Politics and speculation

 What kicked this off? More precisely, what do I imagine could have kicked it off given the sad fact that of course I know nothing about what really happened and have no real information about it?  Possibly Israel believed that it was at a "use it or lose" it moment with its regime penetration. Perhaps they thought that the big meeting of the regime leaders would feature a Changing Places style "man with the marked $50" moment. This would fit with the use of the pager attack against  Hezbollah in 2024; it was rumoured that Hezbollah's leaders were getting increasingly paranoid about all their electronic devices and the Israelis had come to the conclusion that it was just a matter of time before the pagers themselves would be examined and dumped.  Once Israel realised that this was their last shot at the regime they took the decision to roll the dice once more. But, Israel has got far, far more than they can of hoped for from US support, and they have bitten off ...

 It's March 17th 2026, and it's early in the crisis to call, but the US, Israel, Iran war is increasingly looking like a strange parody of the 1956 Suez crisis.  The differences between the build up to the crisis in spring 2026 and the buildup in Autumn 1956 are stark. Whereas before Suez extensive international efforts at diplomacy had failed, in 2026 they were reportedly progressing. In 1956 one of the aggressors, Israel was embargoed, in 2026 the target, Iran was sanctioned.  But the parallel is what happens when one (or two) of the aggressor powers over extend and need support, and that support cannot, will not, come. In 1956 the UK and France needed the permission and complicity of the USA and the Soviet Union, and both were disobliging.  In 2026 the USA needs the European powers and China.  Neither of those powers can come to the USA's aid, neither of them will.  They cannot come because the USA has alienated both of them. There is no legitimacy or co...

  23/1/2026  We all think about the Roman Empire all the time (well, I don't, but apparently everyone else does). Of course the interesting bit of Roman history isn't the Empire, or the Republic, it's the bit in between. When the republic fell, the Romans didn't notice. There wasn't a single moment, or even a Rubicon, where the average senator in the forum would have agreed: "Today the Republic fell, tomorrow we will be subjects of the Empire". On the other hand at some point everyone was shouting "Hail Caesar" and not wondering, not even for a second, when the Senate was going to sort things out. Remember, the Senate murdered the first Caesar with knives, which was a pretty definitive expression of checks and balances I think. The Roman Republic fell sometime after JC (both of them) tested the boundaries, and before Caligula decided he was a God. I expect that even as Augustus was proclaimed there were many people who saw it as a temporary,...

There is a video: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1634y1g7KR/ and it's been discussed https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1bx1clu/how_credible_is_this_david_goldman_claims_that/ Which has been picked up by westernsources in the last few weeks (April 2024). In this video it's claimed that a factory in China can create 1000 cruise missiles a day. Some people have poured cold water on these claims noting that careful translation says that "components for 1000 cruise missiles" can be created a day. It would be wise to think about what this might mean though.  First off these would be precision guided munitions - because why not? If you can build a self driving car, why not a precision missile? Secondly these missiles could well have fairly advanced features like stealth and electronic warfare capabilities - because.... why not? These are capabilities that are well within the reach of Chinese manufacturers. Probably these missiles will not be as stealthy...

 I've been quite shocked to come across two instances of misinformation about the UK's nuclear deterrent in recent weeks.  The first was in a report by DW (German state broadcaster) which you can watch at this link:  https://youtu.be/vo7kar5bE7k?t=1388 It's a good report, but at the time of the link Katarina Engberg announces that the UK is reliant on getting its fissile material from the USA, which it doesn't seem to at the moment. The UK has an enrichment facility at Capenhurst, and has a stockpile of about 150 tonnes of fissile material (https://thebulletin.org/2020/04/britain-has-139-tons-of-plutonium-thats-a-real-problem/) this is enough for 10,000's of nuclear weapons.  In the past it is true that the UK has imported some fissile material from the USA but the implication that it's dependent on the USA for fissile material is obviously untrue. We have far too much of the stuff lying around and simply can't get rid of it. The second claim was made in ...

How should the UK prepare for sustained conflict?  It was always assumed that near peer war would go nuclear in about 3 weeks - so the UK and other NATO powers only stocked ammunition for 3 weeks. This provided a useful strategic signal as well, "genuinely, we are preparing to fight for 3 weeks and after that we will flip the switch and go crazy, so don't expect anything else".  The Ukraine war and the change in strategic position in both the USA and Russia has changed this calculation. The USA is fundamentally more interested in Asia than Europe, and Russia has a genuine strategic need to seize territory and population. The UK has a vital national interest in stopping Russia because the UK's economy depends on a rules based global trading system. The UK and France cannot afford for eastern Europe or Germany to be coerced or taken over by Russia. Unfortunately, it is now the case that neither the UK or Europe can expect the USA to intervene in a future European war, a...