Quote of the day

Today’s U.S. military structures itself around assumptions of short, decisive wars. Munitions stockpiles are limited. Preparation for reconstituting a highly skilled professional force is minimal. Maintenance of reserve weapons and equipment is poor. These policies trade long-term staying power for short-term lethality and presuppose that the United States can end a conflict quickly by destroying the opposing military. But if ending a war is a matter of coercive bargaining, in which enemies can almost always keep fighting, then Washington cannot create short wars by fiat. Prudence dictates reconsidering choices that assume the opposite.

~Stephen Biddle, Sam Winter-Levy and Yuri Zhukov

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tesla robotaxis aren’t coming any time soon

The idea of a robotaxi appeals to me. The day is not far off when someone—my wife, my daughter—will tell me I’m no longer safe behind the wheel. It would certainly be handy to call or text a robotaxi to drive to the grocery store, a show or a dentist appointment. So is that happening? “It turns out not even the people building Tesla’s self-driving tech trust Elon Musk’s extravagant claims about the company’s autonomous vehicles. “New reporting by Reuters interviewed nine former data labelers and a former self-driving engineer about their take on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving mode. The results were overwhelmingly negative, with seven of the data specialists admitting they wouldn’t ride in a Tesla in FSD.” *snip* “ In recent months, Tesla operating on FSD move have driven riders   into lakes ,   off bridges , and even into the path of   oncoming trains   — and those are just the incidents that get media exposure. Given these insiders’ direct access to terabytes’ worth of p...
Read more

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

On the meanings of the word "Christian"

I was raised Roman Catholic, which as much as any religious system can claim to be Christian. But ever since I was in high school, I disagreed with the RC teaching on abortion. To be Christian, it seems to me, is to claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus was silent on the topic of abortion. Accordingly, I felt the RCC teachings against abortion were outside the remit of the Church and felt free to dissent. While I understand why a Christian might oppose abortion, it is not a Christian belief, it is simply a personal belief. Same with homosexuality and gay marriage. Jesus was silent on those topics as well. To follow Jesus' example would mean being silent on the topics of abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage. I'm ruminating on this topic in the wake of the Christianity Today brouhaha, in which the outgoing editor called for Trump to be removed from office. While I agree with this editorial, my agreement isn't moored in evangelical Christianity, or Christian...
Read more