i am a believer in consumer choice and individual liberty generally but that comes to an abrupt stop on matters of public health

Seconded, this article is remarkably bad. My mental jury is still out on whether I’d call the author a tankie, but he talks to far too many of them. Some examples: I’m sorry you didn’t pay attention in your HS history class, but this isn’t what I got *in a very conservative part of the South*

Every now and again I’m reminded of the existence of this slide, which was supposedly part of a deck briefed to CDR INDOPACOM. Believe it or not, most of the rest of the deck was worse.

An alternative framing: the United States should make all practical efforts to be the shining city on the hill, a place of human liberty, progress, and the best the world can be for all. And part and parcel of that is making sure authoritarians everywhere think, when they hear something go bump…

I am still pitching

One day I want someone to explain to me how the hell either Rhodes’ or Sullivan’s backgrounds got them the positions they did or the respect they have now. Zero relevant experience or education, just briefcase carriers and keyboard typists at the right place at the right time.

I have my own version of this, where I grew up in a Bible-thumping upper middle class conservative part of the South, and through Scouting encountered nearly everything under the sun (one of many things about it I’m grateful for). But I also find it deeply and ironically hilarious how the values…

It’s probably possible. It’s also going to be extremely disruptive as organizations have adapted to their new realities. As usual it’s easier to break than build.

This is precisely why the Soviets invented several unique pieces of military technology that the West never bothered with and why while those pieces of kit make for fascinating acquisition case studies that Soviet doctrine is frankly mediocre at best.

That is how a lot of naive peaceniks on this site act, yes

knowing anything about national defense or weapons is basically the same as liking them, which is basically the same as building them, which is basically the same as buying them, which is basically the same as using them, which is basically the same as committing any war crime that has ever happened

Are we studying what’s in the water in Tampa? Like seriously, what the fuck is wrong with CENTCOM?

Lots of people don’t seem to understand that liberalism requires people willing to build armaments for it, fight for it, and die for it. It’s not like the other alternative hegemons are going to be some bulwark of liberal values.

Everything about this comedy annoys me. It’s the smug “I am privileged and can make jokes because I live in a society that allows me to make jokes” while understanding nothing about what the maintenance of that society requires. bsky.app/profile/mayb...

The bomb was built to take out Russian command bunkers. An orange narcissist decided to drop it on a school.

If the views expressed by this comedian are your serious view, my honest opinion is that you have revealed you know jack shit about defense and have never seriously tried to change that. I’m not even particularly sorry at this point if you think I’m rude about that.

Liberals need to understand that many liberals work in defense. Moreover, liberals should *want* liberals to work in defense. They’re an asset to the cause! It’s not a good outcome if everyone involved in war thinks/votes one direction.

Hey, look, everyone. I wrote the first part of a series I was planning on national security policy that Democrats can pursue following the midterm elections. Exciting! othermeans.substack.com/p/restoring-...

War Machine on Netflix id solid. As long as you go in understanding its Predator but a battlemech instead of an alien, and Alan Ritchson instead of Arnold, you’ll enjoy it. It’s got its share of “You didn’t run that line past someone who knows” but I liked it well enough.

A very generous interpretation is that in the near future CONUS will be under conventional missile threat from our adversaries at a level at best not seen since the end of the Cold War, and potentially ever. So the advantage lost ie the advantage of distance and the safety of CONUS in distant LSCO.

Actually, MBA students shouldn’t be allowed to speak at all.

Film you've watched more than six times with a gif. Hard mode: no Star Trek, Star Wars, LOTR, Marvel, Disney, or Ghibli.

Question for Defense Economists of Bluesky: is there any quantifiable estimate of how much capital efficiency a system gains when it centralizes? Lots of folks point out that the EU as a whole is an economy either similar to or larger than the U.S. but its defense budgets are national level.

Maybe, probably, and lol lmao only in a storm of nuclear hellfire to that last one. Do you really expect me to believe a state whose policy for this century so far, almost exclusively under one maniac, is to permanently and violently destabilize its neighbors when given half a chance won’t…

Yes, but also half of the IRGC's naval capability is like hopped up fishing boats and no one is shooting what is left of the Iranian Air Force because they don't fly them anymore. They're mostly museum pieces.

To nights far later than they should have been, with friends better than we deserved

I have no trouble believing that the reasons were petty, but it’s also important to understand that being “in the middle of a war/blockade” is not relevant— the SECNAV is not involved in that sort of thing at all.

Phelan's plan is to paint this thing haze gray and call it a day. At least we'll *have a ship*, right? But there are a few problems with Phelan's plan, beyond just the stupidity of building a warship that can't actually do very much war.

The Secretary of the Navy is not in the chain of command. Phelan was not the last person stopping Trump from nuking Iran. The SECNAV is responsible for getting ships built and making sure the sailors have the stuff they need.

"no it's not that you're not *allowed* to read it, it's that you can't because it's unwritten"

One of DC’s greatest weaknesses (and why I so frequently answer “Where can I read about this?” with twists on “Sorry you can’t”)

Reasons, in order: - Bad cost estimate then Congress killed it - CNO Richardson - Mediocre idea that Congress forced the Navy to buy - End of the Cold War, then Congress killed it - Congress killed it (honorable mention to GWOT) - Narcissism - Obscene requirements - the F-35B - Requirements creep

I want you to imagine how bad you think it will be without imagining nuclear weapons. It will be worse than that. “GP, that can’t possible be right” You are right, we’re still underselling the shittiness.

That’s the thing! Drones are marketed as a manpower replacement when they’re just the opposite; it takes a ton of people to employ drones.

It's fine actually that basically everyone in charge has entirely the wrong idea for why this is like this

people in the replies bringing up Hillary as an example of a recent dem who "understood hard power" and hooooo boy is that both missing the point and simultaneously unintentionally proving it

I was assured in basic that "righteous vengeance and furious anger" had no business being anywhere near an organized military. "Warriors fight with emotion. Soldiers fight with cold efficiency. A warrior can beat a soldier. Warriors will never win against soldiers." It was a whole thing.

But make no mistake getting to those times and getting out of those times was cold professionalism, teamwork and efficiency.

U.S. foreign and defense policy is predicated on a version of the prisoners’ dilemma at the international scale, we’re just wealthy enough we can force the good outcome while whining about it Send skeet

I'm going to make everyone mad too. You want your bold new left of center security strategy? Here it is. (The title, not the book itself. That's just me being provocative.) There is a global backswing against democracy. It is left or right colored in different countries. But it has to lose.

Fun DoD budget fact of the day: only about 18-20% of the topline each cycle is actually debated inside the Department each cycle before submission to the White House to go to Congress. Everything else is some level of “must pay.” The majority of procurement (tanks, ships, planes, missiles)…

That is a solid assessment. I'd rather have that debate with someone who understands the difference between necessary protections, bad policies, acquisition inefficiencies, stupid goals, etc than the "WaR PrOfItEeR" deluded child.

Opposition to war, like war itself, is serious business for serious people. Right now it's like the left's equivalent of the right's cult of the operator, a bunch of fantasist cranks. A serious US anti-war movement will have FSOs at its core.

also not that it matters because bsky but similar to how billionaires have a lot of money and also taxing them at 110% of their wealth alone would not be a drop in the bucket of $ required for govt social services bc of the scale, the defense budget is not the endless piggybank the left thinks it is

This thread is the usual handful of People Who Know Shit making the same points no one ever listens to, amid a raging sea of this site’s pathologies re: defense and hard power. Some days it’s hard to care. Then I remember why I actually go to work, and these idiots are just along for the ride

I’ve been thinking about this all day and I’m going to make everybody mad with this (apologies up front) but it’s not just that they can’t talk about NatSec it’s that they have nothing to talk about.

As someone who has been banging this drum and offering his own meager aid to non-MAGA politicals and their staff for years, I regret I have but one like and repost* to give.

“Trump has done and will continue to do considerable damage to America’s economic prospects with his tariffs, corruption, and evisceration of science and technology funding, and he has already deeply alienated America’s oldest and closest allies with his predilection for international gangsterism.”