Drones, War and Moral Hazard

There has been a lot of discussion by talking heads and writing (by writing heads?) recently about drones. And not just against terrorists. It almost sound like our domestic airspace will soon be full of drones.

Let's give some thought to what we are about. I'm not sure that dressing game console operators up in flight suits, paying them "incentive pay" (we used to call it flight pay), calling them "pilots" and giving them hero medals is what we should be doing.

What I think I'm hearing is a lot of relatively naive talk about "killing the bad guys" though it might be couched in more sophisticated verbiage.

In the popular imagination, war is about killing as many of our opponents as possible. In the professional imagination, Karl von Klausewitz was closer to the mark when he explained that "war is politics by other, namely violent means." What he means, is that there must be a point to what we do beyond killing "the bad guys."

War is not completely separate from diplomacy, either. I think presidential scholar Richard Neustadt got it about right a half century ago when he described the task of diplomacy as to convince enough people and the right people on the other side that what you want is what they also want, in order to further their own interest.

Some sources of human conflict are best moderated with deterrence, some with "compellance," and some with negotiation. Wisdom lies in knowing when. And to what end.

Violence, in the long run, is not a way of resolving human conflict. In international affairs, it is at best like the two by four the farmer hits the mule with. "That's to get it's attention," the farmer explains.

Once you get the opponent's attention, maybe it's best to sit down and reason together.

Back to the subject of drones. And moral hazard.

Let me repeat some earlier thoughts.

Economists talk about "moral hazard." This refers to a situation where there is a tendency to take undue risks because the costs are not borne by the party taking the risk. Like financial wizards who take in enormous bonuses just before the crash and leaves it to the rest of the country to pick up the pieces. We should extend the concept to war.

In 1941 and 1942 the attacking forces faced at least as much risk as those being attacked. This was true at Pearl Harbor, at Bataan and Corregidor, in the Coral Sea,  at Midway, and countless other battles.

It is usually not true of the political leaders who order a country to war. They do not bear the risks that face the military forces.

The equation of risk becomes distorted forever when attacks are conducted from halfway around the world by skilled gamers who sit in front of computers and direct robotic drones to destroy targets and people. It is the inhabitants of target areas who bear the risk.

Is this a kind of moral risk we are willing to take?

As a professional military officer, I always wanted to minimize the risk to my own sailors. At what point does this kind of planning cross a moral divide?

Apart from moral considerations, we may need to think about the message we convey. Is the message that our cause is not worth risking an American life? If so, we should say so. But we need to ask ourselves the question - if a cause is not worth dying for, is it worth killing for?

Does The US Need A Different Layout Of States?

Today's New York Times web site posted a very interesting analysis of the electoral college by Nate Silver on his blog, Five Thirty-Eight. The article's headline, "Did Democrats Get Lucky In The Electoral College?" doesn't convey the depth and innovation of the analysis.

The most interesting component of the analysis is a map of the United States redrawn into fifty states, each with equal population. The point of the map is to illustrate the effect such redrawn boundaries would have on the outcome of the electoral college.


Nate Silver's discussion  of the electoral college and the associated issues of reapportionment and redistricting is among the best I have ever read. I like the map, but also like a table in the article showing the distribution of population within each state into urban, suburban and rural. Not unsurprisingly, Wyoming is the most rural state in the union. Vermont is the least urban, followed by Mississippi with only 4% urban population.

As I looked at the map, I was also struck by its resemblance to a concept put forth by George Kennan in his 1993 book "Around The Cragged Hill." In short, Kennan believed the United States was so big as to be ungovernable. He proposed that a better scheme would be to split the country apart into what amounted to city-states.

Years later, others picked up on Kennan's idea and began pushing a movement to promote the idea of states seceding from the Union. Then again, maybe they didn't even know about Kennan's ideas.

Persistent, Patient Courage

Courage comes in many guises. Here, in a story from Today's New York Times, is one of the most powerful forms of courage.

I don't know General Borling. On the basis of this story, I would follow him anywhere.

Borling doesn't claim to be heroic. That reflects the self effacing but effective courage of an older generation - a very much older generation.

Borling's view of what's important: do the best you can with what you have, right where you are.

Lifebuoy: B.O.

In recognition that it was a bit foggy this morning, Town Dock posted a link to the audio sound of a fog horn.

In all honesty, Town Dock's fog horn was a bit wimpy. But it called to mind a more robust fog horn that sounded on the radio during the 30's and 40's along with a public service announcement. Well, you could call it that, at least back in the days when people took baths at least once a week whether they needed it or not.

Here's the announcement.

If you prefer just a robust fog horn, here's a different link without the "public service."

Safe navigating!

How The Romans Handled Debt And Credit

Two researchers at the New York Fed have been looking into money and credit in ancient Rome. How did they use debt and credit to move money around?

Turns out they could move large amounts of money by paper transactions. Not unlike our modern "shadow" banking system.

Bookkeeping must have been a challenge without having zeroes to play with.

Even without zeroes, Romans managed to move a lot of money around without hauling physical gold and silver.

Here's how.

Seventy Years Ago: USS Iowa (BB-61)

 

New York, NY: February 22, 1943. USS Iowa (BB-61) was commissioned at New York Naval Shipyard. The lead ship of the most powerful US battleships ever built, Iowa was a 45,000 -ton ship armed with nine 16-inch/50 caliber guns with a range of up to 24 miles, firing a projectile weighing up to 2,750 pounds. She also carried twenty 40-mm quadruple barrel Bofors anti-aircraft guns and twenty 5-inch/38 caliber dual-purpose guns arranged in twin mounts with a range of about 9 miles against surface targets. In addition, she bristled with 20-mm antiaircraft guns that proved of limited use and were removed right after the war.

Class & type:	Iowa-class battleship
Displacement:	45,000 tons
Length:	887 ft 3 in (270.43 m)
Beam:	108 ft 2 in (32.97 m)
Draft:	37 ft 2 in (11.33 m)
Speed:	33 kn (38 mph; 61 km/h)
Complement:	151 officers, 2637 enlisted
Armament:	1943: 9 × 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns 20 × 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns 80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns 49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

USS Iowa is the first ship I ever went to sea in  during a midshipman training cruise to Europe during the summer of 1955.

Wind Generators: Department of Defense Data

---

Wind Energy And Cherry Point

Two weeks ago the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners and the Pamlico County Planning Board had a joint meeting at the court house to receive a briefing by Cherry Point on wind generation systems. Specifically, Cherry Point briefed on problems for their air operations that are anticipated from wind turbines.

The briefing acknowledged that it is national policy and the policy of the Department of Defense to encourage alternative energy sources. The briefing did not emphasize, as it might have, that Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has been a leading proponent of alternative energy. 

The main focus of the briefing was how wind turbines adversely affect Marine radar systems and how important radar is to their air operations. The main challenge was how to mitigate those effects.

Unfortunately, Cherry Point officials offered no hope and no prospects of hope for mitigation. "To date," one presentation slide asserts, "no study data is published indicating technology exists to eliminate wind turbine adverse effects on radar."

Not so. There are studies.

A 2008 study by MITRE Corporation, one of DOD's most experienced electronics contractors observed. "There is no fundamental physical constraint that prohibits the accurate detection of aircraft and weather patterns around wind farms. On the other hand, the nation’s aging long range radar infrastructure significantly increases the challenge of distinguishing wind farm signatures from airplanes or weather.

"Progress forward requires the development of mitigation measures, and
quantitative evaluation tools and metrics to determine when a wind farm
poses a sufficient threat to a radar installation for corrective action to be
taken. Mitigation measures may include modifications to wind farms (such
as methods to reduce radar cross section; and telemetry from wind farms to
radar), as well as modifications to radar (such as improvements in processing;
radar design modifications; radar replacement; and the use of gap fillers in
radar coverage).

"There is great potential for the mitigation procedures, though there
is currently no source of funding to test how proposed mitigations work in
practice. In general, the government and industry should cooperate to find
methods for funding studies of technical mitigations. NOAA has an excellent
research plan, but no adequate funding to carry it out.

"Once the potential for different mitigations are understood, we see no
scientific hurdle for constructing regulations that are technically based and
simple to understand and implement, with a single government entity tak-
ing responsibility for overseeing the process. In individual cases, the best
solution might be to replace the aging radar station with modern and flexi-
ble equipment that is more able to separate wind farm clutter from aircraft."
Mitre's conclusion: "This is a win-win situation for national security, both improving our radar
infrastructure and promoting the growth of sustainable energy."


So the problem isn't technology, it is budgets for what may prove to be fairly minor improvements to radars, new procedures, and possibly coatings for turbine blades to reduce their radar cross-sections. I got the distinct impression that the Marine Corps isn't sufficiently concerned to spend any R&D funds fixing their radars. Why should they, if they can achieve the same end at no cost by intimidating state and local government? The only cost would be to retard economic development in Pamlico County and that doesn't cost the Marine Corps a dime.


In her introductory remarks to the meeting, Commissioner Holton emphasized the potential economic development benefits of wind energy to Pamlico County.

Speaking of mitigation, any measure to replace fossil fuel energy sources with non-carbon alternatives such as wind, solar or nuclear, will delay anticipated sea level rise from global warming. That should matter to every resident of Pamlico County and elsewhere in Eastern North Carolina. In my case, I just raised my house three feet to mitigate the effect of storm surge after Irene. But predictions are that the sea level will rise one meter (39 inches) this century. If so, my house is back in the flood waters.

So I am in favor of wind, solar and nuclear power. No single solution - all of the above.

This discussion has been going on for awhile here and here and here and here and here and here.

Not certain I have the whole story, I did more research on the wind farm/radar issues. What I have found is:

1. There is data. Some was reported to the Congress in 2006: www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf

2. There is information on what mitigation works.

3. The problems concern two types of radar: Air Defense systems (AD) and weather radar.

4. My reading of the report to Congress is that there is no problem with Air Traffic Control (ATC) radar. The reason for this is that ATC relies not only on direct radar return ("skin paint") but also on transponder beacon returns like IFF. The briefing did not mention this distinction, but the bulk of the briefing was by Cherry Point's ATC expert. I don't know if Marine ATC controllers have the aircraft turn off their IFF or other beacons while training at high speed and low altitude in this region. Maybe they do, but if so, we should be told. Whether to turn it on or off during training ops is a procedural issue.

5. Distance from the affected radar can itself provide the necessary mitigation. The key factor is distance from the radar to the radar horizon - which is a bit further than the unobstructed visible horizon would be. Bottom line is, that for a normal radar height, and a blade tip height of 300 feet, there would be no interference beyond a distance of 30 miles, even without special mitigation. For a blade tip height of 500 feet, the safe distance would be 35 miles. Trouble is, Pamlico County is within either distance. But that only applies to AD radars. For ATC radars, there should be no problem.

So what kind of radar are they talking about? The briefing did not provide enough information for Pamlico County planners and commissioners to develop suitable regulations for wind farms.

Weather radar is a different matter. Here is a pretty good illustration and discussion of the problem: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/?n=windfarm There is also some discussion of weather radar in the report to Congress. I did not get the impression from the Cherry Point briefing that they are worried about the weather radar.

I'm not sure what to make of it.

I think the county needs more information.

---

Picasso's Secret

Now we know Picasso's secret. Thanks to Argonne National Laboratory and a study using high energy X-rays, we have learned that Picasso painted some of his masterpieces using house paint.

It isn't fair. We have always been told that a craftsman is known by his tools. A fine craftsman must use the best tools. And the best materials.

So how can Pablo Picasso, one of history's great artists, have made great art with ordinary house paint?

Maybe we need to alter conventional wisdom. Perhaps great craftsmen and artists are free to choose the tools and materials that work, not just the "best quality" tools.

Don't be snobbish.

Do what works.