Former Chechen Commander Gunned Down In Berlin; Whodunnit?

(RFE) Former Chechen Commander Gunned Down In Berlin; Eyes Turn To Moscow (And Grozny). An excellent article, the entirety is quotable. By reference to a November 2016 event, we offer a whodunnit theory.

Russian involvement is likely. The details challenge the idea that Russian assassinations are authorized and executed by organs of government with a well defined hierarchy of command and control. Quoting from Iran/MEK Bomb Plot; Assassinations; Russia Comparison,

The exception to careful planning is post breakup Russia. While at their best, Russians still excel at the undetectable murder, their reputation has been sullied by high profile embarrassments, amateurish exploits involving high tech poisons, such as the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko,  and the contamination of half of Salisbury with Novichok A-234. It suggests that, contrary to the almost automatic “Putin approved…” theory of assassinations, there are multiple entities in Russia that initiate, including the SVR, and multiple entities that execute, including possible freelancers.


  • Litvinenko and the Skripals were attacked with the most sophisticated poisons known.
  • Zelimkhan Khangoshvili  was shot by a Russian on a bicycle. Other Chechens have been assassinated by gun shot.
  • The personal characteristics  of the victims are unrelated to the modes of attack. The mode is determined by the authority that requires it.

Montenegro was challenged to make the distinction, and they did. (BBC) ‘Russian nationalists’ behind Montenegro PM assassination plot. Quoting,

“We don’t have any evidence that the state of Russia is involved in any sense… but we have evidence that two nationalists from Russia were organisers,” Mr Katnic said.

Elsewhere, the article states,

“There is no evidence the Russian state was involved.”

Really? At the least, it indicates the Russian state can cover its tracks very well. It is possible that activities such as these are covered by a loosely administered slush fund.

Now it’s all set up for the whodunnit play write. Learn a little Russian, infiltrate Russian paramilitaries and be sure they don’t notice you’re taking notes. Fame and fortune can be yours!






Did A Botched Bid To Recover A Sunken Missile Cause The Russian Radiation Blast?

I wrote about this in Russian Nuclear Cruise Missile Accident Analysis; Reverse Engineering 9M730 Burevestnik.

Quoting (RFE) Did A Botched Bid To Recover A Sunken Missile Cause The Russian Radiation Blast?,

Documents, photographs, satellite imagery, and other open-source materials reviewed by RFE/RL point strongly to an accident — most likely underwater, or just near the surface — …

Quoting (CNBC) US intel report says mysterious Russian explosion was triggered by recovery mission of nuclear-powered missile, not a test,

“This was not a new launch of the weapon, instead it was a recovery mission to salvage a lost missile from a previous test,” said a person with direct knowledge of the U.S. intelligence assessment. “There was an explosion on one of the vessels involved in the recovery and that caused a reaction in the missile’s nuclear core which lead to the radiation leak,” said another person, who spoke to CNBC on the condition of anonymity.

This puts my analysis in the class of “brave efforts.” But the intelligence community analysis has a peculiarity, using low-to-normal risk elements to explain a lethal accident involving a high risk test article.

Recovery barges don’t need or carry explosive material, other than motor fuel. A gasoline explosion is possible, as are drunken crewmen, but with a high risk test, scenarios incorporating higher risk elements are preferable.

There is speculation that an explosion on the barge caused a control rod to drop out of the reactor, causing prompt criticality, resulting in explosion. In the West, the danger of a design that can go prompt critical as a result of withdrawal of one control rod was made apparent on January 3, 1961, with the explosion of SL-1. One might expect that since the Russians have had since 1961 to act, they would put a strong spring on that rod.

I can’t repair my analysis, so here’s a try at helping the IC analysis to base firmly on high risk elements.

  • Try #1: The reactor had been operating under water continuously since the failed test. Contact with sea water prevented explosive disassembly until that contact was interrupted, by a lifting crane. When the hoist cleared the water, heat production was evident. It was then lowered into the water, resulting in a steam explosion.
  • Try #2. The Russians were aware that the reactor was operating. They rigged a cooling system prior to lifting the reactor clear of the water. A hose broke. The rest follows Try #1.
  • Try #3. The reactor design is over-damped. This means that intrusion of sea water slows fission. The air passages that support ramjet operation were filled with sea water.  When the water drained from the air passages, fission resumed at the rate allowed by the controls, without cooling by the swiftly flowing air of flight. When excess heat was noted, the reactor was dropped back into the water, resulting in a steam explosion.
  • Try #4. A static test of the reactor. A static test involves a flight component in a non-flight configuration. As with the U.S. Pluto tests, the test reactor was cooled via tanks of compressed air. Pluto also had a water jacket. A barge was used for safety and ease of emergency disposal . The planned response to a reactor event was to drop it in the bay. The operators waited until it got too hot; steam explosion follows.

The above does not have the benefit of intelligence community resources. It does not exclude a low risk element. Someone could have been smoking next to a leaking tank of gasoline. In a confined space, gasoline fumes are explosive. But with test of a dangerous article, human factors tend to recede in comparison to  inherent danger.

Hypersonic Strategies Part 7; Directed Energy Weapons

This is a continuation of Hypersonic Strategies Parts 1 – 6.

(Defense News Daily) Pentagon terminates program for redesigned kill vehicle, preps for new competition. Quoting,

“Ending the program was the responsible thing to do,” Mike Griffin, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, said in the statement. “Development programs sometimes encounter problems. After exercising due diligence, we decided the path we’re going down wouldn’t be fruitful, so we’re not going down that path anymore. This decision supports our efforts to gain full value from every future taxpayer dollar spent on defense.”

The cancellation is fully justified. The reasoning is explored in U.S. Hypersonic Strategies Part 2; Board Game for a Rainy Day and U.S. Hypersonic Strategies Part 3.

Now we turn to directed energy weapons, beginning with the laser. Lasers are mysterious, photogenic, and according to some wags, “the weapon of the future — and always will be.” My treatment of the EKV in Parts 2 and 3 had all the delicacy of a WWE body slam. There is no need to slam the laser, because there isn’t the presumption that it actually works against missiles. There is a lot of hope that it will. I don’t want to squash hope. Hype should be countered; cautious hope is reasonable.

The hype began with H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds, in which the invaders possessed heat rays. Auric Goldfinger’s laser helped it along.  It’s just a movie prop, but the Prima Power video is no joke.  The Warcom video is even better. Note:

  • The laser head is a fraction of an inch from the steel, versus a great distance for missile interception.
  • The laser beam heats the steel. If the steel  could reflect the beam, it wouldn’t cut.
  • The laser spot is about 1/32 inch wide. This cannot be maintained at distance. When the beam spreads, cutting power diminishes, eventually to zero.
  • Both companies are multinational; the bulk of manufacture may be in China; this level of technology has already disseminated.

The purpose of this article is to present the aspects of lasers that pertain to missile defense, without the distraction of the fascinating physics. The interests of a missile defense program rest in a few facts:

  • A laser beam is the most parallel light beam that exists. It spreads the least with distance.
  • If a beam is the-most-parallel, not just decently parallel, it comes from a laser. Theory allows no alternative. If it’s not parallel, it doesn’t come from a laser.
  • Even laser beams are not perfectly parallel, which means they spread with distance.
  • Air weakens laser beams, absorbing, distorting, and spreading them. They travel best in space.
  • The frequency, the “color” of the beam, is determined by the application, and how efficient the “color” is to make. Infrared is the usual choice.
  • The more powerful a laser is, the shorter the lifetime. A pulse can be so powerful, the focusing lens falls apart.
  • Lasers make very inefficient use of power for resulting destructive effect. A black powder  musket is much more efficient. But lasers are cheaper per shot than other modern munitions.

An empty soda can in the path of an Avangard warhead would destroy it. A laser beam can be so aimed. Combined with the eerie videos,  our fascination is explained. Laser beams defy the limitations of physical objects. But they come with new limitations. Compare:

  • Atmospheric vulnerability. An antiaircraft bullet isn’t weakened by a cloud; a laser is.
  • Shots per kill. An antiaircraft gun, even a sophisticated Phalanx CIWS, requires many shots to kill. Because a laser beam can be precisely positioned, a laser requires just one shot.
  • Size/power limitation. The power of  a naval laser weapon is restricted by available electricity.  The power of a land forces laser is limited by the weight and bulk of the power supply.  By comparison, a gun-weapon needs little power.
  • Current lasers are effective only against small, agile, “soft” targets, such as drones and helicopters, with vast per-shot savings over anti-missiles.  The AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System claims hard kill only at low altitude.
  • Gun-type weapons and missiles can be made to knock a hole in anything.
  • Hypersonic warheads and re-entry vehicles  have some natural resistance to lasers. They could be designed for more.

For the energy used, the laser delivers less punch  than collision with a dense, heavy object. Even a pickaxe beats it. Next, we’ll run some numbers and see why this is so.

Next: Comparison with a pickaxe. In the meantime, polish your technique.


Iranian tanker switches destination, heads to Turkey: ship-tracking data

(Reuters) Iranian tanker switches destination, heads to Turkey: ship-tracking data.

When ISIS was at its peak, Syria’s oil region was within ISIS territory.  A major source of revenue was from Syrian oil, refined in improvised refineries, smuggled into Turkey. Google search.  Since the oil region is not within Assad’s control, the regime needs oil.

The oil in Iran’s tanker, the Adrian Darya, can be legally sold to Turkish entities, which can smuggle it to the forbidden original buyer,  the Assad regime. But Turkish interdiction of this outbound activity is much more practical than the previous inbound. The middlemen are within the domain of Turkish law enforcement. Hence if the ship actually docks in Mersin,

  • Some hands are being greased, or
  • Turkey is the replacement buyer.

Mersin is a convenient 111 miles  from Latakia, Syria’s main  port.


  • Is the oil still destined for Syria, or is it now for domestic consumption within Turkey? Has Ankara a plan to fudge the paperwork?
  • If it is going to Syria, it comes at a price to Assad. Perhaps more life for Idlib?
  • Will the Adrian Darya dock at Mersin, with  smuggling go through Turkish territory — or will the ship anchor in international waters nearby, relying on tramps to ferry oil to Assad-controlled Syria?

This sounds like the old switcheroo. What’s your guess?



Cold War With China ?

We are in a cold war with China. Suggested reading:

At the 2018 Aspen Security Conference, CIA analyst Michael Collins said about China,

“By their own terms and what Xi enunciates I would argue by definition what they’re waging against us is fundamentally a cold war, a cold war not like we saw during the Cold War, but a cold war by definition. A country that exploits all avenues of power licit and illicit, public and private, economic and military, to undermine the standing of your rival relative to your own standing without resorting to conflict. The Chinese do not want conflict,” Collins said.

A conference video is available at Key-strings:  “News and Information”, “Michael Collins at CSIS”, “CIA Headlines Schieffer Panel on “China’s Rise” at CSIS”.

With the exception of panelist Margaret Brennan, a word count suggests conference panelists unconsciously respect a division between geopolitics and economics, and military threat. As I write this, Christopher Johnson’s expectation that there will be a trade deal has has been frustrated. Instead, a progression has occurred: economic imbalance–>exploitation–>negotiations–>trade war–>cold war.

In this current phase, China’s strategy now accepts economic damage in the goal to depose a Western leader. Instead of a trade deal, China wants to get rid of Trump, even at the cost of a world-wide recession.

Until the  bag of attitudes known as “globalism” was challenged in the last election, economic indicators were strongly associated with general welfare.   Shrinking blue collar jobs became a political issue. In the public eye,  unemployment and farming vie with traditional economic indicators.

“Globalism” has now become a politically charged term. Let’s skip the conspiracy theories. The advocates of globalism genuinely believe that regional diversities and efficiencies are best served by manufacturing and marketing that transcend national boundaries. In an ideal world, they are right. They did not anticipate the

  • Rise of state sponsored capitalism.
  • Tendency of areas with low labor costs to cause job migration, with resulting social stress that can break a nation.
  • The vulnerability of democracies to supply chains that intertwine with totalitarian states.

Job losses blamed on globalism were the #1 issue in the past election. Until then,  economic health was largely equated with “quality of life” by globalists and economists. With “growth”, good things would come.

The consensus idea of “growth”, that comes with measurable numbers, is under siege. A significant division of the electorate has been created by the split between economic indicators, and the welfare of particular groups . It tends to follow the haves and have-nots.  Yet Wall Streeters still talk the numbers. Jamie Dimon is a rare exception. See his  shareholder letter via (CNBC) Jamie Dimon:  The social needs of far too many of our citizens are not being met .

Esteem for globalism has diminished, but no one has offered a plan compatible with  the 5 requirements of a replacement:

  • Reduce or eliminate the balance of trade deficit to conform with some definition of solvency.
  • Restore the U.S. manufacturing base to provide jobs for those whose skills are not in demand by the “new economy.”
  • Provide access to markets larger than a single country  to support hyper scale manufacturing, typified by semiconductors. An LCD fab plant costs 8 – 10 $BN See (DSCC)  LCD Manufacturing in the USA?  Don’t Hold Your Breath.
  • Maintain access to raw materials, which could become unaffordable with the establishment of alternative reserve currencies.
  • Incur at most a mild impact on the standard of living.

So there are four discussions going on:

  • The Aspen conference follows geopolitics, so the 5 points are noted only in passing.
  • Wall Street adheres to globalist “growth”, with numbers as a proxy for the general welfare.
  • Nationalist economics, personified by Steve Bannon. It fails the 5 goal test. A hermit kingdom is not viable.
  •  China’s military ascendancy and disregard for what Westerners imagined was “international law.”

The discussions proceed almost in isolation. In any one, the others  are mentioned only in passing. Even the Aspen conference passes on the Nine Dash Line (military ascendancy), which may be the largest seizure of territory in history.

With split discussions, issues fall between the cracks. Supply chain security is one example.  Critical global supply chains loop in and out of China. Some are high tech, others low tech. Even low tech chains offer the possibility of extreme disruption to quality of life. It could be argued that Chinese use of supply chain disruption, as part of a cold war strategy,  would inflict too much damage on  China’s economy.  In the present, perhaps so. One characteristic of China discussions is to be trapped in the present, snap-shot view. But the present is…presently gone.

The separate discussions have prevented convergent development of terms and indicators for costs and goals. “Growth”  remains  a compact quotable number used as a proxy for human welfare. It is not; trickle-down economics doesn’t trickle. Let’s try to remedy this:

  • Devise  measures of  prosperity, and also of suffering, that overweight human economic misery: unemployment, and low/middle income first dollars.

The four discussions inevitably have economic consequences. Everything has a cost. But over the past 20 years, we have slipped from one stationary mindset to another, reliant on “growth” as the unimpeachable metric. This is how we end up comparing strategic issues with the price of Christmas toys. The four discussions need to break out of the present, and come up with their own  prognostications, with numbers of cost and benefit.

  • Once the four discussions have numbers, we can sum them, and optimize strategies. We escape the sin of politics, which is to believe without thinking. The reverse results in better choices.
  • About the price of Christmas toys  and sundries, talk to Americans like they’re grownups. Explain that our independence is at stake in a cold war with China.
  • The soybean issue is the focus of China’s strategy to deprive Trump a second term.  Corn and soybeans can be partially exchanged in crop rotations. Ethanol waivers should be reversed, to increase demand for corn. As an alternative to loans, for an adjustment that may take years, consider  a soybean board, a single-desk market, modeled on the Canadian Wheat Board.

The odds are not in our favor. China  knows this, accounting for extreme patience in a world view that spans decades. We have a chance only if we are very smart and bipartisan.

















Russian Nuclear Cruise Missile Accident Analysis; Reverse Engineering 9M730 Burevestnik

See Russia Lies About her Flying Chernobyl. The lying continues with (CNN) Russia nuclear monitoring stations go quiet after blast.

The reason is obvious: iodine-129, a tell-tale fission byproduct, was detected. Additional isotope information could make it possible to determine how the reactor core disassembled or exploded. It may be possible to classify the reactor type, which I expect to be molten salt. This could make a political issue for the  political opposition, who may be displeased with the semi-permanent contamination of “Mother Russia” by repetitive mini-Chernobyls with a ridiculous military rationale.

The iodine-129 contamination points to a reactor core that

  • was operating at the time.
  • may have contributed explosive force.
  • may have been the origin of the explosion,  rather than the amplifier of a chemical rocket accident.

As with Russia’s Hypersonic Missile; Reverse Engineering Secrets of Avangard, we are limited to open source, which includes the declassified Project Pluto proposal. The goal of  Project Pluto was to develop  a nuclear ramjet to power SLAM, the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile. It was every bit as evil as the current Russian project.

The Project Pluto ramjet was proof-of-concept, not a flyable engine. As with Russia’s Hypersonic Missile; Reverse Engineering Secrets of Avangard, we make assumptions that have a decent chance approximating the truth, based upon the similar problem solving skills of Russians and Americans:

  • The U.S. report describes  what is definitely possible.
  • The Russian nuclear ramjet is contained by what is possible.
  • So the U.S. report has some descriptive value for the Russian device.
  • Since half a century has elapsed, the Russian device is more advanced than the Project Pluto device.  Compared to a chemical engine, the power-to-weight ratio of Pluto was lousy.

The declassified Pluto ramjet proposal, with extensive design data, is (pdf, download) Tory IIA; A Nuclear Ramjet Test Reactor. It is likely that the Russian device is an improvement. The Tory-IIA was a massive device, weight > 20,000 lbs, mounted on a railroad flatcar.  A conventional cruise missile fan-jet engine weighs less than 100 pounds.  A miniaturized engine, requiring a miniaturized reactor, is highly desirable.

Some background info:

  • Critical mass is the minimum size/weight/shape of a lump of nuclear fuel that can be caused to chain-react. It’s not a fixed number. By surrounding the fuel with a neutron reflector, the weight/size of the reactor core can be reduced. There is no hard minimum size, only a bunch of practical considerations that make shrinking the core progressively more difficult.
  • The Tory IIA contained 71kg (157 pounds) of uranium -235, and 18,800 pounds of beryllium oxide moderator. The  stated power goal, as heat, is (page 41) 15 megawatts. In  Tory II-A: a nuclear ramjet test reactor, the stated goal is 160 megawatts.
  • Replacing the combustion heat of a conventional engine, the Tory  IIA heats incoming air to 2000F, via hollow tubes 4.5 feet long. The long narrow tubes create huge internal drag, a major drawback of the design. The Russian design likely innovates.
  • The Tory design had  a design lifetime of  somewhat more than a week. A shorter design lifetime facilitates miniaturization , while dangers accrue.

Critical mass is not a limitation in miniaturizing a reactor. Heat dissipation is. Melted fuel can still produce atomic energy, but the containers that hold it tend to fall apart. Miniaturization is limited by

  • Heat transport, how efficiently heat can be removed from the core to heat the air.
  • The usual requirement that the fuel not melt. Pluto was limited to 2000F by solid fuel.
  • If molten fuel is used, higher temperature reduces life of all the parts.  As far as performance goes, hotter is better.

So with 9M730 Burevestnik, the Russians innovated. A hypothetical list:

  • Ditch the 18,800 pounds of beryllium oxide moderator.  Pluto is a thermal-neutron reactor. The Russian gadget is a fast reactor.
  • Liquid fuel, a molten salt, facilitating heat transport. The Russians make a specialty out of molten salt reactors, which are handy for isotope synthesis.
  • A “secret material”, a new ceramic, to contain the molten fuel, retaining integrity at higher temperatures than thought possible, with high thermal conductivity typical of metals.
  • Alternatively, a way to quench the chemical reactivity of the air stream. Gas phase electrodeposition?
  • Advanced geometry. Pluto had immense internal drag compared to a chemical engine.
  • As with Pluto, moveable neutron reflectors are part of the control system.
  • The cost is paid in reduced stability.

The holy grail is passive stability, fail-safe. Most reactors are not, requiring a control system on pins and needles, and backup systems, to keep them from melting down. Every reactor has its quirks.  In some designs, loss of coolant causes the reaction to slow down. In others, it speeds up.

In the Russian design, as with Pluto, the coolant is air. The high air pressure inside a ramjet reactor has effects on the rate of fission not seen in land-based air cooled reactors. Pluto required 800 pounds of air per second.  If the air inside the reactor changes density, things happen:

  • If the air moving through Tory IIA becomes denser, fission speeds up, making more heat.
  • If the air moving through Tory IIA becomes thinner, fission slows down, making less heat.
  • The Russian fast neutron reactor may reverse the above, speeding up if the air intake is blocked.
  • If a  reactor heats up, it tends to slow down.
  • In an accident scenario, when the control system cannot function, combinations of the above, plus other effects, determine the likelihood of a runaway reaction. This is summarized by a coefficient. If it is greater than 0, the reactor has a tendency to run away.
  • Pluto had 18,800 pounds of nearly inert beryllium oxide to slow the rate of temperature change.
  • The Russian reactor is small and light. It gets hot fast, which makes control more challenging.

Now let’s go out to the floating launch platform, in a bay off the frigid Arctic ocean. You’re one of the launch engineers. The wind is fiercely cold. You want to light this candle and get the hell out of here. But with nuclear reactors, nothing is simple.

It is likely that the Russian design requires something a chemical rocket does not: pre-heat.  The uranium salt must melt to establish stable flow through the heat exchanger. Unlike the U.S. SLAM, the missile cannot be launched cold. We take as fact that It must be near operating temperature at launch, ready to catch the air when the booster cuts out, to blow it out the exhaust nozzle heated to 2000F or more. The reactor must be started on the ground.

You look at the launch manual, and it’s hopeless. You’re supposed to ramp the reactor power up in stages, while monitoring all the vitals, so it doesn’t go out of control, like Chernobyl. It could take an hour to work through all the steps. Your comrades are shivering uncontrollably. Then you remember a shortcut you picked up from living in this cursed climate.

The solution: You throw your coat, with a rope attached, over the air intake, and retreat behind the radiation shield. In just 30 seconds, the reactor will get toasty. A pull of the rope, and  it’s Stoli Time. But the rope  breaks. The reactor, now dangerously radioactive, cannot be approached. With little thermal mass to slow things down, and a possible positive thermal coefficient, temperature of the reactor zooms, hitting the red zone — and explodes.

Why didn’t the control system scram the reactor? Your coat caused a temperature rise so quick, it jammed the neutron reflector control vanes between sampling intervals. The rest is history.

So are you. I’ll stick with beer.














Violence in America Part 1

(CNN)There could have been three more mass shootings if these men weren’t stopped, authorities say.

In March 2018, I wrote Students lead huge U.S. anti-gun rallies; The Dawn of a New Movement! This was followed in May by Texas School Shootings; the Right to Kill.  This places me squarely in the pro gun-control column.

Guns are a major problem, but the tendency to think  that every problem has a primary cause is an error rooted in how our brains are wired. We have the gift of semi-rational thought, but we come up short in what is called meta-cognition: We think, but we lack understanding of  how we think.

A major part of the human faculty of thought is the ability to categorize, even when the categories are useless.  Perhaps you are old enough to remember the  analog TV picture when tuned to an empty channel,  referred to as “snow”. A common illusion was to see flocks of geese flying across the screen. The geese weren’t there; it was an illusion of your occipital  lobe, working overtime to make sense out of chaos.

A similar example comes from the art of drawing.  Realistic drawings depict reality in the form of lines. Yet in a photograph of the same scene, there are no lines, only differences of contrast. How can a drawing and photograph be recognized as of the same scene? There are no lines in nature. Your brain puts them there.

Language requires categorizations, whether they exist or not. Without categories, there would be no compact verbal descriptions. Describing a bank ledger would require a description of the paper it’s printed on, the tree used to make the paper, the earth the tree grew on, ad infinitum. Yet the phrase “bank ledger” brings up something like a line drawing, together with other word associations.

But words are  circular in definition, described in terms of other words. How can the circularity be broken?  Liberal arts majors are urged to study Ludwig Wittgenstein, to destroy blind faith in words, so typically part of the sophomoric mind set. Wittgenstein has been obsoleted a little by neuroscience and physics, but he may be enough to realize that mental illness is an invented category.

Even without the philosophy, the concept is highly suspicious, because there isn’t general agreement on what it means. A list of attitudes:

  • A murderer can be sane or insane.
  • A religious person is sane, but one who  thinks his deity tells him what to do, and acts on it, is insane.
  • A person who wants to end his own life is insane. He may have perfectly good reasons.
  • A person who wants to kill a bunch of strangers is sane, or insane.
  • A person who wants to kill a bunch of strangers, because of religious or ideological beliefs, is sane.
  • A dysfunctional unfortunate who does not act out violently is sane, because the state cannot afford to help him.
  • A person who kills in a crime of passion is sane.
  • A person who has received a diagnosis of psychosis  by a court appointed expert, corresponding to an entry of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is insane.
  • A person who has received a negative diagnosis by another court appointed expert, with referral to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is sane.
  • A person who has received two conflicting diagnosis is what?
  • A person who is a danger to others had better get a tailor-made definition of insanity, STAT!
  • A disturbed person should receive exorcism, made to drink bleach, or something like that…
  • A disturbed person should be punished, for the sake of deterrence, or exempted, if mentally ill. That sure works: The U.S. has the world’s largest prison population. Quoting (BBC) World Prison Populations, undated:  724/100,000, total 2,193,798.

The definition of mental illness is in broad dispute from all points of the compass: liberal versus conservative; religious versus secular humanist.  From (The Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights) Incarceration and Mental Health: The mentally ill are 4 to 5 times more likely to be incarcerated, yet only 21% of inmates have serious mental illness.

Without “mental illness” to corral the offenders, a distasteful possibility arises: Under some circumstances, it is the norm for some people to commit murder.  It’s hopefully false, yet the vital antithesis part of Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis. For the sake of synthesis, it deserves a look in the eye.  We may discover something about the circumstances, and what to change.

Is Man’s nature that of a cold-blooded killer?  To be continued.  I have to sharpen my axe.

What do you see in this TV screen?  Flying geese, or something else? Are you nuts?






China to Seize Hong Kong Airport?

In Will China Deploy Troops in Hong Kong ?, criteria for a deployment of mainland troops are given:

  • Defection of an element expected to be loyal.
  • Organizing efforts by civil servants, bringing political form to an amorphous movement.
  • Emergence of a political movement that attempts to form an alternative government, or simply a parallel power structure.

With some elasticity, the airport takeover could fit the 2nd and 3rd criteria.

The airport is a target of opportunity, for a decapitation strike against an organizational nucleus. A surgical strike also avoids a no-exit conundrum:

  • Hong Kong police create a holding line around the airport.
  • A mechanized force moves rapidly from Shenzhen, literally crushing those who attempt to impede the move under under APC treads.
  • Heavy force, with  some lethal casualties, reminiscent of Tiananmen Square, is applied to immobilize the airport protestors.
  • The bulk of the protestors are transported to mainland internment camps, never to return to Hong Kong.
  • The mainland force is quickly withdrawn; Hong Kong police deal with the “decapitated” remainder.
  • If other strong points emerge, the above is repeated.
  • Cleanup and new press laws attempt to erase memory of the intervention.

This is the most likely form. It would be a mistake for the Chinese government to think the vibrant Hong Kong economy would survive. It will not.

While the form of an intervention can be predicted, the likelihood cannot. Whether Chinese intelligence has concluded that their criteria for intervention have been reached cannot be determined from open source.

I feel sorry for the protestors. Those who value freedom so highly should have it.




Yemen Separatists Grab Aden

(Reuters) Yemen’s pro-government coalition fractures as separatists grab control in Aden.

I wrote about this August 2018, in Reuters: Yemen’s separatists attack military academy in Aden:

  • Primary. Houthi versus non-Houthi.
  • Secondary. north versus south.
  • Tertiary, potential.  Zaydi Shia versus Sunni in the north.

The tertiary conflict has yet to occur, impeded by the historical political passivity of Yemen’s Sunnis.  The politics of Yemen has been dominated by Zaydi Shia up to the modern period. Ali Abdullah Saleh, the assassinated ruler of Yemen, was himself Zaydi Shia.

Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi  is the first Sunni ruler of modern Yemen.  He is a southerner. But should the situation evolve in favor of the Saudi coalition, Hadi may repress the south.

If the Saudi coalition wins, the northern Sunnis will become politicized, simply by association with the winning side. The tertiary conflict could then ignite. With Hadi bogged down in the South, the Houthis could re-ignite the conflict. Resurgence seems to be a general tendency in that part of the world.

If this seems improbable, consider the general liquidity of allegiances. Saleh was the principle opponent of the Houthis before his resignation, even though most Houthis are Zaydi, as was Saleh. He oppressed followers of his own religion.

Until the advent of the Houthis, loyalty was a purchasable commodity.

Russia Lies About her Flying Chernobyl

(Reuters) Moscow acknowledges mysterious rocket explosion involved nuclear workers. Quoting,

In a separate statement Rosatom said the accident occurred during the engineering and technical support of “isotope power sources” on a liquid propulsion system. It gave no further explanation, and a spokeswoman at the agency contacted by Reuters declined to clarify.

This is bunk, obfuscation. It follows the traditional Russia pattern. First, deny. Next, obfuscate. Then stonewall.  It’s a predictable replay of the Skripal poisonings. The points of obfuscation:

  • An isotope is a variety of an element. All  elements exist as one or more isotopes. Through common usage, “isotope” has come to to refer to isotopes that are radioactive.
  • All radioactive isotopes produce heat through decay, varying from minor to considerable.  This is spontaneous nuclear decay, not nuclear chain reaction.
  • The heat can be used to make a nuclear battery, a source of electric power, which lasts years or decades. The only current use of these batteries is for missions to the outer solar system, where sunlight is too weak to power a spacecraft.
  • There was limited past use of nuclear reactors to power radar espionage satellites. Because of the enormous cost of these satellites, they have always been launched from land, and only by the most highly qualified boosters.
  • There is no current use for nuclear batteries in weapons systems, which these days use chemical batteries, mainly lithium-sulfur. This leaves only a flying nuclear reactor.

The art of obfuscation deflects attention from the obvious to  the  obscure and implausible: A  test of a rocket for an interplanetary craft or expensive spy satellite,  from an unstable floating platform in the frigid arctic Onega Bay, an extension of the White Sea? Ludicrous!

Yet the Rosatom statement is not technically a lie:

  • All elements are isotopes, though not all isotopes are radioactive.
  • A nuclear reactor is technically an isotope power source. But this term is not understood to be a flying reactor. Obfuscation.

It is a moral lie, concealing a weapon devoid of the safeguards that make a nuclear deterrent a moral choice.

Putin has boasted about this missile. (WaPo) Putin claims Russia is developing nuclear arms capable of avoiding missile defenses. Why this  obfuscation about a weapon in which Putin expressed pride?

Because, to date, it is a dangerous failure, a flying Chernobyl, which will result in at least a few excess cancer deaths in Russians. It falls short of the only moral goal of a strategic deterrent:

Protect the innocent.