Wear a Red Hat for Halloween!

In the last 18-hrs or so, a lot of people have been having fun with this big WTF/whatzit?

Google is behind two mysterious construction projects moored in San Francisco Bay and Portland Harbor, reports say. Insiders say they’re either floating data hubs or mobile marketing centers for Google Glass.
...
What's the Web behemoth building on barges off the coast of San Francisco and Maine?
The Internet giant is playing characteristically coy about a pair of floating construction projects in the Bay Area and Portland, Maine, that experts say bear their footprints.
...
Some speculated they are floating data centers, while other said they're destined to become marketing hubs for Google Glass, the company's wearable computer.

My vote is for the marketing ploy ... because it is working already. Float one up and down the East Coast, another the West Coast ... why not?

I also think it would be beyond nuts for them to be "floating data centers." Why? Simple ... and let's go back to the history books for our reason.

OPS: Offshore Power Systems.

Tenneco and Westinghouse Corporations formed a joint venture in May, 1972, designated Offshore Power Systems, to market, design and manufacture standard nuclear power plants for offshore installation. The plant design is a totally integrated nuclear generating station, mounted on a floating platform and moored within a protective breakwater. The plant is standardized such that it can be sited along the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States. This paper discusses the design of the platform which serves as the foundation for the Floating Nuclear Plant.
...
The platform is approximately 400 feet long, 378 feet wide and 40 feet deep with a plant displacement of about 150,000 short tons. Full depth bulkheads run in both the longitudinal and transverse directions extending the length and width of the platform to form a grid. Along the 378 foot width bulkheads are located at regular intervals of 37 feet; 9 inches. Along the 400 foot length bulkhead spacing varies from approximately 47 feet to 82 feet.

There are a variety of reasons this never took off. End of the oil embargo, Three-Mile Island hysteria, etc ... but let's face it.

Static. Floating. Nuclear. Power. Plant.

Things that float in place have a habit of sinking for a variety of natural and man made reasons. From huricanes like Katrina to the "Perfect Storm" in the 1990s ... to the occasional rogue wave - the sea is a rough and tumble place. Floating nuclear power plants on warships can get out of the way. Land nuclear plants can shut down and pray.

No. Something that critical in the civlian world does not belong on something where anyone with a 19th century limpet mine can send to the bottom if a faulty weld doesn't.

We have been lucky that the enemy who attacked us in 2001 has such blood lust. Their initial instinct was right - if you want the West to collapse on itself, go after its economy. Even though we seem intent on destroying ourselves without their help, eventually they will go back after economic targets when they get smart and tire of sawing heads off of journalists.

Google announces that they have their data centers floating in open harbors on used barges? Why even get a limpet mine when a cigarette boat or Cessna will do the job just fine? Better yet, just wait for the next big storm to come along.

If Google really looking at putting something with so much value at so much risk, eventually someone with an interest in keeping the company as a going concern will walk in to their underwriter and legal risk mitigation offices with an actuary to review the history of storm damage, flooding, and PR issues that result when water finds its level. Then, like what Westinghouse did with OPS - they will kill the idea before it creates real damage.

That is my bet, YMMD.

Diversity Thursday

One of the few, very few, good things about DivThu is that many times, they write themselves.

The (D)iversity Bully Commissariat are so used to a quiet, submissive, and terrified audience  that they get intellectually lazy and let the banality of their divisive, racialist worldview slither in to the open.

Shall we? Based upon the avalanche of emails and FB links ... I think we shall by popular acclaim.

BEHOLD!!!

The Defense Department’s commitment to diversity and inclusion contribute to mission success and must remain a consistent effort, the Pentagon’s chief personnel and readiness official said today.

Jessica L. Wright, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, discussed best practices for diversity and inclusion at an event hosted by The German Marshall Fund of the United States event.

Yes Shipmates - as the world's premier military power and its allies are in the grips of exceptional budgetary and economic stress, the Islamic world burns, Al Qaeda waxes and as piracy grows ... DOD and the German Marshal Fund has the cash, time, and intellectual capital to invest in Cultural Marxist cancer.

“No matter what you do, you have to be cognizant of diversity,” Wright said. “And I will tell you the department has an ongoing commitment to this.”

Oh yes, you must ... but only in certain areas. Other areas? Heavens to Betsy, no.

The Defense Department’s military and civilian employees, Wright said, perform well because they “represent the nation in our workforce.”

“And I will tell you,” she continued, “that we talk about diversity in the terms of race and gender, and ethnicity, but it is much more than that in my mind.”

Diversity, Wright said, is also about “your thought process, how you grew up, [and] what you can add to the greater good because of your background.”

That is the point in the speech where everyone in the audience said to themselves, "Well, that didn't take long to get a total and complete knowing lie out of her."

No. When DOD tracks (D)iversity metrics, they do not track individuals thought processes, home environment, and other background information. No. They track race, sex, and ethnicity inside a self-reporting system that is thick with fraud. I've seen the metrics, I've been to the meetings, I've read the reports; so have many of you.

Ms. Wright has either been lied to by her Staff, or is lying to you. Perhaps lie is too hard of a word - perhaps she is more telling us the cute and comforting mythology that we use to feed Vaal.

Either way, she knows that no one will raise their hand, stand up and challenge her because if they did, they would have had their career destroyed and their character attacked.

Wright shared a story of her experience as a young aviation officer in the Army National Guard.

“When I was a very young lieutenant in the ‘70s, I was the only female in an aviation battalion, and I was doing administrative work,” she said. “But I was also a pilot.

“So I went to my first assignment, and this very crusty noncommissioned officer was there,” Wright continued. “And I reported in as a spanking-new lieutenant, and he looked at me the first day and he said ‘I will tell you I have problems with women in the military.’”

1. Of course, someone with a mindset stuck in the Nixon and Ford Administrations is talking to people born in the Clinton Administration trying to make a living half-way through the second decade of the 21st Century. Perfect.
2. I don't want to hear about you spanking in the 70s.
3. I call a flag on the play. My first thought was that "crusty" NCO was perhaps T-bone's father? Related to Senator Warren's tribe? But ...

Wright said “a million things” then went through her mind in reply, and she realized if she backed down it wouldn’t be a “good opportunity” for her.

“So I say, ‘Well, you know Sergeant Minsky, you have an opportunity to get over that,’” she said. “So I knew that was pretty bold. But I will also tell you, 35 years later, I retired as a major general, and Sergeant Minsky and I are still the best of friends.” 

Wright credited Minsky for her development and his diversity of thought and willingness to accept her and noted he trained her “very well.” 

“We both had to open up our apertures and understand where we came from,” she said. “And I think that’s where our department’s strengths come from.”

“We work together regardless of the uniform that we wear, regardless of the customs that we come from or the traditions,” Wright continued. “But we work together to support that one mission that we have and our common goals.”

Wait ... we have a name! Can we hear from "Sergeant Minsky?" I'd love to hear his side of the story of how the two of you walked through three decades together in the warm embrace of your womanhood. Nice that you made MG ... but did Minsky ever get promoted too?

He is one of your best friends? Do you go fishing together? Christmas cards? Go to each other's parties?

I have searched and searched for some other time this closest friend was mentioned by you or came up. I can't find one. Can anyone help me here, I'm only one guy. The only connection I can find between Wright and a Minsky is on a news aggregator where you are a few stories away from another DOD employee with a prime parking space was speaking at the Hyman P. Minsky center? Is that who we are looking for? The economist Hyman P. Minsky? 

Especially in the Air National Guard where I am sure he is retired too ... after three decades you aren't on a first name basis yet?

I know we're not talking about Alex Minsky ... though that would make for a good story.

Seriously gentle readers - help a brother out. I've looked for a Minsky with some type of electronic trail in the Pennsylvania Air National Guard or just Pennsylvania National Guard. No joy. Maybe sometime between Rumsfeld's first and second tour as SECDEF and the creation of the internet he no longer associated with the NG.

Maybe that explains it. I can accept that.

It shouldn't be too hard to find him though. Minsky is not a common name. As a matter of fact, it is ranked 31,289th in the USA. Wright, in contrast, is #34.

OK, I'm done with that rabbit hole - what did the article end with?

Wright said the Defense Department has a strategic plan based on a presidential executive order including three goals: outreach, in reach and an engagement plan.

“I’m really pleased that we’re making great success on all of these,” she said. “We’ve made great strides in areas such as women in service, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and repealing parts of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“So where do we go from here?” Wright asked. “I think that’s the million-dollar question. We’ve made significant progress, but our work isn’t done.”

Outreach to who? Reaching in to who? Engage with who? Ahhhh ... the answer will tell you all you need to know. Are they reaching out for different opinions, backgrounds, and points of view? No, they are not. They are doing it all on race, creed, color, and national origin. In the zero sum game that is accessions and promotions - when you make extra effort towards one group intentionally without give equal opportunity to others for the same effort based on race, creed, color, or national origin, what are you doing?

Yes, you are operating in a discriminatory manner. That is, in the end, what DOD's (D)iversity effort is - simple unadultrated racialist cancer decorated with nice sounding words.

It is generationally abusive, intellectually dishonest, and dishonors all who become wrapped up in it. You have people who have their mindset stuck in the '70 taking it out of people who weren't even born until the 1990s.

Once again - this is all a great shame on all of us.

Enough of this cr@p. Let's go back to what we can at least find Minsky-wise. Alex Minsky. Leave on a very real, and very inspirational story.

Breaking News

Skunk at the Big-Z Party

Yes, you know you were waiting for it ... so here we go.

Well, the last 24-hrs have been fun with all the wowing and carrying on now that DDG-1000 is displacing water.

No need to go through the entire catalog, feel free to click the DDG-1000 tag to review.

There was no band. No streamers. No champagne.

The Navy's stealthy Zumwalt destroyer floated out of dry dock without fanfare Monday night and into the waters of the Kennebec River, where the warship will remain dockside for final construction.

The largest destroyer ever built for the Navy, the Zumwalt looks like no other U.S. warship, with an angular profile and clean carbon fiber superstructure that hides antennas and radar masts.

"The Zumwalt is really in a league of its own," said defense consultant Eric Wertheim, author of the "The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World."

The NavyTimes article yesterday was actually one of the better ones out there ... and it had a few Easter eggs that had me chuckling, especially Eric's quote above. Yes, the Pocket Battleship sized warship is, ahem, as the French might say, special.

I love all the stealthy comments ... just a few paragraphs after the "s" word above, we have this moment of truth;

"It's absolutely massive. It's higher than the tree line on the other side. It's an absolutely huge ship — very imposing. It's massively dominating the waterfront," said Amy Lent, executive director of the Maine Maritime Museum, who watched the process from her office down river from the shipyard.

As we have said from day 1, even if it wasn't leaking all sorts of electronic noise from communication and "networking" activity, just the size of her makes any thought of "stealth" just silly. Amy is my hero.

The big ship was supposed to be christened with a bottle of Champagne crashed against its bow by the two daughters of the late Adm. Elmo "Bud" Zumwalt, but the ceremony earlier this month was canceled because of the partial federal government shutdown.

Well, there you go. Yea Navy.

On a serious note, and there are some reasons to be a fan of DDG-1000, John Young's lament over at DefenseNews is worthy of a careful read, but there are some bones to pick there, as this ship deserves no hagiography.

Skeptics were concerned about a ship that relied on several new technologies: automated fire suppression to enable smaller crews, electric drive for fuel efficiency and electrical power, stealth, acoustic quieting, infrared suppression, etc. However, the DD(X) program — before its name was changed to DDG 1000 — was well-structured and relied on engineering development models for all of the key systems.

Despite projections from critics, DDG 1000 has delivered multiple new technologies without the cost growth associated with other DoD development programs. The program has confirmed the importance of techno­lo­gy maturation and prototyping.

Guilty. Putting all our chips on those odds was an irresponsible gamble with the taxpayer dollars, future Fleet sustainability, and Fleet operational risk. To just accept all that technology risk in one platform? One where we ignored decades of experience that taught us to build a little test a little learn a lot, and we did not operationally test any of it on existing ships before committing to the program? No. It should not stand.

It is the height of hubris to believe your own PPT. Just the crew issue is enough to CANX the entire ship. We are already seeing the foolishness of small crews on LCS and are growing size already to meet those needs. A Graf Spee sized ship with that kind of crew? What if it is given a deployment like the 11-month USS New Jersey (BB-62) had off Beirut? Good googly moogly; a h311 ship that would be from a habitability standpoint, not to mention basic maintenance.

It does not deliver anything John, it promises. Hull-1 has another ~18-months until we can start to test anything under operational conditions.

Operational requirement. Many people questioned the utility of a gunship in modern warfare. Advocates promoted smaller ships for interdiction and coastal missions while others focused on sea-based missile defense. These discussions culminated in a meeting between Navy Secretary Gordon England, Clark, Defense Undersecretary Edward Aldridge and myself, which birthed the coherent long-term plan for LCS, DD(X) and CGX.

Importantly, DD(X) would provide the defensive support needed in littoral environments by a lower-cost littoral combat ship (LCS) with no defensive capability. The DD(X) hull would also evolve into a future cruiser.

The operational requirement for the 155mm is solid and good, people who question it are just being pigheaded in the face of experience. Every naval engagement, including anti-piracy and the operations off Libya have shown the utility of the gun. You won't find an argument here. 

As for the future cruiser, Shipmate, DDG-1000 is a CL; you have your cruiser. Anti-air cruiser based on the hull and power plant ... yes, that was discussed. Nothing another universe's shipbuilding budget wouldn't fix. We need the gun, we didn't need all that other technology risk to go along with it.

The plan was largely derailed by a coalition of pundits who bear no responsibility for the nation’s future naval capability and garner attention through sensational forecasts.
...
The course change undermined a coherent, long-term naval strategy that sought to provide the Navy with the capability to execute missions in a hostile littoral environment, to evolve to a fleet of more survivable and capable cruisers, and to sustain a stable industrial base. Sensational projections about DD(X) technical risk and cost have proved inaccurate.

There may still be time for the Navy to review these decisions as they learn from the highly capable new DDG 1000 destroyer.

Everyone has a responsibility for the nation's future naval capability - and planning a sub-optimal Tiffany Navy is a sure way to shrink a Fleet. LCS, DDG-1000, LPD-17 ... what about these ship programs make sense in the budgetary environment we are going to face for the next two decades? Do we even need to discuss other design issues with the hull's ability to sustain damage in the "hostile littorals" given the significant historical record of tumblehome designs historical and modern?

Young makes some very good points about the industrial base, but that too is the fault of the Lost Decade of wishing for a Tiffany Navy with Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams.

Good people can disagree about DDG-1000, but in many ways it is a touchtone of how things should not be done, and canceling it at 3 hulls was the right call. The Terrible 20s will be bad enough without the risk of having a suboptimal big ship (DDG-1000) matched up with a suboptimal smallish ship (LCS).

All three ships of this class will be test platforms for new technology. That is something that should have been done first on existing hulls ... then implement in to follow-on ship classes.

As for DDG-1000 being all that and a box of chocolates - for now it is all PPT deep. The plant, the weapons, the hull form, the manning concept, the radar, the whole thing is all one thing - a known-unknown. My hope, the 155mm gun works the best of all of them.

History tells us that some of this will work, some will not - to assume that all will work on time, on spec, and under budget is a gamble the Navy simply cannot afford. The best lesson WRT the DDG-1000 program? Look to it and LCS for the next program ... and don't do that.

I will give you this, she is nice to look at.

Why not $10,000? $100,000? A pony for Christmas?

You know that quote from Sal's favorite Founding Father?

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

I think this insanity from TheAtlantic is about what he had in mind.

Using the dataset from the latest Census poverty report, I determined that if we cut a $2,920 check to every single American—adults, children, and retirees—we could cut official poverty in half. Economists consider this sort of across-the-board payment a “universal basic income.” You can think of it as Social Security for all, not just the elderly.

The upside of giving everybody about $3,000 is that it’s a very easy policy to run and a surefire way to cut poverty in half. But it's a large program: it would require about $907 billion in 2012, or 5.6 percent of the nation’s GDP. (In a real implementation, we might exclude the more than 45 million Americans receiving OASI Social Security benefits from a basic income, bringing the cost down substantially.)

Could we afford it? Sure. For starters, we could raises taxes, first on the rich, who would pay more in new taxes than they would receive in basic income, and then on lower-middle class and poor families, who would come out ahead. There is also plenty of room to cut tax expenditures on homeowners, personal retirement accounts, capital gains exclusions at death, and exclusions on annuity investment returns. This submerged welfare state for the affluent costs hundreds of billions of dollars each year. There is also the matter of the $700 billion military budget, which could take some trimming.

The point is: this could be done.

Ben ... any other ideas?

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Huh.

In case you were wondering, your humble blogg'r fell in with Franklin when as a young man he read, Fart Proudly: Writings of Benjamin Franklin You Never Read in School.

Force Shaping Tool; It's Come to This

Genetics are tough.

I am blessed with good genetics. I'm what is generally called an "athletic build." I haven't really been an athlete in a quarter century, but it doesn't matter. Not only do I have the look of someone who works out, or at least runs, on an regular basis, I have the blood pressure, heart rate and cholesterol levels of one too.

Truth be known, I'm actually a PT slug when not deployed - even more in year four of retirement (NB: though thanks to my outdoor activity on the weekends, I actually am in better shape).

Never sweated the BCA/PFA; like I said, I have good genetics. The PRT though, that is another matter. Let's just say, if minimums were not good enough, there wouldn't be minimums.

I never did more than minimum number of push-ups and ditto sit-ups - mostly because I hate both with a passion and just plain refuse to invest time in them. Running? Heck, I can hike at a good pace all day long with a full pack, but running? I don't know if it is the numbness in my feet or my brain - but I ain't moving fast. I get by. 

Always been that way. As a defensive end, I still ran the distance with the offensive and defensive line. Shuffle, waddle, bitch, complain. That is how I cover long distances at a run unless I am going cross country and find the woods interesting. Pool option? I'm in there like a fish while Mr. Running man swims like a stoned sloth. It is all such random, meaningless BS - and I have never faulted someone for coasting by on the PRT.

The body wars are not my fight per se - it never impacted me except for one CO who thought I should score better on the PRT with "the way I looked." He thought I didn't care enough, and he was right. I invested my energy in other things.

The body wars are really everyone's business, as they continue to be an injustice to our Sailors and they are something we 100% control.

Every PRT since I was an Ensign, there were those who were "too fat" who zoomed right by me and maxed out the PRT - but again, were "too fat" for our Navy. 

There were also some who maxed out the PRT who weighed less than 150# but were about useless in everything else. The pass the PRT "too fat" guys, I never questioned that if something happened - they could pull me up a ladder or two and/or throw me over a shoulder and take me somewhere else. I also had no question, in that they reminded me of my offensive line running buddies, that they could pull more than their load in damage control or a bar fight in Souda Bay.

The skinny guy finishing the run in a flash? Ummm ... no.

I have watched many a good to great Sailor get shown the door simply because of their body shape. Some poor guy whose DNA comes from West Africa or the Baltic vs some guy from East Africa or Japan? All based on looks.

No one wants a blob who sits in a chair like four pints of gravy in a sack, or someone whose backside looks like two bulldogs fighting over a muffin - but all the same - do we also want some kind standard that says, "We really wish you looked more like poster boy here. I don't care if you have three times the qualifications he has - he looks better in formation. Time for you to go."

I'm not saying someone Walmart-morbidly obese is OK - but someone a little big-boned should not have a career ending experience at age 35.

Well, some people love their Navy more than their DNA. It isn't just the Navy either - the marathoners have taken hold of the Army hard. As a result;

Soldiers often call plastic surgeon Adam Tattelbaum in a panic. They need liposuction—fast.

Some military personnel are turning to the surgical procedure to remove excess fat from their waists in a desperate attempt to pass the Pentagon's body fat test, which relies on measurements of the neck and waist and can determine their future prospects in the military.

"They come in panicked about being kicked out or getting a demerit that will hurt their chances at a promotion," the Rockville, Md., surgeon said.

Service members complain that the Defense Department's method of estimating body fat weeds out not just flabby physiques but bulkier, muscular builds.

Doctors say a number of military personnel are turning to liposuction to remove excess fat from around the waist so they can pass the Pentagon's body fat test. Some service members say they have no other choice because the Defense Department's method of estimating body fat is weeding out not just flabby physiques but bulkier, muscular builds. A number of fitness experts and doctors agree, and they're calling for the military's fitness standards to be revamped.

What will it take - someone dying during lipo?

Is there a better way? Yes - accept a diversity of body shapes. Set a minimum PRT standard and let that be OK.

For those who insist that we simply can not have Sta-Puft trotting about in uniform, well ... maybe. I think big guys can represent just fine.

Please, be humble and do it right ...

There is an almost unique capability that the United States has that no one even comes close to having. Beyond the rise of the drones and above the COIN vs. conventional arguments - the long-range manned bomber.

Flexible, accountable with multiple redundancies - the long life of the B-52 should tell you all you need to know about their value.

So far, the trends have been favorable for the yet to be named B-3; we should all hope that continues;

Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the two largest defense companies in the world, are teaming up on the next-generation bomber.

The companies announced a teaming effort for the Air Force’s Long Range Strike Bomber program on Oct. 25. Boeing will be the prime contractor, while Lockheed will act as primary teammate.

“Boeing and Lockheed Martin are bringing together the best of the two enterprises, and the rest of industry, in support of the Long-Range Strike Bomber program, and we are honored to support our US Air Force customer and this important national priority,” Dennis Muilenburg, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said in a joint statement. “Stable planning, along with efficient and affordable development and production approaches, enables our team to reduce development risk by leveraging mature technologies and integrating existing systems.”

Steady, firm, and well grounded --- and hopefully very short of the expensive, program destroying transformationalist cultisms.

Hey Lou!

It was a great run. Thanks.

Lou Reed, the singer, songwriter and guitarist whose work with the Velvet Underground in the 1960s had an impact on generations of rock musicians, and who remained a powerful if polarizing force for the rest of his life, died on Sunday at his home in Southampton, N.Y., on Long Island. He was 71.
...
The Velvet Underground, which was originally sponsored by Andy Warhol and showcased the songwriting of John Cale, as well as Mr. Reed, wrought gradual but profound impact on the high-I.Q., low-virtuosity stratum of alternative and underground rock around the world.

Joy Division, the Talking Heads, Patti Smith, R.E.M., the Strokes and numerous others were direct descendants. The composer Brian Eno, in an often-quoted interview from 1982, suggested that if the group’s first record sold only 30,000 records during its first five years — a figure probably lower than the reality — “everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band.”

Early on in the milblogosphere, I thought blogging was to military writing/opinion/journalism what VU was to pop music. I'm not sure who our Andy was ... but whatever je ne sais quoi there once was a decade ago is gone. I'm not saying in a grumpy hipster way that is was better ... just different.

Of the crew from '04; Lex left - Chap, GreyHawk, John, Kim, The Commissar, and a few others have moved on or demurred. Joel, BLACKFIVE, JAWA, EagleOne, Skippy-san; they're still hanging in with the rest of the Sophomore class.

In hindsight, maybe we were notsomuch VU as Backstreet Boys. VU was, though, in a fashion - unique.

Fullbore Friday

The Battle of Leyte Gulf.

The world's largest naval battle. Every type of action, night and day, for days, from air-to-air to battleship action.

No one did it better than The History Channel in taking the time to put the battle in to context. Get a cup of coffee.

Diversity Thursday

If your Army is getting smaller, you will need fewer officers. As a result, it makes sense that you would reduce the number of ROTC units here and there.

One would think that you would be practical about it; what is the size of the units; cost per commissioned officer; retention rate of officers commissioned; ect.

No, it won't be that easy. The important question will always be, what criteria are you using?

"The decision to close the 13 ROTC programs is not a reflection on the quality of those academic institutions or the outstanding officers produced at those schools," said Karl F. Schneider, acting assistant secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. "These closures are necessary changes that allow for more efficient use of available resources within the command, while maintaining a presence in all 50 states. The Army will continue to be good stewards of its resources through prudent transformation of the institutional Army."

Well, that is the Army's take. What is really going on here?

The Army selected the universities after a review found that the programs were typically yielding fewer than 15 commissioned officers annually, although the military acknowledged it granted exceptions to dozens of schools because they met other standards.

Other standards? What, pray tell would those be?

Maj. Gen. Jefforey A. Smith, the commander of the Cadet Command, said the move was not part of a major shift from rural settings to urban ones. Still, he added: “It makes sense that we would move toward where the population is where we think we have a recruiting population to go after.”

The changes will come amid a push by the Army to diversify its officer corps, a large portion of which comes from the R.O.T.C. In 2011, about 28 percent of active duty Army officers were minorities, up from 23 percent a decade earlier.

That makes it pretty clear - but they are still hedging.

General Smith said, though, that each school “was applied against a set of criteria.”

I think we would all like to see what the set of criteria were. Yes, and it would nice to see a FOIA for all emails, minutes, and guidance issued to the selection personnel.

That is what needs to be done if you want to fight this. As with most of the discrimination done by the Diversity Industry - it cannot stand up to the light of day.

“I don’t believe in shifting, just to get more people of different backgrounds, at the expense of these R.O.T.C. programs that are well-established and are producing outstanding officers,” said Carl W. Stiner, a retired four-star general who is an alumnus of the program at Tennessee Tech. “You will deny people who want to be commissioned through the R.O.T.C. program and serve their country.”

General Stiner - you need to do more than that.

If you want to push back - expecially those in TN, then you need to play their game. Get the metrics - get the demographics - and then get the right legal and statistical advisors.

We all know what is going on here - the Army is actively discriminating on the basis of race - red in tooth and claw.

Tech's Army ROTC program is one of 13 across the nation and three in Tennessee identified by the U.S. Department of Defense for closure.

Tech received notification this week of the Army’s intentions. The move to close programs appears to be linked to budget decisions and the Army’s desire to have more diverse ROTC participants.

President Phil Oldham and many concerned university supporters say it is a bewildering decision they will fight to reverse.

“We don’t understand why the Army would try to balance the budget on the backs of TTU students,” Oldham stated.

“And we have to question why a disproportionate number of programs in Tennessee are being targeted,” Oldham emphasized. “If there is a concern about establishing diversity, I assert that our first-generation college students from rural areas who participate in our state’s ROTC programs represent a special population."

Being that we don't have any FOIA information on the criteria, let's see what 'ole Sal can find out. Heck, as you can read in the press reports, they aren't being shy about it.

Southern Miss only commissioned eight officers in 2013 and has generated an average of 10.8 annually since 2009.

However, the joint program of Jackson State University and Mississippi Valley State University has produced only 66 commissioned officers since 2009 (an average of 13.2 officers annually.)

Alcorn State University has fared even worse, not once meeting the standard of producing 15 commissioners annually and only generating 48 commissioned officers since 2009 (9.6 yearly.)

Army Cadet Command spokesman Paul Haverstick said the Army used different criteria in preserving Alcorn State’s program and the JSU-MSVU joint program, while closing Southern Miss’.

He said the three programs were among more than 40 nationwide programs that did not meet the commissioned officer grade, when examining their three-year, five-year and 10-year averages.

“We then looked up at all these programs and applied follow-up criteria,” Haverstick said.

The Army preserved the JSU-MSVU joint program because it met a DOD standard of commissioning more than 6.5 officers annually who are engineers.

Haverstick said it would have been preserved anyway for the same reason that Alcorn State’s was saved: a 2010 executive order issued by President Barack Obama to promote excellence in historically black colleges and universities, including strengthening the capacity of HBCUs to participate in federal programs.

“That was one of the criteria that was used,” Haverstick said.

Let's just see what the rough percentages are for the White Devil in the closed institutions.

The ROTC programs selected for closure are:

University of South Dakota: 87.54% White.
Northern Michigan University: 91% White.
North Dakota State University: 80.74% White, but with 7.53% counted as "non-resident alien" as a "race" and 4.03% not selecting (making a 11.56% Fudge Factor: Ff. Ff is probably more as "White Hispanics" are not broken out), probably closer to 85-90%
University of Wisconsin--La Crosse: 88% White with a 4% Ff; call it 90%.
Arkansas State University: 72% with an 8% Ff, closer to 80%.
University of Tennessee at Martin: 84.6% White with a small single-digit Ff. We'll call it 85%.
University of North Alabama: 69.9% White which what looks to be close to a 10% Ff. We'll call it 75%.
Georgia Regents (Augusta State) University: Couldn't find information.
University of Southern Mississippi: 59% with a Ff of 5%. We'll call it 63%.
East Tennessee State University: 84.81% with a 4% Ff. Call it 88%.
Morehead State University: 92.8% White with a very small Ff.
Tennessee Technological University: 88% White with a very small Ff.
University of California--Santa Barbara: 49.4% White with a almost 10% Ff ... but it has a large, 15% Asian population.

I guess that USM and UC-SB didn't quite get their (D)iversity story out. I think the story pretty much tells itself.

There is a side-story here - this isn't unexpected. The window of acceptability for quotas and separate admissions criteria is getting narrower in both public opinion and in the legal system. If you want to move the needle, you have to find a way to decrease the number of whites who come in. By limiting accessions from sources who draw from predominately white student bodies, you increase the odds of giving openings to non-white students.

I wish there were a greater appreciation of why some of one culture seems to serve more than others. Former Senator Webb (D-VA) has a book that helps, for instance, to explain why COMISAF went from a McNeill, to a McKiernan, to a McChrystal while SOF was being run by a McRaven - but that would be a little ethnically self-serving on my part. 

TN (3),  southern MS,  AK, northern AL, KY. Yea ... I can see that pattern. Speaking of diversity ... I see a distinct lack of it. Map it.

... or ... 

Let me help you out a bit.

DiversityArmyStyle.pdf by CDR Salamander

Seems like the Army has changed a lot since General Colin Powell, USA (Ret.) was a 2LT;

What the Army essentially said to me when I entered was: "Look, Powell, we don't care about your color. We don't care about the fact that you are a poor kid from the tenement section of New York. Don't give us any hard-luck stories. We don't care about your immigrant background. The only thing we care about is performance. If you perform, then you will move up. If you don't perform, you won't. Performance is all that counts."

Not for the better either.

Wait ... I think General Casey, USA (Ret) wants to weigh in.

The Terrible 20s in a Picture

It is time to remind everyone about that light heading our way a bit down the tracks. Pretending it isn't there won't help anyone.

It is time again - and as usual the CBO helps best.

The most important line there is the average funding 1984 to 2013.  Look at it back and forth a few times.

Now, does anyone here REALLY think that given the huge debt load we have taken on in the last five years - building up more debt than then entire other years of the republic, that for the next 30 years we will consistently have that much of a higher average shipbuilding budget. Really?

We must capitalize our SSBN force. To do that, we have to either find a bunch of purple dollars in the colon of a Beltway unicorn, or we will have to squeeze the other programs.

As much as I don't care for LCS and would love for its death to be the answer, it wouldn't be; you could nuke the program and still only get 20% there.  SSN have been already squeezed, so what do you do? For planning purposes, what does the future look like if we kill LCS, cut the SSBN buy 20%? How much more do we have to cut? Our big stick are the CVN, so like the SSNs that are the premier sea denial platform in the Indo-Pacific; we can't touch that.  Our Amphibs are cut about as much as you can already.  What? Cut the large surface combatants by 50% during the Terrible 20s too?

Maybe - but you have to make a call somewhere. What would be helpful at this point is to pull out your essential Vince Lombardi.

“As a team last year we were horrible at the fundamentals of the game of football. Nobody here knows how to block and nobody knows how to tackle. All I saw last year was grab, grab, grab! “What we’re going to do now is go back to basics and we’re going to learn, drill and practice the fundamentals until we become better at them than anyone else in the game. If you do this with me, I will make you champions.” 

Let me paraphrase; "As a navy last decade and a half we were horrible at the fundamentals of the profession of building a fleet. Nobody here knows how to build a fleet and nobody knows how to respond to changing strategic requirements. All I saw in the last 15-yrs was spin, jargon, food-trough. What we're going to do now is go back to basics and we're going to learn, drill and practice the fundamentals until we become better at building a fleet for tomorrow than anyone else on the planet. If you do this with me, the nation will be secure, our industry strong, and our young men and women will have the best weapon systems possible if their nation sends them in to harm's way."

Something like that.

So, how does this start? First, we need some good Political guidance from the CINC. Then we we work on the best Strategic guidance inside a realistic understanding of our Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic Constraints and Restraints - and how the Navy and Marine Corps fit in to it.

Thinking that we will receive in excess of 75% to 100% more than the historical average spending on shipbuilding in the face of an almost unprecidented budget crunch that will last decades is - well - in a fashion; professional malpractice and quasi-delusional. 

I'm sorry - but the 2014 plan is DOA. That is pretty much what the CBO report says ... but with nicer words and lots of math and hard facts.

We need to seriously look at how we would carry out what we believe we need to carry out given;

That alternative plan is not a recommendation by CBO but simply an illustration of the possible consequences of continuing funding for shipbuilding at its historical average amount rather than increasing it, as would be required under the Navy’s 2014 plan.

Purchases under that alternative plan would number 193 ships (versus 266 in the Navy’s plan), including 157 combat ships and 36 support ships.
...
Under that alternative plan, the battle force fleet in 2023 would be about the same size as in the Navy’s plan but by 2043 would number 243 ships, as opposed to the 306 ships in the Navy’s plan.

243. That is real close to what number front porch? Yes ... 240. That is a number that we have been using here since well before 2010.

So again - let's use that number; 240. What do we do, and how do we do it? What are the Assumptions? What are the Risks? What must be done, what can be done, what can be done with great risk, and what is simply outside a reasonable expectation?

To not have a "minority report" using a baseline fleet +/- 240 just makes it harder for the next generation to "make it happen."

Another note, look at the SSBN graph on page 10 of the report linked below. 3 1/2 years ago I warned that we would be lucky to stay at 10 SSBN ... well in the graph in 2028 we dip below the aspirational goal of 12 and hit 10 in 2032. Someone finds pixie dust and says we'll be up to 12 by 2042 - but those out years are just silly.

Unless something drastic happens soon, we should plan for 10 to be exactly what I predicted in 2010 - the ceiling. 

Math is hard; economics is harder.

CBO Report on Navy 2014 Shipbuilding Plan

Indo-Pacific; Future Imperfect

By nature, humans are always looking for patterns. History shows us that is a good thing to do, as humans build and destroy along similar lines and habits. It isn't perfect though.

It is comforting to think you have found a pattern that makes sense; from superstitious baseball players to people who have their "lucky shirt," but that feeling of comfort can lead you to miss a turn.

The phrase give to Mark Twain, "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." is just about right. A rhyme is almost the same, but the inflection, tone, and amplitude can be a bid different.

In that light, static evaluation of especially China, but India as well, is full of dangers. Unlike the rising powers of the last few centuries, both have significant demographic headwinds to overcome. They are resource and institutionally restrained unlike any other rising power.

While Western Europe deals with imploding demographics and collapse of their Welfare State model and America picks its belly button - it is easy to go all Eeyore and think the the future is East & South Asian ... but wait. It isn't that easy.

Demographic, economic, environmental, political; those challenges for both India and China are significant, but there are more out there waiting.

The more I look around, the less I feel that any of our comfortable models are going to play out. The uncertainty is greater, and the capacity for sudden change grater than any of are really discounting for. 

When a nation faces such greatest challenges, it needs all its intellectual capital to find solutions and to lead the nation to the best path forward. What if a nation's best and brightest decide they don't want to show up to the future?

India’s biggest corporate beneficiaries of economic liberalization --names like Tata, Mahindra, Birla -- are putting the bulk of their investments abroad. Escaping rapidly declining educational institutes at home, more Indian students than ever before -- the number has risen 256 percent in the last decade to almost 200,000 -- have gone abroad, to Spain and China as well as the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. Young technology professionals and bright undergraduates are moving to Singapore, Australia and Silicon Valley. An influx of wealthy businessmen and financiers has made Indians the highest-income ethnic group in Singapore. 

A similar quest for more congenial climes is apparent among China’s privileged classes. The country’s rapid economic growth was actually triggered in the late 1970s and 1980s by its far-flung and patriotic diaspora. But the New China they enabled is now a place -- environmentally challenged, and politically and economically unstable -- that many of its wealthy inhabitants hope to leave. A recent report by Bain & Co. revealed that an astonishing 60 percent of Chinese it surveyed with a net worth of $1.5 million or more wanted to emigrate, and a third of them already have investments abroad.
...
What does this rush to the exit by their elites portend for India and China, two of Asia’s biggest nation-states, which not so long ago were widely expected to preside over a shift of power from the West to the East? This month in Hong Kong I met an old friend who had opened a business for rich consumers in China as early as the 1990s, and branched out into other realms, including culture. Having witnessed many ups and downs in previous decades, she imagined the presently diminished market for luxury goods in China was just another phase.
But she was worried about the long-term ramifications of the sociopolitical and economic uncertainty settling upon Chinese elites, and the consequent flight to the safety and security of other societies. Back in the 1990s, she had invested in the future of a class of educated, well-off Chinese -- its expansion, and the related growth of a sophisticated culture of consumption at home. Their departure from China, if not for good then with the intention of finding an additional base elsewhere, meant that she, too, had to find a haven elsewhere from the coming storms of Chinese life.

Theoretically, she could exercise her rights as a flexible citizen, and follow her clientele to flashy playgrounds of the rich such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai. Indeed, these old hubs of transportation and commerce are reinventing themselves as high-class tax shelters and playgrounds for Asia’s plutocracy. But this is far from resolving the crisis of the nation-state, the original guarantor, in postcolonial India and China at least, of citizenship, rights, welfare and dignity -- a gathering crisis that will affect everyone invested in Asia’s political and economic stability.

One note - the author of this article, Pankaj Mishra, is pushing a book titled, From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and the Remaking of Asia, but that's OK - we like authors and books.

Either way - plenty here to mix in to your pondering. Add this to your mix: as Europe's decline has yet to even hint at bottoming, and America seems intent on economically hobbling itself - there is a tendency to look to past patters and ask, "OK, which nations will rise to the top to replace them?"

I China and India simply fail to thrive, plateau early, or simply fail to transition from boost to cruise - then what world do we have? 

Economically stagnant developed world, polluted, dry, sputtering, no-longer-developing - and corrupt  tribalistic, failed quasi-nation states filling the gap except for the New Zealand, Singapore, and Norway here and there?

Good googly moogly, anti-depressants for everyone. 

Well, it ain't April 1st

Another of my blogfathers has hung up his spurs. I commented there well before I took this nom du plume.

All of a sudden, the milblogosphere just seemed a little stranger. I am a bit at unease.

Obamacare's "Pass and Tag" Office

Oh, great.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney drew online eye-rolls from conservatives on Monday after he boasted that website response times were cut by one-third after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented virtual 'waiting rooms' that allowed users to trickle in according to the load the government's servers could handle.

I have three visions;
1. NS Norfolk's Pass & Tag office circa 0730 any Monday in 2004.
2. Waiting for space available outbound from Bagram.
3. Yea, this waiting room.

Well, AIS says ....

How strong is your crutch?

In the maritime business, Automated Identification Systems (AIS) are a big deal. They supplement information received by the marine radar system, are used for a wide variety of things - including ship-to-ship communication - and are relied upon each and every day. Unfortunately, the AIS can also be easily hacked in order to do some real damage, claims a group of researchers presenting at the Hack In The Box Conference currently taking place in Kuala Lumpur.

All good sorts of technical details at the link.

AIS isn't the end all and be all ... but anything that can be used to add confusion and mis-information is a huge potential source of problems. In an increasingly technical and networked environment, we need to be constantly asking ourselves if we are creating tools that can be easily used against us, or building on a false foundation.

Some people don't want to hear that and if your facts hurt their theories, they will - if they can - just ignore you.

The researchers said that they don't have much hope that their research will result with prompt changes.

"Perhaps the media attention will help," said Balduzzi. "But judging by the response received by Hugo Teso, who last year presented his research on airplane hijacking by interfering with its communication systems, the issue will not be addressed or fixed soon, and we don't expect to get a lot of feedback from the governing bodies."

On the other hand, they point out that their attacks are much more feasible than Teso's. "The difference between the airplane attacks and these ones is that the former are more difficult to perform, and therefore less likely to be performed by attackers in the wild." Also, they managed to test some of these attacks outside of a lab, so they are sure to work with systems already online.

The good news is that similar attacks haven't yet been spotted being performed by malicious individuals. But, according to Balduzzi, the danger is big and real.

"It's actually possible to do it by investing very little. For our experiment, we bought a SDR radio, which costs some 500 euros, but it's possible to do it by using a VHF radio that costs around a 100 euros - a price that makes the technology accessible to almost anyone (including pirates). The threat is very real, and that's why we talked upfront with the ITU," they concluded.

Every Army 4-Star & SES Needs to be Fired or Resign

If this is actually the US Army's point of view - then this group of senior leaders need to step out of the way - or kicked to the curb - and let others make it work. It is only going to get more challenging. 

Via ArmyTimes;

Top Army officials late last month briefed Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on the Army’s future and the risks associated with cutting its forces. The presentation’s slides draw dire conclusions about reducing the Army’s size beyond the 490,000 active-duty soldiers — down from a war-time high of 570,000 — it plans to have in 2017.

An Army with 450,000 soldiers is “too small” and at “high risk to meet one major war.” The bottom line on one slide reads, “Extremely High Risk in Meeting Even One Major Combat Operation.” The Pentagon has been structured for decades to win two separate wars.

This is perhaps what they meant.

And war will likely break out again, according to the briefing. “History says the Army will fight again ... much sooner than we think.” At 420,000 active-duty soldiers, the Army “cannot execute (Defense Strategic Guidance).”

That guidance “deemphasizes large, protracted, and manpower-intensive stability operations,” according to budget documents.

Argue that our eyes are bigger than our stomach? That is fine ... but crying impotence? No - that destroys credibility if the report is accurate on the nature of the brief to Carter.

Hyperbole of flaccidity concerning the world's most technologically superior army of 450,000 - especially with the USAF, USMC, and USN backing its play? Child please.

The fact that they would throw that out to Dep. SECDEF Carter should be all the signal you need that a house cleaning is in order. The nation cannot afford larger - if you can't figure it out, give someone else a chance.