by the meltingpot: A military strategy report and a riddle.

Now Reading!

Indeed, what is at work in the recent return of realism is the revenge of geography in the most old-fashioned sense. In the 18th and 19th centuries, before the arrival of political science as an academic specialty, geography was an honored, if not always formalized, discipline in which politics, culture, and economics were often conceived of in reference to the relief map. Thus, in the Victorian and Edwardian eras, mountains and the men who grow out of them were the first order of reality; ideas, however uplifting, were only the second.
And yet, to embrace geography is not to accept it as an implacable force against which humankind is powerless. Rather, it serves to qualify human freedom and choice with a modest acceptance of fate. This is all the more important today, because rather than eliminating the relevance of geography, globalization is reinforcing it. Mass communications and economic integration are weakening many states, exposing a Hobbesian world of small, fractious regions. Within them, local, ethnic, and religious sources of identity are reasserting themselves, and because they are anchored to specific terrains, they are best explained by reference to geography. Like the faults that determine earthquakes, the political future will be defined by conflict and instability with a similar geographic logic. The upheaval spawned by the ongoing economic crisis is increasing the relevance of geography even further, by weakening social orders and other creations of humankind, leaving the natural frontiers of the globe as the only restraint.
So we, too, need to return to the map, and particularly to what I call the “shatter zones” of Eurasia. We need to reclaim those thinkers who knew the landscape best. And we need to update their theories for the revenge of geography in our time.
Here is the link for the whole write up.

Now at 2nd place

My view is that relations between countries in the coming decades are most likely to reflect their cultural commitments, their cultural ties and antagonism with other countries rather than other factors. Quite obviously, power will continue to play a central role in global politics, as it always does. But usually there is something else behind conflicts. In the 18th century in Europe, the issues to a large extent involved questions of monarchy versus the emerging republican movements, first in America and then in France. In the 19th century, it involved states identifying themselves through nationalism. In the 20th century, ideology came to the fore, largely, but not exclusively, as a result of the Russian Revolution. We had fascism, communism and liberal democracy competing with each other. Well, that’s pretty much over. Liberal democracy has come to be accepted, in theory at least, around the world, if not always in practice. So the question really is what will be the central focus of global politics in the coming decades? My argument remains that cultural identities, antagonisms and affiliations will not only play a role, but play a major role in relations between states. The full interview is here.

This is the 3rd

Every citizen in the City of Richardson will be able to access 756 Kbps of internet connectivity for free, from anywhere in the city. They will be able to access the internet from their homes, schools, restaurants and parks using standard wi-fi connections which are now installed on almost every notebook computer. That is almost as fast as many so-called high speed broadband connections that one pays dearly for today, and several times faster than the various hotspots at your local coffee shops. And I should note that the tax-payers of the City of Richardson are not paying one penny for this, and in fact are going to see additional revenues as a benefit. ... At the beginning of this letter, I suggested that this would be one of the fastest worldwide rollouts of a technology ever seen. It was just 20 years ago that the first cellular systems were being built. The rollout for mesh wireless systems is going to make that look slow. There are several reasons I make this assertion. But they all center on the facts that installing mesh systems will be cheaper and easier than any previous system and the economics in both the developed and especially the developing world will be so radically compelling. Throw in the fact the any astute politician will want to be at the front of this parade (They will all want to say, "I was the man who helped bring free internet to everyone!") and the groundwork is laid for rapid deployment. In Richardson and elsewhere, MeshLinx is offering the basic infrastructure for free. This avoids all the time consuming, political budget battles in the cities. When a service is offered for free, much of the mandated competitive process is eliminated. Next is the low cost of installation of the system. As noted above, Richardson is a city of roughly 100,000 people living in 27.4 square miles. It will "only" cost about $2,000,000 today to lay the wireless blanket I mentioned above. It will cost a great deal less in the future, as MeshLinx is building the pods at a pace of 100 a month today. The maximum output of the US pilot assembly line is 500 a month. When the demand exceeds this (and it will in a very short time) discussions have been held to move volume production to China. Of course, the world will need tens of millions of pods. The cost for a pod will be a fraction of today's cost, with that installation number for a city like Richardson soon being half (or less) the cost of today. What does that $1 or 2 million get you? The infrastructure to be an internet connection, telephone, security, entertainment provider and a whole lot more company. As noted, it will get cheaper as the number of pods being made each month rises, thus lowering their costs dramatically. This technology does have scale. The cost of physically putting up a pod is not a large part of the equation, as you simply need to run a power line, attach a few bolts to a mount on the side of a building or light pole and then off to the next point. Think about the 40,000 homes and businesses in Richardson. If and (hopefully) over time when 10% decide to pay $50 a month for 10-20 Mbps high speed internet access you could see a revenue of $2.5 million a year just from internet access. Now add in all the other income possibilities (phone, entertainment, security and don't forget advertising revenue on the free service!). Think about your town or country. What would service like this be worth? If you are a small city that does not have high speed connections available, how many businesses that could bring jobs do not come your way because they need reliable communications for their work and their employees? If you are in a developing country, where internet access is difficult and expensive, it will open whole new vistas. Couple that with the various programs which want to give cheap laptops to kids in poor countries, and you could see significant social progress in a generation. Here is the link.

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

A military strategy report and a riddle.

The US has released the 'National Military Strategy' report 2015.

The report said that the chances of war with a state is 'low but growing'.

To see how the US is sizing up the other nations,I'll quote the following from page 9 of the report:

"We will strengthen our alliances with Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines,and Thailand. We also will deepen our security relationship with India and build upon ourpartnerships with New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Bangladesh."

It's significant that India is being dealt as a stand-alone case.

Pakistan is being clubbed with the nations of the Middle East.It's a surprise.See the following quote from the same page.

"In the Middle East, we remain fully committed to Israel’s security and Qualitative Military Edge. We also are helping other vital partners in that region increase their defenses,including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Egypt, and Pakistan."

Of course,they are all for the guaranteeing of Israel's security.As someone observing it from an obscure place like Imphal,it's maddeningly confusing to see why the US is so intent to guarantee the security of Israel in defiance of the vast majority of the nations of the Middle East.Is it because the West(which includes the US) borrows a 'story' from Israel?(The Bible,essentially,is an Israeli folk tale).Are they in a perennial payback mode?

As expected,China is being sized up as the main rival.

Having observed all these feature,what makes this year's report stand out is yet to be mentioned.To my mind,it's all to do with the deployment of the term 'Revisionist States".I'ts remakable that the term occurs only once in the whole of the 17 page report.And,there is absolutely no effort to explain it from the context of Pentagons's scheme of things.It's more like the State Department speaking through the Pentagon.

I bet they are putting the term into the report as some kind of a riddle,nay,an Oriental riddle!So far,we come to know of the existence of the battleline and make the discovery of the one constituent within the US society(my last post) in as fine and as mysterious ways as one negotiates an Oriental riddle.So,the US is saying--'A riddle for a riddle'!

I also think they are using the term 'revisionist states' in the context of the Cold War.It was the decisive defeat of the CPSU and the Soviet Union.In that sense,the entities like the Communist Party of China(CPC) are anachronisms themselves in today's world.

But they are missing out on one simple but important point.CPC embraced pragmatism on line with the famous dictum--"It does not matter whether the cat is balck or white as long as it catches mice".So, the CPC is comfortably co-habiting with ever increasing nunbers of billionaires.This also means the Chinese society,under the leadership of CPC,is also begining to produce world-class corporations and brands.

Now,it's the turn of the US(the victor of the Cold War) to embrace pragmatism to make the lives of the 99% of the population easier.It's the matter of straight forward existential fact that 1% of the US population has amassed more wealth than the remaining 99% and it's getting richer by the day.The remaining 99% is facing more and more problem in keeping intact its present standard of living.

Everybody knows that they have high ideals like universal franchise,freedom of speech,human rights protection etc.But 99% of the population needs much more than these high ideals.The sheer conditions of human living demand that the 99% is more focused on the bread and butter business.It will be really heartwarming if the 99% have practical access to the opportunities to their bread and butter business while still living in a society which have those high ideals.It's really unfortunate to see that the movements like the 'occupy Wall Street' seem to hint that this 'heartwarming scenario' is indeed facing problems.It's in such a crucial time that the world is watching how the US would embrace pragmatism(like the CPC) to make sure the 'heartwarming scenario' is indeed possible and sustainable within the geographical boundary of the US.

If they take it too long to do so,the 99% would start openly saying that the CPC is much more pragmatic.

The full copy of the report is here.

by the meltingpot

Now Reading!

Now at 2nd place

This is the 3rd