Geopolitics Unplugged

EP38: US Navy versus Fast attack Craft (FACs) and other asymmetrical attacks

Summary:
In this episode we discuss the vulnerability of the US Navy to asymmetrical attacks, particularly from small, fast boats, known as Fast Attack Crafts (FACs). The attack on the USS Cole in 2000 serves as a stark example of the threat posed by FACs, highlighting the ability of small, inexpensive weapons to inflict significant damage. In response to this threat, the US Navy has implemented various countermeasures including deploying patrol boats and Zodiacs in littoral zones, employing the Phalanx CIWS and MK 38 25mm gun systems, and researching solutions such as electronic warfare and directed energy weapons. We also acknowledge the emerging threat posed by unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) operating in swarms, further highlighting the evolving nature of this threat and the ongoing need to develop effective countermeasures.
 
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
How has the US Navy responded to the threat of asymmetric attacks from fast attack crafts and unmanned surface vehicles?
What are the key challenges in defending against swarms of small, inexpensive unmanned surface vehicles?
How has the US Navy's experience with the USS Cole attack influenced its approach to maritime security?
 
Long format:
US Navy versus Fast attack Craft (FACs) and other asymmetrical attacks
This week’s report that Houthi rebel rockets came perhaps as close as 200 meters of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower US Aircraft carrier the question becomes what is the US Navy’s capabilities in terms of asymmetrical attacks?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/200-meters-away-did-houthis-nearly-sink-navy-aircraft-carrier-213267#:~:text=A%20recent%20report%20revealed%20that,actors%20equipped%20with%20advanced%20weaponry
The asymmetrical nature of the modern threat is those FACs (Fast Attack Craft). The US Navy experienced a huge wake up call and shock with the USS Cole attack. 
A very small fiberglass boat carrying shaped C4 explosives and two suicide bombers approached the port side of the destroyer and exploded, creating a 40-by-60-foot (12 by 18 m) gash in the ship's port side. 
 2 suicide bombers on board a cheap not particularly fast boat with about 1000 pounds of C4. (Interestingly the boat was the same one used in the unsuccessful USS The Sullivans attack the year prior) 
 Friendly gestures got those two suicide bombers way too close. I don’t think the US Navy is going to allow access anywhere near an asset again. Big lesson learned. 
 This attack caused $240m in damage. 17 sailors killed. 39 injured. Cole's Sailors fought fires and flooding for the following 96 hours to keep the ship afloat. Very very asymmetrical. 
 Since the USS Cole wake up call, the fleet has really focused on FAC defense. This includes the deployment of a variety of patrol boats and Zodiac like boats when in littoral zones. 
 The Phalanx CIWS (20 mm AP tungsten penetrator rounds when operating under Surface Mode, the ROF is 50 rounds/sec. With a drum capacity of 1,550 rounds, that gives Phalanx 31 seconds worth of firing before running dry.) is optimized a last-ditch defense against incoming missiles. It can be used against attacks by FACs, but was not designed for that purpose.
 The MK 38 25mm gun system (hard hitting 25 mm rounds at a rate of 3 rounds/sec on auto mode, AP, incendiary, or semi-AP shells. With 168 ready-rounds on mount, firing time is nearly double at 56 seconds) has been installed specifically as a defense against FACs like those used by the Iranian IRGC forces in the Gulf.
 An Unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) swarm is something different altogether. 
 The potential for a large number of small, inexpensive USVs to overwhelm a defender's limited supply of high-cost defensive weapons is a legit risk. Identifying and engaging multiple small targets simultaneously within a large area in real time and distinguishing foe from not foe is also difficult. 
 It’s an evolving response to this new threat. Swarm on swarm is being studied and explored. Electronic warfare to deny control over the USVs is the current prevalent countermeasure. Directed energy weapons are being researched and developed. 
 
Sources:
 https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing
 Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wikiMark 38 25 mm machine gun system
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#:~:text=The%20Block%201A%20and%20newer,uranium%20with%20discardable%20plastic%20sabots.
 https://www.gd-ots.com/armaments/naval-platforms-system/phalanx/
 https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/phalanx-close-in-weapon-system#:~:text=U.S.%20Air%20Force)-,The%20Phalanx%20close%2Din%20weapon%20system%20is%20the%20last%20line,Next
 https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/august/counterswarming-imperative#:~:text=This%20example%20raises%20the%20question,catch%20a%20drone%20swarm%E2%80%9D%20approach
 

EP37: Big data, data tracking, data flows and Chinese cashless system

Summary:
In this episode, we discuss the increasing prominence of cashless societies, specifically focusing on China's rapid transition to a digital payment system. We highlight the use of mobile payment platforms like WeChat Pay and Alipay, the widespread adoption of QR code transactions, and the government's introduction of the digital yuan. Furthermore, the sources examine the implications of a cashless society for big data, emphasizing the collection and analysis of user data for both commercial and governmental purposes. We express concerns about the potential loss of privacy and the potential for manipulation in a fully cashless society.
 
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
How does the shift towards a cashless society impact the role of big data and privacy concerns?
What are the key technological drivers and societal implications of China's cashless payment system?
What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of a cashless society in terms of economic and social impacts?
 
  Long format:
Big data, data tracking, data flows and Chinese cashless system 
 
There’s a new sentiment that says the new war front isn’t physical, but rather informational. The flow of data shapes the flow of money. Geoeconomics. 
 
A simple example are Internet cables which are a tangible aspect of data geo-politics. Not as physical is the collection, aggregation and interpretation of big data. From national security projects such as Project Echelon to big data collection in the corporate world like today’s news brief article that highlights the DOJ efforts regarding data tracking and search engine matters by Google with big data (https://www.npr.org/2024/10/09/nx-s1-5146006/justice-department-sanctions-google-search-engine-lawsuit)
 
I thought on this. 
 
I was reminded of stories regarding Chinese cashless system efforts. 
 
China's cashless system is based on digital wallets, QR codes, and other technologies to enable a variety of transactions:
 
The most popular domestic Chinese payment methods are WeChat Pay and Alipay, which are owned by Tencent and Alibaba, respectively. These apps allow users to make purchases, transfer money, book transportation, and more. They use a variety of technologies, including QR codes, facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, and voice recognition.
 
China's domestic card network, which issues debit and credit cards, and provides EPOS machines for merchants. UnionPay cards are accepted at most ATMs and POS terminals, but foreign-issued cards may not be as widely accepted.
 
Some Chinese cities have rolled out facial recognition payment systems that allow users to pay for purchases by smiling.
 
How pervasive is it?
 
As of June 2023, over 943 million people in China use mobile payments, which is a 38.3% penetration rate.
 
Alipay and WeChat Pay are the most popular payment apps in China, with 92% and 85% of respondents preferring them, respectively.
 
QR codes are widely used for payments in China, with buyers either scanning the seller's QR code or displaying their own. 
 
The government introduced the digital yuan to replace physical bank notes, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 
Without cash, we would be forced to leave a record of everything we buy. While this may not bother some, there are many who worry that governments and/or corporations could use our purchasing histories as a way to track us, monitor us, influence us, persuade us, and even intimidate us.
 
Fully implemented, moving towards a cashless system will significantly increase the role of big data, as every digital transaction generates a vast amount of data about consumer behavior, spending patterns, and location, which can be analyzed and utilized by businesses and institutions to gain valuable insights and make informed decisions; this raises privacy concerns as well.
 
I haven’t fully settled on this other than it *may* be an issue. I’m noodling on it. Anyone else noodling on it or want to here?
  
Sources: 
 https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-digital-payments-revolution/#:~:text=While%20America%20spent%20the%20past,network%20incentives%20has%20been%20unleashed
 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zennonkapron/2024/05/26/the-limits-of-cashless-payments-in-china/#
 https://daxueconsulting.com/payment-methods-in-china/#:~:text=Over%20943%20million%20individuals%20actively,Chinese%20or%20international%20credit%20cards
 https://theconversation.com/chinas-experience-with-mobile-payments-highlights-the-pros-and-cons-of-a-cashless-society-201177#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20two%20decades,just%20their%20smartphone%20or%20smartwatch
 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/law-and-the-party-in-china/technologies-of-risk-and-discipline-in-chinas-social-credit-system/9C07910C3EF48B555D3D481BDB6A0A9E
 https://www.paymentsjournal.com/a-cashless-future-can-big-data-change-how-we-pay/#:~:text=As%20society%20slips%20into%20a,for%20fintech%2Dinfused%20money%20movement
 

EP 36: How much of a plug and play is it for a coal fired power plant to be converted to a nuclear power plant

Summary:
In this episode we discuss the feasibility of converting existing coal-fired power plants into nuclear power plants, specifically focusing on the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). We examine the process of conversion, highlighting the necessary steps such as site assessment, decommissioning of coal infrastructure, reactor fabrication and installation, steam generation system adaptation, turbine and generator integration, cooling system development, electrical grid connection, waste management planning, and regulatory compliance. We acknowledge the challenges associated with conversion, including potential "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) objections and the need to navigate different regulatory bodies.
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
What are the technical and logistical challenges associated with converting a coal-fired power plant to a nuclear power plant?
What are the economic and environmental considerations involved in converting coal-fired power plants to nuclear power plants?
What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of converting coal-fired power plants to nuclear power plants in the United States?
Long format:
How much of a plug and play is it for a coal-fired power plant to be converted to a nuclear power plant?With recent discussions and interpretations of the Department of Energy’s new grant application process to look at Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to the tune of $900 million.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-900-million-accelerate-deployment-next-generation-light-water-small-modular
the question becomes how to best implement SMRs into our existing grid. Build new facilities or repurpose and retool existing Coal-fired Power Plants?
We examine this now.
Rather than getting bogged down in the “should” discussion whereby reasonable people disagree reasonably about whether the United States should move to nuclear energy as opposed to other energy sources, I wanted to take a moment to focus practical side of converting from old coal fired plants (CPP) to new SMR plants (mobile micro reactors).
When Peter Zeihan first brought this up several months ago, I did a bit of a deep dive to see how close of a plug and play substitute this scenario could be. And this is what I discovered (for what it’s worth):
Converting a coal power plant into a nuclear power plant involves a multi-step process including: site assessment, decommissioning existing coal infrastructure, building a new nuclear reactor, installing necessary cooling systems, integrating with the existing electrical grid, addressing regulatory requirements and overcoming Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) objections, while potentially reusing some existing structures like the turbine hall and electrical transmission lines, depending on the design of the new nuclear reactor, particularly if it's a smaller, modular design.
In short, it’s a process but yes a lot of stuff that would traditionally we just scrapped can be reclaimed and rededicated depending upon status. We do something similar and related already with converting coal-fire power plants (CPP) to natural gas power plants (NGPP). Almost 200 plants are either fully converted or are in process to be converted from CPP to NGPP. The biggest practical difference that cannot be stressed enough as we shall see about the switch from CPP to NGPP and that from CPP to NPP is the change in regulatory body oversight.
SITE ASSESSMENT: In the conversion from coal-fired to nuclear (micro reactors) one of the key elements is access to water. If the micro reactor is water cooled that’s an issue. Not such a large issue if it is non-water-coooled like sodium, lead, or molten salts which most of the designs I talked about in my other long post are.
DECOMMISSIONING OF THE COAL PLANT: This may already have been done or is in process, but if it is not, here are the steps oversimplified. Dismantle and remove existing coal combustion equipment, including boilers, coal handling systems, and flue gas desulfurization units, while managing hazardous materials like coal ash. The degree to which the government regulators will require a given site to remediate the flue gas desulfurization units and removal or processing of the legacy coal ash on site may make a given project uneconomic. The removed equipment will include at least the coal, coal-storage facilities, coal-handling equipment, coal dryers and crushers, gas filters, ash-handling equipment, sulfur scrubbers, exhaust towers, and any ponds used in operation. One study found that this step makes up approximately 75% of the original capital cost of the plant.
NUCLEAR REACTOR FABRICATION/CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. This step seems fairly obvious including but not limited to building a control room, containment structure and installing the reactor core, fuel handling systems, and associated cooling systems.
STEAM GENERATION SYSTEM: Adapt or modify the existing steam generation system to be compatible with the heat produced by the nuclear reactor. The ability of this repurposing depends on prior plant design and also how long the existing system had been operating. The longer it has been in operation the more likely wear and tear has made its repurposing impractical.
TURBINE AND GENERATOR INTEGRATION: Utilize the existing turbine and generator infrastructure where possible, potentially requiring upgrades to accommodate the new steam conditions. Retaining the turbine would potentially save approximately 5.5% of the cost of the original plant. The ability of this repurposing depends on prior plant design and also how long the existing system had been operating. The longer it has been in operation the more likely wear and tear has made its repurposing impractical.
COOLING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT: Install appropriate cooling systems, such as cooling towers or once-through cooling systems, based on water availability and environmental considerations.
ELECTRICAL GRID CONNECTION: Connect the new nuclear power plant to the existing electrical grid, leveraging the existing transmission lines from the coal plant. This is a major advantage of conversion from a legacy CCP to a new nuclear power plant (NPP). If the NPP’s power levels match those of the CPP, this should allow for minimal investment in the local grid.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN:  Develop a plan for managing spent nuclear fuel, including storage and transportation to a disposal facility. And also there are potential issues with cleaning up the onsite legacy coal storage areas depending on how much coal remains.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: Obtain all necessary permits and licenses from regulatory agencies, including site permitting, construction authorization, and operation licenses. Switching regulatory bodies is no joke. From the EPA for CPP to the the NRC with any nuclear power plant is a change in culture for sure.
NIMBY CONCERNS: As we can see from the comments within our own community some folks have very log held and very heart felt beliefs on the subject of nuclear power. Will anti NPP folks be able to sufficiently organize and galvanize local thought to impact the project? That’s always a possibility.
Just some research I did that might be useful. I look forward to Eric’s or others amplifications/corrections. I like to learn. Thanks for helping me learn, y’all.
Sources:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/8-things-know-about-converting-coal-plants-nuclear-power
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_54812.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/could-nations-coal-plant-sites-help-drive-clean-energy-transition#:~:text=A%20Look%20at%20the%20Study&text=The%20team%20further%20evaluated%20the,environmental%20benefits%20to%20energy%20communities
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/could-nations-coal-plant-sites-help-drive-clean-energy-transition#:~:text=A%20Look%20at%20the%20Study&text=The%20team%20further%20evaluated%20the,environmental%20benefits%20to%20energy%20communities
https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL-SA-193632-CoaltoNuclear.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-101-how-does-nuclear-reactor-work#:~:text=The%20water%20in%20the%20core,electric%20generator%20to%20produce%20electricity
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/repurposing-fossil-fuel-power-plant-sites-with-smrs-to-ease-clean-energy-transition#:~:text=Nevertheless%2C%20challenges%20remain%20to%20implementing,salt%2Dbased%20energy%20storage%20system
https://spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear-power-plant#:~:text=I%20find%20it%20difficult%20to,than%20simply%20building%20new%20machinery
https://nuclearinnovationalliance.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/NIA_Resources%20for%20Coal%20Repowering%20with%20Nuclear%20Energy_v1.0_.pdf
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/coal-nuclear-power-pant-conversion-naseo-naruc/714586/#:~:text=Despite%20the%20opportunity%2C%20challenges%20remain,kW%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20report%20said

EP 35: A distinction without a meaningful difference? Decoupling v. De-risking

 
Summary:
In this episode, we discuss two distinct strategies for addressing economic dependence on China: de-risking and strategic decoupling. De-risking, favored by the Biden administration, aims to reduce reliance on China in specific strategic sectors like semiconductors through targeted tariffs and export controls. In contrast, strategic decoupling, favored by Republican policymakers, advocates for broader tariffs and restrictions to minimize trade deficits and dependencies, prioritizing long-term economic threats. We highlight that while both approaches seek to reduce dependence on China, they differ in their scope and implementation, with de-risking potentially facing criticism for perceived compromises and strategic decoupling risking backlash from trade partners and businesses. We conclude by suggesting that regardless of the political outcome, the United States will reduce its global footprint and increase reshoring, with the degree of change depending on the chosen policy approach.
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
What are the key differences between de-risking and strategic decoupling in terms of their objectives and policy tools?
How do the respective approaches of de-risking and strategic decoupling impact the US's economic and political relationships with China?
What are the potential challenges and trade-offs associated with implementing each approach in the US-China relationship?
Long format:
A distinction without a meaningful difference? Decoupling v. De-risking
De-risking, as endorsed by the Biden-Harris administration, selectively uses tariffs and export controls to target specific strategic sectors, aiming to reduce reliance on China, especially in key industries like semiconductors, without severing all economic ties. It balances the costs of action (e.g., tariffs and restrictions) against the costs of inaction (e.g., dependency on China).
Strategic decoupling, favored by Republican policymakers and rooted in the ideas of former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, seeks to minimize trade deficits and dependencies by implementing broader tariffs and restrictions. It places a stronger emphasis on the potential risks of inaction, such as China’s growing economic and military dominance, and seeks to prevent U.S. economic engagement with China where it is deemed harmful, while allowing beneficial exchanges.
While both strategies focus on reducing dependencies on China, de-risking aims for targeted, balanced interventions, while strategic decoupling advocates for more comprehensive actions with a focus on preventing long-term economic threats. These differences in policy approaches could lead to distinct challenges in implementation and political support, with de-risking facing criticism for perceived compromises, and strategic decoupling risking backlash from trade partners and businesses.
But in all practical senses is this a word game of semantics or is there a practical difference? This article gives evidence to the thoughts presented in our podcast that no matter who wins the POTUS race, the US footprint in the world will be less and reshoring continues, it is just a question of degree.
https://thediplomat.com/2024/10/de-risking-vs-strategic-decoupling-understanding-harris-and-trumps-approaches-to-economic-security/
 

EP 34: Autonomous cars: Why don’t we have self-driving cars yet?

Summary:
In this episode, we discuss the challenges and current state of autonomous vehicle development, focusing on the role of advanced semiconductor chips. We explain the different levels of autonomous driving automation, from Level 0 (no automation) to Level 5 (full automation). We highlight the need for increasingly sophisticated chips with smaller nanometer (nm) sizes to power these advanced systems, especially for achieving Level 5 autonomy. While progress is being made, we note that standardized road conditions remain a significant obstacle to widespread deployment of fully autonomous vehicles.
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
What are the technological hurdles preventing widespread adoption of self-driving cars?
How does the current state of semiconductor technology impact the development of autonomous vehicles?
What are the key differences between the various levels of autonomous driving automation?
Long format:
Autonomous cars: Why don’t we have self-driving cars yet?
The current conventional nomenclature for autonomous vehicles is from the SAE.
The six levels of autonomous car automation are:
Level 0: No driving automation
Level 1: Driver assistance
Level 2: Partial driving automation
Level 3: Conditional driving automation
Level 4: High driving automation
Level 5: Full driving automation
It all depends on what level you want. As a general rule, the higher the level the lower the nm on the chip. That’s simplistic because there is a lot that goes into it beyond the chip such as hardware (LIDAR, radar, sensors, etc). But simplistically that is so.
Most automotive semiconductors are based on nodes below 22 nm. However, some vehicle designs use leading-edge 7- and 10-nm semiconductor chips, and 5-nm designs are in development.
The next generation of chips for autonomous driving systems will use technologies closer to the cutting edge, in the 1-5 nm range.
China at best is at 7nm currently. They are developing but not yet deployed 5nm. As I have written all over this community with lots of words, I don’t see China cracking into the sub 5nm reality for some time.
The current state of the art is 3nm with IBM at 2nm. No one is at 1nm but bold prediction at the 2025 conference I bet it will be revealed.
The bane of the existence of the dream of automated cars is in non standardized road conditions and non uniform lane markers. There is a great story of how Elon Musk told his engineers that he demanded to drive in a fully automated Tesla from his house to his headquarters with zero human intervention. It was a demanding timeline. For almost all hours the engineers tried and tried and tried and failed….. until they decided to go outside the box, and repair and repaint all of the roadway between his house and the HQ. Problem solved. Elon’s demand accepted. It’s a good story but a better illustration of the issues with the goal of achieving level 5 cars that will function in the wild. China is a country that would repaint all of its roads and make it supremely uniform perhaps. Will the US? Dunno. I would not bank on it.
Sources:
 https://digital.bnpmedia.com/publication/?i=667937&article_id=3726579&view=articleBrowser
https://www.embedded.com/buying-autonomous-electric-vehicles-will-soon-be-just-like-buying-a-laptop/#
https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/chip-design/autonomous-driving-levels.html#
https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/chip-design/autonomous-driving-levels.html#

EP 33: Content Moderation, information Industrial Complex

Summary:
In this episode we examine the rapid growth of the content moderation industry, comparing it to the military industrial complex. We highlight the high profit margins generated by content moderation services, which have minimal production costs. We speculate on the potential geopolitical impacts of this industry's expansion, particularly in relation to information control, globalization, and international relations.
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
What is the driving force behind the growth of the information/censorship industrial complex?
How does the rise of the information/censorship industrial complex impact geopolitical dynamics?
What are the potential long-term consequences of a global expansion of content moderation efforts?
Long format:
Content Moderation, information Industrial Complex
I am increasing becoming aware of the information/censorship industrial complex. Not so much from the censorship or restrictions on free speech and “what, if anything, we should ‘do’ about the spread of misinformation and other active measures types of campaigns”. I’m focusing more on the money and its growth.
The global content moderation services market size was estimated at USD 9.67 billion in 2023 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 13.4% from 2024 to 2030. USD 13 billion in 2024 to USD 40.37 billion by 2032.
This is just math and facts. I’m placing no judgement on it’s necessity or usefulness.
It is big big big money.
And the beautiful thing about it is that it is very very very high margin. Unlike the military industrial complex (MIC) where in the MIC it actually makes bullets and rifles and artillery shells and missiles and planes that have hard costs, content moderation has no hard costs.
If Brazil-like efforts spread to the EU, the projections above in terms of the information/censorship industrial complex will easily double.
It is big big money. The military industrial complex is old money. The information industrial complex is new money and much much more powerful.
From a demographic and geopolitical point of view, what are we seeing now with the dawning of the information/censorship industrial complex. If it continues to grow and if Brazil-like efforts against X continue to be the norm, what can we expect the impact on geopolitics to be? How does this shape or impact our unprecedented re-shoring of manufacturing? How does accelerate or decelerate the fall of China? How does this accelerate or decelerate de-globalization? How does it impact traditional alliances such as NATO? How does it impact Ukraine? Just what are the ripples?

EP 32: Demographics important but not everything

Summary:
In this episode, we discus the importance of demographics, particularly fertility rates, in shaping the future of countries. We present data showing a dramatic decline in global fertility rates, leading to population decline in most parts of the world. However, despite this trend, we present that demographics are not the sole determinant of a country's future success. We highlight the importance of a country's position in the Global Value Chain (GVC) as an additional factor in determining future economic strength, suggesting that maintaining a strong position in the GVC may be as critical as achieving high birth rates.
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
What are the implications of global demographic decline for the global economy and geopolitics?
How do factors like global value chains and demographic trends interact to influence the future of nations?
To what extent does global population decline challenge existing models of economic growth and development?
Long format:
Demographics important but not everything 
There is within doubt a very large and irreversible demographic decline in the world in general. This is a problem.
I have fully drunk the Peter Zeihan kool aid that demographics are important.
However, they aren’t everything.
Consider this.
By 2100, only six of 204 countries and territories (Samoa, Somalia, Tonga, Niger, Chad, and Tajikistan) are expected to have fertility rates exceeding 2.1 births per female. In 13 countries, including Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Saudi Arabia, rates are even predicted to fall below one child per female.
The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in Western Europe is predicted to be 1.44 in 2050, dropping to 1.37 in 2100, with Israel, Iceland, Denmark, France, and Germany expected to have the highest fertility rates at between 2.09 and 1.40 at the end of the century. Rates are projected to be much lower across the rest of Europe and parts of Asia.
Most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline (when the number of deaths exceeds the number of livebirths); just 26 countries are still projected to be growing in population in 2100 as livebirths continue to outnumber deaths, including Angola, Zambia, and Uganda.
Source:
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform#:~:text=By%202100%2C%20only%20six%20of,and%20employment%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20Vollset
https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf
But those 16 countries don’t make Peter Zeihan’s top 5 future winners (“Now, the shortlist of countries that could function without the Americans, Japan's far away the top of the list. Turkey makes the top four. France does really well, so does Argentina.”)
It is interesting to me to contemplate the chicken or the egg. Is it more important to stay on top of the Global Value Chain (GVC) or mind replacement rates and demographics? If a proverbial gun was put to your head and you had to choose demographic “win” of replacement rate above say 3 versus being on top of the GVC, which would you choose and why?

EP 31: Counterattacking North Korea with nukes: the reality

Summary:
In this episode we discuss the potential consequences of a nuclear attack on North Korea, highlighting the dangers of fallout and the international implications. We examine the reality of US retaliation options, emphasizing the significant risks posed by nuclear fallout to neighboring countries, particularly China and South Korea. We explore the concept of "zero tolerance" for nuclear proliferation, questioning its practicality and exploring the various measures that could be employed to prevent it, ranging from technology restrictions to military intervention.
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
What are the political and military implications of a "zero tolerance" policy towards nuclear proliferation?
What are the potential consequences of a nuclear strike against North Korea, and how could these consequences impact regional stability?
How might the US address the challenge of nuclear proliferation in a way that balances deterrence and the avoidance of unintended consequences?
Long format:
Counterattacking North Korea with nukes: the reality
What can’t be lost in a doomsday scenario of a NK nuclear spasm is that in reality the US retaliation options are very limited in reality. Here is why:
Depending upon the yield of the nuclear weapon, how high up in the atmosphere it is detonated and winds, at a distance of 20-25 miles downwind, a lethal radiation dose (600 rads) would be accumulated by a person who did not find shelter within 25 minutes after the time the fallout began. At a distance of 40-45 miles, a person would have at most 3 hours after the fallout began to find shelter.
Here, it's important to stress that even if the nuclear event doesn't happen in your immediate area—even if it's hundreds of miles away—the fallout could still potentially reach you in a day or less.
Why does this matter?
China
If we think for one nanosecond that China is just going to sit idly by when we nuke NK into oblivion and just tolerate nuclear fallout on their land and to their people no matter how minimal and not lose its mind???? Then we are crazy. On the other side there’s SK an alley and irradiating their land is not going to be popular and never mind our 28,500 troops and approximately 48,000 US Citizens.
So in reality nuking the hermit kingdom back is very very dangerous.
Sources:
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-fallout-nuclear-weapons-testing
https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/effects/wenw/chapter-2.html#:~:text=At%20a%20distance%20of%2020,fallout%20began%20to%20find%20shelter
https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/survive-nuclear-fallout#:~:text=Here%2C%20it's%20important%20to%20stress,in%20a%20day%20or%20less
I am in with folks who say there should be a “zero tolerance” for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation especially into states or actors who do not play by generally accepted international standards of behavior is to be avoided.
When folks advocate "zero tolerance" what does that look like?
Are we talking ITAR like restrictions on the technology involved in uranium enrichment such as photoexcitation equipment/technology, and gaseous diffusion and gas centrifugation equipment? This we already do. But in a global market, there are other spaces to get these items from. Do we drop bombs on foreign manufacturers of these technologies if they continue to export these items?
Do we occupy all uranium mines?
Do we pressure countries to close their existing nuclear facilities so that enriched uranium or plutonium cannot be as easily made? Do we bomb them if they do not close?
What about targeted assassinations of folks like Abdul Qadeer Khan or other scientists?
Do we put boots on the ground in this zero-tolerance stance for NK or Iran or others to stop them?
What in practical reality does zero tolerance mean in reality?

EP 30: The Jones Act: A time to reform

 
Summary:
In this episode we present a debate surrounding the Jones Act, a US law requiring goods transported between US ports to be carried on US-built, owned, and crewed ships. We highlight arguments both for and against the law. Those arguing against the Jones Act claim it leads to higher transportation costs, inhibits economic development, and burdens the US economy, particularly in regions like Puerto Rico. Conversely, supporters argue the Jones Act bolsters the US maritime industry, supports jobs, and enhances national security by ensuring the availability of US-flagged vessels in times of crisis. We discuss the need for its repeal.
 
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
What are the key economic arguments for and against the Jones Act?
How does the Jones Act impact US domestic trade and national security?
To what extent does the Jones Act promote US maritime industry and employment?
Long format:
The Jones Act: A time to reform
Peter Zeihan has been railing against the economic inefficiencies of the Jones Act since he’s been doing his videos and in several of his books.  https://zeihan.com/the-jones-act-and-american-economic-development/
Besides his great books which are must reads, if you are interested in the economic inefficiencies of the Jones Act, here are some sources I liked reading. You might enjoy them too…
(as always with all critical reading consider the source and look for any bias)
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear#introduction
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/the-jones-act-paradox-why-is-a-law-that-is-deemed-essential-so-frequently-waived#:~:text=Critics%20of%20the%20Jones%20Act,Hawaiian%20family%20$1%2C800%20per%20year
https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2022/11/the-jones-act/#:~:text=The%20result%20is%20a%20shrinking,does%20not%20go%20far%20enough
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022199620300933#:~:text=This%20paper%20examines%20the%20economic,Jones%20Act%20impedes%20domestic%20trade
https://maritimesafetyinnovationlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/mercatus-grennes-jones-act-v2-2017.pdf
https://www.hoover.org/research/how-jones-act-harms-america
https://www.nber.org/digest/202402/jones-act-and-energy-prices
I think it’s always important to at least consider “the other side”. Therefore, here are some resources to consider from those who argue the Jones Act is still “needed”:
https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/u-s-maritime-industry/jones-act-overview/#:~:text=The%2040%2C000%20Jones%20Act%20vessels,%2441%20billion%20in%20labor%20compensation
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/05/why-the-jones-act-is-still-needed-100-years-later/
Have a great day everyone. What a great community. Great tribe we are building here. Cheers and high fives to us.

EP 29: How much oil and natural gas does US have...

Summary:
The sources provide an assessment of the United States' oil and natural gas reserves, suggesting that the country has abundant resources. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) estimates the U.S. has 1.66 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, which is enough to fuel transportation for over 500 years at current consumption rates. Additionally, the IER estimates that the U.S. holds 4.03 quadrillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, sufficient to meet current demand for over 130 years. The sources highlight the substantial increase in these estimates compared to previous studies, indicating a growing understanding of the U.S.'s potential for oil and gas production.
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
What are the current and potential reserves of oil and natural gas in the United States?
How does the United States' oil and natural gas reserves compare to those of other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia?
What factors have led to the significant increase in estimated technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources in the United States since 2011?
Long format:
How much oil and natural gas does US have….
We are very very good. Very. Did I say very.
(Main source technical article: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/2024-north-american-energy-inventory/?amp=1)
Quoting from one of the industry’s best sources:
Total technically recoverable resources of oil in the U.S. amount to 1.66 trillion barrels.
That’s according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Research (IER), which was sent to Rigzone recently, which noted that, at current rates of consumption, that’s enough oil for 227 years. If the oil is devoted exclusively to gasoline production, it is enough gasoline to fuel the transportation sector for 539 years at 2023 usage levels, the report stated.
The 1.66 trillion barrel figure is 15 percent higher than the estimate of technically recoverable oil from IER’s 2011 report, and more than 5.6 times the proved reserves of Saudi Arabia, the study outlined.
Total technically recoverable resources of natural gas in the U.S. amount to 4.03 quadrillion cubic feet, according to the report, which stated that, at the current consumption rate, that’s enough natural gas for the next 130 years.
The 4.03 quadrillion cubic feet figure is a 47 percent increase in the estimate of technically recoverable natural gas since IER’s 2011 report, the study highlighted. The report also pointed out that the U.S. has over 65 quadrillion cubic feet of in place natural gas resources.
“If just half of that amount becomes recoverable, the U.S. has over 1,000 years of natural gas supply at 2022 consumption rate,” the report noted.
Source:
https://www.rigzone.com/news/how_much_oil_and_gas_does_the_usa_have-16-may-2024-176766-article/#:~:text=That's%20according%20to%20a%20new,enough%20oil%20for%20227%20years