Category: War

What Would Barnes Wallis (WWBW) do with Iran?

by philg

As the world’s aviation nerds gathering for EAA AirVenture (“Oshkosh”; July 20-26), let’s think a bit about the impact of aviation on human conflict…

The Dambusters Raid, one of the most famous uses of aircraft during World War II, was the brainchild of Barnes Wallis, an aeronautical engineer who sought a clean-sheet-of-paper answer to the question, “What’s the most effective way to reduce Germany’s ability to fight?” Sir Arthur Harris‘s plan was simple: kill as many German civilians as possible via firebombing of cities because a factory whose workers have been killed isn’t going to be productive (and the productivity of workers who survived would be reduced since they’d be homeless). Wallis settled on the idea of destroying hydroelectric dams in Germany’s industrial heartland, thus simultaneously denying German factories the electricity, coal, and water necessary to achieve full production. He looked at the inputs to German manufacturing, especially energy, and tried to destroy those inputs so that it wouldn’t matter how effective Germany was at dispersing factories.

The vulnerability of a dam seems to have been understood by both the Germans and the British, i.e., an explosion right up against the interior wall at a time when the dam was nearly full. As such, the Germans had strung torpedo nets in their reservoirs to prevent traditional torpedoes from being used. Barnes Wallis came up with the idea of a bomb that would skip along the surface of the lake impounded by the dam, roll down the water-side dam wall, and explode. A tremendous number of engineering problems needed to be solved to make this a reality. Paul Brickhill’s classic book is excellent, especially since the author was himself a WWII military pilot, but I recently listened to a 2013 book by James Holland that adds much interesting detail and makes it clear that Barnes Wallis wasn’t quite the lone inventor that we meet in Brickhill’s earlier work.

Arthur Harris was initially skeptical, to say the least: “This is tripe of the wildest description. There are so many ifs and buts that there is not the smallest chance of it working.” A combination of engineering persistence and incredible bravery and sacrifice by 617 Squadron, however, proved that Wallis had been on the right track. Revisionist historians later minimized the damage done to Nazi Germany by the 19 planes sent out on May 16, 1943 by noting that the Germans successfully scrambled to rebuild the dams, as well as many washed-out bridges and factories, before winter. James Holland points out in his book that forcing the Germans to divert tens of thousands of workers and perhaps $10 billion adjusted to post-Biden dollars. The breached dams had terrible consequences for German arms production just when they needed to support their campaigns against the Russians and against the Allies in Italy. The breached dams also took labor and money away from beefing up the Atlantic Wall against the invasion that actually happened in 1944.

Another passion for Barnes Wallis was precision bombing with 10-ton bombs that he designed. These pioneering “bunker busters” were used to good effect against various German installations, including for submarines and V-2 rockets, as well as to sink the battleship Tirpitz. Any time that we’re bombing fortified infrastructure in Iran, therefore, we’re channeling the spirit of Wallis.

What Would Barnes Wallis (WWBW) do with Iran? More or less the opposite of what the U.S. has been doing. Wallis would almost surely have recommended taking out the Iranian oil industry, a critical energy input to everything else that happens in Iran, and the industrial-scale electric power generation currently available to the Islamic Republic to run any factories that it still has and/or rebuilds. Wallis probably would also try to destroy Iran’s ability to move energy and materials, e.g., by taking out bridges, railroads, airports, etc. At a minimum, this would keep the Islamic Republic busy rebuilding and people who are busy rebuilding can’t put their energy into weapons production or military facility construction.

Maybe the U.S. strategy of slowly surrending to Iran will, in the long run, prove to have more merit. I hope so!

Full post, including comments

How can the U.S. benefit from the proposed Iran peace deal?

by philg

We’re informed that a peace deal with Iran is coming any day now. Some of the terms seem worse than what Carthage had to give when they surrendered to Rome. For example, “Trump’s $300 billion problem on the Iran agreement”:

In an interview with CBS News Monday morning, Vice President JD Vance seemed to tacitly confirm the premise that Iran could be given “access” to a reconstruction fund worth as much as $300 billion.

Ever since that interview, the administration has strained to clarify things. It has emphasized that this money wouldn’t come from US taxpayers. Instead, it would be money from other Gulf countries that would only be available if Iran complies with a peace deal.

Vance said late Monday on Fox News that “we would invite other countries — not us, but other countries — to invest in” Iran. He echoed that Tuesday, telling Megyn Kelly that the US wouldn’t let the United Arab Emirates, for example, “invest in Iran, unless the Iranians change their behavior.”

When the Obama administration and other countries cut a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, it included giving Iran access to billions of dollars. In that case, it wasn’t money from other countries, but instead Iran’s own assets that had been frozen in foreign banks under sanctions. Estimates generally placed the dollar figure around $50 billion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran still officially hates the U.S., right? They’ve been chanting “Death to America” for 47 years. To the extent that they have money and sovereignty, therefore, won’t they use that money to build weapons factories? To the extent that they have electric power, won’t they use that power to run the factories 24/7?

One purported benefit is oil can flow through the Strait of Hormuz without interference from the Iranian Navy that, we’re informed, no longer exists. But if the U.S. is an oil exporter, how do we benefit from the ability of competitors in the Persian Gulf to export through the Strait?

Maybe Donald Trump is doing this for immediate political gain? The price of gasoline will go down a little and, therefore, Democrats who were previously climate alarmists and wanted higher gasoline prices to discourage consumption will stop their recent complaints about the higher gasoline prices that they previously advocated? This explanation seems implausible because surrendering to an enemy, even if you call it “winning”, doesn’t usually make a politician more popular. Wouldn’t Trump enjoy more popular support, at least among Republicans, with round-the-clock bombing of Iran’s oil industry (thus denying the ayatollahs the money they need to build weapons factories) and electricity plants (thus denying the regime the grid-scale electric power that it needs to run its weapons factories)?

Separately, if the goal is to keep the non-existent Iranian Navy out of the Strait, couldn’t we use robot submersibles to make the waters unfriendly to those whom we don’t like? Here’s an example from Anduril that can endure for 10 days:

Full post, including comments

Memorial Day in Alaska

by philg

Reading to remember the sacrifices that some U.S. military personnel made during World War II: 81 Days Below Zero: The Incredible Survival Story of a World War II Pilot in Alaska’s Frozen Wilderness. When Seward bought the territory in 1867, nobody could have imagined that the interior would end up being useful for the yet-to-be-invented heavier-than-air military airplane, including the B-24 that Leon Crane was co-piloting in the crash that led to his fellow airmens’ deaths and his own remarkable survival.

Of course, most of the military deaths in Alaska occurred in the Aleutian Islands battles (see Justifying our total war against Japan for some Fairbanks museum exhibits on this subjectd). It’s tough from today’s perspective to see the military value of these fights, but we can still reflect on the memory of those who were willing to sacrifice their lives in the cold for the perceived value at the time.

I was in Juneau yesterday. Seward doesn’t look too happy about the future state that he purchased:

Full post, including comments

New York Times: Family disintegration leads to military disintegration

by philg

The New York Times’s latest explanation for why we can’t win wars… “You Can’t Defend a Nation When Soldiers Don’t Have Child Care”:

After the draft ended in 1973, the composition of the armed services began to change. More women, people of color and lower-income Americans joined up. A steady paycheck became “the principal rationale to induce persons to join the all-volunteer force,” according to testimony given before a 1978 Senate subcommittee hearing on the Army. One unanticipated consequence was the growing number of families with young children living on Army bases. “At times of alert,” Representative Robin Beard, a Tennessee Republican who had written a report on the Army, told the subcommittee, “the battalion headquarters and company headquarters would be filled with children.” Soldiers with children had “no place to take” them.

The child care problem wasn’t limited to emergencies. As costs rose relative to incomes, more military spouses had to enter the work force, and child care gaps became constant.

From 1985 to 2022, the number of active-duty single parents in the military increased 67 percent…

We supposedly have a fertility collapse among native-born Americans in the aggregate, but a baby boom for unmarried (“single parents”) members of the military. Maybe this is because women who are deployed are highly likely to become pregnant? “Active duty servicewomen have high rates of unintended pregnancy” says this 2013 paper, which cites “difficulties faced by deployed women”:

I’m still waiting for our lavishly funded military to disable Iran’s oil production and electric power generation so that the country can’t rebuild and restart its weapons factories. Maybe the military is waiting for me to go to the nearest base and take care of a toddler?

Loosely related, a U.S. senator from Connecticut roots for the Islamic Republic of Iran:

He/she/ze/they previously said that the war was “illegal” (which means that anyone in the U.S. military can refuse orders to participate?) and said our military effort was “destined to end in failure” (due to lack of child care?):

Full post, including comments

What could make us look weaker than going to Pakistan and negotiating with Iran as a peer?

by philg

Wall Street Journal, yesterday, “Iran Has Strong Cards Going Into U.S. Talks but Risks Overplaying Its Hand”:

The question now is whether Iranian leaders will overplay this critical lever at the planned meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, with Vice President JD Vance by insisting on maximalist demands despite losing much of Iran’s military and industrial base during the war. This is something that President Trump, despite all his apparent eagerness to wind down the conflict, will likely find impossible to accept.

“From Tehran’s point of view, they think that they have Trump over a barrel. They think they have weaponized the world economy, have taken everything that America can throw at them, and came out standing,” said William Wechsler, director of Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council and a former senior Pentagon official. “Trump blinked first. Now, the Iranians won’t take a deal unless it is a deal in which Trump and Vance completely abandon U.S. national security interests in the Middle East.”

The playing field is clearly stacked in Iran’s favor after more than a month of warfare that involved a dozen nations in the region. This is largely because the crucial component of any negotiation—the time factor—now works for Tehran.

What could possibly make us look weaker and more pathetic than this? Maybe if the negotiations were held in the house in Pakistan where Osama bin-Laden resided and which at least some people in Pakistan had to know about?

I can’t figure out why we wouldn’t just keep disabling or destroying more assets of the Islamic Republic regime, e.g., oil production and electricity generation until either (1) they surrendered, or (2) they had so little industrial capability left that they couldn’t maintain significant military power. If we didn’t like high domestic oil prices we could simply reduce the U.S. oil market’s exposure to the world oil market, e.g., by limiting exports to whatever they were in January 2026. If the Europeans and Asians were unhappy about not being able to get oil through the Strait of Hormuz they would have been free to do something about that, e.g., send their own warships.

Until they started to decline, Rome never surrendered even after grievous battlefield losses, e.g., to Hannibal, and Rome wouldn’t negotiate with another power as a peer. They sent some low-level guys to Carthage to dictate terms for Carthage’s ultimate surrender, for example, not the equivalent of a vice president. And they didn’t call it a “negotiation”. Carthage was not their peer, nor their partner in peace, etc. Speaking of Rome… on the very day that J.D. Vance headed to Pakistan to surrender to the Islamic Republic of Iran, plans for a triumphal arch in D.C. are unveiled:

Maybe we need a more muscular president? The NYT says that Kamala Harris remains available:

Loosely related…

Full post, including comments

Why do Iranians who support the Islamic Republic regime stay in the U.S. and pay taxes to fund our military?

by philg

Here’s a guy whose profile says that he lives in San Francisco and works at Google. In other words, Iman Rahmati pays taxes to fund the U.S. military.

Iman Rahmati says “Every piece of international law, every moral code, every sign of dignity in a nation, in an army, has been broken by Trump, Netanyahu, and their minions. Bombing hospitals, schools, civilians, universities, infrastructure, factories, etc. The west has zero moral superiority from now on. International order is fractured and no nation has the guts standing up to them, well except the one that is right now.”

Iman (note that this means “faith in Allah” according to ChatGPT and is distinct from “Imam”) is upset that his alma mater was bombed, blaming Israel (the basis for saying that Israel did this vs. the U.S. is unclear):

As it happens, this university has been under EU sanctions since 2014 for its work in “ballistic missile production”:

Obviously, this isn’t going to change the opinion of the righteous Iranian immigrant to the U.S. regarding the legitimacy of the attack on his alma mater. Therefore, the question of why he would want to stay in the U.S. and pay taxes to support the bombing of his alma mater, as well as other targets in the Islamic Republic of Iran, remains a live one. If he is smart and productive enough to work at Google he could presumably transfer to a Google office in Canada (follow Barbra Streisand), the Islamic Republic of Great Britain, pro-Hamas Al-Andalus (Spain), or even work from home after returning to help defend his beloved home country.

There have to be tons more Iranians who are in a similar position. They support the Islamic Republic regime and live in the U.S. and thus pay taxes to help the U.S. military either (1) bring down the regime that they support, or (2) militarily cripple the regime that they support.

From the New York Post… “Niece, grandniece of slain notorious Iranian Gen. Soleimani arrested by ICE while enjoying lavish lifestyles in LA”:

The niece of slain Iranian terror mastermind Gen. Qasem Soleimani – who showcased her luxe LA lifestyle on Instagram while bashing the US as the “Great Satan” – and her daughter have been arrested by ICE agents, the State Department announced Saturday.

Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, who allegedly celebrated attacks on US soldiers and military bases, and her daughter Sarinasadat Hosseiny, have had their green cards revoked over their ties to the Iranian regime.

“While living in the United States, she promoted Iranian regime propaganda, celebrated attacks against American soldiers and military facilities in the Middle East, praised the new Iranian Supreme Leader, denounced America as the ‘Great Satan,’ and voiced her unflinching support for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated terror organization,” according to a State Department letter confirming the Friday arrests.

Afshar, 47, entered the US in 2015 on a tourist visa, was granted asylum in 2019 and secured a green card in 2021 from the Biden administration.

She made at least four trips back to Iran since receiving her green card, the Department of Homeland Security said.

(This is a great argument for eliminating asylum-based immigration in the U.S. Our government bureaucrats aren’t capable of distinguishing between members of a purportedly oppressive government and those who are actually opponents of said government. This makes sense since few government workers speak or read Farsi, Arabic, or the other languages prevalent in countries from which migrants claim asylum. And none of our government workers have first-hand experience with current events in all of the world’s most violent and dysfunctional societies from which, bizarrely, we have decided to prioritize immigration (the door is closed, however, to folks from Japan, Switzerland, and Taiwan!).)

I can understand why someone would hate what the U.S. government, including the U.S. military, does. And I can understand why someone who was born in the U.S. would stay in the U.S. under those conditions (few other countries will accept migrants as we do). But I can’t understand why someone who is at least a dual citizen and who has the right to leave the U.S. at any time would choose instead to stay and help fund the U.S. government.

Full post, including comments

Jeffrey Epstein was at the heart of the decision to fight Iran and also at the heart of the decision to stop fighting Iran?

by philg

“AOC says Trump is willing to ‘risk world war’ by using Iran attack as Epstein files distraction” (Independent, March 5, 2026):

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has slammed President Donald Trump over the joint U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran, accusing him of “risking world war” to distract from the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

“And every time he’s [used the U.S. military], it has been consistent with a spike or a revelation in what is happening with the Epstein files. I don’t think that that coincidence is something to dismiss off the cuff. I think that he feels existentially tied to it.”

Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who spearheaded the passage of the Act last year, posted on X Sunday afternoon: “PSA: Bombing a country on the other side of the globe won’t make the Epstein files go away, any more than the Dow going above 50,000 will.”

A Democrat from Oregon:

If bombing Iran distracted people from digging into the Epstein files, how does walking away and leaving the Islamic Republic of Iran with intact oil industry, electric power plants, and everything else it needs to rebuild its weapons factories and military help distract people from digging into the Emmanuel Goldstein-Trump connection?

Separately, I’ve lost track of how people explain that the Biden-Harris administration, with exclusive and complete access to all Epstein files for four years, wasn’t able to find anything regarding Donald Trump that was worth leaking to the press. Friends from and in Maskachusetts believe, as a matter of established and verified fact, that Donald Trump, as part of his association with Jeffrey Epstein, either (1) raped a 13-year-old girl, (2) killed a 12- or 13-year-old girl, or some combination of the two. Why wouldn’t the Democrat-run Biden administration have been motivated to release all of the evidence related to these kinds of crimes by a political opponent?

Full post, including comments

Won’t Iran use the two-week ceasefire to regroup, rearm, and raise money by exporting oil?

by philg

How does the U.S. benefit from a two-week ceasefire in the war against Iran? I’m sure that some of our pilots could use a rest, but otherwise isn’t the main beneficiary our adversary? Iran’s oil industry wasn’t damaged so the regime can keep loading up tankers with crude and shipping it out to customers via the Strait of Hormuz. Thus, the Islamic Republic’s stockpile of cash will soon be back where it was. Iran can dig any buried missiles out of damaged buildings and bunkers and set them up on launchers ready to go on April 21. Iran should be able to get many of its weapons factories back into production as well since the U.S. didn’t damage Iran’s electric power grid or generating stations. Every Islamic Republic military officer or political leader who was busy running from bunker to bunker and fearful that a traitor would rat out his GPS coordinates to Israel or the U.S. can go home, shower, and relax.

Iran has already said that it isn’t going to do any of the things that the U.S. has demanded, e.g., give up making ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Is there a realistic chance that the Islamic Republic will change its mind during the two weeks of this ceasefire?

The pro-Iran/anti-Israel in DC featured by the WSJ:

Full post, including comments

Shout-out to Igor Sikorsky after the F-15 pilot/WSO rescue in Iran

by philg

Let’s have a shout-out for Igor Sikorsky, the pioneer in mass-production of helicopters, in honor of the recent successful rescue of an F-15 crew (pilot + WSO/”Wizzo” (also a competent pilot)) in Iran. Sikorsky’s perspective:

If a man is in need of rescue, an airplane can come in and throw flowers on him, and that’s just about all. But a direct lift aircraft could come in and save his life.

[later] For me, the greatest source of comfort and satisfaction is the fact that our helicopters have saved up to the present time (1969) over fifty thousand lives and still continue with their rescue missions. I consider this to be the most glorious page in the history of aviation.

I guess we should also thank the Soviet revolutionaries who drove Sikorsky, already a successful aircraft designer and industrialist, out of Russia and into Connecticut in 1919.

Finally, of course, let’s celebrate the tough-to-imagine bravery of U.S. military helicopter crews. Just in time for Easter, they enabled a man to rise from being presumed dead.

Who wants to place bets on the forthcoming Netflix movie? The helicopter door gunners will be female, Black, trans, gay, or all four?

Separately, foreign haters seem to concentrating on the cost of the mission. Here’s a white flag waver (Frenchman) showing photos of aircraft costing less than one day of tax revenue from NVIDIA employees and investors and implying that the cost of the rescue was too high:

From the Islamic Republic of Great Britain: “The MC-130J aircraft used to rescue the second US airmen cost more than $100 million (£77 million) each”

No mention of the fact that a Minnesota day care could burn through $100 million of tax money without ever having even a single child come through the front door.

Our brothers, sisters, and binary-resisters across the Atlantic seem to have some difficulty understanding the productivity of the U.S. economy. Separately, since hardly any of NATO members will let us use their airspace or bases (Germany and the UK are exceptions?) what is the value of continuing to spend U.S. tax money on NATO? We don’t have a dog in the Europe-Russia tension. If when we’re actually at war our European bases become useless due to airspace closures by purported allies, e.g., France, Spain, and Italy, what value does the U.S. get out of NATO?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Why is it legal for the U.S. to shut off oil and electric power in Cuba, but a “war crime” if we were to do it to Iran?

by philg

We’re not at war with Cuba, as far as I know, and Cubans don’t chant “Death to America” while building advanced weapons. Nonetheless, we’ve supposedly prevented Cubans from getting oil and, thus, generating electric power. From state-sponsored NPR… “How the U.S. oil blockade is taking a high toll on everyday Cubans”:

For millions of Cubans, daily life has turned into a desperate struggle. Earlier this week, Cuba was forced into a nationwide blackout after months of the U.S. effectively choking off oil shipments to the island from Cuba’s allies. The country continues to experience rolling blackouts. And meanwhile, President Trump continues to float the idea of taking over the country. But amid negotiations with the U.S., Cuban officials say they don’t intend to go anywhere.

(According to the U.S. Department of State, NPR is simply lying, but that isn’t relevant for the purposes of this post. Let’s assume that NPR Is telling the truth.)

Trump-hostile media outlets complain that U.S. policy toward Cuba is cruel, but not that it is a “crime” or a “war crime” (NYT example).

The most obvious way to reduce the Islamic Republic of Iran’s long-term military power is to disable the country’s oil industry and electric power generation. Without money from selling oil, the Islamic Republic wouldn’t be able to rebuild weapons factories. Without a surplus of electric power, the Islamic Republic wouldn’t be able to run its weapons factories.

The same newspaper that implies it was not a crime for us to disable Cuba’s electric power says that it would definitely be a “war crime” to do anything to harm our actual enemy, Iran. NYT, March 24, 2026:

Intentionally targeting the country’s energy infrastructure could constitute a war crime under international law.

Here’s another mystery… “Iran Moves to Formalize Toll Plan in Strait of Hormuz” (NYT):

Tehran has effectively closed off the critical waterway, turning back container ships on Friday, and Iranian lawmakers are considering whether to charge fees to pass.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps said Friday that it had turned back three container ships attempting to enter what it described as a designated corridor, declaring that “the Strait of Hormuz is closed” and warning that any unauthorized traffic would face “severe action,” according to a statement carried by Fars.

We’ve been told that the U.S. has sunk the entire Iranian navy and also that A-10 Warthogs are patrolling the Strait of Hormuz. How is Iran able to operate military naval vessels, even boat-sized, that can “turn back” a ship? Maybe the answer is that Iran is radioing the ships and threatening them with drones or missiles?

Full post, including comments