Defense Issues

Military and general security

  • Follow Defense Issues on
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 272 other followers

  • July 2015
    M T W T F S S
  • Categories

Submission To War

Posted by picard578 on July 21, 2015

Note: full text of Qur’an is here:

Citations are from pdf pages as follows:
2:191 = pg 42
Chapter 9, verse 5 = pg 216

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Religions pull people together again. It could be the religion of the Republic, as under the Romans. In this case the religion served the Public.

Superstitious religions are much more frequent: they serve madness, by obliging “believers” to believe the unbelievable, thus to suspend reason, and fascistically follow those who are with god(s).

Human beings are one with reason. Suspending reason is suspending themselves. It can only be achieved violently, explicitly or not. That’s why millions, even tenths of millions, were killed in the name of Christianism and Islam.

Making A Religion From Killing People Making A Religion From Killing People

Indeed, oligarchies and plutocracies are more frequent than republics, the history of civilization shows. A republic is much harder to achieve. Calling on the fascist instinct to obey those with access to weapons, and the training and mentality to use them, is much easier.

Sometimes, there are spectacular variants to superstitious, fascist religions. The Aztecs lived at high altitude…

View original post 660 more words

29 Responses to “Submission To War”

  1. Chris said

    It all comes down to how one interprets religion I fear.

    In the US, many of the social conservatives there see absolutely no contradiction between runaway neoliberal capitalism and Christianity for example, despite the Bible’s views on usury, excess wealth, and greed.


    • picard578 said

      Protestantism generally has more positive views on materialism than Catholicism. But yes, you are correct. Human greed is quite powerful force.


    • Xplane said

      “It all comes down to how one interprets religion I fear.”

      Fear is the key word. Why do we need religions?
      The fear of death.
      But like all fears, that one causes or accelerates the object of fear. The fear of falling makes us fall, the fear of failure makes us fail, the fear of death makes us murderers.


      • Duviel said

        “Why do we need religions? The fear of death”

        Mostly true in my opinion. Religion and superstition is also needed to give some of us answers to what we just don’t know and cant explain.

        Death is one example, death is a great unknown so because of fear and lack of understanding we attempt to fill in the blanks with religion.

        Like I tell my family often, Faith is something we have when we have nothing else. If we know their is no need to have faith.

        As much as I dislike organized religion, we anti-religion folks must be careful not to fall into the same trap of being sure about something we don’t know.

        When their is a great unknown any answer is as possible as the other. We dont know. Maybe Religion (or one religion) is correct. Maybe some philosophers are correct. Maybe atheist are correct or most likely we are all wrong or only partially correct.

        Maybe at some point we will have the answer and faith will no longer be needed. At least not in this subject.


      • Xplane said

        I agree with everything you wrote but I’m not pro or anti anything. I’m just trying to understand by myself with the help of my ancestors’ cumulative knowledge but removing the fears generated by thousands of years of insecurity. The human race had first to fight for survival, then to dominate fears. True peace will come when fear will be overcome.


        • Duviel Rodriguez said

          I do agree that fear clouds our thinking. Fear is something that has helped us survive our violent and dangerous past but it must be conquered to evolve in direction I am hoping we all want to go. And yes we do have to know our history and evolution to understand where we are today.


  2. Jungle27 said

    Religion is like an ideological amplifier, it can be used to spread facism or pacifism, wisdom or madness and everything in between. What is worrying now is the spreading of christian and muslim fundamentalism in destabilized countrys especially in Africa and in the Middle East. The best way to spread fundamentalism is war and non education.


    • picard578 said

      Agreed. In fact, in all “religious” wars to date, religion was just a tool for achieving something else (typically material profit or economical/political domination).


  3. Duviel said

    Religion can be for good or bad. But, the concept of indoctrination is in itself dangerous. Religion makes it so that people are willing to act not based on judgement or thought but based on religious edicts.

    Religion can make people do things that they would never have done if normal human reasoning were in play.

    And, probably most dangerous of all is, it can do this in large masses people or whole populations.

    Another issue with religion is once someone becomes indoctrinated they will not accept any debate, reason, or data. there is only their religion.

    If religion were more personal and malleable and gave room for questioning and doubt instead of top down doctrine it might not be so dangerous.


    • Chris said

      The problem is that religion tends to indoctrinate people.

      Fundamentalism is always a danger with religion. That isn’t to say that secular ideologies cannot mirror the worst aspects of religion (they can), it’s just that the worst excesses seem to happen the stronger and more rigid the beliefs.


    • picard578 said

      Problem is that people typically do not act on judgement. Even with no religion, there will be religion… or rather, a substitute for religion. Economics, for example, are actually a religion… how many economists believe in the “invisible hand of the market” despite all the proof to the contrary? How many people have lost their livelihoods (or even lives) due to attempts by the ruling class to force a new economic system?


      • Duviel Rodriguez said

        Well there is a difference between religion and ideology. Although both have common traits and both can be dangerous.

        Religion was used more extensively in the past to control the thoughts of the masses. Today, ideology and information (or misinformation) is the weapon of choice.

        mass media and mass information are not bad things alone but once corrupted they become foul and rotten. Maybe we can say same for religion.


        • picard578 said

          Everything can be corrupted, that’s an issue.


        • Duviel said

          That is the primary issue.

          This is why any social/political/economic system needs to take human cognition and behavior into account. We need to build systemic safeguards against our own nature.

          The US system of governance and US constitution was originally designed with this concept in mind. But, it too was corrupted by power hungry special interests from the beginning.

          For example a free press was the idea but we need to specify what that freedom looks like and how it works.

          Is the press free when 90% of it is owned by the same group of powerful entities and is controlled by 1% of the population?

          How do we protect freedom of speech and freedom of press/information in the internet age?

          I agree corruption will always exist but the people must never give up the fight and continue to hold the powerful accountable whenever, wherever, and in whatever form we can.


        • picard578 said

          “Is the press free when 90% of it is owned by the same group of powerful entities and is controlled by 1% of the population? ”


          “How do we protect freedom of speech and freedom of press/information in the internet age?”

          For starters, by protecting internet from governments and corporations that wish to control it. Problem, again, is doing it. That is why I like Anonymous.


      • Xplane said

        Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the(poor condition)people”. It was so true but unfortunately this phrase was diverted to massacre hundreds of religious in USSR.

        The opium of the people was the TV from the 70s and since 2000, it became information that asleep and calm the masses.

        After all, switching from one slavery to another seems to be a constant in the history of mankind.


  4. Chris said

    Totally OT, but since the LCS post is pretty old, I’ll post it here.

    I’ve been reading up as of late on naval warfare and I have increasingly become convinced that modern navies have it as wrong about ships as they air forces on fighters:

    1. Notice how ships have been “creeping up” in terms of displacement. What was once a destroyer now displaces in some cases, more than 8,000 tons. The problem of large ships is numbers and what happens if you lose one? You lose a higher proportion of the fleet. It also leads to a reluctance to commit ships where needed. The other problem is that the creep up in size has not brought about a proportionate rise in survivability. A ship that was once say, 2,000 tons is now, 8,000 tons, but the 8,000 ton ship is not 4x as survivable, and arguably not 4x as capable.

    Historically, it takes about 3x as much ammo to sink a ship vs a mission kill, with a somewhat larger proportion for larger ships, but not enough to compensate for the loss in numbers. There’s also the fact that larger = easier to detect and hit in the first place.

    2. The widespread usage of radar seems to be a huge problem. The same issue with fighters arises – is this a shield or a target (especially versus anti-radiation missiles)?

    3. Most modern ships don’t have the armor of older ships. Although it’s probably not possible to armor against direct hits, near misses and fragments of missiles probably could be protected against.

    4. Over-emphasis on the missile at the expense of the gun (of which many warships only have 1 of and often not well protected). Guided projectiles have not historically proven that reliable and are vulnerable to being jammed or deceived. Another problem with guided projectiles (both missiles and guns) is their immense cost. One can only fire so many and not enough training in peacetime.

    5. Poor anti-missile protection systems. Often not tested either. There should probably be multiple interlocking anti-missile systems for protection and they should use passive guidance for protection. Whether or not they can defend vs supersonic missiles remains to be seen.

    6. A huge problem that is not discussed is mine warfare, which many navies have neglected.

    7. Another huge one is the vulnerability to submarines – many navies have let their anti-sub abilities atrophy.

    There haven’t been serious attempts at studying how to make a ship more survivable against torpedo attacks. I suspect that if a shooting war ever happens, much like anti-shipping missiles vs aluminum superstructures, there are going to be some unpleasant surprises which should not have been surprising at all.

    8. Separation of critical components has not been well done on many modern warships either. There is limited redundancy and that leads to single points of failure.

    9. IN terms of manning, the emphasis on automation might not save the money one things – simply because it costs more to build, perhaps more than a well trained sailor over the life of a ship. The other issue is that the more crew, the better the fighting ability.

    10. Not enough testing as alluded to early. Towed decoys I think should be explored in greater depth as well.

    A fleet optimized would probably be:

    1. Much more submarine centric, with a mix of conventional AIP and nuclear submarines
    2. Surface fleet would consist of more ships, but smaller
    3. Ships would be much more reliant on passive sensors, and a stronger emphasis on manning/training
    4. Probably the super carriers would be retired and replaced with more, conventionally powered, smaller carriers. They would not be the centre of sea domination (the submarine is).


    • picard578 said

      There are two kinds of ships: submarines and targets. And larger ships are more vulnerable to submarines due to being louder, less maneuverable and more restricted in terms of mobility. Hence my focus on corvette- to frigate- -sized surface ships and relatively small aircraft carriers.

      Armor won’t save you from a modern torpedo. Maneuverability may do it, and in that respect less armor is actually a good thing. Not so good if you have to come close to shore in order to support amphibious landing, however, which makes me think that some kind of armored gunboat/monitor may be a good idea.

      Russian ships tend to carry more guns than Western counterparts, likely due to less myopic approach to new technologies.

      More crew also means better damage control ability.

      I made a NATO navies proposal for my ideal fleet.


      • Andrei said

        “The other problem is that the creep up in size has not brought about a proportionate rise in survivability. A ship that was once say, 2,000 tons is now, 8,000 tons, but the 8,000 ton ship is not 4x as survivable, and arguably not 4x as capable. ”

        An interesting discussion on survivability of shipn relation to size can be had from comparing the fate of Iran’s two Alvand class frigates (1900 tons) Sahand and Sabalan during Operation Praying Mantis to the UK’s two Type 42 destroyers (4800 tons) Sheffield and Coventry lost in the Falklands war.
        So let’s see what it took to sink them:
        Sheffield was hit by a single Exocent that did not explode but who’s fuel caught fire, she was damaged and sunk in heavy seas a week later.
        Coventry was hit by three 250 pound bombs out of which only 2 exploded and caused damage. She sunk in 20 minutes.
        Now lets see how the Iranians did. By the way the Iranian frigates were built in Britain so they had probably similar construction standards to the Type 42s.
        Sahand was hit by two Harpoon missiles (Exocent equivalent) launched by A-6E Intruders that exploded and immediately after by 2 AGM-123 Skipper II missiles (1000 pounds each) that also exploded. She did not show signs of sinking so the aircraft dropped a pair of Rockey cluster bombs on her and USS Joseph Strauss fired another Harpoon which finished her off, in the sense that she was set ablaze. Still Sahand refuse to sink and burned for several more hours until the fire reached her ammo magazines and exploded.

        Sabalan was hit and crippled by a single Mk 82 500 pound bomb but she did not sink, was towed back to port and returned to service.
        So in conclusion, the 4800 tons ships were sunk by a Exocent that didn’t explode and two measly 250 pound bomb, while the 1900 ton ships survived hits from 500 pound class weapons and needed 3 Harpoons, 2 1000 pound class munitions and another 2 cluster munitions to be sunk. Sounds to me like the 1900 ton Frigate were a little bit more survivable then the 4800 ton destroyers. 😀

        Liked by 1 person

        • picard578 said

          Yes, to limit ship survivability discussion to tonnage is just as foolish as it is to limit aircraft survivability discussion to number of engines.


      • Andrei said

        “More crew also means better damage control ability.”

        Or more cannon fodder. Falklands war is an example were the large crews of British frigates and destroyers that were hit were more of a liability. Mostly because the crew at battle stations on a ship without automation tends to be dispersed allover the ship and thus any hit anywhere can take out a large part of it., including a lot a specialists. Confusion about who is still uninjured and capable to do what to control damage while delay organization and any damage control attempts. It happened on Sheffield and Coventry the examples i gave above. So a ship with large crew has theoretically a better damage control ability, but in practice confusion panic, shock and other human emotions will result in lower damage control ability.
        If the ships uses extensive automation with enough redundancy present, then, the crew will not need to do any damage control as the functions affected by damage will be rerouted through redundant channels and capabilities will “degrade gracefully” The crew will be concentrated in the single most defended part of the ship and only a lucky shot will take them out. Shots in any other part of the ship will cause only damage not injuries and will allow the crew to carry out operation of the ship unhindered by panic or caring about injured crew-mates. It is the model of Russian attack submarines which use extensive automation with multiple redundancies and so far despite shoddy construction techniques and several incidents such as the one on the K-152 Nerpa which resulted in 20 deaths and 41 injured ( crew was twice as much as normal as the ship was in trials and there were a lot of civilian workers on bord 17 of the dead were civilians and it was the large which delayed damage control) always made it back to port. The famous accidents of Russian and Soviet submarines that sunk or almost sunk (K-129, K-19 and Kursk) happened on Ballistic and Guided missile submarines which use far less automation and employ large Crews.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Chris said


        One very serious weakness of the Sheffield was the aluminum superstructure. I think it’s clear that aluminum is not very survivable against modern anti-ship weapons owing to its tendency to burn (a lesson perhaps that was not learned as the LCS demonstrates).

        I don’t know if the Alvand class had a steel or aluminum superstructure.

        I’d be worried about the fact that many ships these days might have composite superstructures as well – I’m not sure if they would burn or not. The Zumwalt class apparently was initially to have a balsa wood superstructure with epoxies, but they changed it to steel.

        I still think that a large well trained crew, with extensive damage control training on a well designed ship could be more survivable than a smaller crew with more heavy automation reliance, but you might be right about more automation. Hmm … the one thing I would agree that it’s best to have the concentrated in the best protected areas of the ships if possible. The question of crew sizes though … I’m not entirely convinced that smaller is better.

        In the case of K19, I don’t think that any size crew would have been able to solve the fact that the reactor leak – that was due to bad design (no backup cooling system) and the construction defects.


      • Andrei said

        ” that was due to bad design (no backup cooling system) and the construction defects”

        That comes from low automation and serves my point.

        Automation dose not mean to stick as many computers and electronics as possible on a ship and call it automatic. That might actually be the contrary. Automation is more a state of design where one ensures that as many tasks of the ship can be handled with as little a crew as possible. Good automation means to apply KISS principle always: use the simplest forms of automation possible and introduce as many redundancies as possible. In most cases that can be done without computers, with analogical electronics and even mechanical systems. Have as many of these as possible and one will have a ship that is almost impervious to damage. Without automation one has a large crew because most task will need a human operator. This will mostly hinder damage control. For example the most common damage control operation is fire fighting, what to you do on a ship with minimal crew: you isolate the affected area and flood it with CO2, water , fire extinguishing gases etc, all these operations can be done from the CIC with the push of a few buttons by a damage control officer while the rest of the crew fights the ship. What do you do on ship with large crew, you have to fight the fire because there will be a huge probability that some crew are trapped in the affected area: one has to first evacuate them and then suppress the fire that will take a big part of the crew that will be concentrating on fighting the fire not the ship, in CIC the officers will be distracted from the tactical situation by the fire, efficiency will drop.
        So in conclusion the question the question of damage control is more nuanced then big crew or not.


      • Chris said

        Perhaps in that case, the Soviet Afla, which the USSR called Project 705 (Лира/Lira, “Lyre”) is the best example then? There were just 31 people to man a nuclear submarine.

        I would agree though that it’s not about adding as many computers and electronics and more about redundancies.

        It comes down to design of the vessel. The other is, what if automation fails? Does a large crew offer better survivability? Or more casualties? It may depend on the context.


      • Andrei said


        Sorry for my tardy response.
        Yes the Lira (Alfa) is what I had in mind. Problems with that class didn’t stem from automation. On the contrary that was the one part that worked fine. The project was to ambitious: high degree of automation, high diving depth, high speed and molten led reactor. If they had dropped the reactor which was the least mature technology and caused the most problems because it required extensive infrastructure which was not build, they would have had an almost perfect fighter boat. High levels of sound wouldn’t have been a problem when they could out run or out dive any torpedo but the British ones, and British had only six boats,

        “It comes down to design of the vessel. The other is, what if automation fails? Does a large crew offer better survivability? Or more casualties? It may depend on the context.”

        I don’t think a vessel with a high degree of automation and redundancy would have increased survivability from a large crew. With a good design of ship and redundancies, by the time automation fails the ship would be dead in the water. No, for an good designed automatic ship the crew would be small and 90% of it would handle only damage control and the rest would be operations crew. So lets say that a good designed frigate would have a tonnage at about 2000-3000 tons, a crew of 40 out of which only 4 would be needed to operate the ship and 36 would handle damage control. The CIC in this case would look pretty much like an aircraft cockpit, all data would be fused like in an aircraft, there would be a helmsman/navigation officer, an offensive systems operator, a defensive systems operator and the captain. The rest of the crew would be specialized in damage control and engineering ; with enough of them knowing how to handle helm, offense and defense and they would be commanded by the XO. In the unlikely case that CIC is taken out before the ship sinks the XO and 3 other members would fight the ship from another place like engine room or the bridge or a purpose built auxiliary CIC who’s main function would be coordinating damage control. With data fusion and a generalized terminal design that would be in all parts of the ship where that is needed (CIC, bridge, engine room, auxiliary CIC/damage control central) there would be no problem to handle the sensor data and control the ship.
        The mass and volume saved by reducing the crew form 200 to 40 would go in more weapons and more damage mitigation measures (Armour, increased compartmentalization, more damage control systems). Also half the crew would be marines (so about 20), specially trained to handle counter boarding actions and simple damage control tasks (like firefighting or technical skills that are easy trained in combat specialists ) since with a small crew boarding could be a danger. The best way to compensate the decrease in quantity (sailors costly technicians poor combatants) is to increase quality (marines mainly combatants specialized in Close Quarters Battles with secondary technical training )


    • Chris said

      I think that there will have to be a balance between underwater and above water support. Surface ships by nature are going to have to at times, head near the shore, and they are dangerously vulnerable to attacks from the air. There are other ships which have their own missiles. A fighter with anti shipping missiles, coastal patrol aircraft, and possibly airships (especially the hybrids like Andrei has proposed) are all very serious threats. A direct hit is probably not survivable, but near misses are likely, especially with anti-missile defense systems destroying incoming missiles.

      Against that, you’ve got torpedoes, from submarines, but also potentially from other ships or the air, and mines. I think that much greater resources needs to be invested for countering modern torpedoes, many of which are designed to go under the ships keep and break it.


  5. Duviel said

    Picard I want to start a blog that focuses on:

    “Holding the powerful accountable whenever, wherever, and in whatever form we can”

    I want to focus on Social/Political/Economic/governance issues.

    Can you point me in the right direction on how to do this?

    Thank You!


    • picard578 said

      First, you have to start reading on topic. Don’t go too wide, though, at least not at first.

      I would recommend Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” and “No Logo”, as well as Ha Joon Chang’s “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism” and Phillip B. Smith, Manfred Max-Neef “Economics Unmasked”.


  6. Duviel said

    Learning is a never ending process and I want to thank you for the recommendations.

    I also need guidance in how to start a blog. The technical logistical part.

    I would greatly appreciate it.


Leave a Reply to Chris Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: