Why Wars End

From my study of history, I have found that there are only 4 major reasons why wars end. They are:

1. The capture of a capital

Good examples of this are the capture of Carthage which ended the Punic Wars and the capture of Constantinople which ended the Byzantine Empire. If Napoleon had captured St. Petersburg (Russia's capital at that time), Russia probably would have surrendered. Oddly, Napoleon's failure at Moscow was the main reason Hitler abandoned his attempt to capture that city. If Hitler had captured Moscow, the USSR would have likely surrendered. The impending capture of Hitler's capital compelled him to commit suicide and led to his nation's defeat.

2. the surrender or capture of a key leader

Examples include the surrenders of Napoleon, General Lee, and Lord Cornwallis. All these men were respected and capable leaders. When they gave up, their followers knew the cause was lost and followed suit. Tokugawa succeeded in unifying Japan and ending civil war by defeating his rivals and executing them.

3. the death of a key leader

The death of Genghis Khan saved Europe from Mongol conquest, because all the Mongol generals were required to return to Mongolia to elect a new Khan. The deaths of Attila, Alexander, Harold II, Barbarossa, and Charles XII likewise ended their campaigns. More recently, the death of the leader of the Tamil Tigers ended the civil war in Sri Lanka.

4. the sudden change of the balance of power

Imperial Germany was compelled to surrender by the entry of the US into the war and a series of defeats. Imperial Japan was compelled to surrender by the atomic bomb and the USSR's declaration of war. The Bolshevik revolution brought an end to Russia's participation in WWI. The Iran-Iraq War was ended by a UN Resolution. Often new leaders will seek to end an ongoing war, as Nixon did in Vietnam and Gorbachev did in Afghanistan.

From these principles, it is clear that the key to victory lies with subduing the enemy leaders. 
 

Is Infantry Obsolete?

I want to make it clear that commando raids and the like have been and will most likely continue to be useful.
What I mean by infantry are large units of lightly-armed ground troops sent to attack, defend, or occupy.

I think infantry in the 21st century will vanish as cavalry did in the 20th century. Consider the following:

Infantry units move too slowly and are too weak to be of much use in modern warfare. They can't defend themselves against tanks or aircraft without special weapons while tanks, artillery, and aircraft can attack infantry with impunity. About the only thing infantry are good for is fighting other infantry, and they do that worse than aircraft, tanks, or artillery.

I know there have been many cases were infantry have disabled tanks with grenades or heavy weapons and similar cases with aircraft, but those are rare. Tanks, artillery, and aircraft have destroyed far more tanks than infantry. Aircraft & anti-aircraft artillery have destroyed far more aircraft than infantry.

Since infantry are so vulnerable, they require constant support from aircraft and artillery to move and attack. When they lack that, about all they can do is dig in and hope the enemy either gives up or sends their infantry at them. Infantry can be useful in hit-and-run attacks against supply convoys, but not much else. Even when they have support, they are still vulnerable to ambushes, booby traps, and snipers. Booby traps counted for almost half of US combat deaths during the Vietnam War.

The 20th century saw many examples of large infantry units getting slaughtered during an attack. The battles of WWI were probably the best examples of this. I would think this would put a stop to the practice of infantry assaults just as the Charge of the Light Brigade effectively put an end to cavalry assaults.

Even a successful infantry attack like D-Day required massive air and naval bombardment plus a ruse to lure away the German heavy units. And in spite of all that, there were still massive casualties. If the Germans had had sufficient air support that day or fortified the beaches more, the Allies would have been creamed.

I understand the romantic attachment to infantry. For most of history, infantry were the backbone of armies. Times have changed however. Armies stopped using horses after motor vehicles were invented and stopped using bows and arrows after firearms were invented.

But aren't infantry still useful in a counterinsurgency war like in Afghanistan? Well, it's been 12 years and the Taliban still have not been defeated, despite being outnumbered & outgunned. Their main battlefield success involves killing US infantry. If there was no infantry there, the Taliban would have almost nothing to attack.

The history of the 20th century shows that the worst way to fight infantry is with other infantry. It's time to stop risking the lives of these soldiers out of fondness for some outdated & fictional notion of chivalry.

An Encounter With a Die-hard Obama Drone

Traffic was heavy today on I-90. A car in the other lane pulled ahead of me, and the driver leaned over the passenger seat to wave an Obama sign at me. He must have taken offense at my bumper stickers. I have one that says "politicians prefer unarmed peasants", another that says "are you better off than you were 4 trillion dollars ago? with an Obama logo in the O, and the 3rd one is a parody of the "coexist" sticker that spells out "idiots" with religious symbols.

I got a good laugh from my highway companion. 

How nutty is a guy who drives around with an Obama sign in the front seat of their car AFTER the election?

Did the US Need to Fight in WW2?

Short answer: No.

I know that WW2 has been portrayed as a triumph of good over evil, and to some extent that is true. The Nazis and Imperial Japanese committed many atrocities and it is good thing that they were stopped. However, neither of them was a threat to the US and neither would have attacked the US had it remained neutral. 

Let's look at the neutrality part first. The US put various restrictions on Japan in response to Japan's attack on China in 1937: there was an embargo of oil & scrap metal, the Panama canal was closed to Japan, and trade links were cut. Later, the US began sending military aid to both Britain and China under the Lend Lease Act. This was a violation of international law of the time. The Hague Convention of 1907, which the US agreed to, gives laws for neutral nations during war. Article 6 of that treaty states:

"The supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, of war-ships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden."

So the US failed to be neutral before the war and thus forfeited the protection given to neutral countries.

After Pearl Harbor, Japan and Germany declared war on the US and vice versa. German submarines sank many US merchant ships, but there was no danger of Germany ever invading the US. The Germans couldn't even get across the English channel. Even if the Germans had been able to invade, that chance was lost as soon as they invaded the USSR. So the US was in no danger of being conquered by Germany.

Japan had a similar problem. Even if they had been able to invade the US, the army was scattered around the Pacific and the bulk of it was tied up in China. So they could not have invaded either. The Japanese did not want to invade anyway- they were only interested in creating an empire in Asia. Their navy was a threat, but one which was easily defeated. The US broke their codes and destroyed most of their carriers at the Battle of Midway. The Japanese navy ceased to be a threat after that and spent the rest of the war losing every naval battle.

So, neither Germany nor Japan was a threat to the US and neither would have declared war on the US if it had stayed neutral. It's possible Germany could have defeated the USSR if the US had stayed neutral, but I doubt it. It's also possible Japan could have successfully built an empire in Asia, but again, I doubt it. No nation in history has ever succeeded in controlling that much territory for any length of time. Empires always collapse. 

I think the main lesson of WW2 is that the best way to maintain peace is to avoid alliances, sanctions, and do not send military aid to anyone. Sweden and Switzerland did this during WW2 and did not suffer from the war.   

  

Derpmania: The Best of Team Blue Strawman Arguments

Yesterday as I was leaving the grocery store, I saw a guy collecting signatures. He was a Democrat trying to get on the ballot. He started to give me his pitch and when he brought up trying to ban guns in bars, I had to interrupt him. This is in Chicago where 1) it is already very hard to own a gun legally and 2) still has hundreds of gun homicides each year.

I pointed out that such laws are useless because the people who would get into a gun fight in a bar aren't going to give a damn what the law says. The net effect of gun-free zones is to encourage criminals to attack people, because the criminals can be confident no one is going to fight back.

His retort was to say that we have to have laws otherwise people will do crazy things, like libertarians who want to let people drive 140 mph. I said that I am a libertarian, I know many, and I've never met any argue for a thing like that. He claimed to know many who did. At this point, I figured I'd just sign his petition and move on as my fried chicken dinner was getting cold. I figure it's always better to have more people on the ballot no matter what their views.

Lately, I've been amazed at how quickly and how frequently Team Blue resorts to strawman arguments. I used to think they were just bad at thinking. Now I realize they have no idea what thinking is. The thrill of their self-righteousness is all the evidence they need. Since they are incapable of considering opposing views, everyone who disagrees with them must automatically be stupid or evil.

I am astounded at their idiocy.  

So you wanna be a comedian...

I've doing stand-up as a hobby for about 3 years, mostly in Chicago. In that time, I've been to around 500 open-mics and seen dozens of comedians come and go. That hardly makes me an expert, but you don't need to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing.

Here are some observations/advice about the life of a comedian:

1) Comedy is showbiz and the competition is intense. If you really want to make a career out of comedy, be ready to spend the first 5 to 10 years making little or no money from it.

2) LA and NYC charge for stage-time at open mics, so its best to practice in other cities with good comedy scenes where you get free stage time. This includes cities like Chicago and Washington DC.

3) About 99% of people who try comedy make no money from it and the rest make little. For many, the peaks of their careers may be performing on cruise ships or being an opening act for years.

4) All comedy clubs have idiotic, please-laugh-we-beg-of-you names. I have no idea why this is.

5) If you go to mixed open mics, you will be spending 3 or 4 hours listening to guitars. If you go to comedy open mics, you will be spending 3 or 4 hours listening to unpolished jokes or the same jokes over and over. You will quickly tire of dick jokes.

6) Comedians tend to be unhappy, drunken, male, and drug-addled. There are pros and cons to this.

7) The most successful people polish their acts at open mics and then enter into contests. A good showing in a contest usually gets the ball rolling.

8) Showcases are often just glorified open mics, but they're still good practice.

9) Even the most popular comedians on the open mic/showcase circuit still have day jobs- often menial ones.

10) Although most comedians start in their 20s, there have been plenty of late-bloomer comedians like Rodney Dangerfield and Louis CK.

11) If stand-up doesn't work out for you, try improv, written comedy, or musical comedy.

12) Happiness is all there is; everything else is just a way to get there. There's plenty of fun to be had as a mere "open miker".

This site is good place to learn more about a comedy scene in a major city. I have written a few articles for them. 

Thoughts on Math Education

As a former math teacher and current math tutor, I've have seen enough to say that students who fail to learn math fail for the same reason: they were taught badly. By this I mean a faulty method was used. In almost all cases, the faulty method is too abstract.

People, and children in particular, are much better at thinking in concrete terms like time, money, length, etc. instead of pure numbers. For this reason, I strongly believe that theory in math should be kept at an absolute minimum and that most if not all exercises should be word problems.

I say this because I have met many students who can solve complicated arithmetic problems and then get stumped by the simplest word problems. It is though there is a wall in their minds which separates math from everything else. Teachers must remember that math, like language, is a tool for making sense of the world. Just as you can't learn to speak by copying words out of a dictionary, math cannot be learned with just flashcards, formulas, and drills.  

I realize there is the old tug-of-war between conceptual vs. procedural understanding. Again, I see language learning as the example to follow. Before children learn about reading, spelling, and grammar, they must first learn how to speak. Intuitive knowledge must proceed deep understanding. If children were taught to speak the same way most are taught math, there would be little speaking and a lot of grunting and pointing.

Math is a fascinating subject, but it is dire need of being taught in a more sensible way. The practice of trying to turn students into little mathematicians needs to die. Instead, they should be taught how to use math with simple, practical examples.