World War II was a total disaster for Japan. They suffered enormous casualties, we sank their navy, we sank their merchant marine, we nuked their cities, and the ones we didn't nuke, we firebombed. Then we occupied the Home Islands, hauled Japanese leaders up in front of a War Crimes Trial, imposed a new constitution, and rewrote a lot of Japanese law to make it favorable to free market capitalism and democracy. We ran the place until the 1950's.
A worse outcome to a war is hard to imagine.
And the leadership that took Japan to war with the United States knew they would loose. And they did it anyhow. There was an independent staff study by top Japanese academics predicting total disaster. There was Admiral Yamamoto who had spent a lot of time in the US, spoke English well, and he said "For the first six months we shall run wild, but I have absolutely no confidence after that." There was Matsuota, the foreign minister who had grown up as a foster child in California. The Japanese knew that America had a huge population, a vast national territory, highly industrialized, blessed with abundant natural resources, and out weighed and outclassed Japan in every category. They knew war with the US would lead to defeat.
And, they should have known that they didn't need to go to war with the US. Japan's national goal in those days was to take over China. They had made a good start, and there was no reason to beleive that they could not finish the job. Japan was depending upon imports of iron and steel and crude oil from the Unitied States. And we did not approve of a Japanese takeover of China. We finally imposed an embargo (traditional American action) upon Japan.
This put a bind upon the Japanese. They all knew that they would run out of steel and oil in a matter of months. But, there was plenty of oil in Dutch Indonesia, not far away. Hitler had invaded and occupied Holland, which left the Dutch colonial regime in Indonesia kind of blowing in the wind. Japan could have obtained plenty of oil from Indonesia, either by trade or by force.
We, the Americans, would not have approved, but we had Nazi Germany to deal with. The entire American establishment, political, military, business, the papers, all agreed that proper US strategy was to do Germany first. Germany was bigger, stronger, more advanced, and closer than Japan. Plus the isolationists made life difficult for the Roosevelt administration to do anything internationally. The Japanese should have known that they could do pretty much anything they wanted on their side of the Pacific, and all the Americans would do about it is write diplomatic nasty grams.
But, the Japanese plowed ahead and attacked Pearl Harbor. They didn't have to do it, it led to a disastrous military defeat, they knew it would, but they did it anyhow.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Hoot, the movie
A heart warming flick about three decent kids, who manage to do some good. Came out a long time ago, 2006, low budget ($16 million) didn't make the nut. Too bad.
Logan Lerman has the starring role. In 2006 he was only 13 years old. He plays the role well, at least as well as Daniel Radcliffe played Harry Potter at age 12. A couple of other child actors who I never heard of before play the other members his gang.
Enjoyable. More so than the average new flick today. Netflix has it.
Logan Lerman has the starring role. In 2006 he was only 13 years old. He plays the role well, at least as well as Daniel Radcliffe played Harry Potter at age 12. A couple of other child actors who I never heard of before play the other members his gang.
Enjoyable. More so than the average new flick today. Netflix has it.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program halted.
The losers (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) filed a protest of the contract award to Northrup Grumman. GAO ordered a stop work for 100 days while they sort thru the paperwork. Take a 3 month schedule hit right there. GAO might, after the 100 day hangup, approve the contract award or order the contract rebid, which will take a year.
The losers objections are unclear, and mostly unpublished. What has come out is the Air Force looked at the bidder's re recurring engineering bids and using a lot of bad past experience doubled all the bids. Not a bad idea, contractors typically bid low to get a foot in the door, thinking that they will be able to get their profit margins back up when the Government orders changes, which it always does. But, what ought to happen when the contractor's underbid, is the government holds them to the original contract. Fifty years ago, Lockheed under bid on the C-5 job. USAF made them eat the difference between what Lockheed spent and what Lockheed bid.
Fifty years later, USAF lacks that kind of stones. And, the last big program USAF put out for bid, the KC-46 tanker job, was a disaster. Boeing protested the award to Airbus, got the contract rebid, and walked away with it. And Boeing is doing cost overruns and schedule slippages right now.
It's hard to tell from where I live want the real story is. Could be, GAO is allowing a frivolous protest to slow the program down. Could be USAF did another KC-46 style bungle. Could be Pentagon procurement regulations are so screwed up that nothing works. Any way, the program is delayed by the bureaucrats, and delays always raise the cost to the taxpayer.
The losers objections are unclear, and mostly unpublished. What has come out is the Air Force looked at the bidder's re recurring engineering bids and using a lot of bad past experience doubled all the bids. Not a bad idea, contractors typically bid low to get a foot in the door, thinking that they will be able to get their profit margins back up when the Government orders changes, which it always does. But, what ought to happen when the contractor's underbid, is the government holds them to the original contract. Fifty years ago, Lockheed under bid on the C-5 job. USAF made them eat the difference between what Lockheed spent and what Lockheed bid.
Fifty years later, USAF lacks that kind of stones. And, the last big program USAF put out for bid, the KC-46 tanker job, was a disaster. Boeing protested the award to Airbus, got the contract rebid, and walked away with it. And Boeing is doing cost overruns and schedule slippages right now.
It's hard to tell from where I live want the real story is. Could be, GAO is allowing a frivolous protest to slow the program down. Could be USAF did another KC-46 style bungle. Could be Pentagon procurement regulations are so screwed up that nothing works. Any way, the program is delayed by the bureaucrats, and delays always raise the cost to the taxpayer.
20 Best Handguns
Washington Times internet posting here. They show nice big pictures of 20 different handguns, nineteen of 'em automatic pistols, and one snub nosed revolver chambered for a ridiculous load. The automatics are a mix of full sized service pistols and tiny belly guns. Most of 'em were just under $500, which is significant money for most of us.
First time buyers should be aware that it is extremely difficult to hit anything with a pistol. If you can find a pistol that fits your hand properly, you can vastly improve your chances of hitting the bad guy. A story. Back in USAF they issued us .38 revolvers for target practice and qualification. The issue revolvers were in miserable shape. All the checkering was worn off the wooden grips, the grips had been marinated in gun oil for 20 years and they were slippery. Each shot made the grip twist in the hand, throwing your aim off for the next shot. The grips were too small to get all your fingers around, my pinkie finger either waved free in air, or slipped underneath the butt and damn near dislocated with each shot. My target shooting was miserable with the issue .38
Later, on a sandpit shooting afternoon, a friend let me shoot his commercial .38 revolver. It had nice big wood grips, good sharp checkering, nice and dry, good smooth trigger, shot like a dream.
Before you shell out $500 for a handgun, you want to shoot the thing, say twenty rounds, and see if it agrees with you. Then think about revolvers. A home defense gun might spend 20 years in a night table drawer, loaded, unloved, unlubricated, but that one time something bad happens, you want it to work. A double action (pulling the trigger cocks the hammer) revolver is good for this. You just pull the trigger and the gun goes bang. No safeties, no slide to work, no magazine releases to avoid. And it stores loaded, and un cocked, all the springs uncompressed. In automatics, the magazine spring is fully compressed when the magazine is loaded and the hammer or striker is cocked. Over the years, compressed springs can weaken, or even break.
Pistols come in various sizes, too damn big (Dirty Harry's .44), service pistol (cop's holster gun) and pocket pistols. Service pistols shoot best, they have enough weight to soak up the recoil of a decent load, a long enough sight radius to be easy to aim, big enough grips. Unless you are planning to carry the gun in your pocket, there is no reason to mess around with pocket pistols. They are harder to shoot, harder to get a hit with, and are often chambered for wimpy little loads that won't stop a bad guy, but just make him mad.
You want a handgun chambered for a standard, widely available load. These are .38 Special, 9 mm Luger, and .45 ACP. There are a lot of other loads out there. Any thing less than .38 special isn't big enough, anything more than .45 ACP is too damn big. The lighter the gun, the harder it will kick, which throws your accuracy off. The shorter the barrel, the fiercer the report. For example, the classic 1911 .45 government model automatic pistol weighs 39 ounces, has a 5 inch barrel, and handles the big .45 ACP load reasonably well. I have seen ads for little pocket pistols weighing only 14 ounces, with 3 inch barrels chambered for .45. I would not care to shoot one, too much kick, too loud a report.
First time buyers should be aware that it is extremely difficult to hit anything with a pistol. If you can find a pistol that fits your hand properly, you can vastly improve your chances of hitting the bad guy. A story. Back in USAF they issued us .38 revolvers for target practice and qualification. The issue revolvers were in miserable shape. All the checkering was worn off the wooden grips, the grips had been marinated in gun oil for 20 years and they were slippery. Each shot made the grip twist in the hand, throwing your aim off for the next shot. The grips were too small to get all your fingers around, my pinkie finger either waved free in air, or slipped underneath the butt and damn near dislocated with each shot. My target shooting was miserable with the issue .38
Later, on a sandpit shooting afternoon, a friend let me shoot his commercial .38 revolver. It had nice big wood grips, good sharp checkering, nice and dry, good smooth trigger, shot like a dream.
Before you shell out $500 for a handgun, you want to shoot the thing, say twenty rounds, and see if it agrees with you. Then think about revolvers. A home defense gun might spend 20 years in a night table drawer, loaded, unloved, unlubricated, but that one time something bad happens, you want it to work. A double action (pulling the trigger cocks the hammer) revolver is good for this. You just pull the trigger and the gun goes bang. No safeties, no slide to work, no magazine releases to avoid. And it stores loaded, and un cocked, all the springs uncompressed. In automatics, the magazine spring is fully compressed when the magazine is loaded and the hammer or striker is cocked. Over the years, compressed springs can weaken, or even break.
Pistols come in various sizes, too damn big (Dirty Harry's .44), service pistol (cop's holster gun) and pocket pistols. Service pistols shoot best, they have enough weight to soak up the recoil of a decent load, a long enough sight radius to be easy to aim, big enough grips. Unless you are planning to carry the gun in your pocket, there is no reason to mess around with pocket pistols. They are harder to shoot, harder to get a hit with, and are often chambered for wimpy little loads that won't stop a bad guy, but just make him mad.
You want a handgun chambered for a standard, widely available load. These are .38 Special, 9 mm Luger, and .45 ACP. There are a lot of other loads out there. Any thing less than .38 special isn't big enough, anything more than .45 ACP is too damn big. The lighter the gun, the harder it will kick, which throws your accuracy off. The shorter the barrel, the fiercer the report. For example, the classic 1911 .45 government model automatic pistol weighs 39 ounces, has a 5 inch barrel, and handles the big .45 ACP load reasonably well. I have seen ads for little pocket pistols weighing only 14 ounces, with 3 inch barrels chambered for .45. I would not care to shoot one, too much kick, too loud a report.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Debate Watch Party
We had another one. Not bad. Chris Christy came on strong on the junior debate. Fox and WSJ did a highly professional job with the questions and with the moderation, far far superior to those CNBC clowns last month. In the main event, everybody looked pretty good. I didn't see a clear cut winner, everyone looked pretty good. No body choked up.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Headlights, auto turn off
Used to be, headlights were on a switch on the dash. They came on when you pulled a knob out, and went off when you pushed the knob in.
Simple days, long gone. Now the car's microprocessor leaves the headlights on to give you some light to get to the door and find the front door key.
Except, the microprocessor doesn't get it right. Either the headlights go off too soon, leaving you fumbling in the dark, or they stay on too long, leaving you standing out in the rain, watching to make sure the microprocessor does finally turn the headlights off, to avoid running down the battery. Most of us have experienced a car with a flat battery after someone failed to turn ALL the lights off. And we don't trust microprocessors to get it right.
Mostly the microprocessors start timing the head light turnoff time from when the ignition is turned off. Bad idea. Better results would be had by starting the turnoff timer when the driver's door opens and closes. The driver may have some packages on the passenger's seat he needs to bring into the house. Which requires some fumbling around in the dark. For that matter, the microprocessor should check for other door openings and closings. The driver may have some groceries in the back seat, and the headlamp timeout should start when the last door is closed.
It will take Detroit about 50 years to get this right.
Simple days, long gone. Now the car's microprocessor leaves the headlights on to give you some light to get to the door and find the front door key.
Except, the microprocessor doesn't get it right. Either the headlights go off too soon, leaving you fumbling in the dark, or they stay on too long, leaving you standing out in the rain, watching to make sure the microprocessor does finally turn the headlights off, to avoid running down the battery. Most of us have experienced a car with a flat battery after someone failed to turn ALL the lights off. And we don't trust microprocessors to get it right.
Mostly the microprocessors start timing the head light turnoff time from when the ignition is turned off. Bad idea. Better results would be had by starting the turnoff timer when the driver's door opens and closes. The driver may have some packages on the passenger's seat he needs to bring into the house. Which requires some fumbling around in the dark. For that matter, the microprocessor should check for other door openings and closings. The driver may have some groceries in the back seat, and the headlamp timeout should start when the last door is closed.
It will take Detroit about 50 years to get this right.
Specter, the movie
It's a Bond movie. I'd rate it medium good against all the other Bond movies. We don't watch Bond movies to see character development, true love, political points made, conventional tragedy, or Shakespearean eloquence. We go to Bond movies for the action, the pretty Bond-girl, the evil Bond-villain, Q's lethal gadgets, the car chases, the fighting, and the shooting. In this vein, Spectre delivers.
Daniel Craig delivers a satisfying Bond. He plays a taciturn, driven Bond, with some scores to settle, and some lost loves to mourn. He has an icy stare. And a good right hook. He needs a better tailor, his suits don't fit him very well. Bond has no sense of humor, never cracks a joke or uses a pun. This is one serious and scary dud
Lea Seydoux makes a decent Bond girl. She is plenty good looking enough, and has some of her own issues. We see her standing up to 007 and making it work for her and for Bond.
The movie suffers from some poor technical work. The soundman doesn't capture all the dialog. It could be worse, but a fair number of bits of dialog were unintelligible. It was not a full fledged curse of the soundman, but more like just bad wishes from the soundman. And the camera man was into under exposure. A lot of scenes were just annoyingly DARK, the only thing you could see was the actor's face, and sometimes not even that. I'd find myself saying, "Open up your damn lens" to the screen. When the camera man did set the exposure properly, he would introduce a misty soft focus effect similar to filling the set with smoke. Also annoying. At least we didn't have to put up with 3-D goggles.
The car chase didn't seem very real, not real the way Steve McQueen's Mustang blasting thru San Francisco did in Bullitt.. The cars sort of floated and pulled off some unbelievably sharp turns into alleys at speed, to the point where I figured I was watching CGI.
A lot of plot holes. For openers, Bond manages to get from London to Rome, with his car (Q's hottest newest Aston Martin) in one quick cut-to-black. You'd think at least a shot of driving the Aston onto a Channel car ferry would be in order. Bond manages to collapse an entire 6 story masonry building with a few rifle shots. There is a lot of travel, but it is never clear where they are going to, coming from or traveling thru. The Bond-villain goes from fairly handsome, to horribly scarred and I never knew how. There is some high level skullduggery between the new M, and a snivel service weasel dubbed C which is unclear. Bond confronts the father of the Bond-girl with a lot of snarling back and forth which was unclear to me, and the resolution of the face-off is brutal and weird and unexplained. Ah well, it's a Bond movie and it don't have to make sense.
Anyhow, if you like Bond movies, this one is pretty good. The critics panned it, but the critics don't like Bond movies, they like Shakespeare, which Bond movies are not.
Daniel Craig delivers a satisfying Bond. He plays a taciturn, driven Bond, with some scores to settle, and some lost loves to mourn. He has an icy stare. And a good right hook. He needs a better tailor, his suits don't fit him very well. Bond has no sense of humor, never cracks a joke or uses a pun. This is one serious and scary dud
Lea Seydoux makes a decent Bond girl. She is plenty good looking enough, and has some of her own issues. We see her standing up to 007 and making it work for her and for Bond.
The movie suffers from some poor technical work. The soundman doesn't capture all the dialog. It could be worse, but a fair number of bits of dialog were unintelligible. It was not a full fledged curse of the soundman, but more like just bad wishes from the soundman. And the camera man was into under exposure. A lot of scenes were just annoyingly DARK, the only thing you could see was the actor's face, and sometimes not even that. I'd find myself saying, "Open up your damn lens" to the screen. When the camera man did set the exposure properly, he would introduce a misty soft focus effect similar to filling the set with smoke. Also annoying. At least we didn't have to put up with 3-D goggles.
The car chase didn't seem very real, not real the way Steve McQueen's Mustang blasting thru San Francisco did in Bullitt.. The cars sort of floated and pulled off some unbelievably sharp turns into alleys at speed, to the point where I figured I was watching CGI.
A lot of plot holes. For openers, Bond manages to get from London to Rome, with his car (Q's hottest newest Aston Martin) in one quick cut-to-black. You'd think at least a shot of driving the Aston onto a Channel car ferry would be in order. Bond manages to collapse an entire 6 story masonry building with a few rifle shots. There is a lot of travel, but it is never clear where they are going to, coming from or traveling thru. The Bond-villain goes from fairly handsome, to horribly scarred and I never knew how. There is some high level skullduggery between the new M, and a snivel service weasel dubbed C which is unclear. Bond confronts the father of the Bond-girl with a lot of snarling back and forth which was unclear to me, and the resolution of the face-off is brutal and weird and unexplained. Ah well, it's a Bond movie and it don't have to make sense.
Anyhow, if you like Bond movies, this one is pretty good. The critics panned it, but the critics don't like Bond movies, they like Shakespeare, which Bond movies are not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)