About Geopolitics

/ ontheoutside / 1 Comment

As point of departure it’s worth asking a simple question: why after the second world war did the United States emerge as dominant, with the major powers of Europe clearly reduced to playing second fiddle? The answer is straightforward: even after recovery from the war the economic and military power represented by the US dwarfed anything that a single European could marshall. (In that it’s worth recognizing the tight coupling between economic and military power.)

So where are we today? If we compare the US to China, we’re close to being superceded as a production powerhouse and we’re certainly well-behind in population and market size (an issue for training of AI systems or for migration to electric cars). Does that mean we’re on the way out?

The answer is in how to think about it. Our economic and military unit is the US plus our allies in Europe and Asia, with an overall population and market size comparable to or greater than China’s. Like it or not they are all us. It’s important to recognize that our economic and military relationships are not benevolence–they exist to serve us. NATO in particular exists, because after World War II and still today the European allies are our first line of defense against the power of Russia. And it’s not just NATO.

The dimensions of power have changed, so that in the world of today we can’t think just domestically. At the end of the second world war, even enemies like France and Germany recognized that in the new world they had no choice but to learn to get along. We similarly need to go farther in defining bonds of cooperation. In that sense even Brexit is less important than establishing the dimensions of cooperation within the entire alliance.

In today’s world chest-beating xenophobia is suicidal (this recent article has some interesting examples of counter-productive domestic monopolies). High tariff walls translate to non-competitive industries with technology obsolescence and ultimately a lower standard of living and military weakness. Internationalism is necessary and in two distinct pieces. The working relationships with our allies are as important to get right as the working relationships between the states of the US. While those relationships are weaker, they count for market size, technology, and military power. Beyond that, relations are tougher, but there are some areas–peace, climate change, control of nuclear weapons–where it just has to happen. Ignoring those challenges is also suicidal.

Despite the messiness of everyday news we don’t necessarily live in bad or discouraging times. We just need to recognize our strengths and what it takes to leverage them. And the overriding common interest we all have in a single interrelated world.

Math for Anyone Interested

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

On a completely different subject ….

Over the last few years I’ve tried to write a short book for motivated high school kids who might be interested in going beyond the basic high school curriculum. The idea was that they already know a lot more than the general public, and it wouldn’t take much to enable them to see and appreciate some famous results.

I gave it a try with four chapters: on cryptography and quantum computing, on the prime number theorem, on Galois theory, and even (most overambitiously) on Fermat’s last theorem. In all cases I tried to provide some substance but avoiding the terminology and abstraction that usually make these subjects inaccessible.

I have some relevant background. I have a degree in mathematics and taught math in college for a few years. I’ve had a technical career, more in software than in math, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying to explain technical subjects to non-technical audiences. I’ve also done some high school tutoring, and I’ve worked with my children and grandchildren.

None of that says I’m fully-qualified for what I’ve tried to do. I’m posting this not because I think it’s done, but because I think some people might find it interesting, and something useful might be made of it. And I do think there is value in understanding progress in mathematics even for the age of AI.

So here’s the link for anyone interested.

Summarizing the Gaza War

/ ontheoutside / 4 Comments

After all the bloodshed and polemics it’s easy to forget what has actually happened with the Gaza war.

Prior to October 7 Israel was in a pretty good situation that seemed likely to get better.  They had relations with several Arab countries and the prize of a relationship with Saudi Arabia seemed to be in the offing. Palestinians weren’t the main topic, but they also had something to gain from leverage in the process.

Hamas was desperate to prevent all that.  Any moves toward peace were the enemy of a purified Islamic state in Palestine.  On October 7 they carried out the most horrifying and offensive attack possible, with killing of children in front of their parents (and then killing the parents) as well as rapes and anything else they could think of.  The objective was to provoke an Israeli reaction that would torpedo the looming progress.

The Israeli government was certainly capable of understanding what was going on.   However instead of the obvious reaction—whatever we do we do we’re not going to let Hamas dictate our future—they did exactly the opposite.  Why was that? (Contrary to the usual rhetoric this was not a fight for Israel’s existence.)

Simply put, Israel’s interest and Netanyahu’s interest were not the same.  Netanyahu’s long-standing support of Hamas (as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority) and his negligence of reported threats were directly responsible for the success of the Hamas attacks.  And despite his denials, all polls indicated that the Israeli population understood that.  So he had a problem. And the only way out was a great big war.

From that point on, the interests of Hamas and Netanyahu once again coincided.  The more civilians killed the better.  For Hamas it made them heroes defending the Arab world against the inhumanity of the Israelis.  For Netanyahu it proved that only he was tough enough to do what it takes.  (And what’s more, the longer the war the better the chance to bring back his buddy Trump who would support the dictatorial takeover of Israel.)

The interests of Israel however have been lost in the shuffle.  Anti-Semitism everywhere is on the rise, with not just relations with the Arab world but even the existence of Israel now active subjects of dispute.  Further the stated military objective—the elimination of Hamas—is nowhere near accomplished.  Despite the massive destruction and loss of life, it is estimated that Hamas has lost approximately 8,000 of its approximately 30,000-man army.  As the tunnels are mostly intact, there is no plan for how to change that.

But this war was never fought for Israel.  For Netanyahu it’s not clear how much he has burnished his reputation, but any challenge to his power has been pushed out to the indefinite future.  And Hamas is riding high.  So whatever horror the rest of the world may feel, we’ve got to call the war a smashing success for its perpetrators.  May they both rot in Hell.

Threats to Israel’s Existence

/ ontheoutside / 2 Comments

There is one aspect of the Gaza mess that hasn’t drawn enough attention:  that there was nothing inevitable about the success of the Hamas attack.  There was ample warning, but the defense was too complacent and the government was too preoccupied with its own priorities (the judicial takeover and the draconian measures on the West Bank) to pay attention to what mattered.

There’s nothing new about this statement, but the necssary conclusion doesn’t follow—that the Hamas attacks did NOT put Israel in a war for its existence.  The attack should have been a minor issue with far fewer consequences.  The reason it wasn’t was complacency and government corruption.  The attacks became the horrendous incident they were only because of the past and present failures of Netanyahu governments. The outcome of any subsequent such attack depends primarily on whether Israel addresses those failures—arguably more so than on Hamas. 

It was always strange that Israel would respond to the Hamas attack by doing exactly what Hamas clearly wanted them to do. I won’t say options were easy, but it didn’t have to be this. As we’ve noted before, the only way to understand it is to recognize that Netanyahu’s interests and Israel’s interests were not the same. As a distraction from his responsibility, Netanyahu had every incentive to turn the Hamas attacks into the biggest incident he could possibly create.

At this point it’s not even clear how much all the death and destruction has contributed to the “complete destruction” of Hamas. More generally it’s certainly hard to conclude Israel’s position has become more secure.

We all have to come to terms with that fact that the apparently self-evident statement that Israel was in a war for its existence was actually—primarily—Netanyahu’s self-serving lie. And what’s even worse is that for both Hamas and Netanyahu, the more people who die the better.

Hamas and Netanyahu are still playing each other’s game

/ ontheoutside / 3 Comments

One big revelation (at least to me) to come out of the Gaza war is that Netanyahu provided for major financial support to Hamas as a way of weakening the PLO.   The idea was that weakening the PLO would undermine any efforts for a two-state solution.    Netanyahu hates the two-state solution, because his stock-in-trade is as a strongman protecting Israelis from Palestinian evil.  Hamas hates the two-state solution, because (as they announced) they want all non-Muslims gone.

It’s worth emphasizing that these converging interests are still driving this war.  First of all, there is no question that Israel is playing Hamas’ game.  Hamas launched an infinitely repulsive attack in order to provoke a violent Israel response—one that would undermine efforts for peace between Israel and the Arab world.  That Hamas placed its tunnels and other military installations under civilian institutions (such as hospitals) was not just to provoke outrage in the world in general but most specifically to provoke outrage in the Arab world.  The inevitable horrors inflicted on the population would make any coexistence with Israel intolerable.

If anyone other than Netanyahu were running the Israel government, there would have been at least some consideration for the wisdom of giving Hamas exactly what they wanted.  However for Netanyahu there were no such qualms.  This was a marvelous opportunity for pumping up hatred of the Palestinians as well as an opportunity for redeeming himself politically. “Just imagine how much worse this all would have been if instead of from Gaza this was all coming from a Palestinian state right next door!”  What’s more he could put on a show of irreplaceable toughness.  Any issues with his criminal activities or his treasonous past relations with Hamas would be erased by crushing the Palestinians now.  (And think of the opportunities from a subsequent occupation of Gaza.)

Once Israel started with such a response, they were stuck in it–because they had to succeed no matter what.  And for now there is little incentive for either side to stop.  The well-being of the Palestinians, or even the Israelis for that matter, is simply not an issue.  Things are going just fine, and both sides are delivered from the one thing they hate most—which is a workable (two-state) peace.

Clarifying Some Issues for Climate Change

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

It bothers me how much confusion there still is about what it takes to fight climate change.  A recent article in Bloomberg was a case in point.  They rank new EV’s by “greenness”.  I’m not going to talk about the details of what they call green, but the problem is that the whole idea is wrong.  All EV’s are green in the only way that matters, and a ranking by “greenness” just confuses the issue.

I’ll try to be organized about this.  First of all, the primary change that has to take place is the replacement of fossil fuels by sustainable sources of power.  In practice that comes down to moving everything to the electric grid, with a beefing up of that grid to handle the greatly increased demand and with sustainable sources.

The timescale for this transformation is dictated by a carbon budget—there is only so much more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere before the consequences become catastrophic.  All that carbon dioxide just adds up, and the results continue to get (exponentially) worse. To succeed we have to stop burning fossil fuels before we hit the carbon budget limit.  That process has three parts:

  1. Make the electric grid what it has to be:  sustainably generated with much more capacity and much better connectivity.
  2. Move all applications to the electrical network. (Note that hydrogen apps fit here since most of the hydrogen will be electrically-generated.)
  3. Cut down on usage for all of the remaining fossil fuel applications.

The first thing to note is that most conservation efforts fit under item #3, so it’s worth stating unequivocally that conservation by itself is not the solution to climate change. It’s only a piece of what has to happen, and the rest is most of the problem.  And conservation for EV’s doesn’t fit here at all. Item #1 has to happen for all energy uses, so “greenness” of particular car models is an insignificant blip on a much bigger issue.  Finally, it should be obvious that despite what the oil companies tell you, climate change is not primarily a matter of everyone’s personal responsibility:  governments have to take large-scale action.

It’s worth saying a little more about items 1 and 2.  There is quite a lot of #1 that can start now:  improving and expanding the capabilities of the network as well as deployments of solar and wind power.  There are of course limitations to what we can currently get done.  The biggest current issue is in-network energy storage, to handle periods where there isn’t sun or wind.  However, this is an area of such active work that one can expect big improvements in the next few years.  For that reason it’s fair to regard item #1 as mostly a matter of money and commitment. (That’s not to say there can’t be big contributions from new technologies—such as fusion—as they become available.)

Item #2 is harder.  This involves not just familiar issues such as heat pumps but also industrial processes, such as for steel, cement, and plastics.  For these there is still research to be done before we can talk about worldwide deployments.  Overall this is an area with many different application-specific issues and deployment scenarios, so lots of work has to be organized and done in parallel.  Again this goes way beyond individual responsibilities. Note that EV’s fit under item #2—changing to an EV is a contribution regardless of whether your electric utility has done its work yet or not.

Finally there is the international aspect to the whole problem.  It’s amazing how much of the discussion of climate change is about us doing our part–as if our atmosphere were somehow detached from everyone else’s.  This really needs to sink in:  there is only one atmosphere, and we will only succeed if everyone else succeeds too.  Helping poorer countries to cope is not a matter of charity; it’s a matter of our own survival.  Obviously there are going to be negotiations over whose money gets spent on what, but rich countries are going to have to do what it takes for poor countries to redo their infrastructures.  Like it or not we are going to have to help with technology development and deployments worldwide.

Right-Wing Fantasyland meets Chinese EVs

/ ontheoutside / 1 Comment

There was a good article in Bloomberg today describing the many aspects of Chinese dominance in EV’s.  It’s useful if discouraging reading.  How did this happen?  Why is the West so far behind?

Obviously there are multiple items and reasons behind them.  However all of them trace back to a single big one:  the endlessly propagandized right-wing fantasy of the miraculous, all-knowing, perfectly-adaptive private sector.

In this case there were two principal failings of the private sector:

  • Denying climate change, because it was inconvenient for current operations.
  • Discounting any role for government, because the private sector by definition knew better

With these two failings the private sector was blindsided by a market transition they had gleefully dismissed as nonsense—because it didn’t fit with current mindset and current operations of business.  The Chinese did strategic planning, and the private sector in this country congratulated itself on its ability to squelch it.  The oil companies are still at it.  Trump will do it again if he gets a chance. We lost four years of opportunities to position for change–an eternity for competition.

That is not a surprise.  There are things the private sector does well—principally optimizing current operations.  However the current economic powers-that-be are very poor at major transitions.   Instead they will act, as in this case, to hang on to the optimized past and to delay that future for as long as possible.   In other words to defend their their own immediate private interests against the interest of the country as a whole. 

Government of course has no perfect crystal ball, but it doesn’t have the same limitations and the same vested interests. It can act to support future businesses even before their time has come.  We have had some of that.  Both Tesla and SpaceX exist because of Obama-era seed money. (Some readers may remember Romney’s ridiculing Obama for such initiatives!) The mRNA vaccines that stopped Covid were only possible because of decades of government-funded research.  All of that in the face virulent right-wing opposition.  The Chinese government locked up resources and initiated new businesses.  We were too smart for that!

The bottom line here is explicit.   The private sector is not a miracle machine.  Its interests are not the same as our national interests, and it can’t even do a good job of providing for its own success.  We need government to care about the well-being of our people and even about the well-being of its businesses. 

As a final point here it’s worth noting that–contrary to the usual sloganeering–when Adam Smith talked about the “invisible hand” of the marketplace, he was not arguing for government to stay out of the miraculous private sector.  Instead he was making the case for a competitive “free” market, something only possible if government would stop the private sector from perverting the economy with monopolies and government influence.   That’s still a battle today!

Republicans and Guns

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

With all the conversations about guns in this country, it’s worth being clear that the Republican Party is, was, and will ever be the party of guns. 

As we’ve noted before, the big donors to the party don’t care about guns—they care about money.   But guns are important as a means to that end.  Guns elect Republicans, and Republicans deliver tax cuts and relief from regulation.  All of that money has certainly pumped up guns as an identity issue.

However guns are not just one issue among many being promoted.  Guns are central to the whole Republican project.

Going back to Nixon’s “southern strategy” and before, Republicans are all about fear.  They have institutionalized and spread the long-term Southern terror of black insurrection.  There’s a big dangerous black man (or an immigrant) behind every tree, and he’s out to get you and your family.  Blacks control the Democratic Party, so it’s complicit.   Democrats want to take aware your guns and leave you exposed and unprotected.  Joe Biden refuses to help.  You’ve got to take matters into your own hands.  Republicans are the only thing between you and chaos.

As always in this election campaign the big issue is crime.  This isn’t about statistics or really addressing crime in any organized way.  It’s all about that big dangerous black man you have to be ready to shoot.  This isn’t a matter of convincing individual politicians–Republicans can never give up on guns.

The only option is to defeat them.