Category Archives: defense policy

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR), wrote of the need for modernizing and expanding our nuclear weapons capability across three dimensions: numbers of warheads and systems to deliver them, the quality of those warheads and systems, and the range of threat—tactical, theater, and strategic—against which those warheads and systems are optimized.

He closed his piece, though, with the most important Statement of Need of his piece:

[T]o those who fear an arms race: The race has already begun. Russia and China have been running it for more than a decade while we sat on the sidelines. The question isn’t whether there will be competition in nuclear forces, but whether America will show up to compete.

To which I add: if we don’t compete, we cannot compete successfully. If we cannot compete successfully, we will find ourselves very quickly faced with nuclear blackmail or a nuclear war that we will certainly lose. In either of those cases, we will see ourselves completely subjugated to our enemies.

A Couple of Regulatory Environments

Posted on by
Reply

These need to be dealt with along with the EPA’s effort to deregulate energy production. “These” are the FAA’s regulation of rocket launches—the conservative right blames the FAA’s climate impact concerns, but those are not the only ones—and the FCC’s regulation of satellite deployment. Here, Progressive-Democrats are letting their hatred of all things Evil Rich get in the way of intelligent decision making.

The Federal Aviation Administration separately evaluates the environmental impact of rocket launches in the US, which has in the past delayed satellite launches.

And

Maria Cantwell objected because the bill [that would streamline and accelerate FCC satellite approvals] would help Mr Musk’s AI space ambition.

As The Wall Street Journal‘s editors closed their piece,

Permitting difficulties are America’s economic Achilles’ heel. Let’s hope they don’t get in the way of US space innovation.

Time to Be Draconian

Posted on by
Reply

DoD is beginning a period of ostensibly serious performance review of the department’s several contractors.

Michael Duffey, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment:

We have completed initial reviews to assess company performance as part of this executive order and will now undergo an extended period of review in which we will make noncompliance determinations[.]
Following the upcoming decision period, we will be in touch with identified companies to begin remediation plans[.]

And this from Sean Parnell, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs:

If progress doesn’t continue to be made, we will take enforcement actions. The Department of War will partner with those who perform—and hold accountable those who do not.

This has been a long time coming, assuming it’ll truly be a serious assessment with truly serious outcomes. If DoD is serious, then included high on that list of remediation plans should be cancelation of contracts. If the contractor has been noncomplying for some period of time, the cancelation and subsequent opportunity costs will be limited to the scofflaw business; there would be no loss to DoD from the contractor management team’s decision to fail to perform, and the losses to us taxpayers would be capped at what’s already been wasted on the scofflaws.

Remediation progress should be assessed on short time frames with closely spaced major milestones and a firm, nearby deadline for finally coming into full compliance. That compliance measure also should include concrete, measurable plans for staying in compliance and blocking drift away from requirements.

Shirking and throwing the contractor’s metaphorical shoes up on the desk, calling it job well done, and collecting us taxpayers’ money must be at an end. The only way to promote that is to be draconian in the department’s corrective actions. Pour encouragement des autres. Or, to fit today’s environment, il est bon de résilier un contrat avec un prestataire de temps en temps pour encourager les autres.

Sending a Message, Or…?

Posted on by
Reply

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R, AR) is worried about a proliferation of People’s Republic of China hidden biolabs throughout the US. One of his points of concern regarded the apparent occasionally sloppy setup and operation of the labs.

“Why would you have some illicit labs set up in an Airbnb, except for, maybe, you’re trying to create some sort of, you know, patient zero scenario, that you might infect someone, that you might create another COVID-like scenario.”
Crawford said the alleged handling of dangerous pathogens appeared careless at best, and possibly deliberate. “Why would you do it in such a slipshod way, if it wasn’t almost deliberately to try to maybe attract attention? Are they trying to send a message to us?”

Sending us a message about how easy it is for the PRC to reach out and infectiously touch us is certainly one possibility.

Another possibility, though, is that these are the biolabs we were supposed to find and to be distracted from noticing the other, more serious biolabs with the more serious and disruptive, if not lethal, pathogens.

A Thought on VMI

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrat-led government of Virginia is moving toward taking Virginia Military Institute fully and solely under State control, the better to inflict implement DEI characteristics in the Institute management and teachings. VMI has long been a source of quality military officers, in addition to the several Military Academies. That seems about to change.

Here’s Assistant SecDef for Public Affairs, Sean Parnell, on the potential:

For generations, the unique military environment at VMI has made the Institute a vital source of commissioned officers for the Armed Forces.
The stability of this proven leadership pipeline is a matter of direct national security interest and any action that could disrupt the ecosystem requires our full attention. DoW reserves the right to take extraordinary measures to protect the integrity of VMI and our commitment to the cadets and midshipmen currently training there remains steadfast.

The most effective “extraordinary measure” and one that would protect our officer corps from the pollution of DEI is this. Stop accepting VIM graduates into the officer corps if the State enacts its bill to bring the school fully and solely under State control. VMI graduates under the State’s planned control would no longer meet the training requirements for commissioning. Require all VMI graduates after the Class of 2025 who wish to become American military officers to undergo officer training from scratch through any of the other officer training programs, which include ROTC, OCS/OTS, any of our Military Academies.