Web and Tech

A Puzzlement, Part 2.5 – The 7.62mm Mystery

Michael Cessna August 8, 2025

This is not the typical article that I write, here. In an odd way, this is unusually personal…and I have no real idea why.

What started as a curious observation, eventually became something of an obsession. I knew that something was wrong about my observation, but I couldn’t put my finger on why it was wrong. Many might see this as an odd — possibly disturbing — example of OCD, but as you will see, while it is certainly “odd”, it is not irrational…Not least, because it is properly placed between two earlier articles here. It is connected to the two, but because it was so odd, it appears here as the third installment, instead of its proper place as the second article in the series.

It took that long for me to parse out what had happened. As to why it happened…well, we’ll get to that point.

Firearms are curious things, when it comes to weapons. If you look back through all verifiable human history, there are no mentions of “firearms”, as we understand the term — going back as far as c.50,000 years ago, to the oldest cave paintings and petroglyphs — before about the 8th Century AD (c.900 AD). Every other weapon that appears is a club, a spear, a bow and arrow, a sling, and the occasional jawbone of an ass. But, once gunpowder was invented, and someone realized that it was useful as a weapon in more than rockets, development began in earnest.

Over the centuries, lessons were learned, and weapons, projectiles and propellants were improved, sometimes slowly, sometimes at breakneck speeds…Until 1945.

In the aftermath of World War 2, there were something like thirteen “calibers” of military small arms in general use in the world. As the Cold War began to dawn, the Soviet Union — in the form of Russia — established a regimen of standardization in small arms ammunition, beginning with the 7.62x54mmR caliber for rifles and machine guns, and the 7.62x25mm “Tokarev” for handguns and submachine guns. This was not unusual — the 7.62mm as a basic bore diameter had been settled on by the Soviet’s predecessor, the Imperial Russia of the Romanov Dynasty.

(Note: When reading a weapon’s caliber in millimeters, the numbers at the beginning are the bullet’s diameter in millimeters; the number following the ‘x’ is the overall length of the cartridge, again in millimeters.)

But, before the Warsaw Pact was formally organized, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949. As a purely and openly military alliance, the NATO member states quickly decided that the alliance’s national militaries needed to standardize on a common caliber, even if they did not adopt the same small arms.

To describe caliber in brief, caliber is determined by the diameter of the barrel, but is also determined by the chamber — which holds the cartridge case — and the spiral grooves (“rifling“) that stabilizes the projectile as it moves down the barrel. It is this combination of features that determine the caliber of a firearm, and is the reason why you cannot “trade” ammunition between different weapons, without a great deal of serious machinist work.

But…The first, and most critical step in making a barrel is to punch a bore down the length of the “barrel blank” (the steel bar stock you are cutting the barrel from) at the precise diameter, because as the old rubric goes, you can take material away, but you cannot add it back. With this established, you can move on to rifling the bore, and reaming our the chamber for the (usually) brass cartridge case, forming the overall “cartridge“.

This is not an academic exercise, because in the world of military procurement, few decisions are made without extensive documentation, cost-benefit analysis, and strategic rationale, because the cartridge — the bullet, propellant and case — represents a colossal expenditure of money and infrastructure. For NATO, a standard cartridge for rifles and machine guns made perfect sense, both in a manufacturing sense, but also in the tactical and strategic senses: being able to share ammunition would cure one of the chief problems the Allies had during World War 2.

So…What’s the problem? The problem is what the NATO nations standardized on…and no one knows why. One of the most significant standardization decisions of the 20th century — the global convergence on 7.62mm-diameter ammunition — remains curiously undocumented and logically inexplicable.

Consider the scope of this convergence: the Soviet 7.62×25mm Tokarev pistol cartridge for handguns and submachine guns; the 7.62×39mm “intermediate” rifle round for the AK-47/AKM; the 7.62×51mm NATO standard for the M14, FN FAL and H&K G3, as well as in the M-60 and MAG-58/M240 General Purpose Machine Guns (GPMG’s); and the 7.62×54mmR Russian full-power cartridge in the ‘Dragunov’ SVD “Designated Marksman’s Rifle” (DMR) and the PK-series GPMG. Four distinct ammunition types, serving five completely different tactical roles — pistol, submachine gun, assault rifle, battle rifle, and machine gun — yet all sharing the same precise bore diameter to within hundredths of a millimeter.

From a manufacturing perspective, this represents extraordinary efficiency. The same rifling buttons, bore drilling equipment, and quality control gauges can produce barrels for weapons ranging from sidearms to tripod-mounted machine guns. But this efficiency only matters if you’re planning coordinated, large-scale production across multiple weapon systems — exactly what you’d need for rapid global mobilization. More importantly, uniformity is a real concern, because of how “good enough” barrels can be made in very basic workshops.

The timeline of adoption makes conventional military explanations even more problematic. When NATO standardized on 7.62×51mm in the 1950s, superior alternatives were readily available. The .30-06 Springfield had proven performance and massive existing production infrastructure. The 8mm Mauser was the world’s most widely distributed rifle cartridge. The .303 British had decades of successful Commonwealth service.

Instead, NATO chose to develop an entirely new cartridge that required complete retooling of production lines and weapons systems. This makes sense tactically, strategically, politically and diplomatically. No doubt. You take the logistical and manufacturing infrastructure hits, but it makes everyone in the alliance feel like they’re not the only ones making sacrifices. The official justifications — improved efficiency and reduced weight — however, would apply equally to other available diameters.

So — why 7.62mm diameter, specifically? Why precisely the same diameter as the bullets used by the Soviet Union…not the cartridges, not the bullets themselves, but the bullet diameter?

The mystery deepens when examining the ballistic evidence. The abandoned cartridges — .303 British, 8mm Mauser, and .30-06 — all delivered essentially identical performance, despite bore diameters ranging from 7.57mm to 7.92mm. The differences are all within normal manufacturing tolerances and offer no meaningful ballistic advantages.

From a purely ballistics and physics perspective, these major “battle rifle” cartridges deliver functionally identical terminal performance despite NATO’s insistence on 7.62x51mm standardization. Cross-sectional analysis reveals the marginal differences:

The .30-06 Springfield (150gr @ 2910 fps) delivers 2,820 ft-lbs of energy
The 8mm Mauser (198gr @ 2600 fps) produces 2,800 ft-lbs
The .303 British (174gr @ 2440 fps) generates 2,300 ft-lbs
The 7.62x51mm NATO (147gr @ 2750 fps) yields 2,470 ft-lbs

These performance variations fall within normal manufacturing tolerances and environmental factors. At combat ranges under 400 meters (which is the normal range for most infantry engagements), the sectional density, penetration, and lethality differences in these cartridges are statistically insignificant. Wind drift, drop, and terminal ballistics vary by mere percentages.

The engineering reality is that any of these cartridges would have served NATO’s stated requirements equally well, as the FN-49 rifle would demonstrate, being made in multiple cartridges, depending on what the customer wanted. The choice of 7.62mm over existing alternatives cannot be justified by ballistic superiority – suggesting the true rationale lay elsewhere entirely.

*SAFN .30-06 Springfield 1951. 2007 photo by Wikimedia User “Ainat00”. CCA/4.0 Int’l.*

The technical evidence is clear: NATO’s choice of 7.62mm as a bullet diameter cannot be explained by ballistic superiority or manufacturing convenience alone. When military organizations abandon proven systems and invest billions in retooling for marginally different alternatives, there are usually compelling strategic reasons documented in procurement records. But those records, if they exist, remain conspicuously absent from public view. What we’re left with is a pattern that suggests coordination on a scale that transcends normal military alliance cooperation—and raises uncomfortable questions about what scenarios would justify such systematic preparation.

Manufacturing compatibility, not ballistic performance, appears to have been designed for rapid, large-scale interoperability — but between whom, and for what purpose?

Yet somehow, across different continents, political systems, and industrial bases, everyone converged on 7.62mm as a bullet diameter. The Soviets, developing their own weapons independently, chose the 7.62mm bore diameter for their entire small arms family, because they had been using it for so long, and wanted to make only the most minimal changes, as their industrial base struggled to recover from the devastation of World War 2.

But then, we have the example of NATO, deciding to completely retool their arms infrastructure to make a completely new round…whose diameter was precisely the same as that of their supposed enemies on the opposite side of the Fulda Gap…not the same cartridges, but the same bullet diameters — the most important part of a modern firearm. To put the proverbial ‘last nail’ on the problem, the only 7.62mm diameter weapon in wide use by NATO members at the organization’s formation in 1949 was the US .30 Carbine round, which is 7.62x33mm.

The only logical possibility is clear: This wasn’t market pressure or alliance requirements — this was systematic coordination at a level that transcends normal military procurement.

The implications become more unsettling when considering modern developments. Recent U.S. military procurement of obsolete M60 GPMG’s, massive ammunition purchases by US domestic agencies, and the recent emergence of “plug-and-fight” deployment systems all suggest preparation for scenarios requiring rapid mass armament using standardized systems.

The 7.62mm convergence may represent the most successful case of industrial coordination in military history — a decades-long effort to ensure global manufacturing compatibility for weapons systems across supposedly competing nations. Whether driven by legitimate defense planning or more extraordinary circumstances, the technical evidence suggests coordination at levels most people would find difficult to accept.

The question isn’t whether this coordination exists — the manufacturing evidence is too consistent to ignore. The question is, what scenarios would justify such systematic preparation, and why has the public never been informed of the reasoning behind these decisions?

As we pointed out in the “Hamlet” article above, none of the possible reasons for this subtle standardization are good…But there is one last wrinkle, that I cannot shake from my mind…

All of this happened very quickly…..after 1947.

Additional Resources:

– NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs)
– Congressional Defense Primer: Conventional Ammunition Production Industrial Base
– International Ammunition Technical Guidelines

*The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To*

The Shadow Fleets

Michael Cessna August 1, 2025

Illicit drugs are everywhere. Since at least the Imperial Chinese attempts at curbing the British opium trade, governments have – for one reason or another – tried to end, or at least restrict as far as possible, the flow of drugs they find objectionable. From cannabis to cocaine, and opium/heroin to fentanyl, massive, militarized law enforcement structures have been built up, to try and end the trade.

For the most part, these efforts have failed.

The problem are the iron laws of supply and demand, and the Streisand Effect: If you overreact to the problem, people get curious as to why…and when trust in government is problematic, that urge becomes obsessive. And in an environment of induced artificial scarcity, imposed by efforts to ban “Bad Thing X” – be that drugs or alcohol – both demand for that substance, as well as its price tends to skyrocket…and the harder law enforcement cracks down, the more creative the suppliers get in bringing their product to market.

Case in point: The “narco submarine“. We discussed the “big-state” military aspects of leveraging narco-sub technology last year, but now we take a deeper dive into the flip-side of the “big-state” use of this ecosystem.

The evolution of narco-submarine technology from crude, semi-submersible craft to sophisticated vessels capable of trans-Atlantic voyages represents more than just an escalation in drug trafficking capabilities—it signals a potential paradigm shift in how insurgent and terrorist organizations could maintain covert supply networks across vast distances.

*Trans-Atlantic range narco submarine in Aldán, Cangas, Galicia, Spain, 2019, following its capture by Spanish authorities. Photo by Estevoaei. CCA/4.0 Int’l.*

Traditional counter-insurgency doctrine has long emphasized the critical importance of disrupting enemy supply lines. However, the emergence of advanced narco-submarines, some capable of carrying multi-ton payloads across oceanic distances while remaining largely undetected, introduces a new variable into this equation. These vessels, originally developed by South American drug cartels to transport cocaine, have demonstrated remarkable sophistication in recent seizures, featuring diesel-electric propulsion, advanced navigation systems, and even air-independent propulsion capabilities.

The implications now extend far beyond narcotics. Intelligence assessments suggest these platforms could theoretically transport weapons, explosives, communications equipment, or even personnel across traditional maritime security perimeters. Unlike conventional smuggling methods that rely on commercial shipping or aircraft — both heavily monitored — narco-submarines operate in the vast expanses of international waters where detection remains extraordinarily difficult.

This point cannot be overstated: While the “old school” methods have long been known, and control measures developed to address them, the rise of covert submarine logistics at the small(ish) scale is a titanic problem, because almost any coastal beach, inlet or swamp is now a potential delivery point. While traditional inseriton methods like rough airstrips or road checkpoints can be easily identified, the sheer scale and unimproved nature of naval landing avenues severely hamstrings surveillance efforts – airstrips, roads and even drop zones are almost comically easy to identify, especially when they are not on official maps as crossing or entry points. Beaches, however, are everywhere.

Recent interdictions have revealed vessels with ranges exceeding 6,000 nautical miles, sufficient to connect South American manufacturing bases with conflict zones in Africa, the Middle East, or even Europe. The technical expertise required to construct these platforms has proliferated through criminal networks, with evidence suggesting construction techniques and blueprints have spread beyond their Colombian and Ecuadorian origins.

A primary case study of even non-submersible combat logistics support to an insurgent force comes from Mozambique, in 2020-2023:

The Islamist insurgency in Cabo Delgado demonstrated sophisticated maritime capabilities between 2020-2023 that transformed what began as a land-based rebellion into a complex amphibious threat. Ansar al-Sunna militants systematically leveraged traditional dhow boats and small craft to create covert supply networks that proved nearly impossible for Mozambican security forces to interdict.

The insurgents’ capture of the port of Mocímboa da Praia in August 2020 marked a strategic watershed, providing direct access to established heroin trafficking routes from the Makran Coast. Intelligence assessments suggest the group began “taxing” drug shipments landed from dhows, creating a maritime revenue stream that complemented traditional funding sources. This convergence of insurgent logistics and narcotics trafficking created a self-reinforcing cycle — drug money funded operations while operational control over landing sites enabled further revenue collection.

The tactical sophistication was remarkable. Insurgents used coordinated land-sea assaults, arriving simultaneously from multiple vectors to overwhelm defensive positions. They demonstrated proficiency with maritime navigation, successfully conducting what were functionally full-on amphibious operations across the island chains of the Quirimbas archipelago. Perhaps most concerning, they showed adaptive capabilities — after reportedly sinking a Mozambican patrol boat with an RPG-7, they captured additional vessels to expand their maritime fleet.

The geographic advantages were substantial. Cabo Delgado’s extensive coastline, numerous islands, and traditional reliance on dhow-based trade provided perfect cover for covert supply operations. The insurgents exploited the fact that legitimate maritime commerce — fishing, inter-island transport, and traditional trade — created background noise that masked military supply movements. With limited Mozambican naval capabilities and virtually no maritime patrol presence, the ocean became an uncontested highway for insurgent logistics.

For insurgent groups, the strategic value is clearly compelling. As the World War 2 OSS demonstrated, traditional arms trafficking routes face increasing scrutiny from international security partnerships and advanced surveillance systems. Port security measures, while effective against conventional smuggling, are largely irrelevant to vessels that can surface miles offshore and transfer cargo to smaller craft or coastal staging areas.

The financial model also aligns with insurgent economics. Drug trafficking organizations have demonstrated willingness to treat narco-submarines as expendable assets — vessels are often scuttled after single-use missions. This operational approach could extend to insurgent logistics, where the strategic value of delivered materiel outweighs platform preservation.

Counter-narcotics operations have struggled with these platforms despite significant resource investments. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that even with enhanced detection capabilities, the vast majority of narco-submarine transits remain undetected. This detection challenge would be magnified in insurgent applications, where hostile groups’ operational security might be even tighter and cargo manifests wouldn’t trigger the same intelligence indicators as bulk narcotics shipments.

The convergence of criminal and insurgent networks is not theoretical — established precedents exist in regions where these organizations share operational space and mutual interests. The DEA has linked 19 of 43 officially designated foreign terrorist organizations to some aspect of the global drug trade, demonstrating that such collaborations are already occurring. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) provided a decades-long example of how insurgent groups can leverage drug trafficking networks to fund operations and maintain supply lines, activities that continue with the FARC’s splinter factions.

Perhaps most concerning is the adaptive nature of this technology. Each interdiction reveals new innovations: improved stealth characteristics, enhanced range capabilities, and increasingly sophisticated construction techniques. The rapid evolution suggests that by the time security services develop effective countermeasures, the threat may have already evolved beyond current detection and interdiction capabilities.

This potential weaponization of narco-submarine technology by hostile non-state actors represents a convergence of criminal innovation and insurgent logistics that could fundamentally challenge existing maritime security frameworks and force a reassessment of how covert supply networks might operate in an era of advanced surveillance.

The 30-Minute Apocalypse: How Coordinated Grid Attacks Could Cripple America

Michael Cessna July 25, 2025

Electricity if the foundation of modern society. Many people wistfully ponder the idea of living permanently in the wilderness, the old “back to Nature” idea. The fact is, most people – at least in the West – are going to survive in the wild for longer than a week. Electricity is what allows you to read this, and not simply because the immediate of an internet connection: electricity is fundamental to the industrial processes that made the device you are reading this on.

America’s electrical grid represents both the backbone of modern civilization and its most vulnerable single point of failure. Recent incidents at power substations across the country have revealed a terrifying reality: a relatively small number of coordinated attacks could plunge vast regions into darkness for weeks or months, with cascading effects that would make Hurricane Katrina look like a minor inconvenience.

The December 2022 attack on two Duke Energy substations in Moore County, North Carolina, illustrated the basic vulnerability. Two individuals with rifles caused a blackout affecting 45,000 people for several days. But this was amateur hour compared to what organized groups could accomplish with proper planning and coordination.

The math is sobering. The Department of Homeland Security has identified roughly 55,000 electrical substations nationwide, but destroying just nine of the most critical ones could theoretically black out the entire continental United States. Unlike the heavily fortified nuclear plants or major power stations, most substations are protected by little more than chain-link fencing and security cameras. Many critical transformer installations sit exposed in rural areas with minimal surveillance and lengthy emergency response times.

*Marelli coupling transformer in Italy. 2020 photo by Herbert Hönigsperger. CCA/4.0 Int’l*

What makes this threat particularly insidious is that it doesn’t require sophisticated weapons or technical expertise. The critical transformer equipment that steps down high-voltage transmission lines is custom-manufactured, expensive, and takes 12-18 months to replace under normal circumstances. A coordinated rifle attack, or even the intelligent use of a reciprocating saw, on multiple substations simultaneously could create a replacement bottleneck that extends outages for months across multiple states.

The cascading effects of a decently-coordinated series of attacks would be catastrophic. Within hours, water treatment plants would lose power, leading to pumping capacity failures. Hospitals could switch to backup diesel generators, but their fuel supplies typically last 72 to 96 hours. Cell towers would go dark as their backup batteries drain, as even those with some minimal solar backups would be drained faster than solar can recharge them. Gas stations could not pump fuel; grocery stores and ATM’s stop working – in the case of the grocery stores, that would be because few, if any,m are set up to switch to paper receipts. Supply chains would being to collapse, as refrigerated transport becomes impossible, electronic payment systems began failing, and regional grocery supply centers would not be able to fulfill orders, if they were even able to receive them.

Behind this vulnerability is the very thing that makes modern society as comfortable as we have become accustomed to: Just In Time Delivery. This is the system that dispatches all manner of inventory to retailers, homes and factories at will, usually arriving within 24 to 96 hours after ordering. This means that very few warehouse areas have more than three or four days of stock in their “back rooms”, at best. This is one of the reasons for the videos of stores being emptied in mere hours when a disaster strikes – it’s not simply damage to the structure, but the location’s inability to order replacement stock.

Most Americans have never experienced true grid-down conditions lasting more than a few days. The best estimates indicate that potentially 90% of Americans would be dead within one year of a sustained nationwide blackout due to starvation, disease, and violence. Even regional blackouts lasting weeks would likely trigger mass refugee movements, as happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, that local authorities couldn’t manage.

The threat isn’t theoretical. In recent years, domestic extremist groups have conducted surveillance of electrical infrastructure. FBI investigations have uncovered plots targeting substations by nihilistic accelerationists larping as neo-Nazis who believe destroying the grid would trigger societal collapse and racial conflict. The knowledge required for effective attacks are spreading through online forums and training materials.

International actors represent an even greater threat. Chinese and Russian operatives have been caught conducting reconnaissance of American electrical infrastructure. State actors could coordinate cyber attacks on grid control systems with simultaneous physical attacks on key substations, maximizing damage while minimizing the chances of rapid recovery.

And what happens if such a series of attacks do happen? None of the possibilities are good. Aside from the initial casualties of the sick and injured as hospital generators run dry of fuel, and those dying in the panic after the lights go out, the near-term (60 – 90 days) will see vast deaths via starvation, as most people have perhaps only two or three weeks worth of food at home, and human performance degrades fast, the longer we go without food. Rural areas are better positioned, since those areas are food producers by default, but they do not have the capacity to absorb refugees, nor to suddenly step up food production, because of the physics and biology of agriculture: even without the fact that most farmland is sectioned off for corporate, single-crop “monoculture” products, it takes time, at least sixty to ninety days, to grow most plants into nutritious crops that will sustain a human. And although hog hunting in the South does produce meat, it is barely impacting the hog population – and the vast majority of Americans have no comprehension of how dangerous feral hogs really are.

The fix is neither quick, simple nor cheap. Hardening critical substations would cost billions and take years to implement. Installing backup transformer capacity requires massive infrastructure investments that utility companies stridently resist making without punitive federal mandates. Meanwhile, the grid continues operating with vulnerabilities that a competent adversary could exploit with devastating effectiveness.

The uncomfortable truth is that America’s electrical grid was designed for reliability and efficiency, not security. In an era of increasing domestic extremism and great power competition, that design philosophy represents a strategic vulnerability that adversaries understand better than most Americans. The question isn’t whether someone will eventually attempt a coordinated grid attack — it’s whether we’ll address these vulnerabilities before they do.

The only good thing in this, is that if we go down, we will take the reast of the “developed world” with us.

Yay. I guess.

The lights we take for granted could go out faster than most people imagine, and stay out longer than our society could survive. As with many things we report here, you are on your own – after reading this, you cannot claim that you weren’t warned to prepare, because the government will not be able to help you.

The Gilded Cave

Michael Cessna July 18, 2025

The ultra-wealthy’s latest status symbol isn’t a super-yacht or private island — it’s a luxury survival bunker. From New Zealand’s exclusive retreats to underground complexes in Montana, billionaires are spending millions on fortified sanctuaries designed to weather civilization’s collapse. But these elaborate preparations reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how disasters actually unfold and may create more problems than they solve.

While the idea of the “social construct” has been ballyhooed almost to death in the early 21st Century, it is a solid and verifiable doctrinal base. At the same time, the antithesis is also true…and in this context, the statement that “wealth is a social construct” is also a fundamental truth.

Although many people at the lower end of the economic spectrum may rage aginst the idea that they are taking part in a “social construct” from the moment they wake up in the morning, for the ultra-rich, the idea has been slowly growing that their wealth equates to them the level and aspects of medieval barons, that their wealth can insulate them from catastrophic events, events that result in a “Mad Max/Road Warrior” type of world. It is important to remember that the so-called “Robber Barons” of the late-19th Century in America and Europe may have been rapacious, but they were careful to cultivate actual loyalty among their guard forces.

For the modern mega-wealthy, such an attitude is what is known as “whistling past the graveyard“, a phenomenon best represented by the “luxury survival bunker“.

The modern luxury bunker industry promises the impossible: maintaining elite levels of comfort and safety while civilization burns above. Companies like Vivos and Rising S offer underground mansions complete with wine cellars, home theaters, and hydroponic gardens. The Survival Condo Project in Kansas converted a former missile silo into luxury apartments selling for millions, featuring a swimming pool, rock climbing wall, and armored vehicles. The implicit promise is that money can buy not just survival, but the preservation of pre-disaster lifestyle.

*Underground World Home swimming pool built structure for the New York world’s Fair, 1964. Public Domain.*

This approach fundamentally misunderstands disaster dynamics. Real catastrophes — whether economic collapse, climate disasters, or social upheaval — require adaptation, community cooperation, and practical skills, not isolation behind reinforced concrete. History shows that those who survive major disruptions are typically embedded in resilient communities with diverse skill sets, not isolated individuals hoarding resources.

We’re not talking about official, taxpayer-maintained “continuity of government” bunkers like Mount Weather, Raven’s Rock, or military command centers like the Cheyenne Mountain Complex. No, we’re talking about private residences purchased by the ultra-rich.

*Photo of the North Portal entrance to Cheyenne Mountain. Public Domain.*

The bunker mentality creates several critical vulnerabilities for both survival and immediate security. First, these facilities become obvious targets once their existence becomes known. A luxury bunker essentially advertises its contents to anyone desperate enough to attempt breaching it. The very features that make them appealing — visible wealth, sophisticated systems, stockpiled resources — make them magnets for organized groups with nothing to lose.

Second, luxury bunkers require massive ongoing maintenance and technical expertise that their wealthy occupants rarely possess. Climate controls, water filtration, communications equipment, and power systems all demand specialized knowledge. When the contracted maintenance crews can’t or won’t reach the facility, these sophisticated systems become expensive liabilities. A billionaire who can’t repair a generator is far worse off than a farmer with a hand pump.

Third, the psychological toll of bunker life contradicts its luxury branding. Extended isolation, even in comfortable surroundings, creates mental health challenges that luxury amenities can’t address. Humans require social interaction, purpose, and connection to larger communities. A gold-plated prison cell is still a prison cell, and the mental deterioration that follows undermines the clear thinking necessary for actual survival.

The real self-defeating irony is economic. The resources spent on individual bunkers could create far more security if invested in community resilience, renewable infrastructure, or addressing the root causes of potential disasters. A billionaire who spent bunker money on local food security, renewable energy projects, or disaster preparedness for entire regions would be far safer than one hiding underground with a wine collection.

The bunker fantasy reflects the same thinking that created many of our current vulnerabilities, chiefly the belief that individual wealth can solve mass social inequality, and the fact that systemic risks require community-level responses, not individual escape plans. By definition, if society has collapsed enough to require bunker living, the economic systems that created that wealth no longer exist to maintain the bunker’s operations.

Genuine resilience comes from building robust, interconnected systems and communities capable of adapting to change. The wealthy would be better served by investing in the social fabric that sustains civilization — or which can at least “restart” it — rather than planning its abandonment. After all, if your survival plan assumes everyone else has failed, you’ve probably misunderstood both the problem and the solution.

True security isn’t found in isolation — it’s built through interdependence, community investment, and addressing challenges collectively rather than hiding from them individually.

But there is another psychological area to address: the delusion of “elite leadership.”

Leadership is only hard when you’re not humble…and getting into the category of being among the “ultra-rich” argues strongly against humility. “Humble” people do not vacation at Lake Como or along the Riviera on a yacht that costs more than a mid-sized city’s fire department engines. Consider the battle-hardened special-ops veterans the ultra-wealthy hire as “private security” (whether they actually know what “executive protection details” actually entail): As long as the world is intact, and the paychecks continue to flow, sure, they are happy to protect – even in lethal situations – the person and family of the person signing their checks.

But really – when everything goes to hell, who is that elite Operator going to put first: the tech-bro whose money is now so much vaporware, or their own family? Think about it.

All of the above being said, preparing for disasters – even “mega-disasters” – is not wrong. It is highly prudent and advisable. But don’t expect that burning your credit card limits on stuff will save you. Supplies are good. Training is vital. But should the worst ever happen, you are not a “lone wolf”, whether you have a family or not.

Act accordingly.

CBRN…And You

Michael Cessna April 18, 2025

Gas warfare – the deliberate use of chemicals as weapons in wartime – has long been recognized as one of the most terrifying tools of conflict, right next to nuclear weapons…Yet, both situations have been exceedingly rare – thankfully. What is not rare, is the dangers posed by the accidental (usually) cases where industrial chemicals and nuclear accidents have caused widespread devastation.

The peaceful applications of chemical and nuclear technologies have brought tremendous benefits to society, but their mishandling has occasionally led to disasters as devastating as military applications. From industrial accidents to amateur experimenters, these incidents highlight the fine line between technological advancement and catastrophe.

You, the Reader, likely do not think in these terms, unless you work in those industries. However, you are almost certainly living in a danger zone, and do not realize it.

By way of explanation, open your favorite mapping program, and locate your home. Go out five miles, and draw a circle: Is there an operating freight railroad, ‘hazardous cargo’ freeway, chemical plant or oil refinery within that circle? If so, you need to have a military-rated CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) “gas mask” for every person living in your home, especially children. This is because when accidents happen, local emergency responders begin evacuating people within a 0.25-mile radius of the accident – but that radius can quickly extend out to a 5 mile radius, depending on the chemicals involved, the wind direction and strength, and the specific details of the accident. What happens if you cannot evacuate? Or, worse, if you try to evacuate, and are stalled on the road, whether by breakdown or traffic jams? The chemical cloud is still coming.

You need a plan…But, why aren’t you being told this elsewhere? Simply put, news agencies do not want to be seen as “Chicken Little” – These accidents do happen, but they happen infrequently enough that both news agencies do not want to air advisories on preparing for them, and most municipal and county governments to not want to agitate their citizens about the dangers of the companies that provide a large percentage of local government revenues.

And yet – the danger is there. Every day.

The 2023 East Palestine, Ohio train derailment represents one of America’s most significant recent chemical disasters, highlighting the vulnerabilities in our hazardous materials transportation system. On February 3, 2023, a Norfolk Southern freight train carrying hazardous materials derailed, causing a massive fire and prompting authorities to conduct a controlled burn of vinyl chloride to prevent a potential explosion. This decision, while preventing an immediate catastrophic explosion, released phosgene and hydrogen chloride into the atmosphere – both highly toxic gases historically used as chemical weapons.

The incident forced the evacuation of approximately 2,000 residents and contaminated local waterways, with chemicals reaching the Ohio River watershed. Despite official claims of safety, residents reported persistent health issues including rashes, headaches, respiratory problems, and nausea months after returning home. The accident revealed critical gaps in railway safety protocols, emergency response planning, and environmental monitoring capabilities. The combination of toxic chemicals involved — including not just vinyl chloride but also butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate, and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether — created complex contamination scenarios that standard emergency protocols were ill-equipped to address, demonstrating how even in developed nations with extensive regulations, chemical disasters can affect communities with little warning.

*Drone footage of the freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, February 6, 2023. Photo by NTSB. Public Domain.*

The modern era of chemical disasters began with the Great Smog of London in 1952. Though not an industrial accident in the traditional sense, this convergence of coal pollution and unusual weather killed an estimated 12,000 people and injured 100,000 more, demonstrating the lethal potential of chemical pollutants. This disaster eventually prompted the UK’s Clean Air Act of 1956, establishing a pattern that would repeat throughout history: catastrophe followed by regulatory reform.

*London police officer during the Great Smog of 1952. Author unknown.*

Industrial chemical accidents reached their nadir with the Bhopal disaster of December 3, 1984. A leak of methyl isocyanate gas from a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India immediately killed at least 3,787 people, with total related fatalities estimated between 15,000 and 20,000. The disaster, stemming from poor maintenance and safety procedures, continues to affect generations through birth defects and chronic illnesses. Bhopal fundamentally transformed chemical industry regulations worldwide and remains the worst industrial accident in history.

Less known but similarly devastating was Italy’s 1976 Seveso disaster, where a chemical plant released a dioxin cloud contaminating an area inhabited by 37,000 people. Though immediate fatalities were few, the long-term effects included elevated cancer rates and birth defects. The incident led to the European Union’s “Seveso Directive”, establishing classification systems for hazardous facilities that continue to govern chemical safety throughout Europe.

The field of radiological accidents presents different challenges but equally sobering lessons. The 1957 Kyshtym disaster at the Mayak nuclear facility in the Soviet Union contaminated an area inhabited by 270,000 people when a nuclear waste storage tank exploded. Long concealed by Soviet authorities, the accident released twice the radioactivity of the Chernobyl disaster and remains the third-worst nuclear accident in history.

While Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) typically dominate discussions of nuclear accidents, smaller incidents reveal the persistent dangers of radiation mishandling. The 1987 Goiânia accident in Brazil occurred when scavengers dismantled an abandoned radiotherapy unit, finding a glowing blue substance (cesium-137) they distributed to friends and family. Four people died within weeks, and 249 were contaminated. The incident demonstrated how even orphaned medical equipment could create widespread contamination when handled by untrained individuals.

*The destroyed Chernobyl reactor, one of four units operating at the site in Ukraine in 1986. No units operate today. (Chernobyl, Ukraine, 1986). Photo copyright IAEA Imagebank. CCA/2.0 Generic.*

Perhaps the most remarkable case of amateur radiation exposure involves David Hahn, dubbed the “Radioactive Boy Scout“. In 1994, the 17-year-old attempted to build a breeder reactor in his mother’s shed in Michigan using materials extracted from smoke detectors (americium-241), camping lantern mantles (thorium), and clock dials (radium). His homemade neutron gun and crude reactor components significantly contaminated the property, eventually requiring intervention by the EPA and a hazardous materials cleanup. Though Hahn received only a modest radiation dose, his shed registered radiation levels 1,000 times above normal background.

Hahn’s case, while extreme, is not unique. In 2007, Richard Handl of Sweden attempted to split atoms in his apartment kitchen using materials purchased online. He only realized the potential illegality of his experiment when he contacted Sweden’s Radiation Safety Authority to ask if his activities were permitted. Unlike Hahn, Handl was arrested but later released when authorities determined his setup hadn’t reached truly dangerous levels.

The democratization of scientific knowledge and equipment access has made DIY nuclear experimentation increasingly accessible. Online forums devoted to amateur nuclear science host discussions on building Farnsworth fusors and other nuclear devices, though most participants emphasize safety and legality. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy now actively monitor purchases of certain materials and equipment that could enable amateur experimentation.

These incidents, while varying in scale and circumstance, share common themes: the misunderstanding of invisible dangers, inadequate safety protocols, and the cascading consequences that extend far beyond immediate events. They demonstrate that the line between beneficial technology and catastrophe often depends not on the materials themselves, but on human systems of management, regulation, and education surrounding them.

So…Given the foregoing, what can you do to protect yourself?

Aside from the military-rated CBRN gas masks mentioned, the answer, unfortunately, is “not much“. However, gas masks are the best place to start, and do provide a huge degree of protection. While pricey, modern masks are far better than what was available 40 years ago. Gas masks should come with one or two filters, that are now universal-fit, fitting 40mm sockets in the mask that have been standardized since 2000. The key thing to look for in a mask, though, is whether it has a drinking attachment for a “NBC Canteen”; this is a vital concern when choosing a mask, as these masks get very hot, very fast, and with the stress of the situation, your water needs will vastly increase. “Package deals”, selling the mask, a filter or two, and one or two canteens with mask attachments, is what you want to look for.

For radiological accidents, in addition to the mask an canteen, the available option is potassium-iodide tablets. These protect the thyroid, which is the most vulnerable part of the body to nuclear contamination. Potassium-Iodide is commercially available, from all the common online retailers.

The last recommendation I will give you is to get a copy of Cresson H. Kearney’s standard work, “Nuclear War Survival Skills“. While a bit dated in places, this remains the best practical reference for civilians. The link here is to a PDF copy, but do try to find a print copy, if you can.

If the foregoing scared you – good. These threats are very real, no matter where in the world you live. The government (all governments), as East Palestine demonstrated, is not going to provide a lot of help in the short term, if at all.

You are on your own. Plan accordingly.

Mortars, Drones…Or Both? Ancient Artillery Meets Modern Technology

Michael Cessna March 28, 2025

As the ongoing war in Ukraine has demonstrated, low-cost drone warfare has arrived on the battlefield. While the modern use of armed drones began in 2000/early-2001, with the arming of an RQ-1 Predator drone with an AGM-114 ‘Hellfire’ missile, It was not until after the September 11 Attacks of that year that the armed Predators went into action.

Aside from large modern armies however, drone combat, as such, did not emerge until the rise of the Islamic State after 2014. In 2016, as the war began to turn against the IS, Iraqi forces started being struck by 40mm grenades dropped by modified civilian drones. Tiny, and very quiet, these drone were able to hover – or ‘loiter‘, to use the military term – over an area, and drop explosives on top of targets on command. This immediately raised alarms, as most armored vehiles, such as tanks, are very thinly armored on their top surfaces.

*A Naval Forces of Ukraine Bayraktar TB2 from the Turkish company Baykar Defense; CCA/4.0 Int’l*

While the use of civilian drones in combat had been noted previously, those instances only seemed to be in the realm of tactical surveillance and reconnaissance. After the IS ramped up its “micro-drone” campaign, though, “proliferation” began in earnest: expanding outside the Middle East, where Russian forces thwarted an attack on one of their bases in Syria in 2018, drug cartels in Mexico began deploying attack drones in earnest.

In Ukraine, drones for reconnaissance and attack have advanced to the point that the Ukrainians are deploying “bomber” drones carrying up to a 44lbs payload of explosives, while also scoring the first acknowledged air-to-air kill of an advanced fighter, in this case a Mig-29, by a kamikaze drone, via sympathetic detonation.

But the use of small drones has been overshadowed by the use of much larger platforms which, while still “drones”, are not really “tactical” weapons. Much has been made of large drones, such as those used by Azerbaijan in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, as well as uses by Houthi rebels attacking civilian cargo ships in the Red Sea. The problem with these types of attacks is that they more resemble the use of drones and missiles by major powers…What about the infantry-level use of this class of weapons?

Enter the mortar.

Soldiers of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry), fire a M120 mortar during a combat operation in the Da’udzay Valley in the Zabol province of Afghanistan Oct. 23, 2007. US Army Photo. Public Domain.

The modern battlefield has seen remarkable technological advancement in the last 120 years, yet one of warfare’s oldest weapons — the mortar — continues to play a crucial role alongside cutting-edge unmanned aerial systems. Both provide indirect fire capabilities, but with significantly different characteristics, advantages, and limitations.

Mortars represent possibly the oldest form of artillery still in active military service, with designs dating back to the 14th century. These simple, high-angle weapons offer several enduring advantages. They’re relatively inexpensive, with basic systems costing under $20,000 and individual rounds priced at $50-$300 depending on sophistication. Modern infantry mortars like the U.S. 60mm M224 can be transported and operated by just two soldiers, providing immediate fire support without complex logistics chains.

The mortar’s high arc trajectory allows engagement of targets behind cover and in defilade positions—a capability that maintains its relevance in urban environments where direct fire weapons face significant limitations. Modern mortars can typically engage targets between 100-8,000 meters depending on caliber, with rounds impacting within 1-2 minutes of fire mission commencement.

In contrast, military drones represent a relatively recent development that has rapidly transformed battlefield dynamics. Systems like the Turkish TB2 Bayraktar or loitering munitions such as the Switchblade provide persistent surveillance capabilities combined with precision strike options. These platforms offer unmatched target observation capabilities, with operators able to positively identify targets before engagement and conduct battle damage assessment immediately after strikes.

Drones typically deliver smaller payloads than artillery systems but with significantly higher precision. Where a mortar might achieve a Circular Error Probable (CEP) of 30-100 meters depending on range and conditions, drones can often deliver munitions with accuracy measured in single-digit meters.

However, the comparative cost structure presents significant disparities. Even relatively inexpensive military drones cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per platform, with sophisticated munitions adding tens of thousands per engagement. This cost difference becomes particularly relevant in sustained operations or against adversaries employing low-cost countermeasures.

The evolution of consumer drones into improvised weapons platforms has dramatically accelerated during the Ukraine conflict, with both sides developing increasingly sophisticated swarm tactics using modified commercial quadcopters and purpose-built FPV (First Person View) drones. These systems typically carry 40mm grenades, modified mortar rounds, or small thermobaric charges, creating an entirely new tactical capability at remarkably low cost.

*Soldier with commercial Unmanned aerial vehicle, 2017. Photo by Scott Stewart. CCA/4.0 International.*

The basic approach involves forward reconnaissance elements identifying enemy positions, followed by the deployment of drone teams equipped with 5 – 20 small, unmanned systems. These teams position themselves just beyond the range of enemy small arms (typically 1-2km from the target) and then launch multiple drones in rapid succession. Each operator controls a single drone, but their actions are coordinated through a tactical commander who prioritizes targets and sequences attacks.

What makes these swarms particularly effective is their combination of saturation and persistence. Unlike a traditional mortar barrage that might last 2-3 minutes, drone swarms can maintain pressure on a position for 30+ minutes as operators rotate through their inventory of systems. This creates both physical and psychological pressure that conventional indirect fire struggles to match.

The economics are particularly compelling. A basic FPV drone capable of delivering a grenade costs approximately $400 – $1,000, while the grenade itself might cost $50-200. Even accounting for losses, this means an engagement involving 10 drones and 20 munitions might cost less than $20,000 total – comparable to just a few mortar rounds from advanced Western systems.

From a tactical perspective, these drone swarms force defenders to make difficult choices. Activating electronic countermeasures reveals defensive positions and quickly depletes battery systems. Taking cover from aerial threats often exposes personnel to horizontal fire. Moving to alternate positions makes units visible to surveillance drones operating at higher altitudes.

The integration of these swarms with conventional forces represents a notable innovation. Infantry units can now advance with drone teams directly embedded in their formations, allowing for immediate fire support without the coordination delays associated with traditional artillery. When resistance is encountered, the formation pauses while the drone swarm engages, creating a dynamic reminiscent of ancient warfare where archers would soften positions before infantry assault – but with far greater precision and real-time assessment capability.

The Digital Lifeline Under Threat

Michael Cessna February 28, 2025

With all the craziness of the last six weeks, it’s easy to become enraptured by all the “glitz-bang-pow“, and to lose track of the truly important things…like internet access, for example.

Much of the crucial digital lifelines of the modern global economy lie largely unseen and unprotected beneath the oceans. Submarine cables — bundled fiber-optic threads wrapped in layers of protective materials — carry an estimated 99% of international data traffic, representing an estimated $10 trillion in daily financial transactions. Clearly, these cables are vital components of any national infrastructure…and, just as clearly, they are very high-priority targets in any war scenario. Despite their critical importance, these cables remain surprisingly vulnerable to both accidental damage and deliberate sabotage, creating an asymmetric vulnerability that security experts increasingly view as a critical national security concern.

Recent incidents have highlighted this vulnerability. In late 2023, and again in late 2024, multiple cables in the Baltic Sea were damaged within weeks of each other, including the Svalbard cable connecting Norway’s remote Arctic research station to the mainland. While officials initially cited “technical problems,” subsequent investigations pointed to deliberate actions, with suspicion falling on Russian vessels that had been tracked in proximity to the damaged sections. Similar incidents have occurred in the Mediterranean and Red Sea, where the timing and pattern of damage suggested coordinated action rather than accidental encounters with ship anchors or fishing equipment…which, given the immediate impacts, should be surprising to no one, as the war in Ukraine continues to rage.

The security implications extend far beyond temporary internet disruptions. Major financial centers like London, New York, and Singapore depend on millisecond-level transmission speeds for trading operations, with even brief outages potentially causing billions in economic damage. Military communications, intelligence sharing between allies, and diplomatic channels all rely on these same physical pathways, creating a strategic vulnerability that potential adversaries have clearly recognized.

Unlike traditional military targets, undersea cables present adversaries with an ideal gray-zone target. Damage can be plausibly denied as accidental, attribution is extremely difficult, and repairs can take weeks depending on the location and conditions. This provides hostile actors with the ability to cause significant disruption while remaining below the threshold of activities that would trigger conventional military responses.

The technical challenge of defending these cables is substantial. The global submarine cable network spans over 750,000 miles, often in international waters beyond territorial jurisdiction. Cable routes are publicly documented for maritime safety, making their locations easily accessible to potential saboteurs. Monitoring such vast distances presents an almost impossible surveillance challenge, especially in deep ocean areas where depths exceed 3,000 meters.

*The “CS Dependable”, cable layer ship with a modern stern sheave design. Picture taken at the Port of Astoria, Oregon, 2006. CCA/3.0. Photo by Nsandel.*

Of course, this has been happening since undersea cables were first laid in the 19th Century, most notably when the United States cut Spanish telegraph cables in both Cuba and the Philippines theaters of the Spanish-American War. During World War I, one of Britain’s first and most significant strategic moves came just hours after declaring war in August 1914, when the cable ship “CS Alert” severed Germany’s five transatlantic cables near the English Channel. This operation, codenamed Operation Telekom, effectively cut Germany’s direct communication links with the Americas and much of the world. Britain simultaneously took control of most neutral cable stations, forcing German diplomatic and military communications onto easily intercepted wireless channels or through cables that passed through British-controlled territory.

The British established “Room 40“, a specialized naval intelligence unit that interceded and decoded German messages, providing critical intelligence. The most famous success came with the interception and decryption of the Zimmermann Telegram in 1917, which revealed Germany’s attempt to entice Mexico into attacking the United States — a diplomatic catastrophe that helped bring America into the war.

In World War II, Britain expanded these capabilities with Operation ‘Cutting’. The Royal Navy again targeted German undersea cables, but added sophisticated tapping operations. Combined with the codebreaking work at Bletchley Park, these undersea operations provided crucial intelligence on German naval movements, particularly U-boat operations, significantly contributing to Allied victory in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Modern cable attacks no longer require crude methods like physical cutting. Advanced submersibles can quickly and silently install tapping devices without severing cables, allowing for collection without detection. Both the Russian and Chinese navies are known to operate specialized submarines and surface ships equipped for undersea operations near critical cable infrastructure, including the Yantar, a Russian “research vessel” observed loitering near critical cable junctions in the Atlantic.

These strategic vulnerabilities are magnified by the concentration of key connection points. Cable landing stations — where submarine cables connect to terrestrial networks — represent critical sea-based chokepoints, with certain locations in Egypt, Malaysia, and Sicily serving as hubs for dozens of major cables. A modern, coordinated attack on multiple landing stations could severely disrupt global connectivity in ways that would overwhelm the limited redundancy built into the system.

Despite the growing awareness of these vulnerabilities, international legal protections remain inadequate. The 1884 Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables provides limited safeguards, while the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea only offers general provisions against deliberate damage. Enforcement mechanisms are virtually non-existent in international waters, creating a legal gray zone that mirrors the operational one.

As tensions rise between major powers, enhancing resilience against cable disruption has become an urgent security priority. Proposed measures include increased naval patrols near critical infrastructure, enhanced monitoring through seabed sensors, diversification of cable routes, and hardening of physical infrastructure. However, the scale of the challenge means complete protection remains impossible, leaving this critical infrastructure as a persistent vulnerability in an increasingly contested global environment.

One thing people frequently fail to understand – an outgrowth of the increasing sociological separation of the civilian and military spheres – is that naval warfare is far more than dramatic gun battles at sea, determined amphibious assaults, and exciting launches of fighter planes from the decks of aircraft carriers.”War“, as such, has been a term too frequently applied outside of its true domain, diluting public understanding of its implications: Sure, “war” is scary and destructive in general, but there are plenty of avenues of attack that are certainly not part of the ‘war on poverty’. This is why the Imperial Japanese Navy shelled a beach in Santa Barbara, California in 1942…which came as a hell of a surprise to local residents, and which had some very unforeseen consequences that succeeded in damaging the United States – not enough to win the war, but enough to instill distrust, the more people thought about it.

People concerned for not only their physical, but financial, security, need to start relearning how militaries think, because while the civilian may not care much about warfare, warfare cares very much about you.

The New “Corbett In Orbit”

Michael Cessna February 7, 2025

As we roll into February of 2025, it has certainly been a heck of a ride, so far. No matter whether you love President Donald J. Trump or hate him, he has certainly been kicking over a lot of apple carts. While many people are definitely up in arms over his wielding of Elon Musk’s hammer to trim the government’s budget, the silver lining is that there is going to be a lot more money available for things that actually benefit society as a whole, as happened before, and the “Big Kahuna” is a real ‘return to space’. (But not for Mars…like, seriously.)

Instead, this week we are not going to focus on US politics, nor on the international military scene. Instead, we’re going to revisit warfare in space. Our previous article from August of 2024 focused mainly on the tactical side of warfare in space – focusing on G. Harry Stine’s “Confrontation in Space” – here, we are going to expand on those ideas, looking into how true combat operations in space are inherently derived from concepts in naval warfare in the Age of Sail…So yes, all of those who are heavily invested in historical naval strategy…and pirates…congratulations – you may have a new career ahead of you as a space-war advisor…and maybe even a real combat spacecraft captain.

In this, as you should have noted from the title of this article, we’re going to talk about a man most people have never heard of: Sir Julian Corbett. Corbett, although not a naval officer, authored some of the most influential texts on naval strategy in the 20th Century, rivaling the breadth of his contemporary, the United States Navy Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, which both theories actually compliment each other, rather than compete. Corbett’s best-known work on naval warfare, “Some Principles of Maritime Strategy“, were so influential that the United States Navy War College approved a paper, titled “Corbett In Orbit” in 2004.

However, when those works were written, there was a lot more about space mechanics that were unknown, and the most significant of those was the discovery of the ITN…which is going to require a brief digression into the “Egg Head Realm” of real science.

The Interplanetary Transport Network(ITN), formally identified in the early 2000s, represents a breakthrough in our understanding of efficient space travel. This network consists of gravitationally determined pathways through the solar system, created by the complex interactions of gravitational fields between celestial bodies. These pathways, sometimes called low-energy transport routes, allow spacecraft to move through space with minimal propulsion requirements, though at the cost of longer transit times.

The ITN’s theoretical foundation lies in the mathematics of dynamic systems and the solutions to the “three-body problem” in orbital mechanics. While the gravitational interactions between two bodies (like Earth and a satellite) are relatively straightforward to calculate, adding a third body creates complex dynamics that can be leveraged for efficient space travel. These dynamics create a network of pathways that connect various gravitationally significant points throughout the solar system.

Key to understanding the ITN are Lagrange points – positions in space where gravitational forces and orbital motions interact to create areas of relative stability. These points serve as natural “nodes” in the network, particularly useful for positioning space stations or other infrastructure. The L4 and L5 Lagrange points are especially significant as they are naturally stable, requiring minimal energy expenditure to maintain position. L1, L2, and L3 points, while less stable, still require significantly less energy for station-keeping than arbitrary points in space.

The Lagrange points, it is vital to understand, are both close-in to Earth, as described by Stine, but also exist in the Sun-Earth system, with the Earth taking the place of the Moon in relation to the Sun. Likewise, the Lagrange point system, both planetary-lunar and Sun-planet scales, is duplicated with every planet in the Solar System. Per Stine, the terms for these areas are “cis-Lunar space” (the area inside the Earth-Moon system), and “trans-Lunar space” (the area beyond the Moon).

In a functional sense, this means that the ITN resembles a network of freeways on a map, but practically speaking, the ITN is more akin to the wind and ocean currents, with the Lagrange points acting like islands and atolls.

The practical implications of the ITN are substantial. Spacecraft using these pathways can dramatically reduce their fuel requirements compared to traditional transfer orbits. This efficiency comes at the cost of longer transit times, as vessels must essentially “coast” along these gravitational corridors. However, for many space operations, particularly those involving cargo or infrastructure, the trade-off between time and fuel efficiency often favors using the ITN over trying to “bull through” under constant thrust.

The network becomes particularly relevant as humanity expands its presence in space. The ITN’s pathways naturally connect regions of space that are gravitationally significant, including many resource-rich areas. Near-Earth asteroids, the lunar environment, and even the outer solar system become more accessible through these low-energy corridors. This accessibility has profound implications for space resource utilization and the establishment of permanent space infrastructure.

Space stations or bases positioned at ITN junctions, particularly near Lagrange points, would require minimal station-keeping fuel while maintaining access to multiple transport pathways. This positioning creates natural locations for refueling depots, trading stations, and other infrastructure necessary for expanding space operations. The efficiency of the ITN makes such installations more economically viable by reducing their ongoing operational costs.

The strategic implications of the ITN mirror historical patterns of maritime commerce and naval operations. Just as terrestrial shipping lanes developed along routes determined by ocean currents and prevailing winds, space commerce would naturally tend to follow these efficient pathways. This creates predictable routes that become strategically significant, similar to how maritime choke points have historically shaped naval strategy and commerce protection.

Current technology allows for practical utilization of the ITN, particularly with advances in autonomous navigation and precision orbital mechanics. Modern spacecraft can maintain position along these pathways with minimal correction burns, making them increasingly attractive for both commercial and government space operations. As launch costs continue to decrease and space activity increases, understanding and utilizing the ITN becomes increasingly crucial for efficient space operations.

The identification and mapping of the ITN represents a fundamental shift in how we approach space travel and infrastructure development. Rather than fighting against the complex gravitational environment of space, the ITN allows us to work with natural gravitational dynamics. This approach, while requiring longer transit times, offers substantial benefits in terms of fuel efficiency and operational sustainability.

So…What does all this have to do with Julian Corbett, Mahan, and naval strategy under sails?

In brief, wars – video games aside – are never fought “just because”. They are always fought for some tangible goal to the initiator of the conflict. Whether that goal is territory, resources, or “national image”, the initiator has a reason for engaging in warfare. How does this strategic model apply in space?

Humans, as a species, are long past going to space as a stunt. If governments – or companies – want to get the money necessary to go to space, they need to offer tangible benefits for doing so. And, just as on Earth, those “tangible benefits” are going to be resources like water and mineral wealth, or control of the movement of those resources.

While people may want – and justifiable so – to use space peacefully, for good or ill, that is not the normal scope of human behavior: we will almost certainly see warfare in space, and war has rules. The ITN is the dominant feature of the “high ground” of trans-Lunar space: control of, and movement along, the ITN is the “make or break” aspect of commerce in space, and thus, will be the focus of “War in the Black”.

The ITN offers both cheap avenues of movement, but also points of control. Short of science-fiction “technobabble” solutions to space propulsion and artificial gravity, coasting along the ITN routes is how we are going to expand off of Earth. And militarily, the ability to accelerate, then coast, enhances a warship’s stealth, as it is not under constant thrust, allowing it to fade into the background. As long as extreme speed is unnecessary, this is the perfect balance, allowing ships to speed along to a base at an ITN Lagrange point, to refuel and reprovision; to “park” a Battle of the Atlantic-style “wolfpack” at those points, or to make sudden shifts into planetary Lagrange systems.

The sky, as they say, is the limit in what the ITN allows for.

Looking forward, the ITN will play a crucial role in the development of cis-Lunar space and beyond. As humanity establishes a permanent presence beyond Earth, these natural pathways will shape the pattern of space development, influence the positioning of infrastructure, and determine the most efficient routes for commerce and exploration. Understanding and utilizing the ITN will be essential for any serious long-term space operations, whether commercial, scientific, or strategic in nature.

And someone is eventually going to fight over it.

Autonomous Weapons Systems: Ethical Dilemmas, Strategic Advantages

Michael Cessna October 18, 2024

In the realm of military technology, few developments are as controversial or potentially game changing as autonomous weapons systems. These are weapons that can seek out, select and engage targets without human intervention, using artificial intelligence to make literal life-and-death decisions on the battlefield. As nations race to develop these systems, we find ourselves at a crossroads, weighing the strategic advantages against profound ethical concerns.

Defining Autonomous Weapons Systems

Autonomous weapons systems (AWS) range from AI-powered drones to robotic sentries and even potential future systems that could operate entirely independently of human control. The key feature is their ability to use sensors and algorithms to identify, target, and engage enemies without direct human authorization. This marks a significant shift from remote-controlled or semi-autonomous systems that still rely on human decision-making for lethal actions.

Significantly, the key difference between a drone or missile and an AWS is not hardware, but software – any sufficiently capable, computer-controlled platform can be loaded with an AWS algorithm, and no one would be the wiser, unless the unit was captured.

Strategic Advantages

The potential military benefits of AWS are significant:

Reduced Risk to Human Personnel: By replacing human soldiers in dangerous situations, AWS could significantly reduce military casualties.
Enhanced Speed and Precision: AI can process information and react much faster than humans, potentially increasing the speed and accuracy of military operations.
24/7 Operation: Unlike human soldiers, autonomous systems don’t need rest, allowing for continuous operation.
Cost-Effectiveness: Over time, AWS could potentially reduce the personnel costs associated with maintaining large standing armies.
Overcoming Human Limitations: AWS wouldn’t be subject to human failings like fear, fatigue, or emotional decision-making in combat situations.

*Ukrainian bomb-armed “octocopter”. Photo Credit: General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, via armyinform.com.ua. CCA/4.0 Int’l*

Ethical Dilemmas

However, the development of AWS raises serious ethical concerns:

Lack of Human Judgment: Can an AI truly understand the context and nuances of a combat situation? There are fears that AWS might not be able to distinguish between combatants and civilians in complex scenarios. While this has always been a concern in relation to artillery and air strikes, both of those combat avenues have a presumably responsible human operator[s] at the top of the decision-making tree.
Accountability Issues: If an autonomous weapon makes a mistake, who is held responsible? The programmer, the manufacturer, or the military commander who deployed it?
Lowered Threshold for Conflict: With reduced risk to personnel, nations might be more willing to enter into armed conflicts, potentially increasing global instability.
Potential for Escalation: The speed of AI decision-making could lead to rapid escalation of conflicts before humans have a chance to intervene.
Hacking and Misuse: There are serious concerns about the potential for AWS to be hacked or fall into the wrong hands, with catastrophic consequences. Note that this potential is not limited to national entities, but can easily extend to non-governmental groups and individualsm as AWS algorithms are, at their core, simply computer programs, which can be endlessly duplicated and sent around the world via the internet, human couriers or just conventional “snail mail” services. The distinct danger out uncontrollable proliferation is not something to be blithely dismissed.

The Global Debate

The international community is grappling with how to approach AWS. Some nations and organizations are calling for a preemptive ban on “killer robots”, arguing that the risks outweigh any potential benefits. Others advocate for regulation and careful development, believing that AWS are inevitable and it’s better to shape their development than to futilely try to prevent it.

The United Nations has been a focal point for these discussions, with several meetings of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) dedicated to debating potential regulations or bans on AWS. However, reaching a consensus has proven challenging, with major military powers often resistant to strict limitations.

Current State of Development

While fully autonomous weapons systems are not yet deployed in combat, many nations are actively developing precursor technologies. For example:

The US Navy’s Sea Hunter, an autonomous ship designed for anti-submarine warfare
Israel’s Harpy drone, which can autonomously detect and attack radar systems
Russia’s claimed development of AI-controlled missiles

‘Sea Hunter’ autonomous anti-submarine drone sails in formation during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2022, July 28. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Aleksandr Freutel. Public Domain.

While not fully autonomous, these systems represent significant steps toward AWS and demonstrate the ongoing interest in this technology among world powers.

Central to these concerns is the Kargu-2. Now combat-proven in the wreckage of Libya, in the hands of both Turkish “peacekeepers” and their local allies, the Kargu – despite official denials by Turkey, has shown that AWS systems are capable of performing lethal strikes with full autonomy is certainly possible.

*STM Kargu-2, a portable rotary wing kamizake drone produced in Turkey. Photo credit: Armyinform.com.ua. CCA/4.0 Int’l*

The Human Element

One of the core debates surrounding AWS is the role of human judgment in warfare. Proponents argue that removing human emotions like fear and anger from combat decisions could lead to more ethical outcomes. Critics counter that human empathy and moral reasoning are essential in making complex battlefield decisions.

The concept of “meaningful human control” has emerged as a potential middle ground, suggesting that while systems may have some autonomous functions, humans should retain ultimate control over lethal decisions. This is not an academic debate, because of the fundamental reality of all computer systems: Computers do not “care“, and neither does Artificial Intelligence. An AI combat system’s job is to attack what it can identify as an “enemy“, and if the last c.150 years of warfare have taught us anything, it is that every single person, regardless of gender or age, is a potential threat to be dealt with.

War is bad enough, as it is. We don’t need to allow it to be worse.

Future Implications

The widespread adoption of AWS could fundamentally change the nature of warfare. Some potential implications include:

Shifts in military strategy and tactics to account for the capabilities and limitations of AWS
Changes in the global balance of power, as nations with advanced AI capabilities gain military advantages
Potential arms races in AI and autonomous systems
New forms of conflict, including potential battles between opposing autonomous systems
The need to develop military training, techniques and procedures (TTP’s) to address the certainty that AWS algorithms will proliferate into the hands of terror groups.

Conclusion

Autonomous weapons systems represent both a remarkable technological achievement and a profound ethical challenge. As we stand on the brink of a new era in warfare, the decisions we make about the development and use of AWS will have far-reaching consequences for global security, international law, and the very nature of armed conflict.

The path forward will require careful consideration, robust international dialogue, and a commitment to balancing technological progress with ethical responsibility. As AWS continue to evolve, it’s crucial that policymakers, military leaders, ethicists, and the public engage in public and informed discussions about how to navigate this complex landscape.

Ultimately, the question we face is not just about the capabilities of machines, but about our own humanity – what role do we want human judgment to play in matters of life and death, and how can we ensure that the pursuit of military advantage doesn’t come at the cost of our ethical principles?

Small Drones, Big Impact

Michael Cessna October 11, 2024

In the ever-evolving landscape of modern warfare, a seemingly new player has emerged, that has been punching well above its weight class: the small, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or “drone”. These compact, agile, and increasingly affordable devices are revolutionizing battlefield tactics, offering capabilities that were once the domain of larger, more expensive military assets.

The Rise of the Miniature Air Force

Gone are the days when drones were solely the purview of well-funded militaries. While unmanned, remotely-piloted military drones are certainly nothing new, having been used in combat as far back as World War 2, and while used on a large scale as recently as the six-week long Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, it is important to realize that many of the recent uses of drones were not “revolutionary” in any way. In fact, Azerbaijan’s use of drones was essentially a copy of the US and Coalition air force’s campaign against Saddam Hussein’s capital in Baghdad, in 1991.

Today, however, it is the comparatively cheap, off-the-shelf commercial drones, often modified specifically for military use, which have become almost ubiquitous on battlefields around the world. From the conflict in Ukraine to the wars in the Middle East, small drones began making their presence felt as early as 2015.

These miniature flying machines come in various shapes and sizes, from hand-launched fixed-wing craft to multi-rotor copters that can take off and land vertically. What they lack in size, they make up for in versatility and sheer numbers. This is driven by their low cost (as low as $40, as of late 2024), and ease of use, as their control interfaces are based on either popular video game controllers, or on smartphone app interfaces, again often mimicking video game apps.

*Drone hand controller unit, 2022. Photo Credit: South Carolina Air National Guard. Public Domain.*

Revolutionizing Reconnaissance

While “kamikaze” and bomb-dropping drones are certainly newsworthy, perhaps the most significant impact of small drones repurposed for military use has been in the realm of reconnaissance. Traditionally, gathering intelligence on enemy positions often required putting soldiers in harm’s way or relying on expensive satellite imagery. Now, a soldier as far down as the squad level (8-13 troops) can launch a drone from a safe position and get real-time video feedback of enemy locations, fortifications, and movements.

This capability has significantly democratized battlefield intelligence. Now, even small units can now have their own “eye in the sky,” providing unprecedented situational awareness. The psychological impact is also significant – the constant buzz of drones overhead can be deeply unnerving for opposing forces, never knowing when they’re being watched…or targeted.

*South Carolina Air National Guard Conducts Drone Fly Over of Runway Construction, 2022. Photo Credit: South Carolina Air National Guard. Public Domain.*

From Eyes to Claws: The Weaponization of Small Drones

While reconnaissance remains a primary function, small drones are increasingly being weaponized. In some conflicts, commercial drones have been modified to drop small explosive payloads, usually modified hand grenades or rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) rounds, and do so with surprising accuracy. This last has, in fact, been used frequently on Ukrainian battlefields to counter the threat posed by main battle tanks. This has allowed for precise (if small scale) strikes on localized high-value targets without risking pilot’s lives or using expensive guided missiles.

A significant factor in this, is the timeliness of engagement, as a local unit with armed drones can act to engage a target far faster than it could using the old methods of calling back to an artillery or missile base, in order to adjust and coordinate fires; while that can – and is – still done with more conventional artillery, the weaponized drone – under the command of a leader literally shoulder to shoulder with the operator – can engage a group of targets much faster than before.

The low cost and expendable nature of these drones also enable swarming tactics. A swarm of small, explosive-laden drones, whether operating as kamikaze’s or under positive control, can overwhelm older, conventional defenses designed to counter larger, conventional threats. This asymmetric capability allows smaller forces to challenge larger, better-equipped opponents.

Leveling the Playing Field

Perhaps the most profound impact of small drones is how they’re leveling the playing field in asymmetric conflicts. Non-state actors and smaller military forces can now possess capabilities that were once the exclusive domain of major powers. A few thousand dollars worth of drones can now threaten millions of dollars worth of military hardware, and can frighten and demoralize professional troops who lack the knowledge, skills, training or equipment to effectively deal with this type of threat.

This democratization of air power is forcing a rethink of traditional military doctrine. Heavy armor, once the king of the battlefield, is increasingly vulnerable to drone-spotted artillery or direct drone attacks; current ad hoc armor strategies to counter drone strikes have only “sort of” worked. Air superiority, traditionally achieved through fighter jets and large drones, now also requires countering swarms of much smaller, harder-to-detect UAV’s. If anything, this threat is much harder for conventional armies to deal with.

The Counter-Drone Challenge

As small drones reshape offensive tactics, they’re also spawning a new field of counter-drone technology. Militaries around the world are racing to develop effective countermeasures, from electronic warfare systems that can jam drone controls to directed energy weapons that can shoot them out of the sky. Some novel approaches include training eagles to intercept drones, using large nets to capture them, or deploying “hunter-killer” drones to pursue and neutralize hostile UAV’s. Obviously, these advanced systems – while they may work for the moment – are breathtakingly expensive for the threats they are envisioned to be deployed against.

The challenge is significant – how do you economically counter a threat that might cost only a few hundred dollars per unit?

*The Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Missile (C-RAM) gun fires flares during a weapons test at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, Jan. 31, 2010. USAF Photo by Senior Airman B. Bateman. Public Domain.*

While conventional systems such as the combat-proven C-RAM and the venerable ZSU-23-2 can be fitted with proximity-fuzed warheads and self-destruct systems to help prevent “friendly fire” incidents, the dollar gap – something that always looms large in the conduct of war – is still far too wide for these systems to be truly cost-effective in combat. Likewise, conventional rifles are nearly useless against drones, as their projectiles – while perfectly suitable against a human-sized target – are nearly impossible to use against a fast-moving target roughly the size of a human hand.

*A salvo from the ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun, 2021. Photo by: Ministry of Defense of Russia via mil.ru. CCA/4.0*

Is there a better option?

Shotguns vs. Drones: A Low-Tech Solution to a High-Tech Threat

While militaries and defense contractors pour millions into developing advanced counter-drone technologies, one surprisingly effective tool has emerged from a much older era of warfare: the conventional shotgun.

The oldest model of personal firearm in history, shotguns have been continuously used in combat since the invention of gunpowder. As early as the 1980’s, if not before, conventional 12-gauge pump-action shotguns were mounted under the barrels of rifles such as the M-16, usually as supplementary weapons for police SWAT units to use in blasting open locked doors during raids; in fact, a Mossberg 500 was mounted under an M-16 look-alike in the 1987 movie “Predator“. Although terribly front-heavy, this sort of “combination weapon” does have its uses, when in trained hands.

*The KAC MasterKey mounted under the barrel of an M4 assault rifle. 2009 photo by DrBaker of M4Carbine.net. Public Domain.*

Militaries around the world have used shotguns for both combat and recreation. The shooting sports of “trap” and “skeet” are particularly relevant here, as both are based on hitting very small, fast moving targets with little lead-time.

Boatswain’s Mate Seaman Alonzo Bender, left, fires a 12-gauge shotgun during a skeet shoot on the flight deck of the amphibious dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52), in 2010. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael Russell. Public Domain.

Shotguns offer several advantages in countering small drones:

Widespread Availability: Most military and law enforcement units already have shotguns, making them an immediately accessible solution.
Ease of Use: Soldiers are often already trained in shotgun use, and even if they are not, only minimal additional training is required.
Wide Dispersal Pattern: The ever-widening spread of shotgun pellets after they leave the muzzle increases the likelihood of hitting a small, fast-moving target.
Cost-Effective: Compared to expensive electronic warfare systems or laser weapons, shotgun shells are incredibly cheap.
Low Collateral Damage: Unlike missiles or explosives, shotgun pellets have a limited range, reducing risks to surrounding areas.

Real-World Applications

Several militaries have already employed shotguns against drones. U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq have used them to down small ISIS drones, while developments continue to seek out solutions to develop anti-drone ammunition for conventional weapons. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Russian companies are developing specialized anti-drone shotguns for the battlefield. And all the while, the inability of most military forces to convince their civilian-staffed governments – most of whom have no military experience at all – that going back to older designs continues to leave expensively trained and equipped troops vulnerable on the battlefield.

Despite their advantages, shotguns are not a perfect solution:

Limited Range: Effective range is typically less than 100 meters, requiring the threat to be relatively close.
Manual Targeting: Unlike automated systems, shotguns require a human operator to spot and shoot the drone.
Multiple Shots: Often, multiple shots are needed to down a drone, especially if it’s a larger or more robust model.
Environmental Factors: Wind, obstacles, and poor visibility can significantly affect accuracy.
Escalation Risks: In some scenarios, using firearms against drones could be seen as an escalation, particularly in sensitive diplomatic situations.

Still, shotguns do at least offer a fast solution to the close-range defense problem, when the alternatives are foot-long autocannon rounds or worse, anti-aircraft missiles to deal with what is essentially a lethal child’s toy.

Conclusion: Small Size, Big Shift

While the proliferation of small drones on the battlefield represents a significant shift in military tactics and strategy, they are like most developments: there is a lot of flash and thunder early on, but military forces that are actually competent will quickly adapt, and find countermeasures. All the same, these diminutive devices are rewriting the rules of military engagement, challenging long-held assumptions about military power, and forcing a reevaluation of everything from equipment procurement to tactical doctrine.

As technology continues to advance, making drones smaller, smarter, and more capable, their impact on warfare is only likely to grow. The military forces that can best adapt to this new reality – leveraging the strengths of small drones while effectively countering their threats – will hold a significant advantage on the battlefields of the future.

In the grand chess game of global conflict, the smallest pieces on the board are proving that size isn’t everything. The age of the small drone has arrived, and with it, a new era of warfare where the tiny can have a truly outsized impact.

A Puzzlement, Part 2.5 – The 7.62mm Mystery

Additional Resources:

The Shadow Fleets

The 30-Minute Apocalypse: How Coordinated Grid Attacks Could Cripple America

The Gilded Cave

CBRN…And You

Mortars, Drones…Or Both? Ancient Artillery Meets Modern Technology

The Digital Lifeline Under Threat

The New “Corbett In Orbit”

Autonomous Weapons Systems: Ethical Dilemmas, Strategic Advantages

Defining Autonomous Weapons Systems

Strategic Advantages

Ethical Dilemmas

The Global Debate

Current State of Development

The Human Element

Future Implications

Conclusion

Small Drones, Big Impact

The Rise of the Miniature Air Force

Revolutionizing Reconnaissance

From Eyes to Claws: The Weaponization of Small Drones

Leveling the Playing Field

The Counter-Drone Challenge

Shotguns vs. Drones: A Low-Tech Solution to a High-Tech Threat

Real-World Applications

Conclusion: Small Size, Big Shift

You may have missed

Proto-APC’s: From Lend-Lease To The Cold War – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The M101 And M102 – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The AES: Three Coups, One Alliance, And A War That Defies Simplicity

Reading The School From Its Graduates

Additional Resources:

Defining Autonomous Weapons Systems

Strategic Advantages

Ethical Dilemmas

The Global Debate

Current State of Development

The Human Element

Future Implications

Conclusion

The Rise of the Miniature Air Force

Revolutionizing Reconnaissance

From Eyes to Claws: The Weaponization of Small Drones

Leveling the Playing Field

The Counter-Drone Challenge

Shotguns vs. Drones: A Low-Tech Solution to a High-Tech Threat

Real-World Applications

Conclusion: Small Size, Big Shift

You may have missed

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!