RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
No bio...
User ID: 317
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1d ago
But at the risk of going full "boo outgroup," can I just say--I really, really hate crowdfunding? It seems like a horrible mistake, a metastasized version of the cancer of social media, virtue signaling with literal dollars that feed nothing but further grift.
As a matter of principle, I do not give money via crowdfunding. I don't even use Patreon, much less GoFundMe or GiveSendGo or whatever. I regard it as a moral failing when I see others do so, no matter how apparently worthy the cause.
Really? You've never benefitted from someone's freely accessible work and considered giving them a donation? What about this website? I am not paying to keep the servers up because I think I'm poorer than the average user and there is enough money in the pot but I don't think it's morally wrong for those who do! There are 20 people who are paying so the rest of us can enjoy something for free.
https://www.patreon.com/themotte/about
And in the general case, how is crowdfunding bad? Some are scammers but some are deserving. How are poor/niche games or webnovels supposed to be paid for? Just stick up a paywall?
Christianity isn't so much about 'things being true' but getting into a mindset where 'it doesn't matter if it's true or not, I believe it'. Christian theology is a complete mess because they go in with the answer in mind and then come up with justifications. They just make up all kinds of nonsense about 'free will' requiring everyone to suffer because of a snake and an apple. Or there being a great plan that requires Christians to suffer and get wrecked by huge natural disasters beyond their ability to handle. Omnipotence and benevolence does not require there to be random earthquakes and tsunamis that destroy you, it's pure cope to think that there's a plan behind it all or that 'this is the best of all possible worlds'. Theologians have spent thousands if not millions of man-years justifying this stuff but still hard-lose to the Epicurean argument because there is no satisfactory answer.
OK, you can be perfectly happy as a Christian ignoring these abstract issues and have a decent life which is better than can be said for many modern ideologies. Thousands of years have been spent turning the silliness into metaphors and capitalizing on the strengths, rationalizing and streamlining the religion.
But all that is ironically enough built on a foundation of sand. Once people realize that the astronomy and history is all wrong, the philosophy is silly, the predictions are wrong, the blankslatism and universal equality of iron-age institution-building isn't so relevant given modern technologies and culture... they also move on from the good elements of Christianity, the prohibition on incest and the well-functioning family structures. The solution is not to return to Christianity but to move on and do the hard work of getting ideology that actually fits with reality. This is extremely difficult and dangerous work but necessary nonetheless.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2d ago
so even though the WorldCon committee is insisting there has been no use of generative AI
What do they mean by this? Generative AI includes AI that generates text... How can you have a Perplexity style search system without generative AI? Generative AI is a silly term IMO, what they really mean is LLMs or New-style AI to distinguish it from Eliza or the simple algorithm-based AI in computer games.
Double irony if they don't understand technical terminology in their luddite frenzy.
Does China even have much IP to steal? The key to their success primarily seems to be 'maximize inputs (skilled labour, R&D talent, state support) and throughput efficiency (massive industrial scale, quick manufacturing/prototyping stage, cheap energy)' rather than 'discover special secrets that let you achieve qualitatively higher quality products'.
The US knows the 'secrets' of building the Three Gorges Dam or Huawei or BYD. You just need a huge amount of concrete and construction workforce and the freedom to move whole cities out of the flooded areas. Or you just need a huge, clever, motivated workforce, cheap energy and well-targeted long-term state support. The US has versions of Huawei/BYD in the Magnificent Seven but struggles at the cost-efficiency stage due to lacking the needed inputs at the necessary scale.
China State Shipbuilding Corporation is just worlds ahead of the US, you'd need a Meiji Revolution to match them there, the necessary inputs just don't exist in America. There's no secret - big shipyards go brrr and produce a third of the world's ships... but replicating it is quite impossible for the US.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2d ago
I heard it was a Mirage 2000...
But agree 200% on the importance of skepticism at this point in the conflict.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3d ago
I rarely use ChatGPT compared to Claude or Deepseek so I can't recognize it that well, it felt a little Deepseek to me but then Deepseek is a fair bit like ChatGPT and one hardly expects US military commentators to use Deepseek. Deepseek gives me stuff like:
Silence.
Then—pandemonium.
Or:
The road to the Black Tower was long.
And her vengeance?
Beginning.
Slop!
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3d ago
Has everyone else been seeing this kind of cadence, short sentences and contrasting statements? I keep seeing this and thinking AI. How do others see it? Do you think it's suddenly become more prominent too?
The plan was smart:
•ISVs to move rifle squads quickly
•LRVs to give Cavalry squadrons mobility and sensors
•M10 Bookers to restore firepower to the dismounted fight. It wasn’t perfect, but it made the IBCT relevant again.
Now the Army has canceled the M10. The LRV is nowhere in sight. And what’s left? An “MBCT” concept with no protected firepower, no recon platform, and a few light vehicles. This isn’t transformation. It’s disarmament.
The M10 solved a real problem. So did the LRV. Killing the platforms without replacing the capability isn’t reform. It’s regression.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3d ago
It's literally Orwellian. I keep seeing these screenshots with even less naughty words like 'retard' but they've MS Painted so the word isn't clear enough for bottom-quality OCR. The world is turning into Roblox where you have to tell people to 'game-end' themselves since kill is too edgy. What use is free speech if they just take the words instead?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4d ago
Yeah, I had the exact same thought. Nobody thinks of the Saudi prince as 'polyamorous'.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4d ago
On the one hand I agree totally that asking a girl to dance shouldn't be anything like slaying a dragon... but they're still not doing it according to Michael Foster.
On the other hand, I think this is precisely the wrong idea. Young men go through their consent training in school and/or have the message sink in culturally, don't be creepy or whatever... Then they're to be gossiped about if they don't approach - 'don't be such a pussy loser, man up and ask her to dance'? There's already lots of that. I imagine that this room was full of immense awkward tension. Didn't work.
The logical conclusion from this mixed messaging is just not to attend dances.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4d ago
It wasn't supposed to be a thorough analysis (who can thoroughly investigate such a huge topic?), though I guess that this line was a little pathetic as a qualifier when I spend the rest of my words saying the opposite: "Obviously there are many exceptions and many people who are perfectly happy in relationships."
Love is powerful but its strength is finite and its effectiveness context-dependent, that's what I'm trying to get at. There are going to be easier and harder environments to fall in love and have that work out. People are still capable of falling in love but we live in a society that redirects or suppresses much of that energy. Consider the simps moderating Pokimane's twitch chat for free or sending their money to onlyfans girls who provide a (often outsourced to low-paid Pakistani men) simulacrum of a relationship with a woman. On the female side there are those who fall into a Stockholm syndrome like infatuation with their rapist/abuser. That's a kind of love but it's not quite what we're talking about, it's not achieving what it's supposed to be and it's pretty pathetic. Circumstances matter.
"Don't people love their country, why aren't they joining the army?"
Some people of course love their country and will fight and die for it regardless. But money and glory help get others over the line and keeps them in the trenches. Being assured that you won't be prosecuted for war crimes helps. Adventure helps. Watching people die writhing from FPV drones hurts... Siegfried Sassoon poems hurt... Chaotic military bureaucracy hurts... Seeing other people boo veterans, support the enemy and flout the draft hurts...
And people come to love their country less and less if the latter is more prevalent.
I like this reply since it has a little edge to it, but I am left wondering, to what extent does empathizing with young men just translate to validating their crippling anxiety and fear over interacting with the opposite sex? Does that do them any good? To me a lot of the replies about fear of getting 'cancelled' just seem like an overblown and hyperbolic expression of that anxiety and fear.
I think it's about cost-benefit ratios. Suppose you're an adventurer going out to slay a monster. Maybe you'll go for a band of goblins for 40 gold pieces, or a dragon for 1000 gold pieces, a knighthood and universal fame. You wouldn't go out to slay a dragon for 40 gold pieces not because you're cowardly but because the risks and dangers aren't worth the reward.
Young men are notorious for being the bravest and most fearless. Young men do the fighting and dying in war and crime, they found startups and create new things for good or ill. So long as the incentives match up, young men are perfectly prepared to take risks.
I think the incentives don't match up for the bulk of young men to go out wooing girls like they used to. The status of being a boyfriend is fairly low, there are semi-common complaints about going out on a date being like a job interview (in other words a humiliation ritual/interrogation). There are significant financial costs maintaining relationships. There are cultural expectations that the man mustn't do anything wrong like sleeping with a drunk girl while drunk or approaching in the wrong ways and these are strong expectations, a huge amount of power is going into 'don't be a creep/sex pest'. There's a huge political divide between the sexes these days, it's semi-commonly expected for the man to lie about his true beliefs.
Moving on to marriage, again the status of the husband is not very high. He is not really the man of the house unless there's a burglar or something. Marriage is not 'till death do us part'. There is not really much he can do about nagging or a dead bedroom except an expensive divorce. As far as the legal system is concerned, he is clearly the second parent when it comes to raising (incredibly expensive if done the high-status way) children. Possibly the third parent, behind the state education system. And there's all kinds of media that presents the husband as a loser/fool while the wife is strong and wise.
My point isn't so much the classic 'porn cheaper' discourse so much as it's a matter of status and respect manipulation. Of course it's easier and safer to stay at home and not go out to war. But the status of warriors used to be kept very high, people would sing songs about the glory and valour of these proud defenders of the fatherland. And once he reached the front, there was cameraderie and morale, a mission to achieve that kept him fighting even through death and disease. Militaries are underrated as social institutions, they did an amazing job getting people to do things one would naively imagine to be impossible.
It's not just "Why looks-max, develop game, get fit at the gym, develop hobbies that bring one into contact with women without actively seeming lecherous, learn to interpret these complex semi-passive signals, woo a woman, take her out on appropriate dates and wield good sexual skills... when I have Biggus Tittus from anime, custom-tailored to appeal to me for free?"
The key thing is status here. Many would do all those costly things to end up in a high-status position. Look at South Korea, they exam-max super hard to get into Samsung and the opportunity to work even harder competing with the other elite rat-race enthusiasts. Then there are the gigachads who sleep with hundreds of women, that's a high status position in our culture. Of the looksmaxxing high-effort young men, I expect that's more their goal than the socially desirable 'loyal productive monogamous husband'. They're not going to do all that for a low-status position. Incels aren't satisfied with Biggus Tittus the anime girl or even a prostitute, they want status and respect.
Obviously there are many exceptions and many people who are perfectly happy in relationships. However, I think more effort needs to go into nerfing the dragon (making relations between the sexes less tense) and/or buffing the reward (making married men higher status, not just in cheap words of conservative speeches but real privileges).
"Don't be such a pussy, go kill that dragon on minimum wage" isn't going to cut it.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5d ago
The mods aren't upset about language so much as meaning. I too have a low opinion of Fuentes, he's like a lower-class Richard Spencer but normal people have a blessed ignorance of this eceleb lore that should be cherished and preserved where possible. They can't be expected to know about these guys.
'The gamer word'
Is that needed here of all places? We're not on reddit anymore. The considerable efforts of the admins are wasted if nobody uses the fruits of their labour, one of which is use of language that would rack up bad-boy points on other websites regardless of context.
Far be it for me to police the language of a post about language-policing but really, if we're talking about the word 'nigger' then this should be made clear.
As a more substantive point, the donations for both Karmelo Anthony and Shiloh's have both been censored now, though this hasn't stopped people doing the funny 'make username of N' trick to spell out nigger that 4chan loves so much. Some of the comments: https://x.com/tsarlet2/status/1918360755977748550
Clearly givesendgo wanted to suppress that kind of thing while retaining a certain perception of even handedness. There was plenty of time to censor the 'fuck white people' genre of donation comments earlier.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5d ago
But if you wipe out the capital cities, then what is the point of the Liberal Party or Labour? Can't prop up housing market if the houses are vaporized!
Seriously, I don't understand the result at all. I guess everyone decided the economic meltdown wasn't Albanese's fault and that his promise to lower power prices (when they then rose) was fine at the time. Or perhaps it's demographics = destiny time.
Bizarre how Reform seems to have ignored the anti-anti-incumbent trend, they're somehow not tarred by association with Trump despite Farage being closer to Trump than most.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5d ago
Increasing operational tempo would exacerbate crew fatigue without addressing the underlying personnel shortages.
Crew? These aren't crew.
Who do you think mans a P-8 or a frigate spying for Chinese ships? Crew!
operational tempo
Wrong use of the wrong term
No, that's perfectly correct. You're not aware of the proper terminology here. If you spend more time at sea or in the air, operational tempo increases. This is basic stuff.
Is it substantial in terms of manpower? Maybe only a tripwire force will be deployed 24/7
It's not a tripwire force it's talking about here. Again, you do not understand what it's talking about. This is surveillance, not tripwire.
They are ageing but there are plenty sitting around
Production of the B1 finished DECADES ago. They're supposed to be replaced in 2025 by the B-21. Why would we want to be flying an obsolete, incredibly expensive to maintain aircraft with a logistics chain that barely even exists in America? No more can be made, so if we crash one, it's gone forever!
This is used as a gotcha for the b-1 but it applies equally to all new planes.
Heavy bombers are different to fighters or heavy airlift for that matter. Australia already fields fighters but not heavy bombers. These are super complicated and hard to train, it's a highest of the high-end capability that can't just be rushed in a few years. And he wants to base them in Papua New Guinea, a shithole country with no infrastructure.
Bullshit
That's just flatly true, Australian shipbuilding is a joke. Read up on the Hunter class if you like, Claude knows more about it than you.
Why does Australia need amphibious assault ships?
There are islands in the Pacific ocean and it can be helpful if you can land things there - troops, equipment, missiles, supplies. They're not really amphibious assault ships in that any opposition will sink them quickly, they're glorified and overpriced transports. Expecting these things to function like light carriers is very silly. Australia has minimal experience with carrier operations and no carrier-borne aircraft. It's another one of Pezzulo's 'lets just develop yet another high end capability how hard can it be' moments.
Claude proceeds to never mention the Philippines again.
Fair enough, though it's not like the original article explains how we're supposed to get in bed with the Philippines either. 'Just make an alliance' doesn't cut it either.
The human author mentioned space a single time, as a single component in a fused surveillance system across all domains. So this sentence is just retarded.
Claude criticizes it for not talking about space enough. Space is very important as a killchain enabler and for surveillance. That was the whole point which you seem to have missed. See here:
The most glaring omission is the limited attention to cyber capabilities, space assets, and information operations. Modern military effectiveness depends increasingly on these domains, yet they receive passing mention at best.
Claude is not perfect. Sometimes it just produces blather. But it's still considerably better than your own criticisms of it. I rest my case!
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6d ago
At some things not others. Writing is not one of those things.
Go take a look at the Daily Mail and come back to me on that.
Getting the bad side doesn't mean you throw up your arms and just say that your essay is gonna be bad.
Obviously an essay arguing for the wrong side of the argument will be worse than an essay arguing for the right side of the argument, ceteris paribus.
And the rote boilerplate in them is more valuable than your claude drivel because it's not pretentious
Nope. That's just, like, your opinion, man. And it's a pretty bad one if you think that characterizing government boilerplate as non-pretentious is the way to go.
This thing happens so often that I can't provide a single example of it happening.
I'm not going to trawl through newspapers earmarked for recycling, looking for typos. I am not a copyeditor for News Corporation. Rest assured that it happens a lot.
Here's one, they managed to mix up entire pages: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-25/daily-telegraph-accidentally-publishes-smh-pages-in-its-paper/11046252
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6d ago
-
Pezzulo has written dozens of long-form analytical articles for major newspapers. He is BETTER than a regular journalist, he actually achieved an office of mild significance. He does not write about lost dogs in regional papers or the fake tits of celebrity no. 10023 like most of them.
-
The quality of factual proposals is inseparable from their prudence.
-
Claude's response surpasses Pezzulo because it's a more realistic strategic plan and because it doesn't make any major blunders.
-
You clearly have not read many government reports if you think that's drivel. I assure you that people are being well paid to produce this kind of stuff without the ameliorating factors of any good points whatsoever.
literally not a single concrete example
I can't give you a concrete example, only my friend's anecdotal experiences working with journalists and my anecdotal experiences spotting missing words in newspapers. They really aren't that clever and have been getting worse.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6d ago
These are good points and make sense but I keep getting the sense that there are people trying to force down this framing on us, that the EU really needs Atlantic unity. Like you say, the EU is mad about the US heading off for Asia.
Jannik Hartmann, a fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, confirmed that a U.S. pullback — from Germany's Ramstein Air Base, for instance — would leave Europe without basic loading gear like ramps and flatbed wagons. Europe also has few forward stockpiles of military hardware, whereas the U.S. has pre-positioned supplies across Germany, Poland and the Netherlands, Kruijver said.
Really, the EU can't rustle up some flatbed trucks and ramps? How hard is it to get some trucks (insert joke about Wehrmacht mechanization here)? Or trains suitable for tanks and heavy vehicles, shouldn't they have them? They can't expect the US to bring trains with them over the Atlantic surely. I don't know for sure but I suspect the German Council on Foreign Relations may be manipulating the facts somewhat. US pre-positioned supplies would obviously be useful but how much is really needed? Satellites and enablers are another matter but the EU does have their own satellite constellation in Galileo.
How do 160 million beat 3-4x their number in an offensive war? I just don't see them prevailing even with their shell advantages, battle-hardened troops, SAM batteries, ECM... Even if they have a qualitative advantage in all domains Europe is just bigger in population and industry. Size predominates in industrial, attritional warfare. Superweapons like HIMARS, PATRIOTs, Challengers, T-14s, T-90Ms or Su-57s aren't what's swaying this war, it's quantity of men, quantity of shells and quantity of drones.
And even then, Russian advantages in shells, missiles and manpower haven't yet cracked Ukraine, they're slowly burning through the population in attritional fighting. Against Europe it would be much slower either way.
A united Europe can defend itself or at least induce enough doubt that Russia wouldn't attack. Against a divided Europe (presumably the whole world's gone to hell in this scenario), nuclear blackmail could achieve effortless Russian victory. Just wipe Warsaw off the map after the initial demonstration if they still haven't surrendered unconditionally.
These are real, right?
Ukraine's rare earths exist but they're not valuable in any significant sense.
Exploration efforts were abandoned after a 13-year assessment process, and no attempts have been made to develop the Novopoltavske deposit since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, according to experts.
"To my knowledge, there are no economically viable rare earth deposits in Ukraine," said Tony Mariano, an independent geologist consultant with expertise in rare earths exploration. "I have evaluated clay deposits in Ukraine thought to have potential for rare earths but found them not to be viable. This doesn't mean there aren't any, only that further exploration and evaluation needs to be done."
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6d ago
Show me one.
Here are some: https://www.rd.com/article/hilarious-newspaper-typos/
And here are a bunch of people seeing them, it's not just me: https://www.quora.com/Am-I-mistaken-or-are-there-more-typos-in-reputable-news-articles-each-year
I see them all the time in Australian national papers but none today.
They are pretending to be stupid in order to push their talking points, not yours.
Not everything is politics or worth lying about. Sometimes it's just a complex matter of fact and they're unable to grasp it. Or they don't understand a word like 'bifurcate', don't know what it means.
If you think so, then show me an LLM writing better than a generic whatever-tier human news article.
Now I'm going to copy out elements of an article in The Australian from not merely a journalist but a former Departmental Secretary, a high ranking government official. This guy should be very good! Here is the extract:
Enhance surveillance
First, we must enhance the continuous wide-area surveillance of our area of direct military interest. We must be able to pinpoint the precise locations and track the movement of Chinese (and Russian) ships, submarines and aircraft of interest as far from Australia as possible. This will require the more intensive use and meshing together of the sensor feeds from national intelligence systems, space-based sensors, the Jindalee radar network, P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, MQ-4C Triton surveillance drones, E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, undersea sensors and other assets.
A fused situational picture of key Chinese and Russian movements in our area of direct military interest should be developed and shared in real time with US Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii in exchange for its fused picture of the same. This will require more resources to support 24/7 operations in the Australian Defence Force and the relevant intelligence agencies. Wide-area surveillance of our area of direct military interest cannot be a “business hours” activity.
Operational readiness
Second, we must enhance ADF operational readiness, which means having more forces standing ready to undertake quick alert missions, such as air interceptions and maritime surveillance flights.
This will cost money and drain crews as they will fatigue more rapidly when kept at higher states of readiness. More assertive rules of engagement should be authorised by the Defence Minister to allow for the close shadowing of Chinese and Russian units in our area of direct military interest. This would be done in a safe and professional manner, as it is being done nearly every other day by our allies and partners who are being probed regularly at sea and in the air.
The ADF’s Joint Operations Command should be reconfigured along the lines of the original vision of defence force chief General John Baker, who in 1996 established the Australian Theatre Command, or COMAUST. Baker’s logic was that the ADF should be postured, and commanded, principally to conduct operations in Australia’s area of direct military interest. While operations farther afield would be undertaken from time to time, they should not be the main focus of the ADF. After 9/11, the ADF adopted a globalist orientation. Mastery of the area of direct military interest started to fall away.
It is time for the ADF to focus zealously once again on the defence of Australia’s area of direct military interest, and our national military command arrangements and systems should reflect this.
Longer-range anti-surface warfare capabilities
Third, we must urgently acquire longer-range anti-surface warfare capabilities. A radical suggestion would be to acquire rapidly six to 10 US Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers, which have been configured in recent years for anti-ship strike missions. These bombers are now able to carry 36 Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (24 internally in bomb bays and 12 externally), which is a fearsome anti-surface capability. While the RAAF already is acquiring the LRASM weapon for use by its F/A-18F Super Hornets, having a platform in the order of battle with the range and payload capacity of the B-1B Lancer would severely impair PLA options for mounting surface action missions against Australia.
Longer-range air superiority capability
Fourth, we must urgently acquire a longer-range air superiority capability to deal with the threat of stand-off attacks by PLA Air Force H-6 bombers operating north of Indonesia. Again, a radical suggestion would be to acquire rapidly the air-to-air version of the SM-6 missile, to equip the RAAF’s F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters. Facing such fighters, especially if they were operating forward of the barrier, would make PLA planners think twice about mounting long-range bomber missions against Australia.
Remediate naval warfare capability
Fifth, we urgently need to remediate our naval warfare capability, to ensure that our battle fleet of six Collins-class submarines and 10 major surface combatants (the Hobart and Anzac classes) are fully crewed and ready for action.
This will require crewing, training, inventory and maintenance issues to be addressed. The RAN’s replenishment tankers need to be fixed and returned to the fleet as soon as possible. Across time, the RAN battle fleet will need to grow in size, given the rapid growth in the PLA Navy’s battle fleet.
Ideally, we should be aiming across the longer term for a battle fleet of 12 submarines, 20 major surface combatants and 20 smaller offshore combatants, the last of which could be used as missile corvettes and naval mine warfare vessels. To further enhance the RAN’s battle fleet, large landing helicopter dock vessels should be re-purposed as sea control carriers, with embarked anti-submarine and airborne early warning helicopters, and long-range naval drones.
Ensure RAAF is battle ready
Sixth, we need to ensure that the RAAF is battle ready, with its squadrons fully crewed and its air bases well protected and fully functional. It is relatively easier to expand an air force, as compared with a navy, given the vagaries of naval shipbuilding. The RAAF is therefore the better bet in terms of a rapid expansion that could be achieved soonest.
More F-35 Lightning II fighters should be acquired, along with the B-1B Lancers mentioned already. The latter could serve as an interim bomber, pending reconsideration of the acquisition of the B-21 Raider strategic bomber. Crewing ratios should be increased quickly, such that the RAAF has more crews than platforms, which could then be flown more intensively. The extraordinarily rapid expansion of the RAAF’s aircrew training pipeline in World War II should be its guiding vision.
Maritime warfare readiness
Seventh, the army should continue to develop its increasingly impressive maritime warfare capabilities and readiness. Consideration should be given to the rapid acquisition of the ground-based Typhon missile system, which would give the army a long-range anti-ship and land strike capability. As we barricade the sea-air approaches to Australia, we will have to be vigilant in relation to stealthy commando raids and sabotage operations. The army will need to be postured to deal with such attacks.
Address capability gaps
Eighth, we need to remediate a number of other capability gaps where we have no or virtually no capability. Of particular concern is integrated air and missile defence. We will need to acquire some combination of Terminal High Altitude Area Defence and Patriot interceptors on land, and SM-3 interceptors at sea. Naval mine warfare capability also needs to be addressed.
There are likely to be other gaps that would impair our ability to execute the strategy. Given the urgency of the situation, rapidly acquired interim solutions will have to suffice to fill many of these gaps. Such interim solutions can be refined and built on. That is the lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Negotiate PNG alliance
Ninth, a military alliance should be negotiated with Papua New Guinea to provide for the establishment of ADF bases in locations such as Manus, Rabaul and Lae to support the conduct of maritime surveillance, anti-surface, anti-submarine, and air superiority missions. For instance, a forward-deployed composite RAAF wing, consisting of F-35A Lightning II fighters, B-1B Lancers armed with LRASM, F/A-18F Super Hornets armed with SM-6 missiles, and P-8 Poseidon aircraft could operate from the Bismarck to the Celebes seas and beyond with the aim of denying access into our northern sea-air approaches. A similar alliance should be negotiated with The Philippines. This would extend our coverage north of the barrier into the South China Sea.
We need to better appreciate the significance of PNG and The Philippines as Pacific watchtowers of the sea-air approaches to Australia. Our Indian Ocean territories are our western watchtowers.
Develop war book
Tenth, we should urgently reinstate the practice of developing a war book that would deal with civil defence, national cyber defence, the protection of critical infrastructure and the general protection, and sustainment of the population during times of war.
While the likelihood of war in the foreseeable future is low, perhaps 10 to 20 per cent, it is enough to warrant action. This will cost money and divert resources from more agreeable activities. That is the nature of war, which drains societies even when it does not occur. Against this must be weighed the costs of being unprepared.
While this worsening strategic environment is very confronting, there is an even darker scenario. Imagine if we had to face a coercive, belligerent, and unchecked China on our own. That would require a very different military strategy and a significantly larger ADF.
That is a grim story for another day – and one that may require us to pursue our own Manhattan Project. In that world, we would look fondly on this relatively benign age.
Now here's the AI response I got with regard to the same essay, I asked it for criticism and its own proposal, with my own commentary in bold:
A Critical Analysis of Australia's Proposed Defense Strategy
The proposed alterations to Australian defense planning outline a comprehensive vision for military restructuring in response to regional threats, particularly from China. However, closer examination reveals significant practical challenges and conceptual gaps that could undermine implementation. Cringe, it doesn't need a topic statement like a university essay
Strategic Coherence vs. Practical Constraints
The recommendations build on the sensible premise of enhancing surveillance and operational readiness in Australia's immediate region. Developing a fused situational picture shared with US Indo-Pacific Command represents sound alliance management. However, this proposal glosses over the substantial personnel requirements for 24/7 operations across defense and intelligence agencies. Australia already faces defense recruitment and retention challenges, with the ADF consistently struggling to meet personnel targets. Increasing operational tempo would exacerbate crew fatigue without addressing the underlying personnel shortages. Quite right, where is the manpower coming from for this?
The proposed focus on Australia's area of direct military interest through reconfiguring Joint Operations Command reflects strategic clarity, yet organizational transformation during heightened tensions carries significant risks. Historical reorganizations, like Baker's Australian Theatre Command, often face bureaucratic resistance and implementation delays that could leave capability gaps during a critical transition period.
Capability Acquisition: Ambition vs. Reality
The article's more radical proposals expose a disconnect between strategic ambition and practical constraints. Acquiring 6-10 B-1B Lancer bombers appears compelling on paper, providing impressive anti-ship strike capability. Yet this recommendation fails to acknowledge that B-1Bs are aging platforms with declining availability in US inventories. The maintenance requirements would be substantial, and Australia lacks existing infrastructure to support heavy bombers. Pilot training pipelines would take years to develop, meaning these assets would not be operational in the short-term timeframe suggested. Nailed the key point I was hoping it'd find, buying ancient B-1 bombers is absolutely retarded, this is the drone age not the 1980s. IMO this alone puts it ahead of our self-styled military commentator in intellectual sophistication
Similarly, the naval expansion goals—growing to 12 submarines, 20 major surface combatants, and 20 smaller vessels—represent extraordinary growth beyond Australia's current shipbuilding and maintenance capacity. Australian shipyards are already struggling with existing programs like the Hunter-class frigates. This expansion would require massive industrial investment not addressed in the proposal. Moreover, the suggestion to repurpose Landing Helicopter Docks as sea control carriers overlooks their primary value as amphibious assets in a region where amphibious capability remains strategically vital. Quite right, our shipbuilding capacity is awful
Economic and Fiscal Realities
The proposals conspicuously avoid discussing costs. Implementing even half these recommendations would require defense spending well beyond Australia's current 2% of GDP. Rapid acquisition of advanced missile systems, THAAD, Patriot batteries, and SM-3 interceptors represents tens of billions in unbudgeted expenditure. The article acknowledges these measures "will cost money and divert resources from more agreeable activities" but fails to provide any framework for prioritization or cost-benefit analysis.
This fiscal blindspot undermines the strategy's credibility. Defense planners must make hard choices, yet the article presents a wishlist without acknowledging tradeoffs. A more nuanced approach would identify which capabilities deliver the most deterrent effect per dollar invested, particularly given Australia's smaller economy relative to potential adversaries. Also true, given how anemic Australian military spending is there's no point in making a huge wishlist, it needs to be sorted by priority.
Regional Politics and Forward Positioning
The proposal for military alliances with Papua New Guinea and the Philippines demonstrates strategic imagination but underestimates complex regional politics. PNG maintains significant economic ties with China, with Chinese companies heavily invested in resource extraction and infrastructure projects. The proposal ignores how these economic relationships could complicate security arrangements.
Forward basing Australian forces in PNG would require substantial infrastructure investment in relatively underdeveloped regions. Environmental impacts and relations with local communities present additional challenges not addressed in the proposal. Forward deployment also creates vulnerabilities—assets based closer to potential adversaries become targets themselves, requiring additional defensive capabilities not accounted for in the proposal.
Unaddressed Domains: Cyber, Space, and Information
The most glaring omission is the limited attention to cyber capabilities, space assets, and information operations. Modern military effectiveness depends increasingly on these domains, yet they receive passing mention at best. The proposal focuses heavily on kinetic capabilities while undervaluing the critical enabling functions of secure communications, positioning systems, and intelligence networks.
Australia's dependence on space-based systems for the proposed surveillance network creates vulnerabilities that determined adversaries would target early in any conflict. A more robust strategy would incorporate redundancy, resilience, and active defenses for these critical systems. Absolutely right, even if we did get the B1s how are we going to get them into the action without good targeting data from satellites?
The Nuclear Question
Perhaps most provocatively, the article concludes by alluding to "our own Manhattan Project" for a scenario where Australia faces China alone. This veiled reference to developing nuclear weapons raises profound questions left entirely unaddressed. Australia's longstanding commitment to non-proliferation, uranium export controls, and alliance with nuclear-armed nations would all be compromised by such a path. The international repercussions would be immense, potentially undermining the very security such weapons supposedly provide. OK, this is blather, we get it, Claude is leftwing. Also I don't see how it would inherently harm our relations with the US if we acquired nuclear weapons, though Claude may well be drawing from the history where the US talked us into joining the NPT and scuppering our nuclear program
A More Balanced Approach
A more realistic strategy would prioritize capabilities that leverage Australia's geographical advantages and alliance relationships without overextending resources. Focusing on undersea warfare, advanced sensors, unmanned systems, and cyber capabilities would provide greater deterrent effect than trying to match adversaries across all domains.
Australia should invest more in sovereign capabilities that reduce dependency on extended supply chains vulnerable to disruption. Developing domestic missile production, enhanced fuel security, and critical technology sectors would strengthen resilience while supporting the defense industrial base.
The future Australian Defense Force needs to be not just larger but smarter—emphasizing quality over quantity, asymmetric advantages over symmetrical competition, and sustainability over surge capacity. Rather than attempting to bar the sea-air approaches to Australia completely, a more nuanced strategy would focus on making adversary operations prohibitively costly through layered defensive capabilities and strategic uncertainty. boilerplate but not wrong
A truly comprehensive approach would also incorporate non-military elements of national power. Economic relationships, diplomatic initiatives, international law, and regional institutions all contribute to Australia's security. Military capabilities remain essential, but they function most effectively as part of a broader national strategy that maximizes all instruments of influence. Lmao at 'regional institutions' and 'international law' beating China, though you can interpret this as code for out-bribing China in the tiny Pacific countries while keeping the holier than thou attitude.
The proposals offer valuable ideas worth consideration, but implementation would require careful phasing, priority-setting, and recognition of practical constraints that the current analysis largely overlooks.
On balance I think Claude makes better points and presents a boring but more reasonable plan for Australia. It's unrealistic to go 'spend infinity dollars and buy everything we need plus more we don't' and 'ramp up everything to maximum'.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6d ago
His writing is almost certainly in the top 99th percentile of writing skills, and certainly far better than yours or mine.
Have you ever actually worked with journalists as a collective, not just a few people? I know someone in regular contact with the media. Many journalists are fools who can't even ask a clear question! They often don't understand what you're saying and introduce errors if you make any kind of complex point. Not to mention all the sloppy typos that go to press. What they're really good at is taking down talking points from corporations or media manipulators and regurgitating it as legitimate news.
First-rate LLMs are easily on par with the average journalist and that's extending every generosity to the humans.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6d ago
The US maintains about 100,000 troops overseas in Europe. If Europe can't deploy a quarter of that number to Ukraine as peacekeepers, how much help are they actually going to be if they actually have to defend Estonia or Latvia?
The Europeans as a collective have huge forces, they just don't want to use them. They have 2 million active troops and huge potential mobilization. It's taken Russia ages to chew through the population of Ukraine, barring all else the EU could just throw meat at them over a huge front until they win. I guess it's unlikely they'd have the will to do this but that brings us back to will, not capability.
It makes no strategic sense to send peacekeepers to Ukraine. Why take risks for no reward? What are the benefits of moving into Ukraine? Hans and Roger and Jean don't see it as their war, they're just not that enthusiastic about supporting the enterprise, risking their lives.
There's a media cinematic universe where Putler must be stopped and we must show Resolve and Defend the Rules Based Order and in that world it makes sense to send troops to Ukraine. Otherwise Putler will keep on invading the Baltics or Finland or wherever else. But why would he do this? How do the cost-benefit ratios weigh up for Russia?
From the European perspective (albeit not the Polish or Baltic perspective), the most valuable thing in Ukraine is gas transit routes to Russia. Not pretend rare earths reserves or gas resources that are a fraction of Russia's. These can't be defended by frustrating Russia, quite the opposite.
EU policy is trapped between reality and the MCU, so they need to fight for freedom but not so much that they'll actually win. I think it's all a giant façade. This is the best explanation for the humiliating 'yes we will, no we won't' approach by Keir Starmer and Macron, they're in a dreamy state between the MCU and reality.
I'm aware of a research report by some neocon think tank that said 'if we lose Ukraine then the EU will have to station all these troops in Romania and the Russian air defence zone will advance forwards and that will leave us weak in the Baltics. I don't understand this line of argument, if you have more of everything save nukes then you ought to win, regardless of whether the front line becomes marginally shorter or longer.
If the much richer, more advanced, populous EU can't beat a corrupt Russian oligarchy without the US despite the enemy having a fraction of the resources then there's no point in defending it, there's no point strategizing to advance its position. Clearly the entire political system is grossly inadequate, EU corruption and demoralization must be far greater than Russian... Or they can win and there's no need to worry.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
7d ago
Are normies, even somewhat intelligent ones, incapable of distinguishing the most obvious stinky smelly chatgpt output?
Claude Sonnet 3.6 outright changes their minds if well-prompted. The cat is out of the bag, the genie has left the bottle.
https://axisofordinary.substack.com/p/links-for-2025-04-30 - scroll down to the images
notably all our treatments surpass human performance substantially, achieving persuasive rates between 3 and 6 times higher
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
7d ago
People need to learn to be a bit more inconvenienced and uncomfortable.
Why? The goal should be for public transport to be convenient, cheap and comfortable. Americans seem to be disillusioned about ever having non-shithole city centres. Is it seriously that hard to get rid of the problem people? Compared to redesigning a century of infrastructure and culture so as to force people to suffer inconveniences and discomfort? Grow a spine!
I remember being quite surprised by San Francisco, Vancouver and LA, how there were just loads of homeless occupying prominent places and shooting up in public. It's not normal outside North America. You're not supposed to see drug use in public.
Subsequent writings are merely of the 'adding more epicycles' kind of truthseeking. First it was literally believing that men were created by God ex nihilo. Then Darwinism came around and showed this wasn't the case. So they just retreat back to 'OK fine evolution is real but God created all things and the individual soul is not produced by material forces'. There's no substantial change to the practical doctrine of blankslatism, they move on just as before with zero regard for skepticism or evidence.
The soul? You may as well go to Pakistan and pursue cutting edge research into the powers of djinn.
Likewise with the Epicurean argument. They created an entire discipline of theodicy to cope with it and still fail. Free will? Natural disasters have nothing to do with free will. And 'free will' itself is becoming more and more of an illusion, we are today capable of creating benign and malevolent digital beings. So too is God. God could've set the median level of aggression lower or altered incentives to produce more sympathy. There is no free will in front of an omnipotent who establishes the context, permits what genes come into existence or what genes even are.
Grand plan? Maybe Satan runs the world and has a grand evil-maxxing plan that tolerates good for greater evil... Or it's just outright incomprehensible. That works just as well.
Here's another one I found:
An omnipotent God can write the laws of Nature, Genesis describes this. The universe could run on the fuzzy principles of a human dream, not thermodynamics. You could have a physics of wishing or Daoist cultivation to immortality, Aristotelian physics or Harry Potter. All of that is simple for an omnipotent.
No matter what they try, the Epicurean trilemma still snuffs them out. And this is the key thing, the question of mindset I bring up at the start. They don't like the Epicurean Trilemma and so come up with some comforting story that fails if you look at it too closely, they never review their priors about the nature of God.
More options
Context Copy link