It's just out this year. It's a good read, Ferling writes well, and he does the footnote thing religiously so it's serious history. It's got maps which make the story a bunch more understandable. It tells the standard story of the revolution, no Marxist class warfare riffs, no brand new interpretations of events. It's the right story, well told. Ferling picks things up in 1763, right after the French and Indian War. He goes thru the political buildup for independence. He shows how it took 12 years to sell the colonists on the idea of kicking out King George, bidding the British Empire farewell, and giving up their English citizenship. The breach was egged on by Parliament, which spent those 12 years throwing their weight around and trying to show the Americans who was boss.
The British Army was more professional than the Americans, the British could do the Column Left, Halt, Right Face, maneuver to shake a marching column out into a fighting line, and their officers could read the terrain and find unprotected flanks the the green Americans didn't even know existed.
But when the Americans could pick their spot, get set up, and had a good plan, they fought like tigers and inflicted dreadful casualties on the British. Bunker Hill. Trenton, Kings Mountain, and Cowpens. all showed how to blow a lot of Redcoats away in very short order.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Saturday, September 5, 2015
EU Refugee Crisis
Refugees from various Mid East and North African disaster areas (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya ) are pouring into the EU. No EU country wants to accept any of them. Nobody in the EU has the stones to deport them back to where they came from. We are seeing horrendous pictures of dead and dying refugees, little kids dead on beaches, refugees clinging to train track, refridgerator trucks abandoned with the back of the truck full of dead refugees.
It's a EU problem but we in the US caused the messes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. And we shirked our responsibility in the case of Syria.
None of the Arab Gulf states (Saudi, Qatar, Emirates) wants anything to do with this Muslim, Arabic speaking crowd of refugees.
What the EU ought to do, is take these people in, find them jobs, find them housing, and settle them down. But the EU cannot find jobs for their existing citizens. They are running 10% unemployment overall, with pest holes like Greece and Spain running better than 20%. Any refugees let into an EU country just go on the welfare rolls, which are so big as to crush the EU economy.
If we could clean up the source countries (Syria Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) most of the refugees would happily go home. We had a chance to do just that, not very long ago, but we pulled out and let those countries sink.
It's a EU problem but we in the US caused the messes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. And we shirked our responsibility in the case of Syria.
None of the Arab Gulf states (Saudi, Qatar, Emirates) wants anything to do with this Muslim, Arabic speaking crowd of refugees.
What the EU ought to do, is take these people in, find them jobs, find them housing, and settle them down. But the EU cannot find jobs for their existing citizens. They are running 10% unemployment overall, with pest holes like Greece and Spain running better than 20%. Any refugees let into an EU country just go on the welfare rolls, which are so big as to crush the EU economy.
If we could clean up the source countries (Syria Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) most of the refugees would happily go home. We had a chance to do just that, not very long ago, but we pulled out and let those countries sink.
Friday, September 4, 2015
More Fantasy Naval Warfare, Armor
The first serious improvement over wooden sailing warships, was the addition of steam engines and iron armor. In fact, the vessels were called ironclads. The first combat test, Hampton Roads in the US Civil War, had ironclad Merrimac engage and sink two traditional broadside wooden Federal warships. Merrimac's armor made her impervious to Union guns, the cannon balls just bounced off her. Yankee sailors on the two doomed wooden vessels stood to their guns and kept firing broadsides at Merrimac until their ships sank beneath their feet.
Following this success, all future warships carried as much armor as they could float. As a rule of thumb, it takes as much armor thickness as the gun has bore to keep the shot out. For instance a 4 inch gun can pierce 4 inches of armor. US Civil War monitors carried 15 inch guns, which made everyone try for 15 inch armor, right up thru WWII. Although both guns and armor improved a lot since the 1860's the ratio of armor thickness to gun bore stayed about the same. Unfortunately, it was impossible to put 15 inches of armor all over a ship, the weight was just too great, the ship could not float that much armor. So the armor was concentrated over the vitals, engines, guns, and ,magazines, and the rest of the ship was left to absorb hits as best it could. Aircraft made the problem worse, against ships guns, all you needed was an armor belt along the sides, the decks remained un armored. To provide deck armor thick enough to keep out aircraft bombs was just never doable. Which is why battleships were mostly retired after WWII, they were just too vulnerable to bombing.
The one exception to the armored ship was the brainchild of Admiral Jackie Fisher, RN. Fisher wanted a scout vessel, fast enough to locate the German battle line and strong enough to survive the contact. His solution was a big ship (big ships are faster than small ships) with a battleship class battery of guns, but no armor to save weight and keep the speed up. They called them battlecruisers. Trouble is, the captains of battlecruisers had a vessel that looked like a battleship, was as big as a battleship, and the skippers got battleship ideas. When the four British battlecruisers found the German High Seas fleet, instead of turning around and running, and radioing the enemy position back to Grand Fleet, they formed a battle line and opened fire. The Germans fired back and sank three out of four battlecruisers in just a few minutes of action.
That diminished interest the the battlecruiser permanently. The last battlecruiser, HMS Hood, launched after Jutland, lasted until she engaged Bismarck in WWII. A single hit from Bismarck and Hood blew up.
Following this success, all future warships carried as much armor as they could float. As a rule of thumb, it takes as much armor thickness as the gun has bore to keep the shot out. For instance a 4 inch gun can pierce 4 inches of armor. US Civil War monitors carried 15 inch guns, which made everyone try for 15 inch armor, right up thru WWII. Although both guns and armor improved a lot since the 1860's the ratio of armor thickness to gun bore stayed about the same. Unfortunately, it was impossible to put 15 inches of armor all over a ship, the weight was just too great, the ship could not float that much armor. So the armor was concentrated over the vitals, engines, guns, and ,magazines, and the rest of the ship was left to absorb hits as best it could. Aircraft made the problem worse, against ships guns, all you needed was an armor belt along the sides, the decks remained un armored. To provide deck armor thick enough to keep out aircraft bombs was just never doable. Which is why battleships were mostly retired after WWII, they were just too vulnerable to bombing.
The one exception to the armored ship was the brainchild of Admiral Jackie Fisher, RN. Fisher wanted a scout vessel, fast enough to locate the German battle line and strong enough to survive the contact. His solution was a big ship (big ships are faster than small ships) with a battleship class battery of guns, but no armor to save weight and keep the speed up. They called them battlecruisers. Trouble is, the captains of battlecruisers had a vessel that looked like a battleship, was as big as a battleship, and the skippers got battleship ideas. When the four British battlecruisers found the German High Seas fleet, instead of turning around and running, and radioing the enemy position back to Grand Fleet, they formed a battle line and opened fire. The Germans fired back and sank three out of four battlecruisers in just a few minutes of action.
That diminished interest the the battlecruiser permanently. The last battlecruiser, HMS Hood, launched after Jutland, lasted until she engaged Bismarck in WWII. A single hit from Bismarck and Hood blew up.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
The making of a Super Power
What makes a country a superpower? A large population is right up there in importance. A country of 100 million can overwhelm a country of 1 million in any field of endeavor, athletics, warfare, innovation, popular culture, manufacturing, you name it. We have enjoyed superpower status since the beginning of the 20th century.
Part of obtaining and holding onto a large population is political skill, skill to prevent the large country from breaking down into smaller parts. Like what happened to the USSR in 1989, Czechoslovakia, what almost happened to the US in 1860. And what is simmering under the surface in Canada and Britain and other places.
For the large population to be an element of strength, it has to be loyal, willing to make serious sacrifice to their country. Unhappy Muslim "youths" from the banlieus around Paris, rioting in the streets and setting fire to 1000 cars in one night, are not loyal, in fact they are traitors to France. Japanese Americans enlisting during WWII and creating a heroic combat record, despite their families treatment in American concentration camps, are loyal.
Traditionally, native born and raised citizens are loyal. Loyalties of immigrants are not so certain. Here the US is fortunate, immigrants come to the US because they like our liberties, our economic opportunities, our civil order, and the vast amount of good America has done around the world for all of our history. Immigrants to the US become astoundingly loyal to America, and pass this down to their children. And immigration has grown our population from great power size to super power size. Without the great 19th century immigration the US would be more like Canada, a worthy country, but hardly a super power.
The other method of keeping up the population is is natural increase. In principal if each woman bore two children in her lifetime, she would have replaced herself and her husband and kept the population steady. In practice, to make allowances for early death from disease, accident, crime, and warfare, the number is 2.1 children. If each woman were to bear three children, then the population grows rapidly, like 150% in a generation. Right now, US women are bearing just exactly 2.1 children, just enough to keep the population steady. Places like the EU, Russia, and Japan are much worse, rates as low as 1.1 children have been reported from Russia.
So, we need immigrants to grow our population, especially with international competitors like China and India out there. We especially need young, married immigrants, who will take jobs and grow the economy.
Part of obtaining and holding onto a large population is political skill, skill to prevent the large country from breaking down into smaller parts. Like what happened to the USSR in 1989, Czechoslovakia, what almost happened to the US in 1860. And what is simmering under the surface in Canada and Britain and other places.
For the large population to be an element of strength, it has to be loyal, willing to make serious sacrifice to their country. Unhappy Muslim "youths" from the banlieus around Paris, rioting in the streets and setting fire to 1000 cars in one night, are not loyal, in fact they are traitors to France. Japanese Americans enlisting during WWII and creating a heroic combat record, despite their families treatment in American concentration camps, are loyal.
Traditionally, native born and raised citizens are loyal. Loyalties of immigrants are not so certain. Here the US is fortunate, immigrants come to the US because they like our liberties, our economic opportunities, our civil order, and the vast amount of good America has done around the world for all of our history. Immigrants to the US become astoundingly loyal to America, and pass this down to their children. And immigration has grown our population from great power size to super power size. Without the great 19th century immigration the US would be more like Canada, a worthy country, but hardly a super power.
The other method of keeping up the population is is natural increase. In principal if each woman bore two children in her lifetime, she would have replaced herself and her husband and kept the population steady. In practice, to make allowances for early death from disease, accident, crime, and warfare, the number is 2.1 children. If each woman were to bear three children, then the population grows rapidly, like 150% in a generation. Right now, US women are bearing just exactly 2.1 children, just enough to keep the population steady. Places like the EU, Russia, and Japan are much worse, rates as low as 1.1 children have been reported from Russia.
So, we need immigrants to grow our population, especially with international competitors like China and India out there. We especially need young, married immigrants, who will take jobs and grow the economy.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
St Paul's prep school rape case
The St Paul's prep school rape case has gotten a lot of coverage, partly 'cause the school is very tony, partly 'cause the defendant is a good looking teenager of good family, partly 'cause the media is on a school rape kick.
The facts of the case seem to be, the defendant (Owen Labrie) is accused of raping the un named accuser. There are no other witnesses or evidence, so it gets down to a he-said she-said case. In real life, the charge ought be simply rape.
In lawyer life, they rummaged thru all the lawbooks and found a barrel of things to charge in addition to rape. They managed to charge the defendant with felony sexual assault, statutory sexual assault, and "using a computer to seduce a minor". The jury waffled and acquitted some charges and convicted on others.
Fair and honest would have been a single charge of rape, and let the jury decide who to believe, he or she. Either acquit or convict. As it is, they get away with a waffle.
In fact, I think courts would be fairer if the prosecution was allowed only one charge. Arrest a perp for doing something. Figure out which law he/she broke and prosecute on that one. If the criminal action could be a violation of more than one law fine, pick one, just one, and go with it. Slapping half a dozen charges on the perp for one criminal action is welfare for lawyers and unfair to the defendant. For instance, arrest a guy for sticking up a liquor store. They can charge him with armed robbery, but they cannot also charge him with unlawful possession of a firearm. One charge is enough.
The facts of the case seem to be, the defendant (Owen Labrie) is accused of raping the un named accuser. There are no other witnesses or evidence, so it gets down to a he-said she-said case. In real life, the charge ought be simply rape.
In lawyer life, they rummaged thru all the lawbooks and found a barrel of things to charge in addition to rape. They managed to charge the defendant with felony sexual assault, statutory sexual assault, and "using a computer to seduce a minor". The jury waffled and acquitted some charges and convicted on others.
Fair and honest would have been a single charge of rape, and let the jury decide who to believe, he or she. Either acquit or convict. As it is, they get away with a waffle.
In fact, I think courts would be fairer if the prosecution was allowed only one charge. Arrest a perp for doing something. Figure out which law he/she broke and prosecute on that one. If the criminal action could be a violation of more than one law fine, pick one, just one, and go with it. Slapping half a dozen charges on the perp for one criminal action is welfare for lawyers and unfair to the defendant. For instance, arrest a guy for sticking up a liquor store. They can charge him with armed robbery, but they cannot also charge him with unlawful possession of a firearm. One charge is enough.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Talky-talk college courses
"Women in Popular Culture", "Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies", "Introduction to Multicultural Literature" a bunch of worthwhile? useful? college courses. They sure aren't STEM courses, and they aren't Liberal Arts courses, and I wouldn't even call them social science courses. They surely won't help a graduate find a job.
But according to Instapundit, the professors teaching these courses have truly amazing policies regarding student language. Prof Selenas Lester Brekiss has banned the use of the words "male" and "female". Professor Rebacca Fowler bans the phrase "illegal alien". Professor John Streamas called a student "White shitbag"
Intelligent students should avoid these kinds of talky-talk courses, they have nothing to teach, they merely provide a platform for the professor to rant from. They may be fun to attend to participate in class discussions, but you can have as much fun participating in dorm bull sessions. You only get to take 32 courses in a four year two semester college. Students are graduating owning $30,000, or about $1000 a course. Don't blow $1000 on a talky-talk course.
But according to Instapundit, the professors teaching these courses have truly amazing policies regarding student language. Prof Selenas Lester Brekiss has banned the use of the words "male" and "female". Professor Rebacca Fowler bans the phrase "illegal alien". Professor John Streamas called a student "White shitbag"
Intelligent students should avoid these kinds of talky-talk courses, they have nothing to teach, they merely provide a platform for the professor to rant from. They may be fun to attend to participate in class discussions, but you can have as much fun participating in dorm bull sessions. You only get to take 32 courses in a four year two semester college. Students are graduating owning $30,000, or about $1000 a course. Don't blow $1000 on a talky-talk course.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Fantasy Naval War
This article makes-a-case/discusses bringing back the battleship. It's a fun idea, battleships were cool, cooler than aircraft carriers, so cool that the US Navy was still operating WWII Iowa class battleships as late as the 1980's. The writer stresses the ruggedness, due to foot thick armor plate, of the battleship which would allow it to survive hits that sink aircraft carriers and modern surface combatants.
All that is cool, but the writer apparently does not understand why battleships existed and why they were so big. The purpose of a battle ship was to bring the biggest possible guns into action. The big guns were heavy and needed a big ship simply to float them. The huge caliber guns were extremely lethal, a single hit would sink just about anything. And they had range. By WWII, the battleship guns could reach out 20 miles, and the mechanical analog fire control computers of the 1940's could even get hits at that range.
But, a carrier's aircraft can reach out 200 miles or more, and even in the 1920's biplane bombers could carry bombs heavy enough to penetrate decks and sink battle ships. Ostfresland, Bismark, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Yamato, the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, the Italian fleet at Taranto , all demonstrated the power of carrier aircraft and the vulnerability of battleships.
Since carrier aircraft outclass the heavy gun, if I am going to spend the money for a big warship, I'm going to equip it with aircraft rather than big guns. Plus, I can put missiles on much smaller vessels that have plenty of punch, maybe not as much as 16 inch guns, but enough punch to deal with anything afloat today.
All things being equal, I'd druther have a fleet of smaller cheaper vessels than one big expensive vessel. With a fleet, I'm likely to have some combat power left after taking battle damage. With one big ship, if the enemy gets lucky, I loose the war.
So, I am not ready to build 21st century battleships, even if the idea is cool.
All that is cool, but the writer apparently does not understand why battleships existed and why they were so big. The purpose of a battle ship was to bring the biggest possible guns into action. The big guns were heavy and needed a big ship simply to float them. The huge caliber guns were extremely lethal, a single hit would sink just about anything. And they had range. By WWII, the battleship guns could reach out 20 miles, and the mechanical analog fire control computers of the 1940's could even get hits at that range.
But, a carrier's aircraft can reach out 200 miles or more, and even in the 1920's biplane bombers could carry bombs heavy enough to penetrate decks and sink battle ships. Ostfresland, Bismark, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Yamato, the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, the Italian fleet at Taranto , all demonstrated the power of carrier aircraft and the vulnerability of battleships.
Since carrier aircraft outclass the heavy gun, if I am going to spend the money for a big warship, I'm going to equip it with aircraft rather than big guns. Plus, I can put missiles on much smaller vessels that have plenty of punch, maybe not as much as 16 inch guns, but enough punch to deal with anything afloat today.
All things being equal, I'd druther have a fleet of smaller cheaper vessels than one big expensive vessel. With a fleet, I'm likely to have some combat power left after taking battle damage. With one big ship, if the enemy gets lucky, I loose the war.
So, I am not ready to build 21st century battleships, even if the idea is cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)