But she knew.......
Saturday, January 30, 2016
The Independent Is Shocked, So Is Israel. So...?
The Independent is shocked. So is Israel, so is "West". Oh mama, and how could this be?
In related news, the sky is blue and the water is wet. What else? Ah, the cold is cold and when it is hot--it is hot.
I am not a Russian internet "military" fanboy, who wastes his time away "fighting" all kinds of uber-patriotic ignoramuses from Anglo-sphere on all kinds of discussion boards. Take a pick at a "repository" of military "competence", as an example, at The National Interest, and I don't mean just discussion boards, if you want to understand what I am talking about. What they "produce" in the magazine proper should give people some peek into the reality of the Warholian media world we live in.
I have an advanced graduate degree in what, in layman's lingo, could be called a degree in sinking NATO navies. Well that, plus qualifications (long ago expired) for naval infantry (marines) command. All came with the territory in Soviet Naval academies and yes, I know how it feels when T-64 rolls over, with you ready to shit your pants while in between the tracks of this rolling armored beast. So, yes, being today a consummate armchair strategist, and being quite content, in fact, enjoying this position (beats being shot at by both bogeys and....friendlies--someday I will tell the story), I, however, cringe each time when I hear (read, see) any kind of western shock regarding the fact of Russian Armed Forces deploying some weapon system. Unlike fanboys, however, I don't wave the respective flags of paper military uber superpowers, which are figments of imagination and, when speaking about Russian/Soviet Armed Forces, am always ready to and DO talk about their flaws, problems (which are plenty) and shortcomings. So, here it is--instead of incorporating this into my "Military Power" series of posts I have to deal with it separately.
Why "West" is always shocked? Because it is generally incompetent when dealing with USSR/Russia and is good only in "perception management", that is telling own fabricated stories about some parallel reality. It was always like this, it is just only recently that it went into the super acute phase. Indeed, and how those russkies, exlaim in desperation all those journos, sociologists and political "scientists", continue, time after time, to produce not just very advanced weapons but, what is even more important, military capability? How do they do it? For people like that, who, apart from appalling ignorance, suffer also from cultural and racial revulsion towards Russia, it is, indeed, difficult to comprehend the fact that what Russians know about war both on a genetic and cognitive levels is on order of magnitude larger than what combined "West" can offer. In simpler words: history made Russians produce fully combat-oriented advanced weapon systems. This reality definitely contradicts the picture (or narrative) of those ever drunk, dumb barbaric Russians, who still live in dugouts while suppressing everything "progressive". Indeed, it is so fashionable to proclaim oneself a "winner" in arms race that some things simply escape the mind.
I want to start with very late 1950s of the last century. No, I don't mean Sputnik and educational shock to the western establishment. I want to look at what is known in the West as Echo-II SSGNs, while in Soviet Union and Russia it is still known as "screaming cows", for a horrendous noise levels of these nuclear submarines. I will omit the issue of noise, not for once mitigated by excellent professionalism of the COs and crews of these submarines, but will concentrate on the missile, communications and guidance complex of these subs.
It was a combination of radar Argument and comm complex Kasatka, among others, which allowed this ungainly sub to be able to launch her cruise missiles (from older Pyatyorka to, later, P-6) in salvo with target selection and separation in it. This was first. Those subs, also known correctly as kamikaze and suiciders (well, you are bound to be when launching surfaced) were capable to receive targeting information from satellites and TU-95RTs (Bear D), later, updated system received the name of Uspekh. The trick of this whole system was in the fact that Bear D was translating real time radar picture of the area or, rather, targets to the consoles of the weapons operators on the sub, who, using electronic pencil (in reality--gun) selected targets on the screen of their displays. This targeting method was used when the ranges of launch were larger than sub's radar range. I will omit here a reliability issue of this salvo, but, while risky (hence kamikaze title), they were possible and, actually, were done not for once. This is not 2016, boys and girls, we are talking here about 1950s and 1960s--the times of non-solid state electronics. Yet, what I just described to you, today is known as elements of the Net Centric Warfare.
This whole system of targeting and launch, at that time, was nothing short of revolutionary, even when considering reliability and other, purely tactical and operational, issues--the joyful moment for any ASW or Patrol Aviation is the moment of flaming datum, and Echoes were the ones. But it was this whole vacuum tubes-driven shebang which attracted a very serious attention from Killian Committee as early as mid-1950s, with their report to Eisenhower of missile, both ballistic and cruise, age dawning. Echoes were one of the horsemen of apocalypse, since were capable to deliver both conventional and nuclear payload against both sea and ground targets. And it was thanks in large degree to those Echoes that US Navy eventually developed and then put its Harpoons at own P-3 Orion patrol planes. Ah, those russkies, with all their mischief, always seem to turn out some toys which make the peaceful and democratic "West" to be on its toes. For nation, which opened the door to space and by 1950s boasted arguably the best educational system in the world, all that seemed quite natural. Fresh from the colossal physical and mental trauma of the WW II, it took a lot of ingenuity and plain simple sheer engineering brilliance to come up, time after time, with at least adequate (forget superior--narrative doesn't allow it) response to just about anything what the "West" was throwing at those inferior russkies. And it is this narrative, which completely ignored number of the crucial facts of Russian military development which remain her constants:
1. Guided long-range cruise and anti-shipping missile IS the national weapon of Russia/USSR. From 1950s on, at first USSR, and now Russia produced unrivaled spectrum of guided missile weapons, which is, of course, a first sign of a very advanced R&D and industry, including....drum roll....electronics and software engineering. From old P-6/35 missiles of 1950s design, through terrifying RK-55 Granat (aka S10 for subs, projects 671RTMK and 971. NATO--Victor III and Akula classes) with range exceeding by far that of the Tomahawk missiles, to modern day stealthy Kalibrs and X-101 with reported (most likely downplayed, for security reasons) range of 5000+ kilometers, to upcoming hyper-sonic weapons, Russia always was and still remains a global leader in missile technology. I don't know under what 1990s "stone", loaded with images of drunk Yeltsin, crooked "reformers" destroying own (???) country and hordes of dissidents, all these western "experts" still live, but didn't they try to study real history? We all know the answer. They didn't. Everything what is going on today with Russian/Soviet Precision Guided missile (and other) weapons is NOT some accidental GRU "stealing" some magical western, greatly overrated, technologies but the result of decades of serious and continuous R&D, development and implementation of the range of the requirements, developing and applying tactical and operational concepts for these weapons.
2. USSR/Russia always lagged behind "West" in radio-electronics, this is a scientific fact. But here is the puzzle, how crucial was this lag in, namely, military field? Here is an interesting fact from 1970s. Actually, the Soviet Union was one of the major providers of microchips for the bulk of electronic watches produced globally. Yes, including ones produced in the "West". Small fact but a very important one, none the less. Just as an example, the steady improvement of the acoustic (both noise reduction and sonar capability) by Soviet submarines in 1980s can be very easily correlated (traced back) to the fact of vast improvement of the quality of Soviet consumer electronics. Yes, yes, I know, all this popular BS about Walker case, who "supposedly" opened eyes for Russians about noisiness of their subs. Sure, how could those stupid russkies know of their own short-comings without "West's" turncoats. What is amazing is that this BS is being peddled in the "West" for decades now, disregarding a simple scientific fact of Soviet Union having a number of the acoustic institutes WAY BEFORE Walker started to spy for USSR. In fact, one of the activities of Soviet external intelligence both by GRU and KGB was a delivery of "Western"-made innocuous consumer acoustic systems as early as 1950s specifically for the study of their acoustic properties. With them came vinyl records of a lot of popular music. That is how rock'n'roll made it (among other routes) into the USSR. How do I know this? Let's say I know this for a fact. This is just one such example. Yet, by 1988, this is what US Navy had to say about this whole thing.
Indeed, the arrogance of those Russians simply has no bounds. Why did they decide to produce arguably the best submarines in the world is simply inexplicable. But more than that, for some reason Soviet Union developed a massive ECM capability and, in general, was never far behind this whole C4ISR business. For older generation this item is well-known.
This piece of equipment known as Rostov-101 (102 etc.) was truly first Soviet 1st class reel-to-reel deck with superb characteristics. The start of production was in 1975. But the popularity of this excellent machine (I wish I had one) was not only in the fact of its modern design and competitive characteristics for its time. It was also in the fact of Rostov being made of military-grade element base, which provided a very impressive durability and reliability. In 1970s it was a very desirable item, and an expensive one. Eventually Rostov went on to produce a truly world class equipment.
While other Russian military-industrial firms went on in 1980s to directly compete with the best of the best.
So, for young students of Open Source Intelligence (OSInt)--do not discard consumer products, they may give you some interesting insights into the real state of the affairs. Does iPhone give some insight today? Sure it does--decent processing power. It is also produced in China, but does China produce processors? No, in fact, it merely packs crystals into the package. But again, does military need this kind of processors? Well, not quite. Military applications are a different game. It could be a truly shocking revelation for many when they will learn that Soviet Union pioneered satellite television and, in fact, after US satellite navigation system Transit (NAVSAT) was launched, Russians followed with their own Parus (and its civilian version Cicada) satellite navigation. Where was Europe and others? Nowhere to be found. In fact, at that time, Jean-Loup Chrétien (one of my heroes) flew to space on Soviet Soyuz ship (becoming the first European to do so) and, later, became the Hero Of The Soviet Union, which is a title awarded to some really special people and Jean-Loup is one of them.
Considering the fact that today GLONASS is the only other truly global satellite navigation system, GPS being first, of course, what does this say about Russia weapons? Obviously for people "being shocked", it also comes as a surprise that Russia actually produces this:
And this allows Russia to produce this:
So, when US (or NATO) generals say this: "Their army’s equipment and strategy was “outmoded”; their air force’s
bombs and missiles were “more dumb than smart”; their navy was “more
rust than ready”. For decades, this was Western military leaders’ view,
steeped in condescension, of their Russian counterparts. What they have
seen in Syria and Ukraine has come as a shock. " They better learn Russia's history. Will they? No. So, prepare for more "shocks".
To Be Continued.......
P.S. US media space was so poisoned by Israeli "achievements" (this is not to say that Israelis are not good, no, they are pretty good and I do have respect for them) that they completely forgot that they dealt with the enemy who is manifestly not ready for serious combined arms warfare. They are learning, though. Vietnam...ahem....
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Military Power (Cont'd 6)
Incomparable Corelli Barnett wrote in his "The Collapse Of British Power": "As Adam Smith, the founder of liberal economics, put in 1776:"By pursuing his own interest (an individual) frequently promotes that of society the more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise a long-lived and as baneful effect on British power as Wesley and Whitefield's preaching. Adam Smith attacked the traditional "mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting.... According to liberal thinking, a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws.."
It is not an accident, that liberal economics has its origins in the Anglo-Saxon world, the world for centuries protected by water and insulated from the horrors of the continental warfare. We will touch upon what real nation actually is later, but for now we have to define, if to follow Barnett's thought, what is self-supporting, especially so in terms of military power? Well, I already gave an idea. The greater the number of the enclosed (or complete) technological cycles nation has, more independent it is and more claim it has to the title of a true military power. Consider this example: in previous post it was pointed out that Brazil has a very respectable output of steel. This means several things:
1. Brazil has a serious extraction industry, which extracts all components, including, of course, iron ore itself, required for production of steel;
2. Most likely, Brazil has a fairly advanced chemical industry, since steel production requires a number of chemical elements and products;
3. Brazil, certainly, has a respectable (especially considering this nation's mostly tropical and subtropical climate) energy production;
4. Brazil, certainly, has a substantial machine-building sector (the bells should be ringing now) which produces some of the industrial machinery, cars and even airplanes, such as globally renown Embraer.
Now, let's imagine that Brazil wants to become not just regional, which she is, but major military power. Could she? After all, Brazil fits CINC criteria. The answer is not as clear cut but still, most likely, it will be no. In modern world, Brazil lacks what really defines a true military power--a genuine (that is enclosed or complete) Military Industrial Complex. Modern military industrial complexes are built on the foundation of almost complete industrial-technological autarky. What does it mean? It means, first and foremost, a full spectrum machine building complex. While the United States is not as huge military power as it constantly claims, it is true military superpower none the less. US claim to military superpowerdom is not in its Armed Forces, however impressive they are. No. It is in the fact, that the United States produces completely on its own practically the whole spectrum of weapon systems, ranging from fairly simple (M-4 rifles or laser range finders) to very complex (Strategic Missile Submarines or BE-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft). United States can produce all of that WITHOUT any assistance from abroad. This is the country, mind you, which declares Free Trade to be one of the pillars of its economic policy. Yet, in the weapons' production, the US remains very autarkic as... it should, if it wants to remain globally militarily relevant well into the 21st Century. But then again, Free Trade and economic liberalism are the figments of imagination of economic schools of thought, which almost always originated in places which never experienced a good carpet bombing or being ravaged by the invasions. Accident? I don't think so, in fact--it is a pattern.
So, Military Industrial Complex, which is a euphemism for advanced machine building complex, is Alpha and Omega of any serious military power, it is also a euphemism for a complete (or enclosed) technological cycle. Brazil may produce some industrial machines but, in the end, Embraer still flies with Pratt And Whitney, Rolls-Royce or any other engines produced not in Brazil. In fact, nobody in their own mind will share this technology with Brazil.
Enter Russia. Russia's GDP (PPP), as reported by IMF, is slightly (by about quarter of a trillion of US Dollars) larger than that of Brazil and yet, Russia's "recent" passenger jet Sukhoi SSJ-100, which competes directly with Embraer E-Jets, while benefiting from international cooperation has its engines SAM-146 developed by the JV between Snecma and legendary NPO Saturn. What is most important, Russia, which produces a range of aircraft, produces own engines--some of them decent, others--excellent. Moreover, the trials of PD-14 engine, which is very competitive against the best Western analogues, is proceeding with success. And here is some really strategic hyperlink--Aviadvigatel, which developed this engine, shows cooperation:
As you can see--not a single foreign participant. And here is the difference. Brazil and Russia may have relatively insignificant difference in GDP, but Russia not only produces the whole line of jet engines, but develops new ones (both civilian and military) which not only compete but, in military aviation, can, and very often do, surpass their western analogues. In fact, Russia produces some of the best helicopters in the world, both military and civilian, and leads the world in the number of cutting edge aerospace technologies--be it super-maneuverability or ECM (ECCM). That opens another can of worms in this comparison business. Radio-electronics. Russia, which sells its SSJ-100 internationally and is expected to start flight testing of her MC-21 jet soon, is capable on its own to provide avionics to her aircraft. Concern KRET does this kind of things.
And it did.
TU-160 upgraded (In Russian)
And while Brazil is renown for many fine things, including, of course, real football, producing for decades one of the finest artisans in this sport (Socrates is my favorite of all time) radio-electronics or electric generating equipment of Brazil are not that famous. You can take a look at Brazil's exports in this field here:
Statistical Data Electrical and Electronic Industry
In the same time, when comparing Russia's exports in power generating equipment, which is as high tech as it comes, the portfolio of orders of Rosatom reaches $300 billion.
ROSATOM’s overseas orders worth $ 300 billion and growing – Kirienko
If that is what Obama meant by proclaiming Russia's economy to be "shredded" to pieces and Senator McCain calling Russia a "gas station", then they better check their facts. So, for humanities "educated" "experts" of all kind, who think that iPhone is a pinnacle of high tech, it could be a very rude awakening to recognize that real high tech is a bit different thing. World can live, and, in fact, like me, lives just fine without "smart" phones (good ol' basic, still "smart", phone is just fine), but it can not live without energy generating equipment. Obviously, unlike Brazil or, for that matter, India, whose GDP is much larger than that of Russia, in fact, it almost double that, it is Russia who hauls everybody to the International Space Station and back to Earth. Plus, of course, Russia is the one who, together with NASA, built said ISS. And then comes this OTHER issue--weapons' trade. To sell those weapons, one has to produce those and, like the US, Russia doesn't sell just AK-74s (those, too, of course), she sells full spectrum of weapon systems, from small firearms to the most complex conventional weapons ever created on Earth. Not only Russia is the second weapons' trader in the world, right behind the US, but she is also a direct competitor to self-proclaimed sole superpower of the world. Here is some statistics from famous Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
10 Countries That Export the Most Weapons
The key word here is export, as in produce in own country and sell it abroad. This is possible only for the nations which have a complete industry capable of extraction all necessary raw materials, processing them and then turning them into the most complex finished product humanity knows--a weapon. There is a reason why Russia, who has much smaller GDP than China, sells five and a half times more weapons than PRC, who likes to sell them too. In fact, China is one of the major customers for Russian-made weapons. The reason is--Russia has one of the most advanced military industrial complexes in the world, capable of turning out some of the best, if not the best, weapons in the world.
Or, as India's Navy knows, this is worth a lot, much more than money.
Now ask yourself a question. What is going to happen if even France, who claims GDP very close to Russia's (short by about $800 billions) will try to have the whole fleet of these:
Or these:
Yes, the bottom of the French economy will fall off. Why doesn't it in Russia? Remember, in the last post--strategic positioning of the weapons in the house? It is back to the expenses--how much you are willing to pay for your and those dear to you freedom, independence and life? This calculus is beyond the grasp of those who never held anything, other than own satisfaction and ambition, dear and sacred in life.
To Be Continued.......
TU-160 upgraded (In Russian)
And while Brazil is renown for many fine things, including, of course, real football, producing for decades one of the finest artisans in this sport (Socrates is my favorite of all time) radio-electronics or electric generating equipment of Brazil are not that famous. You can take a look at Brazil's exports in this field here:
Statistical Data Electrical and Electronic Industry
In the same time, when comparing Russia's exports in power generating equipment, which is as high tech as it comes, the portfolio of orders of Rosatom reaches $300 billion.
ROSATOM’s overseas orders worth $ 300 billion and growing – Kirienko
If that is what Obama meant by proclaiming Russia's economy to be "shredded" to pieces and Senator McCain calling Russia a "gas station", then they better check their facts. So, for humanities "educated" "experts" of all kind, who think that iPhone is a pinnacle of high tech, it could be a very rude awakening to recognize that real high tech is a bit different thing. World can live, and, in fact, like me, lives just fine without "smart" phones (good ol' basic, still "smart", phone is just fine), but it can not live without energy generating equipment. Obviously, unlike Brazil or, for that matter, India, whose GDP is much larger than that of Russia, in fact, it almost double that, it is Russia who hauls everybody to the International Space Station and back to Earth. Plus, of course, Russia is the one who, together with NASA, built said ISS. And then comes this OTHER issue--weapons' trade. To sell those weapons, one has to produce those and, like the US, Russia doesn't sell just AK-74s (those, too, of course), she sells full spectrum of weapon systems, from small firearms to the most complex conventional weapons ever created on Earth. Not only Russia is the second weapons' trader in the world, right behind the US, but she is also a direct competitor to self-proclaimed sole superpower of the world. Here is some statistics from famous Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
10 Countries That Export the Most Weapons
The key word here is export, as in produce in own country and sell it abroad. This is possible only for the nations which have a complete industry capable of extraction all necessary raw materials, processing them and then turning them into the most complex finished product humanity knows--a weapon. There is a reason why Russia, who has much smaller GDP than China, sells five and a half times more weapons than PRC, who likes to sell them too. In fact, China is one of the major customers for Russian-made weapons. The reason is--Russia has one of the most advanced military industrial complexes in the world, capable of turning out some of the best, if not the best, weapons in the world.
 |
| Is Going To Help To Waste Your Life Away |
 |
| Is Going To Save Your Nation From "Democratization" |
Or, as India's Navy knows, this is worth a lot, much more than money.
Now ask yourself a question. What is going to happen if even France, who claims GDP very close to Russia's (short by about $800 billions) will try to have the whole fleet of these:
 | |
| 3 completed, 4 building. |
 |
| Completed 2, building 4 |
To Be Continued.......
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Military Power (Cont'd 5)
So, here we are, with economics or, rather, economy which is the foundation of it all. I, however, want to warn those who still believe that Wall Street or Goldman Sachs is real economy--you may really not like what you will be reading here. So, for those of you who believe in all this FIRE (Finances, Insurance, Real Estate) "economy", before reading this, you may want to conduct a mental forensic experiment. Imagine what will happen if money would disappear. Of course, there will be chaos, but here is the thing, of which Russians, and I mean modern day Russians, who lived through 1990s, like me, know well--eventually people will barter. As long as any manufacturing still exists, people, under the most difficult conditions, will barter. They will find the market place and they will go with their burlap sacks of potatoes or carrots and will barter them for tires, cigarettes or diesel generators. Eventually the chains of distributors will develop and money will re-appear. The cycle will re-start.
Now, imagine what happens if the manufacturing is gone. Well, finances as we know them, will not exist, period. So, the issue of chicken and egg, that is what is a primer, is solved. After all, most economic schools agree on this fact--no production, no money. If Boeing goes down, the real impact of that is difficult to comprehend, but if tomorrow some shitty brokerage firm goes down, well..it may hurt a bit but life will go on. And it will also recover even if Wall Street goes down. In fact, the damage this condemned place, where crooks and the so called "economists" congregate, dealt and continues to deal to the world is so huge, that it is, in fact, desirable that this bastion of the corruption and selling of the air and phantoms, goes down at some point of time. Commodities exchanges can stay, though, and even then under some serious regulations.
So, now we can briefly, yet again, return to the expenditure. Let's draw a simple analogy: if I lived in the neighborhood where I had my house broken in constantly, including by armed robbers, under the condition that I cannot move away from this hood, guess, what I would do? Right, I would invest in weapons. I would buy several firearms, ranging from 9mm hand guns to 12-gauge Mossberg, I would place them strategically (or, rather, tactically) inside my house and will hope that I will meet any son of a bitch trying to get into my house and harm my family with the barrel of my gun to his forehead, not the other way around. Here, I just described my personal military doctrine. Will this expenditure hurt finances of my household? Somewhat, but those expenses are all worth it, since they keep all kinds of scoundrels away from my home. What is most important here, with my very moderate income, just because I understand the value of a good round penetrating the knees or, in the worst case scenario, the forehead of some creep, my existence will be fairly safe, as opposed to some metro-sexual, and way more richer than me patsy, who can not stand small firearms or NRA. Will his money help him when he has armed robbers breaking into his house? Well, you all know the answer. All this analogies' drawing is very relevant to a discussion on the economic aspect of the war and military power.
It matters most what nation produces, period. Sure, Steel/Iron Production and Energy Consumption are the backbone of it all, but so much more goes into that. Energy Consumption is a key in understanding how economy works. No doubt, MBAs working in Goldman Sachs do consume a lot of energy: from using their computers and lights in the office to charging their Teslas overnight, plus a lot of energy is spent hauling those important asses all over the world in the private jets, mostly for golf courses and their wives (lov...I mean sluts) cosmopolitan shopping. But this consumption of energy by those, mostly self-centered, a-holes pales in comparison to what a single middle sized manufacturing company consumes. In fact, to maintain a steady stream of useless iPhones and other, superficially "needed", consumer goods, enormous number of British Thermal Units (Btus) (or Joules) is consumed. It is difficult to explain to some "programmer" (and I know way too many of those) that iPhones do not grow on the trees and that even this (as any other smart(dumb)-phone) requires metals, plastics, silicon and other huge nomenclature of elements to be produced. This is a colossal consumption of energy. But don't rush to the conclusion that the more the energy, the more is production. It doesn't work quite like that. Consider this, consumption is not enough to "measure" energy, it is production of energy which gives a better perspective. Here is some info on actual production of energy:
Top 3 producing countries by resource worldwide
Why it is so important to emphasize production as opposed to mere consumption? Well, this is military-political blog and we are talking here about military power. Let us recall what father, or, rather, one of, of economic liberalism Herbert Spencer had to say about economy. In his The Military And The Industrial Society in 1896 he states: "Whence it follows that the desire "not to be dependent on foreigners" is one appropriate to the militant type of society. So long as there is constant danger that the supplies of needful things derived from other countries will be cut off by the breaking out of hostilities, it is imperative that there shall be maintained a power of producing these supplies at home and that to this end the required structure shall be maintained. Hence there is a manifest direct relation between militant activities and a protectionist policy..." Surely, Spenser, should he live today, would be eating his words in regards to "militant activities" and a "protectionist policy", but, in general, he correctly identified the approach. In modern history NO real military power emerged without a first most important condition--an industrial capacity. Energy Production, in this case, is a crucial parameter, especially when one considers that weapons' production consumes an enormous amount of energy. Electricity is a key. Here is the wiki's list of electricity generation by countries.
Here is per capita generation by the country.
The first thing which jumps out immediately is the fact (remember, this is military blog?) of Russia generating net and per capita electricity which are the levels of a very developed industrial nations. Let's not stop here, let's review actually a Consumption as CINC model emphasizes. Yet again, Russia is in the top cluster of highly industrially developed nations.
List of countries by electricity consumption
One may say that Qatar and Saudi Arabia consume per capita more than Russia, in fact they consume more than EU and even US. But the trick here is in the fact that their consumption is driven by....well, nothing but oil extraction and air conditioning of their malls and houses. Truth is, they produce nothing other than oil. Electricity generation/consumption, when considered together with other resources, gives us a good insight into the path to being a real military power.
Steel/Iron Production? Absolutely, there are no weapons without it. Guns are made of it, tanks, ships and submarines. Shells and bullets, armor and...you name it--all this is steel and iron. But is it enough again? No. Same as electricity, iron and steel are produced, that is extracted, processed and produced, by many nations but even that is not enough to become a military power. Here is the list of steel production by nation in 2015.
List of countries by steel production
But here is the trick again. China produces almost 10 times the amount of steel USA produces, and almost 12 times the amount Russia produces. Yet, while being a world's largest economy, China, while, certainly emerging, is not yet a global military power. Will just steel/iron production metric define China's emergence as military superpower? No. Neither will the full list of CINC. CINC fails us completely here, since Brazil, which produces a respectable 40% of Russia's steel output is hardly a military power, let alone a global one. Not even close. As we can see, while CINC model gives us SOME important metrics which cannot be disregarded, it fails to answer to the question of what really constitutes a military power. But we already are creeping closer and closer to the answer. So, let's not procrastinate. CINC criteria are just a small part of the answer which is, following Herbert Spenser's logic, in the number of the enclosed technological (industrial) cycles nation possesses. It is quite obvious for any common sense and mildly educated person, with the exception of course of "liberal" so called economists and all other "expert" types who propagate their rubbish constantly in MSM. Yet, none other than late Samuel Huntington mentions what it takes. Remember?
Can US Still Save Itself?
What defined "West's" domination was reduced to 14 points. West's domination (expiring as I am typing this) was achieved largely through military force. That's how it looks like.
Out of those 14 points, highlighted 11, that is 78.6%, are directly connected to a very serious manufacturing or, in modern lingo, "real economy". If one throws away BS about "considerable moral leadership" (a delusion still propagated by Huntington's founded Foreign Policy magazine) and the point about control of all hard currencies, this share increases to 11 out of 12, that is roughly 92%. It is also what makes one a military power. And even this list is still incomplete....
To Be Continued.....
Now, imagine what happens if the manufacturing is gone. Well, finances as we know them, will not exist, period. So, the issue of chicken and egg, that is what is a primer, is solved. After all, most economic schools agree on this fact--no production, no money. If Boeing goes down, the real impact of that is difficult to comprehend, but if tomorrow some shitty brokerage firm goes down, well..it may hurt a bit but life will go on. And it will also recover even if Wall Street goes down. In fact, the damage this condemned place, where crooks and the so called "economists" congregate, dealt and continues to deal to the world is so huge, that it is, in fact, desirable that this bastion of the corruption and selling of the air and phantoms, goes down at some point of time. Commodities exchanges can stay, though, and even then under some serious regulations.
So, now we can briefly, yet again, return to the expenditure. Let's draw a simple analogy: if I lived in the neighborhood where I had my house broken in constantly, including by armed robbers, under the condition that I cannot move away from this hood, guess, what I would do? Right, I would invest in weapons. I would buy several firearms, ranging from 9mm hand guns to 12-gauge Mossberg, I would place them strategically (or, rather, tactically) inside my house and will hope that I will meet any son of a bitch trying to get into my house and harm my family with the barrel of my gun to his forehead, not the other way around. Here, I just described my personal military doctrine. Will this expenditure hurt finances of my household? Somewhat, but those expenses are all worth it, since they keep all kinds of scoundrels away from my home. What is most important here, with my very moderate income, just because I understand the value of a good round penetrating the knees or, in the worst case scenario, the forehead of some creep, my existence will be fairly safe, as opposed to some metro-sexual, and way more richer than me patsy, who can not stand small firearms or NRA. Will his money help him when he has armed robbers breaking into his house? Well, you all know the answer. All this analogies' drawing is very relevant to a discussion on the economic aspect of the war and military power.
It matters most what nation produces, period. Sure, Steel/Iron Production and Energy Consumption are the backbone of it all, but so much more goes into that. Energy Consumption is a key in understanding how economy works. No doubt, MBAs working in Goldman Sachs do consume a lot of energy: from using their computers and lights in the office to charging their Teslas overnight, plus a lot of energy is spent hauling those important asses all over the world in the private jets, mostly for golf courses and their wives (lov...I mean sluts) cosmopolitan shopping. But this consumption of energy by those, mostly self-centered, a-holes pales in comparison to what a single middle sized manufacturing company consumes. In fact, to maintain a steady stream of useless iPhones and other, superficially "needed", consumer goods, enormous number of British Thermal Units (Btus) (or Joules) is consumed. It is difficult to explain to some "programmer" (and I know way too many of those) that iPhones do not grow on the trees and that even this (as any other smart(dumb)-phone) requires metals, plastics, silicon and other huge nomenclature of elements to be produced. This is a colossal consumption of energy. But don't rush to the conclusion that the more the energy, the more is production. It doesn't work quite like that. Consider this, consumption is not enough to "measure" energy, it is production of energy which gives a better perspective. Here is some info on actual production of energy:
Top 3 producing countries by resource worldwide
Why it is so important to emphasize production as opposed to mere consumption? Well, this is military-political blog and we are talking here about military power. Let us recall what father, or, rather, one of, of economic liberalism Herbert Spencer had to say about economy. In his The Military And The Industrial Society in 1896 he states: "Whence it follows that the desire "not to be dependent on foreigners" is one appropriate to the militant type of society. So long as there is constant danger that the supplies of needful things derived from other countries will be cut off by the breaking out of hostilities, it is imperative that there shall be maintained a power of producing these supplies at home and that to this end the required structure shall be maintained. Hence there is a manifest direct relation between militant activities and a protectionist policy..." Surely, Spenser, should he live today, would be eating his words in regards to "militant activities" and a "protectionist policy", but, in general, he correctly identified the approach. In modern history NO real military power emerged without a first most important condition--an industrial capacity. Energy Production, in this case, is a crucial parameter, especially when one considers that weapons' production consumes an enormous amount of energy. Electricity is a key. Here is the wiki's list of electricity generation by countries.
Here is per capita generation by the country.
The first thing which jumps out immediately is the fact (remember, this is military blog?) of Russia generating net and per capita electricity which are the levels of a very developed industrial nations. Let's not stop here, let's review actually a Consumption as CINC model emphasizes. Yet again, Russia is in the top cluster of highly industrially developed nations.
List of countries by electricity consumption
One may say that Qatar and Saudi Arabia consume per capita more than Russia, in fact they consume more than EU and even US. But the trick here is in the fact that their consumption is driven by....well, nothing but oil extraction and air conditioning of their malls and houses. Truth is, they produce nothing other than oil. Electricity generation/consumption, when considered together with other resources, gives us a good insight into the path to being a real military power.
Steel/Iron Production? Absolutely, there are no weapons without it. Guns are made of it, tanks, ships and submarines. Shells and bullets, armor and...you name it--all this is steel and iron. But is it enough again? No. Same as electricity, iron and steel are produced, that is extracted, processed and produced, by many nations but even that is not enough to become a military power. Here is the list of steel production by nation in 2015.
List of countries by steel production
But here is the trick again. China produces almost 10 times the amount of steel USA produces, and almost 12 times the amount Russia produces. Yet, while being a world's largest economy, China, while, certainly emerging, is not yet a global military power. Will just steel/iron production metric define China's emergence as military superpower? No. Neither will the full list of CINC. CINC fails us completely here, since Brazil, which produces a respectable 40% of Russia's steel output is hardly a military power, let alone a global one. Not even close. As we can see, while CINC model gives us SOME important metrics which cannot be disregarded, it fails to answer to the question of what really constitutes a military power. But we already are creeping closer and closer to the answer. So, let's not procrastinate. CINC criteria are just a small part of the answer which is, following Herbert Spenser's logic, in the number of the enclosed technological (industrial) cycles nation possesses. It is quite obvious for any common sense and mildly educated person, with the exception of course of "liberal" so called economists and all other "expert" types who propagate their rubbish constantly in MSM. Yet, none other than late Samuel Huntington mentions what it takes. Remember?
Can US Still Save Itself?
What defined "West's" domination was reduced to 14 points. West's domination (expiring as I am typing this) was achieved largely through military force. That's how it looks like.
1. Owns and operates the international banking system;
2. Controls all hard currencies;
3. Is the world's principal customer;
4. Provides the majority of the worlds finished goods;
5. Dominates international capital markets;
6. Exerts considerable moral leadership within many societies;
7. Is capable of massive military intervention;
8. Controls the sea lanes;
9. Conducts most advanced technical research and development;
10. Controls leading edge technical education;
11. Dominates access to space;
12. Dominates aerospace industry;
13. Dominates international communications;
14. Dominates the high-tech weapons industry.
Out of those 14 points, highlighted 11, that is 78.6%, are directly connected to a very serious manufacturing or, in modern lingo, "real economy". If one throws away BS about "considerable moral leadership" (a delusion still propagated by Huntington's founded Foreign Policy magazine) and the point about control of all hard currencies, this share increases to 11 out of 12, that is roughly 92%. It is also what makes one a military power. And even this list is still incomplete....
To Be Continued.....