NATO

This is a copy of an email I sent to a friend who is a graduate of the US Naval Academy, a retired F-18 pilot who spent the last two years of his career working with NATO.

My email will be last. His, the significant part, is first.

Subject: Re: NATO

Date: 2018-06-13 09:06

From: Monty

To: Bob Peterson <rpeterson@nbbcompany.com>

Bob,

The only real metric the NATO nations have agreed to is to spend a

minimum of 2% of their GDP on defense with 20% of that spent on

equipment. As of Mid 2017, 6 of the 29 NATO member nations meet or

exceed the 2% threshold. They are US, Greece, the UK, Estonia, Poland

and just recently Romania. Greece probably only makes it because they

essentially have no GDP.  All the other NATO nations have been under the

2% number for .... well, pretty much as far back as I know. As of 2016,

the U.S. Spends 3.3% of our GDP on defense (which is down from 8.4% in

1960) but since our GDP is so much bigger than other countries, we carry

the lions share of the effort.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

 I can understand how those nations would say there's been no real

threat. But now that the Russians are scary again, the chickens are

coming home to roost. The effect of those nations spending below the 2%

target is also a cumulative one. There are many necessary supporting

capabilities that only the U.S. can provide in any significant numbers.

Some examples include Aerial refueling, airborne electronic attack,

heavy sea lift, heavy air lift. There's also a capacity gap outside the

U.S. because the other nations simply haven't purchased enough "stuff."

The result of this is that if 28 of the 29 NATO nations decided they

wanted to get together and do an offensive (or in many cases defensive)

operation without the U.S., they would be unable to except in certain

rare circumstances because they need capabilities only the U.S. has

because they have been unwilling to pay for those capabilities

themselves. The longer the gap in spending exists, the larger the

deficits in capabilities and capacity become.

Now, to be fair, 100% of U.S. defense spending counts toward the 3.3% of

GDP and we don't use all of our capabilities in Europe. We have a large

puddle to our West to contend with, too. That being said, our

capabilities are, for the most part, mobile and can be moved to Europe

for use if necessary.

Trump does have a tendency to play fast and loose with facts. However,

the only real difference from previous presidents vis-a-vis NATO is that

he's been much more willing to take the other nations to task for under

spending on their own defense. That has allowed them some leeway in

creating their socialist paradises because they've been able to redirect

defense spending toward social programs. They would certainly either

have to spend less on something, have even higher taxes, or borrow more

money to pay for defense spending if they had to defend themselves

without the shield of U.S. military strength. That statement is up for

some debate (but not really), but Trump has been much stronger about

saying it.

Yes, I was just Monty for most of my career. I had a short stint as Data

but it didn't really stick.

 Hope this helps. 

James

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:08 PM <rpeterson@nbbcompany.com> wrote:

 Hey, Monty,

 BTW, was that your call sign? Seems too clean and obvious…but…

 Not my real question. As you know, I work the elections and yesterday

 was very slow. Fewer than 10% of the registered voters in this

 precinct voted. Seems a shame.

 While shooting the bull with another guy, I mentioned that I thought

 some of the richer nations should do more to fund NATO and that maybe

 the days of the US shouldering the burden of funding the defense of

 the free world should be re-examined.

 He was pretty huffy, started off by talking about what a liar and

 cheat and blah blah Trump was, and then said that all the countries of

 NATO were currently spending their fair share. I didn’t take it any

 further since I didn’t have facts.

 Looked up Fact Check. Well, they acknowledged that the US contributed

 22% of the budget for NATO and the other 28 countries contributed

 according to a formula based on their GNP. All good. They went on to

 say that the US VOLUNTARILY spent another bunch of money on operations

 and “indirect spending” for military purposes. The figure

 mentioned was 72% and I think that was for all indirect spending.

 They did not say whether that 72% included the 22% spent on Direct

 costs? I suspect it doesn’t. As Disraeli said, “There are lies,

 damned lies, and statistics.” So I am suspicious.

 What is your thinking on this as the only person I know who has

 first-hand knowledge of NATO??

 Don’t feel obligated to “educate” me, but if you have a few

moments, would appreciate a bit of wisdom!

Bob

Certainty is one of the great privileges of youth. ~ Sheryl Sandberg

to MIT graduating class 2018

Auto Pilot for Trucks

AUTOPILOT FOR TRUCKS

Anyone who has looked at this blog over time is well aware that I have no understanding of the inflated valuation of Tesla stock. The battery technology may be the important part, but beyond that, the car biz is pretty iffy. For instance, there was another autopilot crash yesterday—into a parked police car.

I just returned from six days on the road and over 4,000 miles. If I were a NYT reporter, that would qualify me as an expert. The only expertise I have is accurately predicting that I will be amazed at the way other drivers try to kill me.

FACTOID: The message board in Missouri said over 300 people have been killed in auto accidents so far this year. SIXTY PERCENT (60%) OF THEM WERE UNBUCKLED!!

Back to the subject of the title. All those trucks driving individually. Why not take the existing technology (computer regulated speed, cameras, proximity sensors and controls, and lots of others that exist now) and create a system that allows trucks to “convoy.” (Again with the songs…convoy, 6 days on the road…)

Imagine the fuel savings if two, three or more trucks were able to convoy down the freeway at 70 miles per hour spaced at 6 inches from each other. Maybe the drafting drivers (actually, not driving at that point) could get a break from the new Electronic Log Device mandates. Watch for the ELD rules to cause higher prices on goods that need to be transported…which is just about everything.

Seems like the infatuation with autopilot for cars could be put to nearly immediate, economically advantageous use in the trucking industry.

JUGGLING

Jerry confessed his fascination with juggling, said he went so far as to get the book, “Juggling for Dummies.” It didn’t work.

We watched a short video of a juggler riding a bicycle, juggling bowling pins and doing tricks with the bike. Amazing.

I remember learning to juggle when I was young, but couldn’t master anything beyond 3 items at once. Brings back a memory of two “losers” (guys who didn’t have dates on a Saturday night) in the house practicing juggling three baseballs and trying to perfect the art of sharing them back and forth. The other participant, Jim Stevenson, was at Nebraska on a baseball scholarship, so he was pretty handy.

Along comes Frank Solich and says, “Hey, I always wanted to learn how to juggle.” “Really, Frank, it takes a lot of practice, years.” “Well, just let me try.”

At that time, Frank held the single-game rushing record for Nebraska at something like 250 yards. I think it was against Air Force. He and another guy would strap weights under their shorts so they were listed at around 165 pounds.

The reason he was able to do things on the athletic field was brought home to me that night. Frank was “different.” In minutes he was juggling as well or better than either Jim or me. His brain and body worked in a way that ours didn’t.

Thinking of you, coach, as you lead the Ohio University Bobcats. Thinking of you, Jim Stevenson, killed in action, Viet Nam, 1969 (a member of Army Reserves, activated).

Jim and I shared a branch of the Army, Armor. It was reported he died in a vehicle very common in the day, the Armored Personnel Carrier (APC). Designed for a different war on the other side of the world, but what they were using in 1969. Glad we didn't get called up, as he did. All honor to him for his service and sacrifice.

BEEF, ITS WHAT’S FOR DINNER

This article was written by Amanda Radke, a rancher. I have harped about this Grand Experiment with the American diet for years—basically, the low-fat diet is the cause of the American obesity pandemic.

http://www.beefmagazine.com/outlook/cardiac-surgeon-says-beef-can-help-prevent-heart-disease?NL=BEEF-02&Issue=BEEF-02_20180419_BEEF-02_859&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2_b&utm_rid=CPG02000003521558&utm_campaign=26751&utm_medium=email&elq2=19829e43812f42539a52f544573ad02e

Promoting the elimination of meat, eggs, butter, whole milk and substituting with processed, sugary foods makes sense and pleases our palates. A sweet roll just tastes better than a hard-boiled egg. Processed food producers jumped on that band wagon. Hell ya! And if a food contains cholesterol, doesn’t that mean it is, therefore, deposited in our arteries? Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that.

Even the prime mover in this awful experiment from the 1950’s, the longitudinal Framingham Study, seems to have discovered results that a recent director of the study described as “disappointing.” In that they indicated that the people who followed the guidelines of avoiding fat, etc., had more heart disease and died earlier than those who didn’t. Well, that is one thing, but how can the results of a scientific study be “disappointing” because they don’t support the findings that management wanted? Not very scientific, is it?

Anyway, the article says it better than I can. Just know that for those of us who grew up in the 1950’s and later, our avoidance of fat, red meat, cream, whole milk (we used to give the skim milk to the hogs because it made them fat) in favor of processed foods has been beaten into us. Not good.

And another thing. Beef producers “donate” $1 per marketed head of cattle to the USDA for purposes of promoting beef, the “Check-off” program. Yeah, give the bureaucracy that gives us food stamps the responsibility for “Marketing.” How’s that working? The author, Radke, is a proponent of at least one activity of the Check-off which is to provide doctors with accurate information, so she isn’t as skeptical (cynical?) as some of the rest of us.

Some state operations are trying to get the Check-off stopped so they can do some actual research and marketing. Still, don’t ya love Sam Elliot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZoyE1B7HHA

R. Lee Ermey d. 4.15.2018

UPDATE: R. Lee Ermey died Sunday, April 15, 2018 of complications of pneumonia. He will be missed.

I watched a couple of clips from this movie today, R. Lee Ermey is quite the DI. Then I watched the clip, "Pyle's greatest moment" or something like that.

Having never seen the movie, and not admiring Kubrik's work that much, I didn't know what to expect. That clip where the actor portraying Pyle says, "Hiiiii, Joker." and "Seven. Point. Six. Two. Full. Metal. Jacket." and what comes next was described as the single most frightening scene in a movie EVER. Maybe not that, but close.

Many of you have heard me tell about my miserable experience in the Army, including the guy in our platoon named "Rooney." Lots of the kids couldn't do the monkey bars and other PT stuff, but Rooney was a special one. Remember this is the time of the draft, so you got anything. The drill sergeant whose name I forget although I can still see his face plainly, was not as clever as DI Hartman in the movie, nor was he as stupid. He recognized that Rooney needed special help.

The platoons were broken up alphabetically, so Rooney was in my platoon and I was assigned one morning to teach Rooney how to make a left face, a right face, and about face. Never got it.

Again, I recall recently telling the story that was the final straw for Rooney. It was the day we got gassed. The Army determined that we needed to have confidence in our gas masks, and the best way to do that was to have us experience CS with the mask on and with it off. The procedure was explained: you stood in line, the first guy in line would stand at attention, take off the mask, announce his name and serial number (your social security number), salute and be dismissed by the drill sergeant.

Rooney didn't understand all the instructions. When the first guy in line was told to take off his mask, Rooney took his off, too. I didn't personally see all this, I was too busy discovering how miserable you can be when gassed and he was behind me, but it was not a good situation.

Soon after, the Army was smart enough to send Rooney home. Credit the people in charge that they gave it a go, he actually went as far as throwing a live grenade, but eventually it was determined that he would have been a danger to himself and all of us. No Full Metal Jacket for us in 1970. BTW, it would have been nearly impossible for that scene to occur in reality, weapons and live ammo were locked up tight.

BPI FOLLOWUP

On July 5, 2017 I posted some notes about ABC settling with BPI regarding the "pink slime" broadcast that nearly caused BPI to fail. And let's call it LFTB for Lean Finely-Textured Beef.

In my post, I said 700 people lost their jobs. The Sioux City Journal has reported that number as 750, but there is an important (mostly unreported) fact regarding those folks: Eldon and Regina set up a fund of $10 million to give to those people after the settlement.

You can see why it isn't reported much. Worthy actions by business people do not make the cut.

For full disclosure, son Matt has a responsible job at BPI, but I know nothing that isn't in the papers. One thing in the papers--Disney, the parent of ABC, reported in their financial footnotes that they set aside $177 million for settlement expenses. Implies that the settlement was significantly higher? That suspicion was confirmed by the BPI lawyers. 

Just to make Disney/ABC a bit more uncomfortable, their insurer has sued them in an attempt to deny paying the rest of the settlement.

Keep tuned.

CELLAR DOOR

A New York Times magazine article says that “cellar door” is considered by many to be one of the most pleasant-sounding words (or two words) in the English language.

I’ll go with that. Also, mother, love, oleomargarine, defenestration. I have no idea what that last one means, but it was included on the list.

Do you have any words that you think sound beautiful? Regardless of meaning? I’ve loved the word (and the idea) of onomatopoeia since I first heard it many, many moons ago.  Contrast these words with phlegm and moist.

After all is said and done, I’m with Dorothy Parker who, when asked about the beauty of cellar door and other pleasant words remarked that her favorite-sounding words were “check” and “enclosed.”

NEXT DAY: Jerry supplied these words to consider:  mountain, puppy, willow and pond. In the spirit of Dorothy Parker, he offered "successful operation" and Kevin, practical as ever, said "free" and "beer."

This is fun.