Categories
All About Guns Interesting stuff War

From https://mydailykona.blogspot.com/ An Ode to Battleships Past and Future..

I shamelessly clipped this from Tom Kratman and farcebook a couple days ago. I thought it was a pretty good post.  I have blogged a bit about “Battleships” in the past on my blog.

 

 

 

In Starship Troopers Heinlein listed as one of the branches possibly open to Rico, “Combat Ecology.” I’ve always thought that referred not to saving the interstellar snail darter, but the relationship between weapons systems and tactics that advance some groups and depress or eliminate the use of others.
Hence, this very thoughtful peace from Quora on, though the author didn’t phrase it that way, the combat ecology of the battleship:
Could a modern navy build a new class of battleships, or would such vessels be obsolete?
Eric Husher, former Senior Balkan Intelligence Analyst (1992-1996)
Answered Feb 12 · Upvoted by Olan Prentice, Veteran at United States Navy
The short answer is ‘no,’ as I will explain.
I think one of the more pernicious myths is that ‘the battleship was made obsolete by the aircraft carrier and has no function today.’
You see this in book after book, but a closer examination of the facts indicates otherwise.
It is important to understand a few things about battleships before talking about ‘obsolescence’ or aircraft carriers, and the FIRST thing to know is that battleships are the direct descendants of the ‘line of battle’ of Nelson’s time.
In other words, they were NEVER intended to operate alone, or as ‘a pair,’ but as a SQUADRON of no fewer than four, and preferably more, with the squadron being considered the minimum necessary to conduct all maneuvering evolutions. Squadrons would be combined to produce fleets, and it was the squadron that was used as the minimum tactical unit for battleships. This ‘understanding’ held true until WW2, when events forced navies to use battleships otherwise, and with invariably poor results.
The next thing to know is that battleships were not just intended to deliver powerful blows (like modern warships), but to RECEIVE and WITHSTAND powerful blows as well (unlike modern warships), and thus, could not just ‘stand in the line,’ but STAY in the line regardless of multiple hits.
It was this dual function that produced the international naval armaments race prior to WW1, as newer and stronger forms of armor and design were developed, and at the same time, newer and more powerful naval guns were successively produced to defeat that armor.
Such ships produced from the 1880’s until the end of the ‘battleship era’ at the conclusion of WW2, were rapidly made obsolete by these rapid advances, such that a battleship might only have a useful life of less than ten years before being superceded by a much more powerful version, and of course, this was a VERY expensive proposition.
As well, the logistics tail necessary to produce a battleship, its armor, engines and weaponry was likewise very expensive and quite specialized in nature and with little application outside the production of more battleships.
Consider the equipment necessary to found, forge, and roll out enormous plates of armor steel as much as 16″ thick, and you get some idea what I am talking about.
This ‘process’ and ‘race’ by nations to create the ‘ultimate’ battlefleet found its ultimate expression just before WW1 with the invention and production of the ‘dreadnoughts;’ heavily plated with armor belts up to 14″ thick, oil-fired turbine engines to produce a minimum speed of 20 knots, and an ‘all-big gun’ armament of eight or more guns firing 11″ to 15″ diameter shells as much as 20 KM to hit their targets.
These dreadnought battleships, and their dreadnought battlecruiser escorts proved their worth and lived up to their reputations in WW1, but because they WERE so expensive to produce, and any losses would represent such a loss of national treasure, there was a fair bit of concern as to how boldly they might be used.
The Germans in particular (because they were outnumbered by the British navy), were loath to ‘commit’ their fleet in anything other than an opportunity whereby they might outnumber the British by trying to isolate a squadron or two of British ships that they might then destroy with their own numbers.
The British attempted numerous times to achieve the same effect, but at the end of the day, there were really only three significant clashes between the behemoths, at the Falklands, Dogger Bank, and of course, Jutland.
The ‘performance’ of the battleships in the clashes can be considered not just by the amount of hits achieved, and damage inflicted, but by the number of times these ships were hit and did NOT simply explode or immediately sink, but in fact ‘stayed in the line’ and returned home in some cases wounded, but alive.
The German battlescruisers were each hit by as many as 28 heavy shells of 12″, 13.5″ and 15″ shells, yet CONTINUED to fight and return damage of their own (three British battlecruisers were sunk that day, in return for the loss of but one German battlecruiser).
Such was the concern over the capabilities and expense of these ships, that after the war, long thought was given to the need to restrict the building of further battleships, and the reduction in the number of existing battleships both as a means of ‘improving the chances for a lasting peace,’ but more importantly, to protect the nations from bankruptcy.
The goal of these various treaties and negotiations was to produce national fleets that were much smaller than those of the Great War and prior, with the leading nations restricted to no more than two or three battleship squadrons, depending on the nation involved (the US got three squadrons, as did the Brits, but the Japanese were only allowed two, the French and Italians one each, and the Germans NONE).
By the middle of the 1930’s, many of these battleships were becoming quite elderly, and replacements were designed on much more modern principles, with serious thought given to the threat of air-power. It is concurrent with this period that the first fleet aircraft carriers became fully operational.
Because of the reduced size of the battleship fleets available, some nations, particularly the Japanese considered that the only way to achieve the kind parity necessary to fight on an equal footing was through increasing the size, firepower and armor of any new ships built.
This was the origin of the ‘Yamato’ class super-battleships. Other countries like the US and Britain were similarly concerned, but with more modest ideas, such as the American ‘North Carolina’ class, and the British ‘Rodney’ class.
Other nations were concerned with the rise of such threats as the German ‘pocket battleships’ of the ‘Graf Spee’ class (which in reality were not much more than rather slow heavy cruisers), producing a couple new battlecruisers of the ‘Dunkerque’ class, but generally speaking, none of these materially increased the sizes of the fleets concerned, and with the restrictions on battleship production, all navies turned to the ‘Heavy Cruiser’ as their means for fleet expansion, and just as was the case prior to WW1, produced yet another ‘arms race’ to produce the most capable heavy cruisers possible within the treaty tonnage regulations.
The result of all of this was two-fold; the remaining battleships were now even MORE precious than they were during WW1, and many of the ‘tasks’ previously assigned to battleship or battlecruiser squadrons were now assigned to the heavy cruisers, and all the while the aircraft carriers became more capable and more dangerous, with the actual ‘threat’ being brought home by the British at Taranto, and the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
NOTE: At this early point in WW2, battleships were now being deployed in pairs, not squadrons, both because of the lack of available battleships, and the concurrent loss of
OPPOSING battle squadrons. This was the case for the Bismarck’s first and final cruise, opposed by a battleship and a battlecruiser (Hood), the latter of which was sunk by the German guns, but the Bismarck after escaping further attacks by the British battleship, was tracked down first crippled by aircraft torpedoes, and then finished off by a combined squadron of battleships, heavy cruisers and destroyers. Bismarck was ALONE.
The Italians had a number of sorties with their battleships, invariably in pairs, and they accomplished little when faced by a similar number of British battleships and cruisers accompanied by aircraft carriers, and it was this that became the key to the future, the combined ‘task force.’
In the Pacific, the severe blow against the US battleship fleet by the Japanese as well as the British loss of a battleship and battlecruiser (again, operating ALONE and without air support) meant that there were essentially too many areas to cover to allow for the kind of ‘squadron operations’ for which the battleships were designed, and instead, the fast battleships were deployed singly, or in pairs as escorts for carrier task forces, and the heavy cruisers took up the tasks that once would have been assigned to battleships.
As such the battleships were not really intended to provide ‘surface support,’ though of course that would be readily available in the event of a surface attack, but instead to use their formidable air defenses to cover the carrier from air attack, and in this role, the American battleships eventually ruled supreme.
On the Japanese side, while they would often provide a ‘Kongo’ class battleship to escort carrier groups, the Japanese never assembled the kind of ‘task forces’ made so effective by the Americans. Part of the reason for this was the Japanese did NOT want to expose their battleships to situations where they might be lost individually, but preferring to keep them ‘in reserve’ for what they hoped would be a climactic ‘final battle’ in which they WOULD be used in squadrons against a weakened American fleet.
But here comes the interesting and notable part. When the Japanese finally DID deploy their battleships in squadrons (Leyte Gulf to the battle of Samar), they were duly attacked by swarms of American aircraft, HUNDREDS of American aircraft, equipped with 500 and 1000 lb bombs and torpedoes too.
But only ONE of the Japanese battleships (‘Musashi’) was STOPPED by the aircraft, and only after receiving 19 torpedoes, and 17 heavy bomb hits over three continuous hours of air strikes before she was sunk!
ANY of these kind of hits would have stopped, or even sunk most modern warships, and in the MEANTIME, the REST of the Japanese battleships and cruisers proceeded to their destination and point of attack.
Yes, these ships were eventually driven off by hundreds more American planes, but no more battleships were lost in this quadrant, and they RETURNED to Japan for further use.
Further South, a PAIR of Japanese battleships accompanied by heavy cruisers managed to escape the attentions of the American aircraft and proceeded down Surigao Straight by night, with the idea of attacking the American landing force from the rear.
Unfortunately, they were met by… TWO SQUADRONS of American battleships, in a classic ‘line of battle,’ and after a number of broadside salvoes, BOTH Japanese battleships were SUNK, the cruisers were damaged and several destroyers likewise sunk. ‘See the difference?’
In a different scenario, that also involved waves of carrier aircraft flying against battleships, the example of the ‘Marianas Turkey shoot’ otherwise known as the ‘Battle of the Philippine Sea’ provides yet another example of the relative inability of aircraft against battleships.
In this case, the American fleet was steaming North for the preliminaries of the invasion of the Philippines, and this brought the last big effort by the Japanese carrier forces to bear. However, while their primary targets were the big American carriers, in order to GET to them, they had to fly over an American battleship squadron and cruiser/destroyer task force in a ‘ring’ formation that stretched over tens of miles.
As the waves of Japanese attack planes flew over, they were MOWN down by battleship anti-aircraft fire using ‘proximity fuses,’ and hundreds of Japanese planes were shot down before they ever arrived in the vicinity of the American carriers.
Once again, battleships operating as a squadron at sea are a devastating force to contend with.
So what HAPPENED at the end of WW2? Why were no new battleships built, if they were such powerful warships? TWO things happened; the first being the atomic bomb, which was used in several tests against anchored fleets to see ‘what would happen,’ and the results were pretty devastating, even though many of the battleships so employed actually SURVIVED the tests.
The second was the fact that, other than the United States and the UK, no one else HAD any battleships to speak of, let alone ‘squadrons.’ Britain finished ONE new battleship after the war (Vanguard), and the French had one, and finished another (Richelieu and Jean Bart), but their industries were largely destroyed by the war, and Britain’s economy was destroyed by the war, all heavy industry in Europe was destroyed by the war, and the Soviet Union was likewise devastated.
At the same time, the US at this point now had 12 modern fast battleships, and a bunch of old ones (soon to be decommissioned), and an untouched industrial base and economy too. In other words, there was NO ONE ‘available’ to provide any naval competition, and with the Brits rapidly decommissioning and scrapping its battleships, soon to be followed by France, there was simply no CHALLENGE to the mighty American battlefleet.
But battleships are expensive to maintain, and expensive to man, and as we already had an unrivalled fleet of aircraft carriers, there seemed to be no further USE for the battleships, and one by one they were put into mothballs, scrapped, or turned into ‘memorials.’ At the same time, the steel industries, now no longer needed to produce battleships, quickly scrapped the heavy and expensive equipment needed to build them, and by the mid-1960’s there was no longer the CAPABILITY to ‘build battleships,’ even if we wanted to.
It is for this reason the last and most modern class of American battleship, the ‘New Jersey’ class, have REMAINED in operational condition, and in fact, they have been dragged out of mothballs and recommissioned several times since WW2, including Korea, Vietnam, and their last deployment was for the First Gulf War.
That is not an ‘indication’ that battleships or the battleship concept is any way ‘obsolete,’ because regardless of whether a weapon delivery system consists of a heavy shell, or a bomb, torpedo or even missile, the fact STILL remains that these are ALL designed to deliver a large explosive against a warship, even if the delivery ‘method’ is different.
In EVERY case, the battleship REMAINS ‘standing in the line’ if hit by ANY such, not just once or twice, but again and again, and that can NEVER be considered ‘obsolete.’
ANd here is the information from “Wiki” about the proposed “Trump Class Battleships
Personally to me the Jury is out on that class of ship, as much as I would like to see one.
Categories
All About Guns California Interesting stuff You have to be kidding, right!?!

.44 Mag Fishing — Elmer Style! By Jeff “Tank” Hoover

Cover of Gene Brown’s fine book!

Elmer Keith’s shooting exploits were legendary. While most students of Keith are true believers of his sixgun prowess, some consider him to be full of bull $hit. How could a man be so beloved, be the impetus of the Pre-64 Winchester Model 70 rifle, the .338 Winchester Magnum, as well as the .44 and .41 Magnum cartridges, to name a few, and still be considered full of horse hooey by some?

Elmer and Mike Garner, Gene Brown’s buddy.

Then there’s the debatable 600-yard mule deer shot — with a 6.5-inch .44 Mag, killing five jackrabbits with one shot at 100 yards, while on a full run, and finally, shooting flying fish, while in mid arc near Catalina Island, with his 4-inch .44 Magnum! I’ve discussed the two previous incidents in earlier articles; here, I’ll discuss the flying fish incident. I don’t see what the big deal is. If Elmer says he did it, it happened!

Elmer and Tommy Bish at the Great Western Gun Show!

This story starts with two young Elmer Keith fans who met Keith at the Kalispell Outlaw Inn, where the Montana Weapons Collectors held their annual late winter gun show. A discussion about the show continued back in Keith’s room. Firing up a cigar and tipping back his famous Stetson, the topic shifted to gun shows in general. Which shows were the best and which ones weren’t worth your time?

The Great Western Gun Show came up, and his young fans enthusiastically described the show in detail. Keith asked his new young friends, “If you’re going down to the show this year, I’d like to tag along.” The starstruck fans were gobsmacked between the eyes! They couldn’t believe their good fortune — a road trip with Elmer Keith — all the way from Salmon, Idaho, where Elmer lived, to Los Angeles, California!

Wax figure of Elmer at his “office” at the Elmer Keith museum in Boise, Id., at the Cabela’s.
Photo by Jeff “Tank” Hoover.

The Show

Anyone’s who’s ever attended this huge and colorful three-day event will testify this is not your standard, generic “guns on the table” kind of show. This is the kind of show that can only happen in Southern California. In addition to the several thousand guns and accompanying items, the entertainment value is both shocking and interesting.

It’s a mix of a large motion-picture set where the movie is a cowboy-and-Indian war, and a military and western museum, with living figures.

Coming at you and around you from all sides are men and women in full regalia, ranging from uniforms simulating the American Revolution, Civil War, with both North and South sides represented, Spanish American War, with soldiers sporting 30/40 Krag rifles, World War I Doughboys carrying Lee Enfield’s and Webleys and the many other different persuasions of World War II in an authentic array.

Some of Elmer’s trophies at the office reproduction at Cabela’s.

Picking Elmer Up

One of the young fans describes what it was like to visit Keith’s home in Salmon, Idaho, to pick him up. “It began with a touching front porch scene at the home of Elmer and his wife.

There, our traveling companion was saying goodbye to Lorraine. Romance writers would have deemed it a tender and touching scene. There stood the grizzled, hard, seen it all old cowboy in sharp, formal western attire. In front of him was a loving wife who repeatedly adjusted the suit lapels. This between a lot of not unwarm kissing, hugging and gazing into each other’s eyes.”

“Gently, she advised him to be careful. Take care of yourself. It looked as if we were dealing with a pair of love-struck teenagers and not an old married couple that been teamed up for some 56 years.”

“These two lovebirds, as we drove away, waved until they could no longer see each other. Mike was smiling broadly as we went east down the hill into Salmon. From there, the road would take us onto Highway 93, which headed through Southern Idaho.”

Not long into the drive south in his 1975 Cadillac Coupe de Ville, the subject of long-range and trick shooting came up. The fan recalls Elmer’s words, “We were fishing off the coast of California over around Catalina Island sometime in the late 1950s,” he recalled as if it was a week ago.

“There was a boatload of us, and some of the boys ribbed me about just what a man could do with a .44 Magnum pistol if he put his mind to it. I had gotten off a few rounds at sharks, which didn’t make much of an impression on this lot.”

“One of them remarked that I probably figured I could knock down a flying fish on the wing if I felt like it.”

“Well,” I said back, “I could probably do that.”

“Whaat?! Excuse me. Drop a flying fish with a pistol?”

More trophies.

Doubt & Disappointment

The young fan stated, “From somewhere deep down in my innermost reaches, a pause button came on. I glanced in the rearview mirror where friend Mike had the same, “What is this (expletive deleted) nonsense,” doubting expression that I did. “Well, maybe a little too much Wild Turkey for our old buddy today? Elmer looked straight ahead, out over the desert landscape passing by, missing our suspicious countenances and the terrible ensuing let down we both felt.”

“He continued with this absurdity that might have fooled the newly disembarked pickle boat crowd.

“Well,” he slowly drawled, “I unleashed the Smith and Wesson, leaned back against something, I don’t exactly remember what, put the pistol between my knees and took a few shots out over the water to sort of get the range and feel of it.

“He seemed to be lost in thought for a few seconds and then continued, “The first one I dropped was out about 50 yards. Got him right in the arc. The next two were right around 60 yards. I could have gotten more, but figured the point had been made.

It was difficult shooting, but I did do it.” “Also,” he added, “I don’t like to take fish or game unless I use it for food.” A heavy silence enveloped the car’s interior portion. A silence so heavy and dead, I reckoned we could be had on a murder one rap. Things got awfully quiet for a while. Could it be that the skeptics were right? The rest of us believers had been hustled?”

“Again, glancing into the rearview mirror, I saw Mike slowly shaking his head in a frown of disbelief. A touch of doubt on our part tainted stories that ensued during the rest of the journey. Well, how else would you feel after hearing some comic book yarn like that? A great, knowledgeable old guy maybe, but it was time to just chalk up his shooting stories as clever works of fiction.

“Admittedly, there still were some intriguing accounts, especially the one about his British Columbia experience that got him placed on a 1928 cover of the American Rifleman magazine (more about that later), the African lion hunts and loads of talk on ultimate rifles, shotguns and handguns.”

Elmer’s Outstanding American Handgunner Trophy and bronze sculpture of him in the museum.

The Show

The fan goes on to describe how they were treated like royalty as they were escorted through the fairgrounds to the main building by a pair of L.A. County Sheriffs, a security guard and a California Highway Patrolman, once they realized who their VIP passenger was. As they walked through the large east entrance door (after being assigned a special parking spot by security) people recognized Elmer by his big cowboy hat, waving and yelling his name.

Elmer was as human as the rest of us. He loved this kind of attention from fellow gun buffs. The waves and smiles from admirers were heartily returned.

Credible Conclusion

While they were being escorted to the Petersen table, somebody far off in the milling crowd could be heard yelling rather loudly, “Elmer!” “Hey, Elmer.” “Elmer, over here.”

Turning, they saw a man in a western hat and cowboy clothes coming hurriedly in their direction. Right off, they recognized Tommy Bish, a well-known writer on firearms and do-it-yourself gunsmithing.

There was a round of handshaking and backslapping between Keith and Bish. “How ya’ been?” “Whadda’ ya’ been doing? “Long time, no see!” Grinning broadly, Tommy addressed Elmer.

“Elmer, it is really good to see you. You know what happened? Just last night, a bunch of us were talking. I told them about how you took down those flying fish off Catalina Island with that pistol a few years back.” Elmer nodded yes, as both young fans were now smiling after Bish substantiated Elmer’s account of shooting flying fish!

We learned later that Bish had not seen or spoken with Elmer for several years. There was no way in the world a man of his or Elmer’s caliber would have cooked up some phony story about Elmer and the ocean shooting action.

By the Book

Most of my information and quotes come from Gene Brown’s book, Elmer Keith, The Other Side of a Western Legend available here. Brown discusses the trials and tribulations of collecting all of Keith’s books, before the advent of the internet, visiting Keith over the years and how he would even visit him in the nursing home after his stroke. For any true Keith fan, a warmly written, wonderful book giving you a peek into the life of the dean of all gun writers.

Categories
Interesting stuff Manly Stuff

That Old Confidence He never looked back. Not once. by LAFAYETTE LEE

Last year, just before Christmas, I was reading a book on the Cold War, and I remember being impressed by the ability and confidence of America’s leaders—men who safely navigated the nation through one of the most dangerous periods in its history. Decades later the United States finds itself on the cusp of yet another treacherous period, but this time our leaders appear woefully inadequate, with that old postwar confidence replaced by a toxic hubris.

The situation here at home may be even more dire. While the counterculture of the 1960s helped to break a president and accelerate social divisions, the old political consensus that carried the nation through World War II remained mostly intact, continuing on until the end of the Cold War.

More than thirty years have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but rather than waxing in confidence, we find ourselves brittle, unsure, and plagued by anxiety. The old consensus has disintegrated. And while this is celebrated by the radicalized fringe of both the left and right, there are unintended consequences on the horizon we can hardly fathom.

I said as much in a post from December of last year:

Many of us are troubled to see the rapid disintegration of the old consensus that carried the nation through WWII, the Cold War, and all the turbulence in between.

Surely it was a rare moment for America and the world—one we’ll never see again—but we’re still left with a crumbling dam holding back a terrible flood; if you can’t see it now, you never will. That consensus was holding together countless compromises, arrangements, and understandings as well as bearing the weight of more than 400 years of history.

Again, it was inevitable that the old consensus would break down, but unlike other periods, certain questions—the oldest and most fundamental—are again up for grabs. What America is and ought to be, what it means to be an American, are now open questions, and until they are resolved, no new consensus will emerge.

This is where we are.

My dialogue with Darryl Cooper, “American Ethnogenesis,” as well as our recent debate with Scott Greer and Ben Roberts (more on that later), touch on this problem.

For the United States to endure as a nation, a new national consensus must emerge. And just in case you misinterpret my sense of foreboding as a desire to return to the old consensus, let me say once and for all that I believe any attempt to restore the old postwar consensus is doomed to fail. Too much has changed—we have changed.

Now for those who might be confused, what I refer to as the “postwar consensus” is the near-unanimous support for the political and economic order that emerged during and after World War II that enabled the United States to retain its national character while embracing empire and global hegemony. This transformation gave rise to, among other things, a new monetary order, the military industrial complex, international intelligence, the modern administrative and welfare state, the “imperial” presidency, a revolution in civil rights, and the redefinition of citizenship.

For these complex systems to remain strong and effective, they had to have legitimacy and renovated moral underpinnings. This was no easy task, and there was resistance, but the new order ultimately succeeded and its power and authority was largely unchallenged for more than fifty years.

I spend a lot of time on this period, and I am always amazed at how familiar yet alien it seems. Just as it’s difficult to imagine able and confident statesmen crafting US foreign policy, it’s difficult to comprehend our country leading the world in K-12 public education, payrolls increasing by 32% during the course of a decade, or just three television channels delivering the “news” to 200 million Americans.

I sometimes have the same reaction to my own family, where my grandparents seem more distant in some ways than their parents.

Several days ago I was up late again, doing some reading, and my mind drifted to my granddad—one of the most confident and able men I’ve ever known. He tends to visit my thoughts more frequently now, and I find myself wishing I could talk to him…

Granddad was the first of his family to escape farming—the first one in centuries. He left it all behind when the getting was good, with all that postwar confidence swelling in his chest.

He never looked back. Not once.

I wonder how often he thought of his own grandfather as he was taking a slice. More than once, I suppose. They were both orphans.

But did he look to that man for some ghostly wisdom like I do now?

I can hardly imagine a country so buoyant and self-assured: neat rows of little houses with tidy lawns, a spacious family car, and a pile of kids—bowling for him on Tuesday, bridge for her on Thursday—a vacation in Hawaii, Dion on the radio, a man on the moon…

His own grandfather could have hardly dreamed of such a place, for he came to this country penniless and weather-beaten, a pistol in his belt and a bit of scribbled paper swallowed by his hat—the last traces of a father abandoned on the banks of the Mississippi.

That first orphan never knew Eden, just sweat, blood, and tears in a wild place. Hot suns, cold moons, and a pillar of fire off in the distance. He shot a man in the guts and was nearly lynched for his trouble. But even in wild places the Lord can show a little mercy.

The country was younger then, but it had already outgrown itself; a lot of anger, fear, and sickness in those days. He found it in every place, but he just pressed on—through the Indians, baldknobbers, and rustlers, until he found his own dusty spot. And there he built himself a life.

I’m not yet an orphan and I’ve never gone to the hanging tree, but the neat rows of little houses with tidy lawns I remember are now gone, and all the neighborhood kids have melted away. Tuesdays and Thursdays are for fretting, and Hawaii sags on the wall.

There’s no confidence in this country—just anger, fear, and that awful sickness. So far from Eden it’s now a wild place—just like the first one found it—redeemed only by sweat, blood, and tears, as the ghostly wisdom goes.

Once in a while I hear his whisper: even in wild places the Lord can show a little mercy.

Maybe this is a time of second chances, a time to build something new in a wild place… maybe there we will find that old confidence.

Categories
Interesting stuff

Connor Leahy, An interesting man

Categories
All About Guns Fieldcraft Interesting stuff

How To Reduce Felt Recoil From The Bench by Richard A. Mann

How To Reduce Felt Recoil From The Bench

Want to get better at handling the hard hitters? Here are six ways to reduce felt recoil from the bench.

When we shoot from a bench rest, we’re usually sighting in a rifle or testing ammunition. When doing either, it’s important to get the best shot to shot results we can. The problem is that sustained recoil can negatively impact not only your shooting but also your enjoyment. There are some ways you can mitigate felt recoil when shooting from a bench rest, and these techniques become very important when you crawl behind a hard-kicking rifle.

The general consensus among firearms trainers is that most experienced adult shooters can withstand about 20 shots from a bench rest with a .30-06 Springfield rifle without experiencing excessive discomfort or a negative impact on accuracy and precision. The amount of free recoil energy the average .30-06 rifle with a scope will generate is right at about 20 foot-pounds. Of course, some rifles recoil much harder. A .338 Winchester Magnum can generate almost twice as much free recoil energy.

But it’s not always about free recoil energy.

rifle recoil reduction

Due to the configuration of some rifles and their lack of a soft butt pad, even lighter recoiling rifles can be uncomfortable to shoot, and too, everyone has different recoil tolerance levels.

Years ago, I purchased a Marlin 1895 Cowboy lever action rifle in .45-70 Government. Based on recoil calculations, that rifle recoiled with just a tad more than 20 foot-pounds of free recoil energy.

However, because of the way the rifle was configured with its thin hard plastic butt plate, it was painful to shoot from the bench. Shooting while standing offhand wasn’t bad at all, but after four or five shots off a bench with full-power loads, your eyes would start watering.

shooting rifle off hand
Shooting a hard-kicking rifle off hand will not hurt as bad as shooting from a bench because of how you hold the rifle and how your body can rock with the recoil while standing.

If you’re going to be doing a good bit of shooting from a bench rest with a rifle that has a bit of bite, try some of these techniques to help diminish that bite. Individually they all work, but by combining them you can usually make a rifle that’s no fun at all to shoot from a bench at least tolerable enough to allow you to test several loads and/or sight it in.

1: Hold Her With Passion

As soon as a rifle fires, it will begin moving to the rear. If there is a space between the rifle’s butt pad and your shoulder, that movement and impact will enhance recoil pain. This is especially true if the rifle does not have a soft butt pad.

recoil reduction bag rest
Holding the forend of the rifle in your hand and placing your hand on the front bag can help slightly with recoil control, but wrapping the rifle strap around the front bag is a better technique.

Before you press the trigger, make sure the butt stock is snug against your shoulder—but be careful not to pull the rifle back into your shoulder forcibly. The stress of your muscles will make it more difficult to hold the rifle on target steady.

recoil reduction stock shoulder
Make sure the butt pad of the rifle has solid contact with your shoulder, but do not apply extreme force.

2: As Mom Would Say: Sit Up!

When most shooters get behind a rifle positioned on a bench rest, they tend to position the rifle as close to the bench as possible. If you do that and you’re about 6 feet tall, with most benches you will need to lean over to get low enough to place your shoulder on the rifle stock and your eye behind the sights. This position puts more of your body behind the rifle and when the rifle recoils your body will absorb—feel—more of the recoil because your body will not move easily to the rear.

recoil reduction posture sit straight
The more erect you can sit behind the rifle, the less unpleasant the felt recoil will seem.

The closer you can sit to an erect position when you shoot from a bench the less you will feel the punch on your shoulder. It more closely replicates shooting from a standing position. A gunsmith I know who builds dangerous game rifles built his test shooting bench high enough to shoot from while standing to limit felt recoil.

3: Get Yourself a Sissy Pad

One of the easiest ways to limit the pain associated with recoil when shooting from a benchrest is to use a sissy pad. These are pads you strap on your shoulder to help mitigate recoil. Caldwell and PAST offer several versions—and they do work. Your range buddies might call you a sissy and rag on you for using one … but just ignore them.

recoil pad
A recoil shield or sissy pad like this one can help reduce felt recoil.

Remember, the reason you’re shooting from a bench is to evaluate ammo or sight in your rifle, and both need to be accomplished with as much precision as possible. You don’t shoot from a bench rest to demonstrate your manhood.

4: Slings Aren’t Just For Shoulders

When I am doing a lot of shooting from the bench with a rifle that has stiff recoil, I like to take the rifle strap and loop it firmly around the top front sandbag(s). This can tremendously reduce the reward force of the rifle during recoil, because the rifle must pull against the weight of the sandbag as it moves to the rear. If you’re using a real sandbag—filled with sand—as opposed to those filled with polymer pellets, this technique works like a lead sled.

recoil reduction sling bag
By wrapping the sling around the front sandbag(s), it will effectively serve as a recoil restraint without putting undue stress on the rifle.
recoil reduction sling bag 2
recoil reduction sling bag 3

5: It’s Time to Get a Suppressor

The baffles inside a suppressor redirect and slow the gas produced when a rifle is fired. This, in conjunction with the weight a suppressor adds to the rifle, helps reduce free recoil energy, sometimes by more than 25 percent.

recoil reduction suppressor
A suppressor can substantially reduce the felt recoil of any rifle.

But when it comes to felt recoil, the reduction can seem even more. With big-bore, hard-kicking rifles, the reduction is very noticeable because big-bore rifles require big, heavy suppressors. For example, the Banish V46 V2 suppressor, which will work on 0.375- and 0.458-caliber rifles, weighs right at 1 pound.

6: It’s OK to Put on Weight

The Caldwell Lead Sled is a mechanical rifle rest that has a cradle for your rifle’s forearm and a pocket for the butt stock. It’s adjustable and holds the rifle reasonably firmly. If you add one or more bags of lead shot to the undertray, it can eliminate a lot of felt recoil. The system, however, is not perfect because you are dramatically altering the way the rifle reacts to recoil … and this can alter your point of impact.

rifle bench shooting
Recoil from rifles shot from the bench feels harder, but it is unavoidable for zeroing and testing ammo.

If you sight in your rifle with a lead sled, you should confirm your zero without it. Also, with extremely hard-recoiling rifles, the lead sled can strain the bedding of the rifle and, in some cases with extensive shooting, cause damage.

A lead sled still has application and is especially useful with new or young shooters who are very recoil sensitive, but if you properly employ the first five techniques a Lead Sled is not necessary.

Don’t Overdo It

All these techniques—individually or combined—can help you make hard kickers more tolerable to shoot. But even with these techniques, some rifles can still be uncomfortable. It’s not just the impact on your shoulder; it can be the sort of whiplash sensation applied to your neck.

safari rifle

One of the best things to do when shooting a heavy recoiling rifle is to shoot in moderation. A sustained pounding is what puts professional fighters on the canvas, and it does little to help you shoot your best.

Physics Lesson: Free Recoil Energy

recoil calculation formula

If you use the internet as a source for recoil calculation, you’ll find various calculators you can plug data into to determine the recoil velocity, recoil energy and recoil impulse of a gun. Ironically, just as two shooters will experience the felt recoil of the same gun differently, these calculators will give you different results—they’ll be close but rarely identical.

But does it matter?

Not really, because none of these calculators will tell you exactly what it feels like to shoot a specific gun with a specific load. Still, because humans are conditioned to rate or score everything by numbers, we want a numerical answer to everything including how hard a gun will kick.

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) sets the specifications manufacturers follow when they make guns and ammo and is a great source for free recoil energy information.

According to SAAMI, the momentum of a free-recoiling firearm is equal and opposite in direction to the momentum of the bullet (or shot charge/slug and wad column) and the propellant gases. Because propellant gases are extremely difficult to weigh, SAAMI equates the propellant gas weight to the powder charge weight.

But SAAMI tempers the velocity of the propellent gases based on gun type. The way the different calculators express the velocity of propellent gases is one reason you’ll see different results from different formulas.

According to SAAMI, the formula for determining the free recoil energy (FRE) of a firearm can be expressed as:

FRE = WF/(2×32.17) ((WEVE + WPCVEf)/(7000 x WF))2

where:

WF = weight of firearms in pounds

WE = weight (in grains of the ejecta—bullet or shot and wad column)

VE = velocity of the ejecta in feet per second

WPC = weight of projectile charge in grains

7000 = conversion factor for grains to pounds

VEƒ = velocity of the propellant gases (VE) multiplied by gun factor (ƒ)

where the value of ƒ =:

High Powered Rifle – 1.75VE

Shotguns (average length)  – 1.50VE

Shotguns (long barrel)  – 1.25VE

Pistols & revolvers  – 1.50VE

Given this formula, a 7-pound high-powered rifle firing a 165-grain bullet with a powder charge weight of 40 grains at a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps would have 18.26 foot-pounds of free recoil energy (FRE):

WF           WE.      VE       WPC  VE        ƒ            WF.          FRE

7/(2×32.17) ((165*2700+40*(2700*1.75)/(7000*7))2=18.26 foot/pounds

I plugged this same data into three online recoil calculators, and the results were: 18.19, 18.2, 18.88, for an average of 18.42 foot-pounds for free recoil energy. You can take the time to work the formula, but that time will be mostly a waste because we’re all going to experience recoil force differently … at least by as much as the varied results provided by online calculators.

Categories
Interesting stuff War

Huh!!!

 In the high-stakes landscape of 2026, Poland has emerged as the undisputed heavy-armor capital of Europe. Facing a volatile “Zero Line” to the east, Warsaw has executed a “Full-Stack” procurement strategy that many Western observers initially doubted: the simultaneous deployment of two world-class Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), the American M1A2 Abrams and the South Korean K2 Black Panther.

By mastering the transition to this “High-Low” hybrid fleet, the Polish Land Forces (Wojska Lądowe) are building an “Iron Ceiling” designed to achieve total overmatch against any potential armor threat in the Suwalki Gap.
Poland’s acquisition of 366 Abrams (a mix of M1A2 SEPv3 and M1A1 variants) serves as the “Sledgehammer” of the military. 🔻
📌 Strategic Positioning: The Abrams fleet is primarily assigned to the 18th Mechanized Division (the “Iron Division”) stationed in eastern Poland. Their mission is clear: act as a “Digital Trench” that stops an invading force in its tracks.
📌 Survivability and Punch: With its depleted uranium armor packages and the legendary 120mm smoothbore gun, the Abrams is the “High” component capable of absorbing massive punishment while delivering “Industrial Warp Speed” destruction to enemy MBTs.
📌 The Logistics Hub: In 2026, the Abrams Regional Sustainment Center in Poznań has reached full operational capacity. This ensures “Industrial Resilience,” allowing Poland to maintain and repair the fleet locally without relying on the “Silicon Ceiling” of overseas shipping.
While “low” usually implies inferior, in the Polish context, the K2 Black Panther represents a lighter, more agile “High-Tech” maneuver element. Poland’s order of 1,000 K2s (including the K2PL variant) is the “Industrial Endurance” play. 🔻
📌 Agility in the Mud: Weighing roughly 55 tons compared to the Abrams’ 70+ tons, the K2 is perfectly suited for the soft, marshy terrain of northern Poland and the Masurian Lake District. Its hydropneumatic suspension allows it to “kneel,” providing a superior “Digital Ghost” profile in defensive hull-down positions.
📌 Autoloaded Lethality: The K2’s autoloader reduces the crew to three, allowing for a higher rate of fire and a smaller turret profile. This makes it an ideal “Software-Defined” predator for rapid-reaction maneuvers where speed is the primary defense.
📌 Sovereign Industrial Capacity: The “K2PL” program represents Poland’s path to “Digital Sovereignty.” By 2026, domestic production lines in Poznań have begun rolling out Polish-made hulls, ensuring that Warsaw owns its “Full-Stack” armored supply chain.
Critics once argued that a dual-tank fleet would be a “logistical nightmare.” However, Warsaw has turned this into a “Digital Resilience” advantage. 🔻
📌 Operational Redundancy: By operating two distinct platforms, Poland avoids a “single point of failure.” If a specific supply chain for American parts is throttled, the South Korean pipeline remains open, and vice versa.
📌 Terrain Optimization: The high-low mix allows Polish commanders to match the tool to the task. Use the Abrams for “Iron Ceiling” static defense and urban breakthroughs; use the K2 for “Zero Line” flanking maneuvers and rapid reconnaissance in difficult terrain.
📌 Training and Interoperability: Through “Minilateral” cooperation, Polish crews are training at the “Abrams Academy” in Biedrusko and South Korean facilities, creating a “Full-Stack” tank corps that is fluent in both Western and Pacific armored doctrines.
The Abrams and K2 hybrid fleet is the definitive signal that Poland has mastered the transition to a modern, multi-domain defense. By balancing American “brute-force” protection with South Korean “high-tech” agility, Warsaw has proved that “Industrial Resilience” is found in diversity.
In the high-stakes landscape of 2026, Poland is no longer just a member of NATO; it is the Alliance’s armored “Zero Line,” standing ready with a shield made of both American steel and Korean silicon.
Categories
Good News for a change! Interesting stuff

Huh!!!

Categories
Allies Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom Hard Nosed Folks Both Good & Bad Interesting stuff Manly Stuff

Isambard Kingdom Brunel: The Man Who Built Everything – Proud Of Us Uk

Categories
Interesting stuff War

An interesting theory

Everyone’s missing what the Iran war is REALLY about – and it’s not Israel. This is the real reason America has chosen to strike now. But as HAVIV RETTIG GUR writes, once you understand, everything else makes sense…

By HAVIV RETTIG GUR
The war in Iran is threatening to split the conservative movement, dividing it between those who see it as Donald Trump’s breaking of a promise against new wars and those who see it as a necessary confrontation long overdue.
Progressives, predictably, frame it as another Middle Eastern adventure driven by Israel. Anti-war libertarians call it regime change in a new dress.
And across the world, from Brazil to BeijingLondon to Karachi, the argument is the same: America is fighting Israel’s war.
But this isn’t true. And the confusion matters, because if you misread what this war is actually about, you will misread everything that follows.
This is not a war about Israel. This is not a war for Israel’s sake. Israel is a beneficiary, a capable and willing local partner, but it is not the reason America is in this fight. America is playing a much bigger game, about more than what happens in the Middle East. The subtext, that Israel exercises outsize influence or ‘drags Americans into wars they don’t want’, borders on the conspiratorial.
This isn’t one war, but two.
There is a regional chessboard, on which Israel, Iran, Saudi ArabiaQatar and the other Gulf states all play. Iran’s proxies, its drones and ballistic missiles, its nuclear ambitions, its funding of Hezbollah and the Houthis. All of that belongs primarily to this smaller game. Israel has always understood this board. So have the Saudis. So has everyone in the neighbourhood.
But there is a second chessboard, vastly larger, on which the United States and China are the primary players. On this board, the central question of the next 30 years is being worked out: whether the American-led global order survives, or whether China displaces it. Every American foreign policy decision, from the pivot to Asia to the tariff wars to the posture in the Pacific, is ultimately a move on this board.
America is in this fight because of China. Specifically, it is about dismantling the most significant Chinese forward base outside of East Asia.
America is in this fight because of China (pictured: President Donald Trump with Chinese president Xi Jinping in October 2025)

America is in this fight because of China (pictured: President Donald Trump with Chinese president Xi Jinping in October 2025)
Haviv Rettig Gur, a top Middle East analyst, talks about the real reason America has chosen to strike now

Haviv Rettig Gur, a top Middle East analyst, talks about the real reason America has chosen to strike now 
Iran, for most of its history as an adversary of the United States, existed only on the smaller board. It was a headache. It was a regional destabiliser. It funded terrorism, harassed shipping, threatened America’s allies, and kept the Middle East expensive and unpredictable.
But it was not, in any direct sense, a threat to American primacy on the global stage. It was Israel’s problem, the Gulf states’ problem, and only tangentially Washington’s.
That changed when Iran made one of the most consequential strategic miscalculations of the century.
Squeezed by decades of American sanctions and increasingly isolated, Iran turned to China as its economic lifeline. The relationship deepened rapidly.
Today, roughly 90 per cent of Iran’s crude oil exports go to China, processed through Chinese refineries that operate beyond the reach of American sanctions enforcement.
That oil revenue supplies around a quarter of Iran’s budget, a huge portion of which is spent on its military forces. Without Beijing, the regime cannot pay its security forces, cannot subsidise basic goods, and would soon face the kind of internal collapse that its own ideology has spent 40 years trying to prevent.
In other words, Iran has become – has made itself – utterly dependent on China.
China, for its part, was not being charitable. It was being strategic. Iranian oil, sold cheaply because Tehran has no other buyers, has helped Beijing build a strategic petroleum reserve exceeding a billion barrels, enough to sustain the Chinese economy for roughly 100 days in the event of a naval blockade.
China’s single greatest vulnerability is the American Navy’s ability to interdict its energy imports, especially at vulnerable choke points like the Malacca Straits. Iranian oil, flowing outside American oversight, was a direct hedge against that vulnerability. (So, by the way, was Venezuela’s, another US operation that was ultimately about containing China.)
'Iran has become ¿ has made itself ¿ utterly dependent on China,' Haviv writes (pictured: Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian, left, and Xi Jinping)

‘Iran has become – has made itself – utterly dependent on China,’ Haviv writes (pictured: Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian, left, and Xi Jinping)
But the energy relationship was only part of the picture. China was also arming Iran with systems designed to threaten commercial and American military assets.
Reports emerged in February of a near-finalised deal to supply Iran with supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles capable of speeds exceeding Mach 3 and engineered to evade the Aegis defence systems deployed on American carrier strike groups.
China was replacing Iranian government and military software with closed Chinese systems, hardening Iran against CIA and Mossad cyber operations. Joint naval exercises between China, Russia, and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz were becoming regular events, building real-time operational familiarity between the three navies.
Iran had switched from the GPS system to the Chinese BeiDou system. And Iran was providing China with the port at Jask, as part of China’s ‘string of pearls’ base system in the Indian Ocean.
The picture that emerges from all of this is, as I have said, of a Chinese forward base, a lynchpin of the country’s naval architecture; cyber efforts; an economic Belt and Road influence programme – every element of Chinese power projection and empire-building – positioned at the throat of the global oil supply, armed with weapons designed to penetrate American defences and kill American sailors, and embedded in a strategic architecture whose explicit purpose is to constrain American military freedom in any future conflict over Taiwan.
When Iran began to look like that, it stopped being Israel’s problem and became America’s.
The administration itself has struggled to explain this, and it’s not clear why. On March 2, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that the US had launched pre-emptive strikes against Iran because the administration knew an Israeli attack was imminent and wanted to prevent ‘automatic’ Iranian retaliation against American bases. He said intelligence showed Iran had pre-delegated orders to military commanders to strike US assets the moment the regime was attacked by any party.

How many have been killed in the war on Iran

United States
Six US service members killed
Eleven people killed, including nine in an Iranian
missile strike on Beit Shemesh on March 1
Israel
At least 77 people killed by Israeli attacks
since Monday
Lebanon
One person killed after a fire broke out in Bahrain’s
Salman Industrial City following a missile interception
Bahrain
Four people, including two Kuwaiti soldiers, killed
in Iranian attacks on the country
Kuwait
One person killed after a projectile hit a Marshall
Islands-flagged product tanker off its coast
Oman
Three people killed
UAE
At least 1,230 people killed
Iran
Reports emerged in February of a near-finalised deal to supply Iran with supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles capable of speeds exceeding Mach 3

Reports emerged in February of a near-finalised deal to supply Iran with supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles capable of speeds exceeding Mach 3
Rubio emphasised that the US chose to destroy Iran’s offensive capabilities first rather than ‘sit there and absorb a blow’ that would have resulted in higher damage to American personnel.
It’s hard to take this explanation at face value. If the trigger was simply an Israeli strike, America could have told the Israelis to sit tight. It’s done it before, repeatedly and even recently.
And it doesn’t fit the nature of the war. For one thing, American media reports tell us that America, not Israel, chose the timing.
Reliable sources tell us the CIA, not Mossad, tracked Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to the Saturday meeting of Iranian military leaders struck by Israel, and Trump, not Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pulled the trigger on the joint attack.
The Americans went to war together with the Israelis because that’s the best way to fight a war like this.
Having a capable and loyal local ally willing to deal damage and absorb blowback lowers the costs to America and increases the chances of success. If America ever finds itself in a kinetic fight with China, it presumably expects Japan and Taiwan and South Korea to play a similar role in the fighting.
But American forces have used this operation to target Iranian military positions and assets that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Iranian face-off.
In the first 24 hours of the war, American strikes, as confirmed by US Central Command (CENTCOM), focused on Iranian naval vessels, submarines, ports, and anti-ship missile positions along the southern coast.
It was the CIA that tracked Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (R), and it was Trump who pulled the trigger on the joint attack
It was the CIA that tracked Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (R), and it was Trump who pulled the trigger on the joint attack
The port of Bandar Abbas, headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, was hit. So was Jask, which China had hoped would become a permanent naval foothold on the Indian Ocean. Isfahan and Tabriz, hubs of ballistic missile production and drone assembly, were struck.
The goal, explicitly stated by US officials, was not merely to degrade stockpiles but to destroy the industrial base from which those weapons are produced, so China cannot spend the next few years quietly rebuilding it.
President Trump announced the operation in terms that could not have been more direct, explicitly mentioning elements of Iranian power – the navy, the missile production sites – that would serve as that second front in a war with China.
One of the more revealing subplots of this war has been the behaviour of Iran’s supposed allies. Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership with Iran in January of last year. China has been Iran’s economic patron for years.
And yet when the bombs started falling, neither moved.
Russian radar systems in Syria went dark, transponders reportedly switched off, apparently to avoid accidentally drawing American or Israeli fire. China issued statements. Neither fired a shot in Iran’s defence.
This matters beyond the immediate moment. The entire architecture of the alternative world order that China has been constructing – BRICS (the Belt and Road Initiative), the network of partnerships meant to demonstrate there is a credible alternative to American-led institutions – rests on the assumption that China is a reliable partner.
Every government, from Central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa to Latin America, is now watching China leave its closest Middle Eastern ally to burn. That is a blow to Chinese soft power that no diplomatic offensive can easily repair. It is an American success that will be felt for years, irrespective of how the Iran operation turns out.
America, meanwhile, has demonstrated something important: that it retains both the will and the capability to act decisively when its core interests are genuinely threatened. Not Israel’s interests. Not abstract liberal internationalist ideals. American interests, defined coldly and specifically.
None of this means the war is without risk. Strikes on Saudi oil infrastructure, Houthi threats to close the Bab el Mandeb Straits, the escalation in Lebanon: these are real dangers, and the costs of miscalculation are enormous.
Iran, aware that it is facing an existential moment, is doing what cornered regimes do, setting as many fires as possible in the hope that the pain forces a negotiated exit. And we cannot forget the risk shouldered by Israeli civilians.
But the logic of the American position is not difficult to follow once you’re looking at the right chessboard. Iran embedded itself so deeply in China’s strategic architecture over the past couple of years that removing it became a prerequisite for American freedom of action in East Asia.
This is also why President Trump seems to be pursuing a strange sort of regime change – something very different from what George W. Bush or the neocons meant by the term.
Trump doesn’t care one whit about democratisation, or, as Venezuela showed us, about changing any element of a regime that doesn’t stand in America’s way.
He’s interested in regime change in Iran only because it is, in its founding theology, unswervingly anti-American. It is thus not swayable from the Chinese orbit by any other means. He doesn’t need a democratic Iran, he just needs a not-anti-American Iran.
It must be said: Israel is also at war with Iran, and has focused its strikes on Iranian targets that specifically threaten Israel, such as the ballistic missile launchers.
But there are nevertheless two different wars underway in Iran, each taking place on very different strategic scales.
The best-case scenario that could emerge from this war is a stable, democratic-leaning, US-orientated Iran, a more secure Gulf, a weakened Hezbollah and thus a more stable and successful Lebanon, a more secure Israel – and above all, a China less able to threaten America’s Pacific allies.
None of that is nation-building. There is no Marshall Plan in the wings, no democratic project, no idealism of the kind that animated the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is colder and more coherent. So why can’t Secretary Rubio say it? Why hem and haw?
One obvious answer: they don’t want to push the Chinese to more overt responses. One should always give one’s enemy an excuse not to respond in kind. It’s a sensible ambiguity on the world stage, but it’s causing damage at home. It may be time for the administration to speak clearly on its strategy – in articulated statements that answer the good-faith questions of many Americans.
Once you understand the real reasons for America to strike now, everything else about this conflict clicks into place. The loudest voices in the debate are still arguing about the smaller chessboard. The war is being fought on the larger one.
Haviv Rettig Gur is The Free Press Middle East Analyst and host of the Ask Haviv Anything podcast. A version of this article appeared in The Free Press.
Categories
All About Guns COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interesting stuff

Finland Shooting Montage: Maxims and Mosins and Suomis, Oh My!