the development of the 3 inch 70 caliber mark 26 gun. Which, with a rate of fire of 100 rpm and a 15 pound shell, had a throw weight of over 1500 pounds per minute, over an envelope of roughly 17,800 meters by 11,500 meters; compared with the roughly 1100 ppm throw weight of the 5 inch 38 caliber mark 12, at a rate of 20 rpm with a 55 pound shell, over a 15,900 by 11,880 meter envelope.

                Alas, a finely designed weapon system doomed to procurement hell thanks to a then burgeoning institutional fascination of replacing everything with very expensive guided missiles of questionably effective technological maturity.

                Which goes on to highlight one of the more interesting factoids picked up in my favorite hobby of researching anything and everything; the single most effective anti aircraft system in the cold war, in terms of combat aircraft downed, was not the SA-2, or the Stinger, or even any other surface to air missile, but in fact the AZP S-60 57mm AAA (which, incidentally, was based heavily on examples of the German 55mm Gerat 58 captured after the war). In particular, it was the favored weapon of the north vietnamese army in defending air space from American CAS, who fielded them in great numbers and appreciated their ability to be maneuvered through the jungle more easily than larger systems.

                Both Oerlikon and Bofors, in assessing trends in increasing speeds of jet aircraft in the after-war period (and potential cruise missile threats), decided that the key metric to design around was fires on target, or rather, in how many rounds a system can put on a target during the time in which it is within the engagement envelope. The obvious way of doing this is through increasing rate of fire, but it is also increased through increases in range, effectively, the time in which the target is within the engagement envelope under fire, or through some combination of both. The velocity and ballistic efficiency (velocity retention over distance) of the round itself is also a factor, particularly as the speeds of the target increase, where even small reductions in time to target translate into big reductions in leading angle, which both simplifies calculation, and gives larger windows of opportunity before a target must be detected and when the system may be able to put down a spread of rounds that will intercept the target, and how long that spread may be.

                Oerlikon opted to lean more towards rate of fire, producing the 35mm/1.4 inch 90 caliber GDF, with a 550 rpm and 4,000 meter slant envelope. Bofors meanwhile opted to both build on their strengths and lean more towards increased range (and also proximity fuses, thanks to larger round diameters for ‘special effects’ munitions), producing the 57mm/6 pounder 70 caliber Mark 1, with a 200-220 rpm and 17,000 by 8,500 meter envelope, and also a redeveloped version of the L/60 40mm Bofors, with a larger cartridge case and longer 70 caliber barrel for higher velocity, and a 330 rpm rate of fire, in a 12,500 by (approximately) 7,500-8,000 meter envelope.

                The Phalanx CIWS, based around the 20mm vulcan, is in many ways basically a reprisal (or perhaps, a regression) of this same sort of development track, applied to what is essentially the same sort of problem. Perhaps it is true when they say, institutions have poor memory?

      • Hodr says:

        Not the A10?

      • jim says:

        The AC-130, which was firing seventy year old cannons looted from an old forgotten Italian arms depot.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Please explain to me how the AC-130 is a more “important, powerful, and effective weapon” than the

          1. Minuteman ballistic missile

          2. Ohio class submarine

          3. Virginia class submarine

          4. F22

          • ilkarnal says:

            Minutemen missiles aren’t remotely the focus of the nuclear forces at this point. Heavily downgraded. The crown jewel is Trident.

            F-22 does not belong in that list, even remotely.

          • jim says:

            The nuclear submarines are useful only in a second strike situation, where the US has been annihilated, and is determined to take its enemies to down with it.

            An air superiority fighter only useful in attaining air superiority, so that you can prevent the other guy from using something like the AC-130.

            Against soldiers, tanks and artillery, the F-22 is not nearly as effective as the AC-130.

            Soldiers are to take control of or destroy men and assets. Tanks, artillery, mortars and Armored Personnel carriers are to destroy soldiers. Ground attack planes and helicopters are to destroy soldiers, tanks and armored personnel carriers, and air to air fighters are to destroy ground attack planes, and other air to air fighters.

            The AC-130 is a devastatingly effective ground attack plane, provided it is equipped with seventy year old cannons.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              An AC-130 is a nice weapon when other weapons already made the operating environment so permissive that the enemy really has nothing already anyway.

              Complaining AC-130s are being kludged together from whatever was lying around is ridiculous since that’s what the AC-130 was from day 1. It’s a cargo plane with a load of guns haphazardly stuck on it.

            • ilkarnal says:

              AC-130 is a very big, slow target for air defenses. Of course, air defense elements are also big, slow targets for the AC-130. But remember that the one who shoots first tends to win, and the AC-130 is higher signature than a ground vehicle. Along with planes as a category, the AC-130 is a helpmate to ground forces. Your hierarchy is inverted. Planes do not counter ground forces – ground forces counter planes. In real time strategy game terms, planes are not air units, they are spellcasters: extremely expensive and fragile units that can be worth many times their price in the right situation, but almost impotent alone.

              If the enemy you’re attacking is equipped with Tunguska/Pantsir/Tor, ground attack aircraft will not trade cost-efficiently. They will be EXTREMELY efficient is the context where ground forces are already clashing, where a change in the force ratio is extremely decisive even if it comes from cost-inefficient units. In this case their extreme speed is worth the price.

              But in other contexts, the compromises you need to make in order to get something to fly are not worth it. Vastly more firepower and survivability can be bought for each dollar in ground vehicles.

              Keep in mind that planes aren’t just vulnerable when they are flying. They are more temperamental and have greater supply, maintenance, and infrastructure requirements. These requirements lead to their operating bases being very high signature.

              In the Syrian theatre Russia can bring to bear Kalibr, Iskander, and Bastion-P, all effective at long range ground attack. Perhaps you remember me talking about the limitations, but extreme durability of long range missile CONOPs in a comment here a while back. Airbases are a golden target for these devices. There is a reason why arms control treaties focus on cruise and ballistic missiles, and not aircraft – cruise and ballistic missiles are much harder to deal with, and might ultimately doom the whole concept of large groups of very expensive aircraft operating constantly in contested space.

              The correct response to this threat and the threat of air defenses is to go small and go cheap. The fighter mafia types tried to push for a ground attack aircraft that was like the A-10 but smaller, much cheaper, and capable of operating from very short improvised runways. This is the way that I believe air forces and naval forces must move in order to avoid being totally obsolete in the face of growing capabilities on the ground. Go small, go cheap, go for big numbers and operational flexibility.

              • jim says:

                When groups of soldiers fight groups of soldiers, they necessarily use cover. Cover is no good against air vehicles. Thus air power has an overwhelming and decisive advantage over ground power.

            • pdimov says:

              >It’s a cargo plane with a load of guns haphazardly stuck on it.

              The fact remains that it’s still best for its job, despite continuous attempts to kill/replace it (latest such being F-35).

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Yes, it’s the best for its job, its job being defined as whatever it is best at.

                The most important weapons are those without which others cannot function, or the nation cannot survive. The AC-130 is close to the bottom of the list. It’s almost a police weapon.

                • jim says:

                  Nonsense.

                  The primary job of the AC-130 is annihilating large groups of soldiers, tanks, and artillery. Which it does better than any modern plane. It is not intended to take out individual soldiers, or even small groups of soldiers, let alone individual criminals.

                  The only reason to have a fighter plane is to take out planes like the AC-130. If the enemy does not have planes like the AC-130, what use is a fighter plane?

                  If the AC-130 is unimportant, then the entire rest of the airforce is even lest important.

                  Power comes from soldiers on the ground. Every other weapon only matters in its effect on soldiers on the ground.

                  The navy matters so that you can transport soldiers and prevent other people from transporting soldiers, the airforce only matters to the extent that it can kill soldiers.

                • Alrenous says:

                  An AC-130 costs about $100 million, a stinger missile less than $50k. The AC-130 has to fly into range of the stinger to get work done. Same problem tanks have with bazookas. So yeah I’ma go with the air force is unimportant. Manned air force, anyway.

                  A few guys on quads with MPADS slung across the back locks down any sort of close air support. If you try to use high fast air support then it ends up being super-expensive artillery, especially with the ludicrous ranges modern artillery can manage. Sure, have a few planes around in case your artillery gets caught out of position, but that’s less than half a dozen units per theatre. A bit less than 2000 total. Just a tad.

                  You can still hit factories and such with bombers. Oooor you can use drones and cruise missiles. Overwhelm air defences with risky piloting or simple numbers. Losing cheap drones with no expensive pilot inside is no problem.

                  The American military has a problem: it’s mainly a jobs program, and now it has all these jet jockeys whose skills are obsolete.

                • Q says:

                  >An AC-130 costs about $100 million, a stinger missile less than $50k. The AC-130 has to fly into range of the stinger to get work done. Same problem tanks have with bazookas. So yeah [I’m going to] go with the air force is unimportant. Manned air force, anyway.

                  The AC-130 can fly above the range of the stinger. A newly designed platform would be designed to fly even higher. Yes, it would likely be designed to be unmanned. Human pilots are legacy hardware.

                  >A few guys on quads with MPADS slung across the back locks down any sort of close air support. If you try to use high fast air support then it ends up being super-expensive artillery

                  That’s why you use low-altitude, fast air support or slow, very high-altitude air support. The A-10 needs a replacement, probably human-piloted, and there need to be thousands of smallish VTOL-capable unmanned long-endurance craft flying very, very high and more cost-effective to produce than the most cost-effective missile capable of shooting them down.

                  >The American military has a problem: it’s mainly a jobs program, and now it has all these jet jockeys whose skills are obsolete.

                  Top Gun was 32 years ago. Really top-rate talent hasn’t gone into the jockeying of jets for at least two decades. That movie was a siren song.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Any opponents with “large groups of… tanks and artillery”, of any half-way competitive form in the first place, will not be opponents against which you can operate an overloaded cargo plane within visual distance of the bulk of its armies.

                  The AC130 is a nightstick for states. It’s for beating the shit out of the military equivalent of defenceless drunks.

                • jim says:

                  The AC-130 recently took out a large group with artillery in Syria.

                  The gimmick is that you engage the enemy at maximum range, flying in a circle around them. The AC-130 can wipe out the men carrying man portable anti air missiles while staying outside their effective range.

                  The effective range of the Bofors cannon is seven kilometers. The effective range of the Stinger is five kilometers.

                  Further, the stinger is designed to fly up a planes tailpipe. A low flying plane goes overhead, and you launch the stinger to follow it. Does not do so well when the plane is front or side on. The design intent is to ambush planes from the ground, not to defend against attacking planes.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Of course the AC-130 can fly above the stinger. When it’s that high it can’t hit anything, and can barely even see anything. Sure you can give it (or something similar) weapons and sensors to deal with that, but it’s no longer close air support. It’s expensive artillery, since the ‘sensor’ is in practice a dude on the ground with a laser pointer.

                  In any case, anything slow in the air gets missiled. Instead of spending ~$200k launching a few stingers, you spend $2mil on an AMRAAM. After the plane is optimized for high altitude and fitted with all these sensors and targetting assists, the defender may even end up ahead on the AMRAAM trade.

                  Things that are low and fast are, again, expensive artillery. It can’t see what it’s trying to hit – because otherwise it gets hit – so we’re back to dudes with laser pointers.

                • Q says:

                  >When it’s that high it can’t hit anything, and can barely even see anything.

                  Camera technology is advancing at an astonishing rate, and this was five years ago now.

                  >In any case, anything slow in the air gets missiled. Instead of spending ~$200k launching a few stingers, you spend $2mil on an AMRAAM. After the plane is optimized for high altitude and fitted with all these sensors and targetting assists, the defender may even end up ahead on the AMRAAM trade.

                  Yes, that’s why the key is to have a larger number of cheap drones running on borderline-consumer technology than the other guy has military-grade missiles. Mass-produce the thing and drive the cost way down. And don’t bother trying to tell me that it should be way more expensive to produce a drone than a rocket.

                  If you can devise a neat little anti-missile missile to intercept an object traveling at Mach 4, you can trade one drone for two or three or four missiles, but I don’t know if that’s possible. It’s probably possible to laser it down. Could a comprehensive system of ground-based lasers reliably gun down small aircraft flying at 60,000 feet? That’s an interesting question.

                  >Things that are low and fast are, again, expensive artillery. It can’t see what it’s trying to hit

                  Think outside the box, dude. Make a bunch of cheap VTOL drones, short range, pretty fast, electric powertrain probably, armed with explosives. It zooms to the target area, pauses for a few seconds, a Mormon in Utah identifies the target, and in it swoops for the kill. Initially you probably just discard the drone, as the materials cost for a one-use, no-maintenance-needed electric device is just not that high. Maybe later you decide you want to recover the thing. Whatever. Now, knowing the military-industrial complex, they’ll probably find a way to make [name a tech] 100 or 1,000 times more expensive than it has any right to be, but it’s totally feasible in principle.

                • pdimov says:

                  If you go mass drones, the enemy will think outside the box too. The most obvious target is the Utah-battlefield comm channel.

                • Q says:

                  So have the drones seek and destroy the Elonet signal jammers before they go after the desired targets. Big whoop.

                  I think it’s pretty creative to have vast swarms of killer drones like there are vast swarms of birds or locusts. Mass production at low cost is much harder than you might think, especially for morbidly bloated government contractors, but in the age of drone wars it is going to be as decisive as industrial logistics was in WWII.

                  $15 million per unit Reapers and Avengers are exactly everything that isn’t necessary and nothing that is.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, a short range killer drone should not cost substantially more than an iphone, and a longer range killer drone, which mothers a swarm of short range killer drones, should not cost substantially more than a truck.

                • pdimov says:

                  >So have the drones seek and destroy the Elonet signal jammers

                  There’s also the option of physically attacking the link, not jamming it.

                  >vast swarms of killer drones

                  EMP needs to be looked into.

                  I’m not sure that this route leads to somewhere we want to be, but who knows. We’ll see.

            • peppermint says:

              What kills air defense trucks is tanks. The jwest is incapable of invading Russia without overwhelming air support which won’t be there. Instead, Russian twitter bots could probably incite a race war inside immivaded countries. Jim’s point about the particular attack airplane is that the cannon is hard to buy. 20 years ago people insisted that we could build more Saturn V’s but wanted shuttles that blow up instead.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              The most directly impactful investments in martial techne right now are systems that can track small fast moving objects, and direct fires onto small fast moving objects.

              Small, fast moving objects such as rockets, artillery shells, or mortar bombs.

              A gunship that can fly above high volume automatic fires, and shoot down anything bigger than can reach it, represents an asymmetry in engagement envelopes. And you know, the man on the mountain has a range advantage over the man sitting in the valley.

              Much the same, for launching fires at another plane while interdicting return fires.

              Tactical excellence lies in the exploitation of engagement envelopes. In simplest terms, coming up with ways to be able to hurt your target without him being able to hurt you back.

              When it is very easy for soldiers to kill each other, commanders will tend to be cautious and prefer to stay at home. When there are better methods of preventing harm, when avatars of mars can dip their toes or get ‘stuck in’ without the fear of certain and inevitable (mutual) casualties at any exposure, open combat operations start looking more and more attractive; less like something ‘unthinkable’ and more like just another option in the strategy playbook.

              With the machinegun, it became very easy to kill soldiers. Therefore, warfare bogged down.

              With the magic of petrol, it became possible to roll through or fly over machine guns; suddenly it became very hard to kill soldiers. Therefore, warfare opened up, and round two of the definitely final war of all wars commenced very quickly thereafter.

              With the development of guidance and fire control technology, suddenly it became very easy to kill soldiers again. Therefore, warfare bogged down, has been bogged down heretofore.

              With *further* development of fire control technology, it will become easy to kill most long range guided weapons. Hence, suddenly it will become very hard to kill soldiers again. And hence, open combat operations will start looking more attractive, will start walking into the realms of conceivability, into priestly news debates, policy discussions, and overton windows of our brave new century.

              • peppermint says:

                WWII wouldn’t happen today because it’s impossible to land divisions of Americans, or even English, onto a Europe defended by Nazis. Never mind that, had the Internet existed in the 30s, it would have been impossible to convince Americans and Englishmen to fight the Nazis to begin with. Future weapons ten years out are irrelevant. Either Russia is capable of self defense against the other White countries for the next ten years, after which they are either even more ludicrously incapable of fighting an aggressive war or don’t have any reason to want to fight Russia, or it isn’t, and the White race will perish entirely.

                Hamba kahle Umkhonto weSizwe/ Thina bant’ abamnyama siz’ misele ukuwabulala wona lama Boomer.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  I won’t comment on the likelihood of a global war, but what i am saying is, the factors going will be making ‘send troops in’ starting looking like less of a big risk for any actors with the capabilities, increasingly conscionable against actors with capabilities increasingly beyond the bottom tier turd world shitholes the cathedral has largely remanded itself too, wrt to open displays of might, such as they are.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >I won’t comment on the likelihood of a global war

                  Which is to say, within 10 years? Against Russia specifically?

                  As always, there are interested parties ( ((())) ) that love nothing more than seeing europoid civil wars and encouraging them whenever possible, but… my feeling is less likely than yes, in this instance.

                • jim says:

                  Analysis in terms of racial interests is incorrect, for the same reason as Marxist analysis in terms of class interests is incorrect. Incorrect because coordination is hard, and Jews do not have superpowers of coordination.

                  Rather, the reason that war, internal or external, is likely is that Globalism is a branch of leftism and a form of leftism, and thus is permanent defection and permanent revolution, thus requires ever increasing amounts of money and power for ever more globalists, or else powerful globalists will turn upon each other and turn upon the rest of the left.

                  Any individual globalist is unlikely to want nuclear war, but actions that make nuclear war likely are in his particular interest. Thus, for example, seizing the Ukraine created a risk of war with Russia, but the particular globalists that seized Ukraine got to loot the place. Similarly the “Russia is interfering in US elections” story creates a risk of war with Russia, but is in the interests of the Clintons.

                  With Trump denying the left ever increasing amounts of money and power, we see rising tensions between the Globalist left and the coalition of the fringes left, and within the coalition of the fringes left, we see rising tensions between feminists and racialists, and within the racialist left, rising tensions between Hispanics and blacks, and within Hispanics, rising tensions between legals and illegals.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  To extend it on the earlier point, a war fought within 10 years would be fought with current technology, and with current technology, it’s very easy for soldiers to kill each other, perhaps the easiest it’s been since the first war of tranzi aggression. Hence, very risky and potentially very costly even in successes, hence, reluctant or unwilling commanders.

                  It’s not the only factor at play, but it is *a* factor at play.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  @jim
                  You know im a pretty broad minded guy; im perfectly willing to accept a universe formed from the interface of many different influences permutating (some lesser and some greater).

                  For instance, ship rats transplanted onto a tropical island don’t need to be self-consciously conspiring to not fit in the ecosystems and start trying to eat some exotic rare species into extirpation (unless another noble predator comes along and start eating them first); it’s just something they do.

              • Alrenous says:

                It will never be hard to kill soldiers again unless full-on Star Trek style shields are invented.

                Yes, it may be possible to shoot down individual rounds. This means the attacker will shoot two rounds. It will cost a bit more, that’s all. The defender can get two defending guns you say? Sure, but they need finicky guidance and fast automatic tracking. They’re expensive. Whereas the attacker makes some thermobaric artillery, it will be pretty cheap, and can destroy the defences if they fail even once. Anti-ballistic technology will be very much ‘win more’ for armies which have already overwhelmed their opponent.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  A distinction between a weapon system that can detect and shoot down projectiles and one that can detect and shoot at other weapon systems exists only in the mind.

                  Well designed fighting vehicles will also be their own iron domes.

                  I anticipate guided larger bore artillery shells to become more of a feature of air defense and other applications as well (possibly leading to smoothbore tubes becoming more common, for saboted rocket or scramjet boosted rounds; see also Project HARP).

                • peppermint says:

                  the attacker needs shells large enough to reach the target, the defender needs bullets large enough to reach the shells. Between an airplane and the ground, the airplane has the disadvantage that it needs to carry all its bullets and the defender needs to shoot up. It does protect the aircraft carrier, but not its airplanes.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Yes, indeed.

          • vxxc2014 says:

            @Cromwell,

            Sure here’s the answer: we fight on land not sea.
            We have no challengers at sea.

            That’s why our enemies suck us into land wars.
            The F22 is the only one of your 3 weapons to see combat and it’s rather one sided at that…as we don’t presently have peer challengers in the air. At present.

            The minuteman hopefully still works. See Jim’s concerns. However it’s a strategic nuclear weapon and that’s a one way ticket for civilization.
            We used to say better dead than red – we meant nuclear war.

            People live on the land. The AC-130 flies over the land and kills the people trying to kill us – and it’s Bofors gun is more useful than the 3 weapons you mention.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              ” We have no challengers at sea. ”

              Which is clearly because everyone is just so nice and wants you to rule, rather than because you put great effort into successfully producing unbeatable weapons in unbeatable numbers.

              • peppermint says:

                Geopolitics is not a symmetric game, the us-il-uk axis of evil is interested in offensive weapons against low tech opponents to achieve political goals that often don’t directly translate into this ethnic group should rule this territory or anything coherent. China also wants one carrier to prove that they have a carrier and maybe to intimidate like Obama’s home country or the flips. The UK wants one carrier to prove they have a carrier and to intimidate Argentina.

            • jim says:

              Russia and China are manifestly preparing for war in the air and on the sea.

              Meanwhile our navy has become a floating brothel and a Democratic Party vote bank.

    • gaffer says:

      The F-15 project was initially started about 50 years ago, and has an air to air cannon based on older designs.

  3. RightTrak says:

    I believe Jim is referring to having lost the technology to make Tritium and Pu238. I believe NASA had to buy the nuclear material for the Curiosity Mars Rover’s battery from Russia because of this.

    • Issac says:

      Broke: “China is pulling ahead while the Cathedral purity spirals.”

      Woke: “China owns the Cathedral.”

    • jim says:

      The “New Horizons” spacecraft was launched with a half flat battery because we are flat out of Plutonium 238 and cannot make any more, and as a result its original design mission was curtailed.

      • Severian says:

        They say they have started production again but still too little.

        https://www.space.com/32890-nuclear-fuel-spacecraft-production-plutonium-238.html

        • jim says:

          They keep running into problems. “Started production”, but no actual deliveries of product.

          It is like “Freedom Tower”. They planned to build a bigger and better replacement for the two towers, realized they could not, planned to build a smaller tower with an enclosed radio mast on top, and count the radio mast as part of the tower’s height, could not manage that either – the radio mast they wound up building could not be enclosed, therefore should not have been counted as part of the building’s height, but they just counted it anyway – lied about the height and the number of floors in “Freedom Tower”.

          Similarly tritium. It is all part of the same pattern of technological decline, and lying about technological decline, as “Freedom Tower”.

          • Q says:

            The supertall buildings in Dubai are all built by international firms, some of them based in America. If 9/11 was the overthrow of one American political faction by another, then it would make sense for the new king to humiliate the old king by preventing him from restoring his palace to its former glory. I imagine that no future ruling class will make the mistake of centralizing all its operations in one block in three buildings in one city.

            • jim says:

              The people building these supertall buildings are white male expatriates, with local wives and concubines. They retain white country citizenship, but they have left and are not going back, except for visits to retain resident status.

  4. Q says:

    Seven years ago, China purchased Cirrus, and three months ago, China purchased Diamond, the second- and third-largest manufacturers, respectively, of general aviation aircraft in the world. In the next ten years, if Donald, Jr. does not succeed, China will no doubt come to own the rest. Then a Chinese aerospace company will make an original jetliner, and American aerospace titan Boeing’s gross revenue will drop 60-90%, the portion that came from selling the same aircraft with minor incremental upgrades for then-70+ years.

    • jim says:

      Jetliners will likely follow the same pattern as Arm cpus.

      • Q says:

        >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919
        >The Comac C919 is a narrow-body twinjet airliner developed by Chinese aerospace manufacturer Comac. The programme was launched in 2008 and production of the prototype began in December 2011. It rolled out on 2 November 2015 and first flew on 5 May 2017.

        Three years in design; six years in prototyping; manufacturing three years from now; thirteen years from start to finish. The company itself was formed in 2008.

        Ten years from now they’ll have a supersonic craft in prototyping and a VTOL craft in concept, maybe early design. Boeing doesn’t have a fucking clue what’s about to hit them.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Boeing is probably only the third best placed company to say how dumb building a supersonic aircraft is. But the Chinese might indeed try it.

          • Q says:

            Previous supersonic passenger aircraft sucked because CFD sucked, because available materials sucked, because computer control sucked, and because combustion imposes hard limits on altitude. We are about to enter an age in which a lot of advanced technologies finally come together to form what our grandfathers only dreamed about, and if it isn’t us that make them, it will be the Chinese, and one of those technological lovechildren will be the practical supersonic passenger aircraft.

          • jim says:

            Pretty sure a supersonic aircraft is feasible and economic, if done right. It is only dumb when raising female and black self esteem takes higher priority.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Concorde wasn’t designed by black female HR ladies. And Concorde worked, technologically.

              But an aircraft that is too loud to fly over any land has limited route possibilities. An aircraft too short-ranged to cross the Pacific even more so. Add large R&D costs divided over a small fleet, and fuel costs that grow non-linearly with speed, and you have an expensive alternative to slower aircraft adding dubious value.

              The Chinese might well build one just so that Americans seen the flag painted on the tail when it touches down at LAX.

              • jim says:

                Shanghai to Singapore will still impress.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                A nation does not produce a supersonic passenger liner because it is particularly efficient ( http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/09/speed-energy.html ), but because it is a cool and impressive monument of greatness.

                • Q says:

                  Fuel is a relatively insignificant cost of an airline’s operations. The nature of the technologies associated with the future practical supersonic passenger aircraft will obsolete a tremendous amount of legacy infrastructure and in doing so lower end-consumer ticket prices. Importantly, it will look less like a legacy jetliner (787) and more like the baby of a Sears-Haack body and a V-2.

                • {seudo-chrysostom says:

                  Think chines and lifting bodies.

                • Q says:

                  I tend to think that it will look a bit like this but with much smaller wings and vectoring motors instead of tail control surfaces. One of the biggest problems with supersonic aircraft is that they have to fly in an extremely wide range of speeds, from 150 knots or so (landing) to Mach 1 (600ish knots) and beyond. It would be pretty great if one could design an aircraft to stall at a much higher speed: 500 knots, perhaps, or 1000. An aircraft with sufficient thrust-to-weight to take off vertically could do it.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  A supersonic aircraft that actually works commercial will have a hull designed for noise reduction rather than aerodynamic performance, yet aerodynamic performance needs to be high enough that it can actually reach supersonic speeds 1. with acceptable fuel consumption and 2. with low enough heat load on the leading edges for reasonably priced materials to handle.

                  It’s a tall order. Maybe the Chinese will do it. I doubt the Americans will. But it’s as big a leap as from biplanes to aluminium jets in the first place. Maybe bigger.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t think so. Titanium is reasonably priced, in that we could build the whole thing of titanium, without substantially adding to the price, and titanium can take the heat. You don’t have a heat problem until Mach three or four. Yes, aluminum has trouble at mach two, but stainless steel can handle mach three, and titanium can go a good bit faster than mach three. These are not exotic new materials.

                  And the noise problem just is not that bad. It was an excuse, not a real problem. I saw Mythbusters testing the effect of supersonic booms. The aircraft had to be pretty much on top of them before it was a real problem. At eight thousand feet, hardly noticeable.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Possibly. Commercial aircraft with more idealised low drag forms actually were produced; the Lockheed Constellation for example. They were not reproduced though because it was deemed uneconomical, to produce different sized hull sections for each part of the fuselage rather than one size you can mate all together as needed. In truth energy is the only real cost for anything, so perhaps this was yet another early indicator of malfunctioning social technology reaching breakdown points. (I think there can definitely be something said for the merits of rationalized modular production when a war is going on however)

                  At any rate though, in high performance aircraft, one wants to minimize ‘wasted’ fuselage area whenever possible. Cylindrical or ovoid bodies minimize wave drag… but they also do not really contribute to the planes aerodynamic performance. Most modern military single seat or two seat jets are designed around hulls that also provide portions of the planes lift, for example, which then affords greater leeway in how you may design further lifting surfaces. Usually, in the interests of top speed, this meant making them smaller to reduce frontal area… ironically and ultimately affording even less drag than an ‘idealized’ low drag body with sufficient wings stuck on. In effect, most modern fighters are in fact not too far removed from functionally being flying wing designs. (Charles Zimmerman was a genius and the magic flapjack a miracle of aeronautics)

                  The A-12/SR-71 is a classic case study in this phenomena; the highly chined fuselage was actually originally designed that way because engineers calculated that the geometry would scatter centimetric radiance from russian targeting radars, but in testing found that it would markedly improved the planes flying characteristics.

                  As the blackbird flight manual itself put it:

                  ” The SR-71 has a blended forward wing (chine) which extends from the fuselage nose to the wing leading edge. This chined forebody is approximately 40% of the aircraft length. The chines improve directional stability with increasing angle of attack at all speeds. However, their primary purpose is to provide a substantial portion of the total lift at high supersonic speeds and eliminate a need for canard surfaces or special nose-up trimming devices.

                  A large rearward shift in the aerodynamic center of lift occurs when the aircraft transitions from subsonic to supersonic flight. Without chines, the center of lift would shift aft while in the transonic region and remain between 40% to 45% mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) at all speeds above Mach 1.4. A large elevon deflection would be required for trimming, and the resultant drag would be unacceptable. A similar shift of the aerodynamic center occurs at transonic speeds with chines, but the initial displacement is to a position between 35% to 40% MAC. As Mach increases, the center of lift moves forward until a position slightly aft of 25% MAC is reached at the design speed. The result is that the static stability margin is maintained at desirable levels and trim drag due to elevon position is reduced to a minimum at design speed. The SAS provides satisfactory handling qualities.

                  Automatic fuel tank sequencing shifts the c.g. aft to approximately 25% MAC while the fuel in tank 1 is being reduced to the right-hand shut-off level. This normally occurs during acceleration to supersonic cruise and conforms with the aft shift of the aerodynamic center. ”

                  Many supersonic fighters to day have specially designed chines, or leading edge (wing)root extensions, where the specific aim is to purposefully delaminate the local airflow through an impossible angle of attack, generating vortexes that funnel air onto following lifting surfaces (or strategically placed engine intakes), allowing lift to be generated even when the greater body of the aircraft is moving through the air in ways at angles of attack unfavorable to not stalling. The ultimate development of this is the use of canards in many euro fighters and later model Sukhois, giving rise to what some call ‘super-maneuverability’. In some ways, these designs could also be considered as triplanes, with three areas of major lifting surface, through arranged on a horizontal plane rather than stacked vertically.

                  There have actually been experiments in the use of canards in American planes as well, such as the NASA F-15 STOL/MTD, which realized “impressive performance results”, such as:
                  ” Demonstrated vectored takeoffs with rotation at speeds as low as 42 mph (68 km/h)
                  A 25-percent reduction in takeoff roll
                  Landing on just 1,650 ft (500 m) of runway compared to 7,500 ft (2,300 m) for the standard F-15
                  Thrust reversal in flight to produce rapid deceleration
                  Controlled flight at angles of attack up to about 85 degrees ”

                  Of course, like many other programs later in the cold war that realized significant improvements in capability metrics, nothing ever really came of it.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  A commercially viable supersonic jet liner is probably going to be very aerodynamically non-optimal, because the largest commercial problem is that supersonic jets are too loud to operate over anywhere people live. It will need some weird shape optimised for noise reduction. But that makes the fuel and materials problems much worse. So here we are.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “I saw Mythbusters testing the effect of supersonic booms.”

                  Well, members of my family used to live under the flight path and reported that it made the windows shake.

                • Q says:

                  >Well, members of my family used to live under the flight path and reported that it made the windows shake.

                  Under the flight path of a 70s-era technology? You know what else was hot in the 70s? Bell-bottom pants and color television.

                • Q says:

                  >Of course, like many other programs later in the cold war that realized significant improvements in capability metrics, nothing ever really came of it.

                  Very interesting nevertheless.

              • pdimov says:

                It made sense when London was Europe and New York was America.

            • Dave says:

              For less than the price of a cramped seat on the Concorde, you can now cross the Pacific in a cozy mini-suite with a privacy curtain, delicious food and drink, Internet access, and a seat that folds flat into a comfortable bed. What can’t a business traveler do on a plane that he could do in a hotel? Order a hooker?

        • pdimov says:

          I wonder how many foreigners work on the C919.

          • Q says:

            >On 24 March 2011, Comac and the Canadian company Bombardier Inc. signed a framework agreement for a long-term strategic cooperation on commercial aircraft. The intention is to break the near-duopoly of Airbus and Boeing.

            >In May 2017, Bombardier and Comac began holding talks about an investment into Bombardier’s passenger jet business.

            >On 23 September 2015, Boeing announced plans to build a Boeing 737 completion and finishing plant in China.[14] The facility will be used to paint exteriors and install interiors into airframes built in the United States.[15] The joint-venture plant will be located in Zhoushan, Zhejiang.[16]

            >In June 2011 COMAC and Irish low-cost airline Ryanair signed an agreement to cooperate on the development of the C919, a 200-seat single-aisle aircraft which will compete with the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320.[17]

            >China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Co. Ltd. (CRAIC), a joint venture company invested by COMAC and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) responsible for the development of wide-body commercial jet was established in Shanghai on 22 May 2017. Research and development for the new plane will be conducted in Moscow, and will be assembled in Shanghai.[18]

            Lots. Why reinvent the wheel when you can hire the people who invented it to teach you every little detail?

  5. Oliver Cromwell says:

    >”Russia has been called a gas station masquerading as a country, because total GDP is very low, and per capita GDP unimpressive. Its civilian technology is not especially impressive, but it produces military technology that is as good as the US at a considerably lower price, and is hoping to soon surpass the US in ways that will deny the sea and the air to the US.”

    Not sure what that is based on. My information is saying that Russia is trying to produce what the Soviet Union intended to have as state of the art in 1995 or 2000, and only partially succeeding.

    Its efforts seem considerably worse than what Germany, France, or the UK would have achieved if they had been spending 4-5% of GDP on the military rather than 1-2%.

    • peppermint says:

      thats probably true in 2008

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships

        Since 2008 the only remotely competitive vessels they’ve commissioned are a submarine they laid down in 1993 and spent 26 years building, and three new SSBNs. With the youngest legacy SSBN now 27 years old, that’s the bare minimum necessary to keep the show on the road at all.

        The SLBM it fires has a 50% failure rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava

        They’re struggling to maintain sovereignty at all. They are succeeding, but barely, and only with great effort.

        • jim says:

          You are still thinking in terms of battleships. The time of battleships ended when the British sank the Bismark. The British used an aircraft carrier fielding biplanes to torpedo it, and then when, the Bismark was disabled by air to sea launched torpedoes, they sank it with small, not particularly competitive ships.

          What matters is not the ships, but the ship to ship missiles. With hypersonic end guided evasively maneuvering ship to ship missile, a tramp freighter carrying hypersonic ship to ship missiles will be more than competitive.

          The Bismark’s guns outranged every other ship afloat, and its speed was faster than any other ship afloat, so it could stand out of range, and sink any other battleship on the seas.

          Its anti aircraft guns meant that no plane could bomb it. Sounds invulnerable.

          The biplanes launched air to sea torpedoes from outside the range of its anti aircraft guns. Since the torpedoes were unguided, this meant that most of them missed. But not all of them missed. And when one hit, the Bismark was so severely damaged that it could no longer steer properly or travel fast, which meant that regular ships could swarm it to finish it off.

          And thereafter, only airports and aircraft carriers mattered.

          It is unclear whether aircraft carriers still matter. If the hypersonic maneuverable end guided anti ship missile works, aircraft carriers will not matter.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Bismarck was just an average battleship of its time, sunk by two other battleships, one of which was clearly superior in every respect but speed, with more and larger guns.

            Maybe surface ships with hypersonic missiles are the battleships of today. OK – how do they deal with the curvature of the earth? If they don’t, how do they engage any ship further than about 20km away?

            The USA deals with the curvature of the earth by putting missiles on aircraft, and they tend to be subsonic because hypersonic missiles are really heavy. The USA had hypersonic missiles it put on aircraft in the 1950s, but they tended to be very large aircraft that could not be launched from aircraft carriers.

            Another way to deal with the curvature of the earth is to dramatically reduce your enemy’s ability to detect you, so that you can actually get close: the submarine.

            Russia has a single, semi-functional carrier from the USSR time. It has a large number of semi-functional attack submarines from the USSR time, and one new one, that it seems to have only just barely been able to build.

            The most important military ability of any state is to respond to a nuclear first strike with a nuclear retaliation. The ballistic missile submarine is the best tool for doing this. Russia has built three new ballistic missile submarines, which is about the minimum they have needed to build to replace the Soviet ones becoming non-functional due to age.

            This suggests that the Russians have been focusing their resources on the most important weapon systems, and succeeded in producing them, but have few resources left over for anything else.

            • jim says:

              I notice that Google maps satellite photos are sufficiently clear and detailed that big signs can be read from space.

              Russia is a space capable nation, and has the usual swarm of spy satellites. Which likely have at least Google maps resolution, and probably a good deal better.

              Further, the proposed hypersonic missile has end guidance, so you just launch it in the general direction of the enemy aircraft carrier, and once it’s coming down on the target area, it figures out where to hit.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                I think you know full well that Google Maps is neither updated in real time, nor for the most part made up of satellite images. Except at the lowest zoom levels, Google Maps is a collection of photographs taken from aircraft, at multi-year intervals.

                The Soviets actually tried to build a space-based active radar grid, though they could not complete it before the collapse even with their resources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A

                Russia doesn’t have such a system, nor does it seem like they can create one any time soon.

                It’s also just plain not that great a solution, being both very expensive and very vulnerable what with no ability to hide and totally deterministic orbits. It’s neither an asymmetric threat, nor necessarily even a particularly capable one.

                • jim says:

                  Maybe the US could create the capability to take out Russian spy satellites.

                  But this is another boast of about all the wonderful high tech we could do if we wanted to, but we are somehow supposedly so secure in our masculinity that we don’t want to.

                  It does not seem that it would be very hard to deny space to our enemies – except that for some time NASA was relying on Russian rockets to get into space. We would have to militarize Elon Musk. Recall the photo of the recent heavy rocket launch by Musk. All white nerd males. Obviously if we militarize Musk, that is all going to go. They will be deemed toxicly masculine, accused of hitting on women above their station, etc.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Well it did already, in the mid 80s, before the Soviets managed to actually launch their system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

                  Maybe the US couldn’t develop this system today. But since the Russians don’t have the satellites, who cares? You are saying that the US should be judged poorly for not having a system needed to destroy a system that its opponents do not have.

                  While the relative impotence of surface-based hypersonics remains a fact. It’s a fearsome system to people who don’t know that surface radar range is horizon limited.

                • jim says:

                  Russia has a substantial number of spy satellites using passive sensors, and is continually launching new ones. These can locate any major item of US equipment optically, and also anything that uses radar, even in the darkness and clouds. The US currently has no means to prevent this, and looks incapable of building anything to prevent this.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Yes, various countries have passive spy satellites. Try calculating what kind of instantaneous coverage they have.

                  Anyway, the whole line of attack is a concession. A satellite is just an aircraft that flies really high, something that gives it some advantages (like extremely far horizon) but attached to other disadvantages (like enemy foreknowledge of exactly what it can see, when, and how, for optimal evasion, and relative ease of destruction even far from any combat zone).

                  You solve the detection problem with aircraft. Well, that’s what aircraft carriers are for.

                  Or you use submarines, of which the US has far more and better.

                • peppermint says:

                  Why is ru behaving so independent right now? Because Putin is stupid, or because the only threat to ru is mutual assured destruction? Why is Putin flying PAK-FAKKER over sy? To wave his dick around while giving us and il targeting information, or because it’s irrelevant to ru security?

                  Airplanes are easier to shoot at than satellites. Aircraft carriers are the perfect target for a tactical nuke but ru will probably sink “our” carriers with a swarm of cruise missiles instead of revealing what newer weapons actually do.

                  What Russia needs now is a TFR of 5 to fill their lands with.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The Russian Federation has never faced a conventional military threat within its own borders.

                  The biggest threat it faced was getting a civilian government of people who wanted to join the EU.

                • jim says:

                  It has been fighting conventional wars in Syria and in Chechnya. Pretty sure Chechnya is inside its borders.

                  If you want to say it has not fought a great power war since World War Two, no one has fought a great power war since World War II.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Syria is a discretionary intervention. The worst case in Chechnya was that it would have to grant Chechnya independence, a loss of like 0.5% of its population and 0.05% of its industry.

                  The main reason the US and USSR had large conventional forces in the first place was so that they could defend the borders of their satellites without letting their satellites have nuclear weapons.

                  Another reason was that nuclear second strike forces do require some conventional defence systems, e.g. the Soviets’ carriers and submarines were mostly there to defend SSBN bastions.

                  Another reason for the Soviets specifically was that they did not really have a MAD capability until the 70s. For that reason the Soviets always planned to keep fighting after a nuclear exchange, an ideology that is not really that appropriate any more, but dies hard.

            • jim says:

              Russian air to air fighters can fly faster, fly higher, are more maneuverable, and carry more ordinance than American air to air fighters. The recent display of Russian capability in Syria seems to be giving the Pentagon a nervous breakdown. The Su-34 is every way superior, except that it lacks stealth.

              And, it seems that when Russian radars are watching US planes, US stealth does not work.

              So that looks to me like undeniable Russian technological superiority right now. If they are not bothering with ships, it is because in this era, ships don’t actually give you power except against third world opponents.

              It is air to air fighters that represent the highest level of technology, and Russia clearly leads.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft#Russian_Air_Force

                Types built since 1990 –

                Kamov Ka-50: 12
                Sukhoi Su-30: 100
                Sukhoi Su-35S: 68
                Sukhoi Su-34: 107
                Mikoyan MiG-35: 2

                So not counting the Soviet-era padding, they have 298 aircraft, about the same as other medium sized European countries.

                The US has a 175 F-22s, which are superior to any of those Russian planes even if you disregard stealth and sensors as factors.

                Which you disregard because of how resoundingly the Russian air force shot down the stealth air force of the Free Syrian Army.

                • peppermint says:

                  The question isn’t F-22 vs whatever Russian airplane, it’s F-22 vs S-500. Just because the JewSA has always wanted to occupy Germany and Russia to force faggotry and mud people to destroy them, doesn’t mean Germany or Russia ever wanted to attack America.

                  Russia just ended the worst financial crisis ever, their TFR was down to 1.1, they knew communism was a failure and discovered that US-backed global capitalism was also bad. The Russians have pulled through. The children of their TFR 1.1 90s are now young men.

                  Reagan is our savior because TFR of White women sharply rose at the end of his term. In Reagan’s days, TFR of White women was a very good proxy for White TFR and it still would be if muds didn’t get counted as White, but, White TFR has never been as bad here as Russia. Now we match Russia, which, because of mud, means Russia is ahead.

                  Russian military procurement and production, and the rest of their economy, isn’t run by thieves, SJWs, and affirmative action women, faggots, jews, mystery meat. That’s a huge advantage. They don’t build guided missiles and stealth everywhere because thieves and traitors convinced Congress that our boys need shiny things.

                  Jim is, of course, right that our part time economy isn’t going to be able to maintain nukes and this country isn’t going to be able to until Whites win and become full time men again or Whites are stamped out and muds take their natural place as slaves to each other.

                • jim says:

                  The Russian SU-35 has greater range than the American F-22, higher thrust to weight ratio than the American F-22, more maneuverable than the American F-22, more hardpoints than the American F-22, climbs faster than the American F-22

                  And governments all over the world are lining up to buy the SU-35

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The SU-35’s engines are marginally more powerful with afterburners, drastically less powerful without.

                  The SU-35 is lighter. That’s not because it uses weight more efficiently.

                  The SU-35’s sensor loadout is dramatically inferior.

                  Yes, stealth has been oversold as a cloak of invincibility. No, that doesn’t make it worthless. Stealth is just another round in the battle between sensors and sensor countermeasures that has been running since forever. It might no longer be reducing enemy detection range by 99%, but that doesn’t mean reducing it by 50% is a small advantage. Sure, reducing it by 50% won’t reduce losses to zero or let you fly directly over SAM batteries without loss.

                  To peppermint, the US has more planes than Russia has S-500 missiles. Of course that is not a relevant metric in practice – because of journalists and lawyers.

                • jim says:

                  The SU-35’s sensor loadout is dramatically inferior.

                  You don’t know what the SU-35 sensor loadout is.

                  US has more planes than Russia has S-500 missiles

                  S-400 missiles, however …

                  Even if the F-22 was all you are claiming, and it is not, it would be irrelevant, because we cannot make tech like the F-22 any more.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  If you think I don’t know what the relative capabilities of the two planes’ sensors are, you do not know either, which makes this comparison moot because most of the cost of a modern Western plane is sensors.

                  Sure, if sensors don’t matter, modern Western planes are way overpriced, much like how if you measure capability by screen diameter laptops today are no better than laptops 15 years ago.

                  Then assigned the value of stealth as zero because it’s not infinity like the media says, and like it perhaps was in the 80s, and suddenly the US looks Dumb. But not because it’s the US that is dumb.

          • Alrenous says:

            Carriers mattered in WW2 because subs had to surface to fire, and thus could be spotted and shot at by planes. All surface ships are now thoroughly obsolete.

            • Q says:

              Not all. Aircraft carriers are floating relics, but there’s still a place for destroyers armed with small nuclear missiles with a special emphasis on long endurance operating perpetually in oceans off the coast of problematic territories.

        • pdimov says:

          They recovered much better than anyone expected, probably including themselves. And sovereignty will only become easier with time; they just need to decline less.

    • jim says:

      Soviet equipment infamously sucked. Today’s Russian military equipment does not suck.

      If half the superweapons Putin is promising work, the US loses control of the seas.

      • pdimov says:

        There’s no such bright line between Soviet equipment and today’s Russian equipment. The Su-34, for instance, is Soviet (first flew 1990.)

        It’s all designed by the same people. Literally.

        • Mackus says:

          >There’s no such bright line
          You can apply this argument to literally anything, including race.

        • pdimov says:

          … and the Su-35 is a renamed Su-27M, Su-35S the next version of that.

          The superweapons are probably “Soviet” too. The portable reactors that power them are certainly Soviet.

          • jim says:

            Pretty sure that portable reactors are new. Maybe the Soviet Union was thinking about building them, struggling to build them, but not actually succeeding in shipping them.

            • pdimov says:

              Maybe, I can find no information on what specific power source they use. But if RTGs, Russia has a lot of those from Soviet times:

              http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/radioactive-waste-and-spent-nuclear-fuel/2003-11-radioisotope-thermoelectric-generators

              • pdimov says:

                Although based on what Putin said, maybe not RTGs but proper reactors, in which case new. He says completed in 2017, 1/100 the size of a nuclear sub reactor.

                “Russia conducted airborne reactor tests in the 1960s with the Tupolev Tu-119 “Nuclear Flying Laboratory” but abandoned development.”

                Abandoned not because it didn’t work but because it needed too much shielding. But drones and missiles need no shielding. 🙂

              • jim says:

                Putin says, and our spies say, real nuclear reactors, not RTGs. Crashed test craft released radioactivity indicative of a real reactor – one small enough and light enough for a reasonable small drone to carry.

          • jim says:

            Nuts

            • pdimov says:

              Nuts what? The Su-35? The post-Soviet jet is PAK FA. It’s good but not “Soviet sucked, post-Soviet rules” good.

              • jim says:

                Your argument is unworthy of a lengthier response. Obviously everything is derived from what went before. But this does not make it the same thing as what went before. US tech is deteriorating, Russian tech is improving. In miltech, they have passed us. Russian planes are getting better, US planes are getting worse.

                The fact that you invoke the F-22, rather than a newer American fighter plane, proves my point. That we don’t build F-22s any more suggests that we cannot build F-22s any more.

                • pdimov says:

                  My point is just that you underrate Soviet tech and overrate post-Soviet tech. The difference isn’t that big. Oliver Cromwell invoked the F-22, not me. I’m not arguing against

                  >US tech is deteriorating, Russian tech is improving.

                  because it’s true. (Although I suspect that the F-35 is underrated. I also suspect that the Su-35S is not better than the F-22.)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s startling to me that anyone could believe American military might is anything *but* in sharp decline.
                  How many futile unending wars against impoverished, demoralised lunatics who care more about dress code than victory?

                  A confident global power with yes-men in every developed country on Earth ought to be able to put down resistance very swiftly and then demonstrate that the ends justified the means. To say America hasn’t done that is something of an understatement.

                • Roberto says:

                  >lunatics who care more about dress code than victory?

                  Wait, which side is that, again?

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The US military is sharp decline, from a very high level, while the Russian military is in slow accent, from a relatively low level.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                PAK-FA is a napkin weapon.

                Yes, it will probably soon be real, in some tiny numbers, more than ten years after the US introduced the F22.

                And then all the Russian boosters trying to defend reheated Soviet planes on the basis that stealth and sensors are worthless fads will be placed in the awkward position of boostering for a plane designed, just like the F22 and F35, around stealth and sensors.

                Russia is not totally incompetent, nor even weak, but jim and others overestimate their competence. They have high asabiyya, but at best moderate technical competence. The US has very high technical competence, frustrated in practice by low asabiyya.

                The US can easily produce plutonium and tritium, but is prevented by lawyers and journalists. Russia, despite killing lawyers and journalists, is only barely able to produce plutonium and tritium.

                The F35 looks weak compared to the F22, but the F35 is not a fighter plane. It is a tactical bomber. The F35 and curtailed F22 production is a result of US planning on the basis that it will not need to fight a peer opponent for control of airspace. Short sighted, probably wrong, but not a reflection on technical competence.

                • pdimov says:

                  PAK FA (official name Su-57) is real and has been deployed in Syria.

                • jim says:

                  The US can easily produce plutonium and tritium, but is prevented by lawyers and journalists

                  Did lawyers and journalists cause the recent bridge collapse?

                  Are lawyers and journalists responsible for navy ships and planes running into each other and into civilians?

                  Did lawyers and journalists prevent the US from rebuilding the two towers?

                  If lawyers and journalists were the problem, it would be private technology that sucked, for example fracking and DNA reading, rather than government technology.

                  The bridge collapsed because of affirmative action engineering. Did lawyers and journalists make them do that?

                  Navy ships are running into each other because the navy is a floating brothel and a Democratic Party vote bank, same as the New York subway. Did lawyers and journalists make them do that?

                  The Challenger inquiry revealed that the people running NASA are evil, incompetent, and stupid. Did lawyers and journalists make them stupid?

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Did lawyers and journalists cause the recent bridge collapse? ”

                  Yes, by mandating it be built by Mestizos. The US contains easily enough competent bridge engineers that no bridges should collapse in this way, but lawyers and journalists create a class of NAM engineers that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

                • peppermint says:

                  Pak-fa is the result of the Indian government paying half for development of an airplane they can use against pakis and chinks.
                  Would Russia have developed it on their own? Is stealth useful against their enemies in sy, are they just using what they have, is their goal to show journolists that they have stealth fighters too?

                • pdimov says:

                  >Would Russia have developed it on their own?

                  Very likely. Indians entered the picture in 2007. PAK FA was officially started in 2001-2002.

                  Would Soviet Russia have developed it? Yes. They always copied whatever the US did, if only to prove they could (Buran). Then abandoned it if useless (Buran again).

                • jim says:

                  > The US has very high technical competence, frustrated in practice by low asabiyya.

                  Google no longer has technical competence. If they no longer have technical competence, then no group or organization in the US does. They drove out their best people, and put idiots in power.

        • Alrenous says:

          Soviet weapons tech was quite remarkable considering the limited resources they had to throw at the problem. See also, for example, their complete inability to incentivize maintenance.

          The Russian Federation has more money.

  6. What really matters is if RU and CN will be rivals or allies. Together they seem quite unstoppable. Libs in the West are pissing off Russia because they are not lib enough, while Trump is pissing of China out of understandable economic nationalism, but the combination of the two seems pretty dangerous as it will bring those two countries together.

    I seriously remember that in the nineties there was talk about Russia becoming an EU member one day. Of course that was under the cuckest of all cucks, Yeltsin, but still. I wish Russia could be brought into a Western alliance but it is entirely impossible without completely dismantling the Cathedral first.

    You know, Margaret Thatcher wrote something important about a decade ago. That the world is looking a lot like six great powers (US, EU, RU, CN, India, Brazil) and their satellites and that is dangerous because that looks like an 1914 scenario. She was in favor of trying to keep a very strong US EU alliance and trying hard to be much stronger than the other four to discourage any trouble but that ship obviously sailed. It is the alliance configurations that will matter most.

    I still remember that article because the expression “looking like an 1914 scenario” was a very good summary of what I was feeling but could not express properly.

    • jim says:

      The left is going crazy. Plus childless women inherently want to take the whole world with them to their grave, want to utterly erase the people that they were born among and erase all memory that their people ever existed.

      Thus the left is likely to force unity between Russia and China.

    • peppermint says:

      geopolitics is not a symmetric game

  7. javier_mendoza says:

    The English defeated 130 Spanish ships with 5 fireships. The Spanish captains were individually unwilling to risk their own ships, so all of them fled.

    The US is not willing to risk its ships. The Russians are posturing with cruise missiles and other long range weapon systems because they know we can’t risk a single carrier. It doesn’t matter if they work or not, just the though that they *might* work will be enough to keep us at bay. We could probably withstand a massive barrage of cruise missiles, lose a few carriers, and then rain holy hell down on the Russians. But losing a carrier is just not an option, so it will not be risked.

  8. Theshadowedknight says:

    Well, Jim, looks like you posted this right as some vindication was coming your way. Bridge collapse at a college in Florida has caused several fatalities. America cannot build bridges anymore. Cannot build bridges, cannot do proper engineering. Cannot do proper engineering, cannot produce advanced weapons systems. Looks like that degradation in skills is beginning to hit hard.

    The Shadowed Knight

    • peppermint says:

      once upon a time education in America sounded like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXQlaevASgY

      Everyone knows how nuclear stuff works, but no one knows how semiconductor stuff works, even after undergrad physics, unless they google it. This dates the destruction of education to between nuclear power and semiconductor electronics.

      Fortunately for us, over the next decade, the Boomers will age out of positions of authority and be rounded up in nursing homes to make lampshades and boutique soaps

    • BomberCommand says:

      Here’s a quote from that bridge’s “engineer”

      “It’s very important for me as a woman and an engineer to be able to promote that to my daughter, because I think women have a different perspective. We’re able to put in an artistic touch and we’re able to build, too.”

  9. Oog en Hand says:

    http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Tankie

    “A Tankie is an apologist for the violence and crimes against humanity perpetrated by twentieth-century Marxist-Leninist regimes, particularly the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin (1924 – 1953). More broadly, the term may refer to any leftist who is perceived to support or defend authoritarian regimes on the basis that they are enemies of the United States. This can include regimes that are not and do not claim to be communist such as those of Vladimir Putin in Russia and Bashir al-Assad in Syria.

    “Tankie” originally referred to the members of the Communist Party of Great Britain that supported the Kremlin decision to use tanks to crush the Hungarian anti-Soviet revolt of 1956. It was subsequently used as a pejorative against those members who believed that the party should pursue a line of uncritical support for the Soviet Union. The term has taken on its current meaning since the end of the Cold War. Ironically, it now most often refers to self-styled ‘anti-revisionists’ who believe that Nikita Khruschev, leader of the USSR at the time of the Hungarian revolt, betrayed Marxist-Leninist principles with his de-Stalinization programme.”

    Very relevant when we are discussing China. Is China communist, or isn’t China communist?!

    • jim says:

      “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”

      “The party decides what communism is”

      Of course, socialism with Chinese characteristics, and what the party has decided communism is, is in many important ways a lot more capitalist than what the United States practices.

    • pdimov says:

      CINO, communist in name only. A fitting acronym. One day ¡science! will invent a communismometer and National Review will run articles explaining how the device doesn’t actually work.

  10. vxxc2014 says:

    Been a big fan of bring back the L70/ 40mm Bofors across the board.
    That would be what’s on our APCs and Infantry Fighting vehicles if I decided.

    Not to mention bringing back armor mounted and towed 40mm Bofors.
    Very useful and often used in ground fighting from WW2 through Vietnam and still in use today.

    AA guns are often used in urban fighting against ground targets.
    Modern war will be partly fought in cities, especially as long as we practice Progressive Ritual Warfare instead of Total War.

  11. vxxc2014 says:

    Jim you should do a post on Progressive Ritual Warfare instead of Total War.

    Start with the record of those practicing Ritual War meeting Total War armies in history.

    It worked once and barely with luck: When the Mongols first invaded Japan the Samurai challenged them in ritual heroic combat. The Samurai then got a horrible shock [see also many tribes meeting Europeans, Aztecs for instance].

    As only the Japanese can do the Samurai adapted very quickly and started fighting for real. Only the Japanese can adapt that fast. They still needed luck and they got it with bad weather and long sea logistics lanes hurting the Mongols initial invasions combined with quick thinking by the Japanese in fortifying the beaches.

    Later invasion met Divine Wind [storm wiped out follow on invasion forces].

    That’s the one success story in history I find of Ritual warrior armies surviving Total War armies. It’s not just the tech that allowed the Europeans to conquer. It’s total war.

  12. vxxc2014 says:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>ON WAR 2018<<<<<<<<<>Lets have a quick look at the Historical Record of Ritual Warfare instead of Total War.

    Start with the record of those practicing Ritual War meeting Total War armies in history. Total War wins and usually before the Ritual War forces even know what happened. See the American Indians, see the Aztecs. Africa, Asia and we can go on. It wasn’t gunpowder that decided it was the European and American way of Total War.

    Ritual War Armies survived once- barely and with luck: When the Mongols first invaded Japan the Samurai challenged them in ritual heroic combat. The Samurai then got a horrible shock [see also many tribes meeting Europeans, Aztecs for instance]. As only the Japanese can do the Samurai adapted very quickly and started fighting for real. Only the Japanese can adapt that fast. They still needed luck and they got it with bad weather and long sea logistics lanes hurting the Mongols initial invasions combined with quick thinking by the Japanese in fortifying the beaches. So Japan wasn’t conquered – barely.

    Later Mongol invasion met Divine Wind [storm wiped out follow on invasion forces] – the Kamikaze winds.

    That’s the one success story in history I find of Ritual warrior armies surviving Total War armies. It’s not just the tech that allowed the Europeans to conquer. It’s total war as opposed to Ritual Warfare.

    When Americans go all out they win. When we play games at the behest of scheming politicians and lawyers we lose.

    This does not bode well for Peer Nation War against USA.

  13. Anonymous 2 says:

    ARM Ltd is a UK company, recently acquired by Softbank (JP).

    • carlylean restorationist says:

      cambridge, that senior cathedral town….ARM darecent locate in the centre – junkies everywhere while biu zao brahmins self-congratulate their compassion

  14. Glenfilthie says:

    Bah.

    15 of the 20 dirtiest cities in the world are in China. Only 20% of the water that comes out of the taps in China is potable. Because traditional Chinese families value males over females, female fetuses and female infanticide are ramplant. In 20 years there won’t be enough women for the men. Combined with China’s debt bubble – the country is a dead man walking.

    America got caught with it’s pants down in WW1. Again in WW2 and again in the Pacific with Japan. America wakes up mean and nasty when prodded.

    Not to say we don’t have any problems – but this infatuation with faggotry and feminism is a passing fad.

    • pdimov says:

      >this infatuation with faggotry and feminism is a passing fad.

      Do you have a historical example of this ever being a passing fad? Hitler, I suppose, but that’s not exactly reassuring.

      • peppermint says:

        Because it only makes sense to adults who are happily married and browbeat each other into saying progressively more retarded things. Children who grow up under forcememe faggotry surrounded by pr0n joking about gay aids and whether sex can be for reproduction end up having much more realistic views of sexuality than adults whose only view of it is sanitized into slogans like be the best version of yourself possible, and the restoration of sanity is called fashy.

        • pdimov says:

          One can hope.

          F&F are because

          – ignorance of reality
          – signaling spiral
          – r strategy
          – pushed by ((media))
          – funded by ((someone))

          (()) stands for lawyers and journalists, of course.

          Some of those aren’t going to just pass.

    • jim says:

      We will not get over feminism and faggotry till we have revolutionary collapse. Our army has become a laughing stock.Chinese total fertility rate is 1.6 but they have an enormous population, they can afford it for a while. White American American fertility rate is 1.7, only marginally better than Chinese fertility, and we cannot afford it.

      America wakes up mean and nasty when prodded.

      America started preparing for world war II in 1933 by dumping first wave feminism. Did not wake up at Pearl Harbor.

      The ruling elite back then knew you needed men to fight wars. The current ruling elite has seen too many action girl movies, and thinks men are the enemy and manliness is evil.

      Our elite is heading into a war with Russia that it will surely lose, possibly cataclysmically.
      .

      • BomberCommand says:

        Are these so-called Russian targeted assassinations false flags?

        • jim says:

          Whether the Russians did or not, the Cathedral is exaggerating the evidence, claiming evidence they do not have, stoking war hysteria, looking for war.

          Why?

          The right wing racialist theory is that Jews want whites to kill each other, but the people pushing this war do not seem to be particularly Jewish. The racialist theory relies excessively on evil Jewish mind control rays.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            I’m broadly in agreement with you on the JQ Jim but we should always entertain reasonable doubts.

            How does the operation of the Cathedral function without the need for mind control rays while the operation of global Jewry’s made impossible by it?

            It’s as plausible for Jews to further their genetic interests by pursuing multiculturalism and recoiling at white solidarity as it is for Progressives to further their power interests by having a good nose for a social fad capable of generating votes.

            If the Cathedral can function by the press framing the discussion, the politicians writing the laws and selectively enforcing them, and the intellectuals carrying forward the ideology with great fervour, why’s it so implausible for international Jewry to achieve the same feat?

            I’m sure you’d agree there’s no little room of leftie jerks plotting the downfall of humanity. Well there isn’t a little room of paranoid gentilephobes plotting the downfall of humanity either.

            These things are both manifestations of Dawkins’ meme theory.

            • Roberto says:

              The Jews are currently used by the Anglos for propaganda purposes, but the moment Jewish (memetic) conduct becomes detrimental to Anglo world-domination, you’ll see the Jews thrown out and away. #MeToo proves that Jews and Hollywood are not in control – it is Anglos who are in control of the Cathedral: Harvard, the State Department, the NGOs, the Foundations, and the CIA. Europe is not under Zionist Occupation Governments, it’s under Anglo Occupation Governments. Matador and cape.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Yeah you’re probably right. Jim and Moldbug both remind us that the JQ doesn’t hold water. The strongest support NRX folks can give to the JQ is that some Jews will support the Cathedral some of the time because it suits their genetic group interests some of the time. That’s as true for Anglos but we rarely hear talk of the AQ (nigga please).

                Is it rational to be suspicious of an organisation controlled by Jewish intellectuals? Sure. It’s also rational to be suspicious of an organisation controlled by any other kind of intellectuals. Anything not explicitly right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

                The weakness of the JQ and the Cathedral idea is that it’s only a partial explanation. The deeper reactionary insight (which both Jim and Moldbug have done much to elucidate) is that history’s susceptible to decay and entropy, and that what we call the Left is primarily the result of that process. The Left doesn’t want civilisation to be upkept through spring cleaning, bolstering, maintenance or close study: it wants some of the entropy to creep in; it likes some of the muck, the little piles of bits of paper, the pants thrown in the corner, the lightshade hanging off, the dead spider on the window sill. Adds character, they say; authentic, they say.

                Trouble is, while we’ve got democracy, entropy’s bound to win. The sick joke of human history is that only entropy can get rid of democracy once it’s embedded. Selling an end to welfare, socialised medicine and pensions to peasants is no easy task. Similarly selling an end to stimulated consumption rates, cheap credit, risk protections and special deals to businessmen is no easy task. Similarly selling an end to trouble-making and research to military contractors is no easy task. It has to play itself out: business will stop supporting Keynesianism when their customers can no longer pay; scroungers will stop calling you a swine for having more than them when nobody’s left who has more than them; bomber-makers will stop making bombs when they stop getting paid.

                If we can have an early escape through tech failure, all the better, but it’s not very hopeful. We’re just lucky enough to have been born on the comfortable part of the curve: just close enough to the peak to have prosperity, knowledge and culture but just far enough away not to have to put any effort in.

                If it saddens you to read those words, believe me it saddens me to say them. I’d love to put effort in, but when all it gets you is hate crime charges and jail, it’s not an option.

                • Roberto says:

                  Neither Jews nor Anglos (or any other whites) are using the Cathedral to advance genetic interests. It’s a purely memetic war. You may think of the meme as merely rationalizing the gene; as Nick Land would tell you, this is a false interpretation of what’s happening. The memes are independent and “selfish.” These egregores have a will of their own. This is not to discount the fact that different races tend to create their own idiosyncratic memes, but to buttress the point that memetics isn’t strictly subordinate to genetics – surely, a meme that results in your TFR plummeting to below replacement level cannot conceivablely be subordinate to your “genetic interests.” Now the relevant question is why some memes win and others lose; for instance, why Puritanism-Feminism (which the Anglos invented, and which the Jews have embraced for their own reasons) dominates the world while Freehold and Coverture are long gone.

                  My answer is the old-school conspiracy theorist Kaczynski-ist proposition: the Governments of the world, the Deep States of the world, have a perfectly rational and understandable and logical desire to become absolutely totalitarian, to grow ever more powerful vis-a-vis the citizenry, because it’s simply in the nature of all bureaucracies to function as malignant tumors. (Some NRxers contend that this is the result of “insecure Power,” but that seems like a red herring to me – all power is “insecure” because you never run out of potential threats, real or imaginary, whether your regime calls itself a republic or a kingdom, which is why Power always seeks to expand, it never being “secure” enough. But I digress)

                  In such a state of affairs, the spread of memes which serve the totalitarian aims of unelected governments is incentivized while memes that undermine the power of unelected governments are swiftly and consistently abolished. “Incentivized” is key here. Let me illustrate my “government conspiracy” worldview with the following example:

                  Islamic Third-Worlders prone to criminality and specially sexual criminality have invaded Britain. Clearly, the average Briton did not ask for that. This immigration policy is being deliberately enforced against the will of the native population. By whom?

                  The alt-righter will tell you that the rich and powerful Jews, who hate the Goyim, are doing it, and they are doing it simply out of malice towards their host society. That’s a simple enough explanation, right? Right – GTKRWN.

                  Except this is mostly bullshit. It is true enough that international Jewry hates the Goyim. It is true enough that the Jews *would* seek to bring the whole safari of Africa and the Middle-East into whitey’s homeland. What is not true, however, is the inference made by the alt-right: “that is why it is happening.” When you move from the very correct assessment of “the Jews want to destroy whitey through mass third world immigration” to the very incorrect conclusion of “the Jews are the ones ultimately responsible for mass third world immigration,” you do exactly what the Cathedral wants you to do: you gore the cape rather than the matador. You ignore the memetic incentive that the British Deep State has in bringing over violent hordes, and instead focus your whole attention on Schlomo’s ethnic activism, which coincidentally aligns with the objectives of the unelected Government.

                  Here are my conspiratorial two shekels: the purpose of the unelected government is to grow ever more powerful, the purpose of the elected government is to act on behalf of the unelected government while pretending to act on behalf of “the people,” the purpose of academia is to come up with memes that serve totalitarianism, and the purpose of the media is to brainwash the people with those memes. That’s the real Cathedral in a nutshell, and you don’t need Jews to explain any of it – although there should be no doubt that Jewish tricks are employed in the service of the system.

                  What, then, is the real purpose of mass Islamic-African immigration to Britain? Answer: to enshrine Feminism, which is a tool of the totalitarian state. You may be confused, asking: “how on Earth would immigration of patriarchal sex criminals into a white country serve Feminism?” The answer is quite obvious. Simply put: in order to convince the public that there is a veritable “rape culture,” you would greatly benefit from there actually being one. In order to brainwash the Briton to accept the notion of “sexual grooming and trafficking,” you may need to actually bring Pakistani pimps into the neighborhood. In order to justify the laws which criminalize normal male behavior, you may well need to import people willing to violate those laws. You may think that Feminism is collapsing due to Pakistani pimps. Just the opposite: Feminism has never been stronger than right now, when hysteria about widespread sexual abuse runs far and wide in British society. Millennial girls asked “why do I even need Feminism?,” and the government responded in a truly brilliant fashion.

                  Now there is ample justification for the war against patriarchy; because finally there is a patriarchy to fight against. Now the insane laws which define all sex as “rape,” which prohibit husbands from being husbands and men from being men, are well legitimized. You know the music: the intrusive and militarized police state has never been happier. The prison state (which in this day and age locks up more thought-criminals than actual criminals), ditto. The surveillance state is celebrating. The GCHQ and MI5 are in orgasm. The lesbian catladies at the child protective services are galvanized. Everything works as planned. The Anglo-inspired Victorian Puritan-Feminist meme has been mighty incentivized indeed, my nigga.

                  The alt-righter and I both realize that the immigration policy is deliberate; that savages are imported *because* they are savages. The alt-righter thinks that the Jews did it, because “ewww Goyim.” I think that the British Deep State did it, using many Jews to accomplish the feat, in order to increase its power, in order to pass more laws that make it illegal to own a penis, in order to expand the ubiquity of domestic spying to such an extent as would make Orwell shudder, and ultimately to keep the population on an ever-tightening leash. You’re gonna have Islamic terrorism because that’s the whole point of Islamic immigration. More crime, more control; especially when it’s “extremism” or sex crimes. Third Worlders are imported not just because of the votes they cast into the ballot box. Democracy is a sham anyway. No; they are imported exactly because they are rapists and gangsters, exactly because they are willing and prone to sexually abuse little girls who — as we all know — “only do bad things because evil men make them do it.” Afro-Islamic immigration is intended to justify white knightery at the hands of the state as well as the public. I believe it has greatly succeeded in fulfilling this task. Shocking the British with widespread sexual misconduct, and with other crimes, was the very purpose behind the safari importation. Now you will see ever greater state interference in the private affairs of the ordinary Brit, in order to protect him or her, of course.

                  This is how Anglo memes triumph – by way of incentive.

                  Idiot alt-righters like to play a gotcha: “why don’t Feminists denounce the immigration of Islamic rapists to the West?” They use that gotcha to convey the idea that Feminists want to submit to brown and alien masculine alpha males. That’s true, but completely beside the point. Feminists will not denounce the immigration of Islamic rapists to the West, because the immigration of Islamic rapists to the West is the greatest possible gift given to Feminism. And where you have Feminism, there you have the State: big, intrusive, totalitarian, and morally self-legitimized. Hence, no Freehold.

                  And you should not be surprised to learn that those who would keep your eyes forever fixed on Schlomo’s le happy grin are doing it to deceive you. The alt-right glows in the dark.

                  So, here’s the litmus test: when the interests of international Jewry clash with the interests of ever-expanding Anglo (Occupation) Governments, who wins? Who gets his way, at the end of the day?

                • pdimov says:

                  Your theory doesn’t ring true to me. The state covered up Rotherham and Telford to the best of their ability. It’s more like the rapes were an unintended side effect rather than a conscious strategy to promote feminism.

                • peppermint says:

                  > its all about locally maximizing each individual boomer’s smv through signaling
                  > the long term goal of bringing in pakis is to bolster feminism

                • Roberto says:

                  Of course there was a cover-up, Pdimov. The Paki behavior was covered so that people wouldn’t make a fuss about it over the years, so that both the immigration and its consequences would continue smoothly. That doesn’t make it uninented. If the police and the government knew about what’s happening, they could also figure out that it would be be revealed — eventually — as a “scandal.” If you want to have as much rape as possible, you keep silent about it; in the same way, if you want there to be an “opioid crisis,” you keep silent about it.

                • Roberto says:

                  >the long term goal of bringing in pakis is to bolster feminism

                  The long term goal is to have an absolute totalitarian state, and the way to achieve this long term goal is to incentivize memes that are conducive to it, and the memes conducive to it are not (((Frankfurt School Social Critique))) but Massachusetts Puritanism and Pennsylvania Quakerism, aka Anglo Feminism. Insofar as Schlomo can be used to advance this program, Schlomo is used. If Scott Aaronson wanted to become chaste and celibate forever (while recognizing that this is not at all the way of the shtetl), it’s because he listens to and channels Anglo mind control rays, rather than emitting Jewish mind control rays. If you think that women are naturally pure behaved, and are only corrupted by un-chivalrous (and non-white) men who seduce them, your meme is rooted in Victorian England, not in medieval Sura and Pumbedita.

                  If you — British unelected government, not a random lad from Liverpool — want to institute mandatory chivalry, you need to have damsels in distress – lots and lots of damsels in distress. So you bring Pakis to rape British girls, then tell the Britons that they need to accept the police and surveillance state as indispensable for their own protection (‘part and parcel,’ remember?), while pointing your finger at “the Jews opened the gates.” The Jews eventually get kicked out while the totalitarian state remains, stronger than ever before. Who jewed whom?

                  Boomers and GenXers are retarded for being fixated on muh left vs. right narrative, and Millennials and GenZers are retarded for being fixated on muh whites vs. Jews narrative. In reality it has always been Power vs. People, and Power always wins. When there’s a government database containing your facial metrics and fingerprints (and DNA profile), and society is “cashless,” and AI is used to both monitor and predict your criminal behavior, such as using your penis improperly, you better start believing that it’s not Harvey Weinstein who pulls the strings behind the curtain.

                • pdimov says:

                  Don’t buy it, sorry. Paki rapes are hurting feminism, not helping it. If this goes on, the word rape will become taboo, because racist. Antiracism > feminism. You’ll not hear much of rape culture.

                • Roberto says:

                  Please tell me how “rape culture” is a taboo phrase in the US, where most rapes are committed by niggers against white women.

                  Please tell me how “rape culture” is a taboo phrase in Sweden, where most rapes are committed by Middle-Easterners against Swedish women.

                  Please tell me where on Earth did this dynamic of Feminists ignoring the racial aspect of rape *while benefiting from this very racial reality* not play out as in the above examples.

                  Also – more broadly:

                  Please tell me about Neo-Nazi gangs in Germany which aren’t 100% made of BfV operatives.

                  Please tell me how “all the most prominent people pushing gun control have (((something in common)))” while completely disregarding the fact that the Goy-hating Jewish propagandists are simply used as puppets by the left-most part of the Deep State for its on agenda.

                  Please give concrete examples of the ideology of /pol/ism being in away way detrimental to the longevity and long-term interests of USG.

                  Having made all those rhetorical requests, let me say this: if they succeed in convincing the technocratic elite of the Western World (fucking white males, for the most part) that the real problem is rooted in muh identity politics, there will arise such a nightmarish dystopia in the Anglo-dominated world as none of the prophets of doom of the 20th century could envision – being a thoughtcriminal, imagine your family murdered by spooks, with “evidence” presented to the court of a very realistic deep-fake of yourself, with your own voice and speech patterns, admitting to this crime. For example.

                  I think that Celine’s Laws have never been more true than at this point in history. An ominous sign.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Please tell me how “rape culture” is a taboo phrase in Sweden, where most rapes are committed by Middle-Easterners against Swedish women.

                  My feeling is that the second derivative of Swedish feminism is strongly negative, but I have no empirical data to back this up, and no idea how to go about acquiring such.

                • Roberto says:

                  Fine. My anecdotal knowledge is that Feminists in Norway screech very loudly about rape this and rape that, without usually mentioning the race of the perpetrators; which in my view validates the thesis that Afro-Islamic immigration is the best thing that ever happened to Feminism.

                  Generally, Americans talk a lot about “crime” while race — not crime — is a taboo. At least in public debates; privately Americans communicate rather more honestly. That crimes are disproportionately committed by blacks and browns is not officially mentioned, but crime itself is discussed. I believe that bringing Pakis to Britain will not make rape any more of a taboo subject than it is in the US.

                  Even more generally, the taboo is against discussion of the actual details of crimes. For instance, recently there was published an article about the tendency of girls from the Foster Care system to fall victims to “child sexual trafficers.” Without knowing the details, you would assume that primary-school girls are literally kidnapped by adult men to serve as concubines; *knowing* the details, you would know that it’s neither primary-school girls, nor are they kidnapped. Good thing that statistics never mention the details!

                  What’s great about this system is that it never runs out of excuses to expand the power of state control, even if the excuses may occasionally be mutually exclusive; for example: should there be a camera under every streetlight and inside every room because there is an epidemic of rape? or is it to protect men from the epidemic of false rape accusations? Good thing that MRAs and Feminists can agree that everything should be documented always. Kinda reminds me of this passage:

                  “First, stick to one excuse. Thus if a tradesman, with whom your social relations are slight, should chance to find you toying with the coppers in his till, you may possibly explain that you are interested in Numismatics and are a Collector of Coins; and he may possibly believe you. But if you tell him afterwards that you pitied him for being overloaded with unwieldy copper discs, and were in the act of replacing them by a silver sixpence of your own, this further explanation, so far from increasing his confidence in your motives, will (strangely enough) actually decrease it. And if you are so unwise as to be struck by yet another brilliant idea, and tell him that the pennies were all bad pennies, which you were concealing to save him from a police prosecution for coining, the tradesman may even be so wayward as to institute a police prosecution himself.”

                  Internet Nazis and internet SJWs both principally agree that women need to be protected from evil men, although their pretexts may wildly vary. Which should tell you that both are tools of the same power.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “Internet Nazis and internet SJWs both principally agree that women need to be protected from evil men, although their pretexts may wildly vary. Which should tell you that both are tools of the same power.”

                  Paranoia and stupidity.

                  What that tells you is that human nature is to want to see women protected and that everyone knows that when women misbehave it’s because of men. Factually they’re both wrong about how it’s because of men – because men are failing to exercise sufficient control.

                  The idea that someone issues orders and just gets a bunch of people to believe something without the idea having a fundamental appeal is absurd (and stupid).

                • jim says:

                  The idea of protecting virtuous women has fundamental appeal. The idea of protecting sluts who intend to ride cock carousel, and then get married when their looks are gone and their eggs are about to dry up, has no appeal. No one wants to protect whores. It is like protecting gays. Your natural and spontaneous inclination is to beat up whores and gays, which inclination has to be overcome by law and social pressure.

                  If Nazis want to protect a slut’s right to engage in sluttery with the top ten percent of males, someone has got to them.

                • jim says:

                  Reflect on the propensity of tenured academics to abruptly, in unison, and without any explanation, switch from believing X to believing ~X. The hand of the master is obvious.

                • Roberto says:

                  You’re attacking a strawman. Nowhere have I denied the authenticity of the desire to defend women. My proposition is that the Governments in the Anglo-dominated world use those feelings to grow ever more totalitarian, and are thus incentivized to foster those feelings – which they do. Note that I don’t claim that the Cathedral is necessarily worse than, say, the Mandarinate (China). We were discussing memes, and why some memes seem to be particularly prevalent in the West; I propose that it’s because the Cathedral knows how to play all sides in its favor, using the ‘right’ policies.

                  Now, when you see both sides of the conflict advocating for precisely the same thing, only differing in their ostensible motives, it may or may not suggest to you that someone is indeed issuing orders and someone is indeed following them; if it also happens that the thing they advocate for serves the interests of the State, you may even harbor some suspicious about who it is that is behind this agenda.

                  Or, you convince yourself that it’s all bottom-up, organic and not-at-all part of any conspiracy at all. Whichever version you choose.

                  But let me ask this: do you remember all the NRx hysteria about “leftist entryists?” Something something “Conquest’s Second Law”? Well, here’s a crazy tinfoil-hatter suggestion: actual entryism from leftists into NRx is not happening and you shouldn’t lose sleep over it. Nor should you fret about entryism by any other ideological subversives. Rather, let me propose a different Law to Robert Conquest’s Second; call it Roberto’s Law if you will.

                  Any movement not explicitly in opposition to state power will sooner or later be co-opted by the state.

                  It could be that I’m paranoid. And it could be that you’re stupid (or just not paying nearly enough attention), and think that everyone else must be as stupid as you are; believing that the people whose task it is to maintain the security of the state both in the realm of action and in the realm of ideas (“meme war”) will just sit-by as adversarial movements are allowed to spring forth and destabilize the system. I mean, that’s what your average alt-righter thinks, right? “The system furiously hates us, yet here we are flourishing!” And to be sure, a lot of people do furiously hate them. But not the people who can actually stop them.

                  You see the ‘monster’ as weak, and getting weaker; I see it as strong, and getting stronger. You seem to imply that the actual real Cathedral has neither the inclination nor the ability to subvert and manipulate (to say nothing of “create”) internet sub-cultures for its own interests; you guys actually believe that “the rise of the internet spells the end of Cathedral cultural hegemony.” Hahaha. Nice one, really.

                  If only you knew how many $$$ are poured into this sh*t. You really seem to think that of all the trillions spent by USG and its Five Eyes partners on covert operations (the “black budget”), somehow subversion of internet sub-cultures has been wholly or mostly neglected. And really, when it comes to the creation of internet sub-cultures rather than their disruption, you don’t need anything close to trillions; I’m sure that a totally legitimate guy named “Paul Ray Ramsey” is fine with an annual salary that is merely 6 figures.

                  You seem to struggle with the idea that a sentiment may be real whereas a movement based on that sentiment is, alas, not-what-it-seems. So forget Feminism; look at Antisemitism. Is Antisemitism real? Absolutely. Is it justified? In large part, yes. But is the movement that feeds on it wholly grassroots and not co-opted? Ponder that one.

                • jim says:

                  I have not seen any compelling evidence of leftist or state entryism into NRx, other than one candidate attempting to join a semi secret, or very low profile, society, who was promptly rejected, which hints at the likelihood of others less easily detected.

                  However I have seen massively state funded entryism into libertarian organizations by people profoundly hostile to libertarianism, who intended to coopt it for left wing statist purposes, and it is evident that the state is entering the groups that sometimes play with nazi symbols – and since NRx is on that list of evil nazi groups, even though it strictly uses only patriotic symbols …

                • jackov says:

                  >Any movement not explicitly in opposition to state power will sooner or later be co-opted by the state.

                  Jackov’s Law: seeking to influence the state and seeking to capture the state are the same thing.

                • jackov says:

                  >If only you knew how many $$$ are poured into this sh*t.

                  Most of the money, and by a very large margin, goes to pure rentierism. Very little of it actually does anything, good or bad, beyond what it does for its recipients’ mortgages, vacations, and retirements.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Any movement not explicitly in opposition to state power will sooner or later be co-opted by the state.

                  I don’t understand the need for the “not explicitly in opposition to state power” qualifier. Movements explicitly in opposition are also co-opted. They top the “movements to co-opt” list.

            • jim says:

              Cathedral mind control rays are rather more evident. The Ivies, the New York times and Scopes tell lies. The New York Times and Academia define what is high status. Google manufactures the appearance of consensus, and gaslights those that doubt.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Hmpffff. Interesting. 1933, eh?

        I always thought first wave feminism hatched in the factories of WW2 when Rosie The Riveter when to work on the line while her man was off fighting Over There. I suppose that one could be argued any which way – I’ve heard others say it started when women got the vote in 1920.

        Unfucking the military is as easy as it was to fuck it up in the first place: run the queers and tom-girls out on a rail. Order that it be done within the week. Next, go after their enablers – the embedded guys in uniform that resemble people like Fuckface Kerry, John McCain, etc. Do it covertly: You don’t fire the stupid nigger at work for being a stupid nigger – you fire him on some convenient performance issue or possibly even legitimatized failure. Boom – done! Put the word out through back channels, play some inside baseball. It would work for the military as easily as it does in business.

        Not seeing war with Russia at all. The Donks and neocons are trying to divert attention away from themselves and focus it on some hapless whipping boy – in this case, Russia. Which brings us in turn to a new major game changer in global conflict – the mass media. Nobody trusts them anymore, nobody believes they hacked the election, everyone knows Hill and Bill were in bed with them for Uranium One… and the social media makes sure that message is out front 24/7/365 while the mass media tries to ignore it. The mainstream media can no longer be used as a propaganda arm or a means to push Bolshevik agendas and narratives. The mass media shows pictures of a made-up Hillary Clinton addressing well dressed world movers and shakers – and the social media shows her as she slides down a couple flights of stairs on her face. Nobody cares about Russia except Hillary, some unsavoury joos – and the usual Democrat basket of deplorable queers, pedos and trannies.

        Take a bow, Jim – you, and guys like you keeping the national opinion informed. Not only in America – but around the world! That alone is enough to finish our enemies – and if you haven’t noticed, they are already beginning to falter.

        • jim says:

          First Wave Feminism was Amelia Earhart getting a ticker tape parade and a meeting with the president for being flown by a man across the Atlantic like a sack of potatoes.

          First wave feminism was Marie Curie getting not one but two Nobel prizes for work that she did not do, (She was the third and least important person on a three man team) and which was unimportant when a man did it, and only became a big deal when history was rewritten to erase the important members of the team.

          Does anyone remember who discovered radon, a similar but far more important discovery than radium, for radon revealed the existence of isotopes, and proved what Marie Curie suspected but failed to prove, that radioactivity was independent of chemical form?

          In 1933, suddenly feminism was turned off like a tap, and not a dog barked. In 1963 it was turned on again with equal abruptness.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Would you ascribe that t the onset and deepening of the depression, Jim?

            • Q says:

              The Federal Reserve was established in 1914. Immediately it began blowing a tremendous bubble. Then the bubble popped, followed by correction. The end of feminism can probably be ascribed to the election of FDR, who, though he campaigned on a platform of peace, immediately set about prepping for war.

            • jim says:

              Looks to me like a decision to prepare for war. They realized that gays and women undermine military capability.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Glenfilthie: “Not seeing war with Russia at all. The Donks and neocons are trying to divert attention away from themselves and focus it on some hapless whipping boy – in this case, Russia.”

          It doesn’t necessarily follow that diversion doesn’t lead to war: wars don’t have to be started for good reason.

          Nevertheless you’re absolutely right. RamZPaul’s analysis is basically the same and he links it to the situation in the UK, where one day it emerged that once again a thousand white girls had been raped, beaten, tortured and in some cases killed (including a mother and two daughters burned alive in their home) and once again the police and social services had conspired to cover it up in order to preserve their status as good non-racists……… then the next day the PM was going full Adolf over the Russians having apparently assassinated a Russian national who’d been leaking military secrets to the British.

          As RamZPaul says, this sort of goes with the territory, so the best explanation for Mrs May’s hysteria is that she’s engaging in transference of the bad feelz as part of an avoidance defence-mechanism to save her having to face up to the fact her policies led to more rapes than Jimmy Savile.

          Again though, she still expelled diplomats and talked tough. These things can lead to ‘problems’ regardless of how much sense they do or don’t make.

          • jim says:

            the best explanation for Mrs May’s hysteria is that she’s engaging in transference of the bad feelz as part of an avoidance defence-mechanism to save her having to face up to the fact her policies led to more rapes than Jimmy Savile.

            Yes. A childless woman destroying the world to avoid bad feelings makes a lot more sense than Jews destroying the world because evil.

            • Glenfilthie says:

              I would love to see Angela Merkell fired out of a cannon too. But fellas – these harridans aren’t doing the of their own accord. Fact is the can only do it because men enable it.

              • pdimov says:

                That’s particularly obvious in Theresa May’s case, where it was quite obvious that someone put her there. Boris Johnson inexplicably dropped out from the PM race even though he had left the mayor of London position in order to be PM. At the same time, by a complete coincidence, Nigel Farage resigned as a leader of the UKIP after not failing in anything at all.

                Nobody of course looked into these matters. Reminds me of Pope Benedict’s resignation.

                The lack of parentheses on “someone” above is intentional. The theory that Jews are behind everything is probably one of the many manufactured conspiracy theories (likely by the same someone) whose purpose is to drown out the correct conspiracy theories.

                That said, the idea that a lone woman is more capable of destroying the world than the Jews are is ridiculous. It’s like saying that 2+2=24 makes more sense than 2+2=8.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Do you want to flesh that assertion out with some reasons?

                  Surely (ding!) it only takes one person, in principle, to start WW3, when that person is a head of state.

                  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect for a second that Russia is taking any of this seriously. They’re doing what we’re doing here: improving themselves and waiting for the international community to go tits up. (No pun intended)

                • pdimov says:

                  I’m not sure if that’s true even in principle. In practice, it’s certainly false; the idea that the person in charge pulls levers and pushes buttons and the machine obeys unconditionally is not any less ridiculous.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              This is perhaps a logical fallacy and point it out if you understand it to be, but…:

              Anonymous Conservative’s to-me-impressive angle on the JQ is that the JQ can’t possibly be the end-all-be-all for the simple reason that so many people have heard of it.

              • pdimov says:

                JQ is a question; it’s not the theory that Jews are behind everything. The theory is a useful straw man for those who want to avoid answering the question.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Anonymous Conservative and the whole ‘reproductive strategy’ thing is an embarrassment.
                Human gestation is nine months and the infant requires intensive care for several years afterwards. Spray and pray is, at the very most, a marginal strategy for marginal wandering males. It can never be a strategy for females under any circumstances and certainly not for nations or peoples.

                If we’re to sufficiently weaken r/K selection theory to make it non-ridiculous, it basically amounts to “the welfare state subsidises the breeding of the unfit”.

                Easier just to say that really rather than make like humans are breeding literally like rabbits.

                Embarrassing: the kind of thing that makes SWPLs think we’re idiots when quite obviously every person here is better read than the average leftist, to put it rather mildly.

                • pdimov says:

                  For r, read “behavior optimized for environments that aren’t resource constrained”. For K…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  No that’s not right at all.

                  As I said, if you want to weaken AC’s model to such an extent then sure, but all that means is that ‘r’ and ‘K’ become unneeded new labels which are also highly confusing to boot because the terminology is suggestive of something absurd.

                  If you want to claim that the type of people who benefit from breeding assistance would otherwise not be breeding then it’s just a truism.

                  All r/K amounts to really is the claim that egalitarian government interventions to level playing fields are evil and wrong-headed because it’s ok that people are different.

                  Why not just say that? Egalitarian government interventions to level playing fields are evil and wrong-headed because it’s ok that people are different.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m not claiming AC’s a plant, a fraud, or anything else. I think if anything he’s just a well-meaning idiot.

                  The trouble is, his model’s ridiculous and he opens US up to unfounded claims of genetic determinism and biological illiteracy verging on the insane.

                  We’re the ones who end up being told we think all life’s outcomes are dictated in the genes and that there are humans pursuing a ‘spray and pray’ reproductive strategy because they’re “rabbit people” who inhabit a world of non-scarcity.
                  This is complete nonsense.

                  What we’re claiming is that genetics *matters* and that when governments subsidise something that seems to be lacking in some of the people some of the time, the side effects are catastrophic because the whole idea’s misbegotten: people are different and if you try to make them equal, society suffers every time.

                • peppermint says:

                  one is food-constrained, the other is territory-constrained. Bears and humans are territory-constrained, so there is a maximum number of bears in an area determined by the minimum territory size they will accept, and giving them extra food doesn’t change that, so feeding the hungry doesn’t disrupt the ecosystem. Rabbits and niggers are food-constrained, feeding the hungry creates dependence and eventually a waste management problem.

                  The problem with applying this to humans is, of course, that liberals are less likely to reproduce even after they get a house. It is one of the few arguments in which conservatives are analogous to niggers.

                • pdimov says:

                  >something absurd
                  >complete nonsense

                  Why is it absurd and complete nonsense?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  @peppermint: resource-constrained vs territory-constrained ignores, as I said right at the start, the fixed constant in the equation – gestation and care.
                  Now OK I’ll grant that care can occasionally be radically out-sourced under the welfare state, but this is really quite rare and has more to do with psychological instability than race or political ideology.

                  Yes indeed you’re right – Tom Woods would be an ‘r’ by the AC model, while Owen Jones would be a ‘K’. Either there’s something dramatically important we don’t know about Woods and Jones, or else the model’s a bunch of nonsense.

                  @pdimov: the above two important points (the model leaves out fixed constants that matter a LOT, plus it throws up obviously false results) plus the ones I already made (unneeded new labels for something simple and easy to express: welfare subsidises poor behaviour; and it gives liberals an excuse to tell us we don’t understand biology while simultaneously calling us biological determinists – we’re neither ignorant nor fanatical but the model makes us look both at once while producing false results and leaving out rather obviously crucial parts of the picture.)

                  The thing is, like all the childish and despicable fallacies of Stefan Molyneux, this one always goes the same way: Molyneux listeners are utterly unwilling to be swayed, so all we need say is “the model’s obviously correct because Molyneux so shut up” and the discussion’s closed.

                  The fact the moron *simultaneously* believes in parental determinism AND biological determinism; believes the cultural (or should that be parenting-style or should that be genetic?) divide is unfixable AND that we just need to make the right arguments and the normies will all wake up; believes that a just society is one in which everything’s privatised and everyone does what they want so long as it hurts no-one else AND that America needs a strong man to police the Mexican drug lords……… it generally lost on his listeners, by definition: they wouldn’t *be* listeners if they understood just how narcissistic and intellectually barren he really is.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  tl;dr:

                  Critic: all human babies are carried for nine months and none are self-supporting at birth or for the first four years. We already know welfare subsidises poor behaviour and wrecks civilisations so we don’t need new labels that confuse people into thinking we think humans can reproduce like frogs.

                  Molyneux: not an argument

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Sorry for triple post >.< will self-ration for the next week to balance things out……..

                  I forgot to mention litter size: obvious to a biologist but not to a layman like us.

                  Animals like rabbits and so on that pursue a low parental investment, rapid indiscriminate reproductive style of reproductive strategy have large litters.

                  Humans generally have one or two, with occasional exceptions as high even as six. The distribution curve (cos you guys love those, in spite of their direct origins in Fisherian logical positivism) has a highly leptokurtic shape.

                  I'll believe r/K selection theory when liberal blacks on welfare begin to have much shorter gestations and larger litter sizes. Three months and average of three young would suffice. The young also need to mature faster, though this is optional because of care homes and subsidised healthcare.

                • jim says:

                  Blacks have slightly shorter gestations and slightly larger litter sizes.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Economic hardship produces larger families, not smaller. Like peppermint said (I think), liberals have smaller families regardless of circumstances.
                  (The author here confusingly uses ‘litter’ to mean lifetime brood; I was searching for ‘litter’ as in how many babies per term.)

                  http://lmtribune.com/feature/what-s-the-normal-size-of-a-human-litter/article_1ee8d576-7c0d-5081-bd77-ab456af72930.html

                • pdimov says:

                  >welfare subsidises poor behavior

                  Liberals are more likely to be rapists. True or false?

                  If true, how is this explained by welfare subsidizing poor behavior?

                  >I’ll believe r/K selection theory when liberal blacks on welfare begin to have much shorter gestations

                  You know full well that this doesn’t happen within the same species. Doesn’t mean that a species isn’t capable of different reproductive strategies depending on environment.

                  >The young also need to mature faster

                  Blacks already mature faster.

                  Either way, if you want to argue r/K, argue r/K with AC, not me. He’s heard all these objections and has answers to them. Although he may not be willing to engage you because he seems tired of addressing the same objections over and over.

                • Q says:

                  >You know full well that this doesn’t happen within the same species.
                  >the same species

                • jim says:

                  Differences between whites and blacks are far larger than differences between spotted owls and barred owls.

                • peppermint says:

                  Stop talking about niggers. No one cares about niggers.

                  Liberals have smaller families and marry later to exactly the right person because they want to be absolutely sure that each child has a place in the world. They want gun free schools because the loss of a single child is devastating and take their kids from school to after school programs to get them into college and careers.

                  Conservatives marry whoever they’re attracted to and have multiple kids and demand that their kids get jobs and marriages early.

                  By R/k, conservatives are /k/ and liberals are r/. When you shit on /k/, you think you’re shitting on shitskins, but no one cares about niggers. Liberals acknowledge the comparison between conservatives and niggers much more explicitly than conservatives are willing to imagine.

                • peppermint says:

                  A lot of conservatives don’t appreciate just how brainwashed the libs are. Just because signaling against their nation in its darkest hour is treason doesn’t mean they know they’re traitors. They don’t see the threat. They believe that they’re the natural aristocracy, that White niggers who use opioids and have too many bastards with autism aren’t much different from dirt niggers that use cocaine and have too many bastards with low IQs, and they genuinely think that they’re doing their best for their people and the world by implementing socialism. If you tell them that giving stuff to White niggers just breeds more White niggers and resentment against libs, well, they know that, and are prepared to take away the first and second amendments to keep the White niggers in their place.

                  You’ll never convince anyone of anything by saying r K. Biologically there is territory limited and food limited, but K r sounds authoritative and mathy because it’s modeling based pseudoscience when applied the way it usually is by conservatives. Fraud’s lies were sexy and repeared by a legacy media and academic establishment.

                • peppermint says:

                  How to make a theory beyond reproach? Give it random letters no one understands instead of names that can be meaningful. Words like queer, gay, homosexual, bi, bicurious, metrosexual, atheism+, transsexual, transgendered, trans*, all of these are words that mean faggot. LGBT is just an XTLA. Territory and food limited populations is a biological classification that immediately brings to mind specific species and their behavior. K&R is the original portable systems programming language with an integer and a float type of unspecified width which worked so well in the 90s people thought there should only be one scalar data type and oddly enough no separation between byte and character types.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Holy crap, am I going to have to swallow another bloody pill?
                  I’ve got tummy ache and feel nauseous.

                  Now THAT is not an argument, because the evidence you bastards just provided suggests there’s a transition underway……. now will it manifest with hindsight as a sympatric speciation event? Or will the ‘laggers’ simply be genocided?

                  /wrists

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Perhaps.

            I am of the opinion that a war could be a very good thing. Just looking at the poisoned societies arising today leaves me with the mind that our part of the world desperately needs a cull at all levels.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              Yes, but the people who are dying and the people who need to die don’t overlap. Unless foreigners seize power and shoot people, but that comes with its own problem.

  15. Mister Grumpus says:

    (I love this.)

  16. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Even a projectile with a 0 meter range can still reach exactly as far as you need it too when you carry it up in the air. Some experts call these Bombs.

    The most important thing is having a ballistically consistent trajectory, and if you have a a consistent set of ballistic behavior every time you pull the trigger, you can devise a clever algorithm and put it on targets with it. That is one key difference between a warhead air-dropped with fins and a warhead ejected out of a rifled tube.

    Designing a gun system that can be flown up into the air and used has it’s own challenges, but once there is has its own advantages too. The effect of elevation on range isnt just the elevation itself, but the extra space a projectile has to keep moving forward on a parabolic arc as well.

    The most important thing isn’t designing a system that outranges all forms of air defense, the important thing is designing something that outranges *easy* forms of air defense. In practice, this generally means, man portable ADS.

    On a mytheo-poetic level, the purpose served by defense, is not making yourself invulnerable to harm, but making yourself *impractical* to harm; making it so that in order to harm you, he must do it through means that in turn make him more vulnerable to your own implements of war.

    Why does a tank have armour? So that a man hiding in a bush with a machine gun can’t push your shit in.

    So he builds a bigger gun then. But then, once he has a bigger gun, he is no longer a man hiding in a bush with a machine gun, *he a target himself now too*.

    Moreover, obliging ones opponent to use a ‘bigger gun’ doesn’t just cause him problems for operators on a tactical level, but multiplying problems *all along the chain of logistics too*. Heavier metal requires heavier delivery systems, which in turn introduces more schwerpunkts into your opponents war-machine, juicier targets for operational and strategic strikes, along with the impact on the over-all overiding backdrop that is the energy economy, so often the most vital point in making war, and civilization in general.

    Abstractly speaking, you can always build a ‘bigger gun’, which is why tunnel visioning on ever more massive armour is a spiral that traps rather than explodes. But something that can rebuff the *easy* threats; the economical, asymmetric, or volumous threats, designing things tip over those vital tipping points, that is excellence.

    Designing tanks to fight other tanks is a boondoggle on a strategic level, which implicates mere battles of attrition and entails unwieldy designs spiraling in a ‘specialization trap’. But a tank that can rebuff a PTRS, or a cluster bomb, or a molotov, or an RPG, or a surplus arty shell detonated by the roadside, or a flock of tiny drones carrying hand grenades, then that fits a valuable niche. So your rival perhaps makes bigger drones then, to carry bigger payloads to get through; but that also means fewer, easier, targets for the robotic point defense turrets too. Then it’s a game again.

    • Q says:

      It’s easy to imagine swarms of tiny drones designed for low altitudes being dropped in large numbers by much larger very-high-altitude drones flying along the border of the maximum effective range of the robotic point defense turrets. It’s easy to imagine these swarms of tiny drones being guided by humans or AI, or both, each with its own appropriately tiny sensor package, or in communication with its terapixel-sensor-equipped “mothership”, or both. It’s easy to imagine one of these tiny drones flying along quickly, highly maneuverably, nearly invisibly, nearly silently, and at very low altitude, and crossing paths with a tank, whereupon it attaches itself to said tank and sends a homing beacon to be succeeded by a bomb, missile, laser, or rail gun strike.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        If you’re looking for a silver bullet; don’t.

        Having a drone fly a beacon down to a target is functionally isometric with having that same drone or carrier of drones shine an illuminator on the target, only with a fair few more places it can go wrong, or be made to go wrong.

        Radiating something that can be targeted is mutually exclusive with stealth.

        The game cycles on, as always.

        • Q says:

          >functionally isometric

          The mothership is in safe airspace and the tiny drones are not.

          >radiating something

          Yeah, like, radio radiating GPS coordinates? That’s about the only thing that will be radiating, as electric-powered drones don’t have much of a heat signature.

          The root premise of drones is that they they are not bound by the limitations inherent to vehicles with humans in them, namely size, longevity, and inexpendabiity. On every past battlefield, the largest vehicles had humans in their cockpits, and the smallest were large enough to have humans in their cockpits. On every past battlefield, units of firepower could not patrol an area without end, nor could they lie in wait for weeks or months or years at a time. On every past battlefield, every weapon was attended by a human with a formidable supply chain behind his physical presence, and could not guiltlessly be thrown away.

          Drones completely upend everything we know about war. The drone wars will be fought primarily on a basis of material attrition of extraordinarily large volumes and with many completely novel tactics such as that I have just briefly touched upon. There is no reason for the missile not to establish a radio connection to the homing beacon drone, for instance. GPS coordinates, whatever. It is obvious that war is going to radically change and that the cause is autonomous or semiautonomous weapons system, i.e. drones. I’m just spitballing possibilities. It seems to me that you’re searching for silver bullets in favor of something resembling the status quo.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Spitballing possibilities is fine, great even; im just alloying it with good sense and perspicacity, if ever possible, to elucidate deeper dynamics at work, the magics of power if you will, because it’s a topic i enjoy talking about. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

            You mentioned:
            >whereupon it attaches itself to said tank and sends a homing beacon to be succeeded by a bomb

            If something can be detected (by you), then it is something that can be detected (by him). Just some good sense to keep in mind. ‘Drone’ doesn’t have to mean something that flies, either.

            The creation of expert systems can in possibility do all of those things and potentially even more besides, may well perhaps in fact do all of those things; in my view the biggest impact though, meaning in terms of civilizational impact, is the fact that throwing creatus into a blender means not throwing humanoid soldiers into a blender. Functionally, making it ‘harder to kill soldiers’. And as i have mentioned elsewhere, when soldiers are ‘harder to kill’, when dire apes are less concerned about dire ape casualties, then they will feel much less opposed, much more attracted too, making warfare.

            • Q says:

              >If something can be detected (by you), then it is something that can be detected (by him). Just some good sense to keep in mind. ‘Drone’ doesn’t have to mean something that flies, either.

              The thing about my specific hypothetical situation is that the small electrically powered drone is flying at very low altitude with zero emissions. It isn’t emitting a heat signature or radio waves — why would it? It need only generate a signal once to transmit coordinates, though if the drone and the missile can communicate once the missile draws close then more advanced capabilities are possible. It doesn’t matter whether the drone is detected upon transmission.

              The trick here is that the minimum size of a unit of actionable intelligence has dropped from a meatball in a cockpit (SR-71), to a satellite freefalling in space, to a tiny drone just large enough to carry the smallest sensor package, which if my iPhone is any guide is pretty damned small. But the military-industrial complex is still deploying low numbers of large devices.

              Sure, unmanned conflict is easy. Of course it doesn’t carry the same weight as sending soldiers to their deaths. The interesting question there is whether it makes the escalation to nuclear more or less likely. I suspect that drones overall is a net positive, as the Powers can have more frequent, less costly skirmishes that will give them more accurate information on the relative balance of power. Totalen krieg is kind of an aberration; ritual warfare is the human norm.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                >Powers can have more frequent, less costly skirmishes that will give them more accurate information on the relative balance of power. Totalen krieg is kind of an aberration; ritual warfare is the human norm.

                Yes, i have had this same feeling for a while now, as well.

                In fact, what is essentially the same formal mode, ritualized conflicts conducted within certain parameters under certain understandings, underlies the dynamics of many things in society, be it in sports, or social interactions, or capitalism itself.

                The chief infirmity of the spergmatic mind is that this sort of nuance is beyond then; lurching crazily from reductive spiral to reductive spiral; be it the cuckiest of categorically imperative ‘pacifists’, or jumping immediately to the proverbial ‘nuclear options’ of maximum violence. In phrase, they just ‘don’t get the joke’.

                I’d so so far as to say even that Gentleman’s Agreements are a cornerstone precondition of possibility for Civilization; ‘you and i both know how [this] is going to end, so lets end it here before either of us suffers unrecoverable harm’.

                (The design space then of course, is the means by which one can make sure ‘you and i’ [and everyone else] can both more easily know.)

        • jim says:

          There is a technology we do not have, but should have. Laser communication beams or ultra high frequency beams. One can spread the spectrum of a laser beam so that it is undetectably faint for any recipient that does not have the spread key, and is in any case undetectable for any recipient that is outside the quite narrow beam. At present however, equipment that does this is unreasonably heavy, expensive, and fragile. But in principle, one can send signals that are difficult to detect for anything but the recipient.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            One of the chief advantages of multi antenna beam phasing directed radars is that they can be implemented to take advantage of similar principles, as you probably know.

            As you say, it is a known principle, and we could have, probably should have the technology now (and another reason why trying to physically fly a beacon onto a target instead of just getting the same fix from a nice and easy stand-off distance is kinda… [sorry for ragging you on that Q, it just gave me PTSD from times on more Mil oriented sites where every now and then you’d get a self-proclaimed futurist who’d come through and can’t hold an informed conversation on anything related to grand strategy or operations or tactics or even design outside their narrow interest]).

            • Q says:

              >sorry for ragging you on that Q, it just gave me PTSD from times on more Mil oriented sites where every now and then you’d get a self-proclaimed futurist who’d come through and can’t hold an informed conversation on anything related to grand strategy or operations or tactics or even design outside their narrow interest

              That’s okay. I steadfastly maintain all previous statements while simultaneously recognizing that I know virtually nothing about military anything not derivable from first principles, common sense, basic knowledge of technology in general, or idle browsings of Wikipedia.

  17. lalit says:

    Off topic I know, but Jim, looks like we can chalk up one more prediction to you based on your comments about self driving cars and AI which you made here
    https://blog.jim.com/war/school-shot-up-because-murdering-white-kids-is-ok/#comment-1806274

    Here is the relevant news article
    https://www.mail.com/news/us/8358276-woman-struck-killed-self-driving-uber-vehicle.html#.23140-stage-hero1-1

    I’m still logging your predictions. And apart from your predictions about Trump’s auto-coup against the permanent government where you are at 0%, you are hitting, I think, 100% on all the others

    I told you that the Auto-coup prediction was too optimistic. I still say wait until 2024 provided he wins 2020. You might get the act correct but the timing wrong.

  18. […] favored us with but a single entry this week, observing as China passes the US. In view of Anatoly’s entry on Russian technology above, one might quibble with Jim’s […]

Leave a Reply