Armed Forces

If you think you had a bad day at work…

A poor Belgian technician had a hard time explaining how he fired the Vulcan cannon of a F-16 he was working which destroyed the $70m fighter plane in front of it. Sadly these planes don’t come with keys. The guns fire even on the ground. It was an accident, honest! No one was injured. So if you’re having a rough day at work, spare a thought that it may not be as bad as this guy!

She should be demoted with immediate effect

And so should her superiors. Our armed forces are being turned into a joke. Commanding Officer of HMAS Albatross, Captain Fiona Sneath, has deemed the 500m walk to the Anzac memorial on Anzac Day too dangerous citing occupational health and safety. These are our brave and proud military personnel who are trained to shoot back in anger if required. CM is sure they’ll cope.

In recent years our armed forces have pushed hard on gender balance (despite strong evidence from the ADF’s own internal audit to say it is dismally failing even more so when targets were lowered), discouraged the words ‘him’ and ‘her’, we’ve banned death symbols, painted finger nails pink for diversity and the Air Force is being asked to think of the roles of women when bombing enemy targets.

The Navy has just raised the white flag of stupidity again. Are our able seamen so poorly trained they can’t walk down a well lit trail?

What do these military chiefs think China must make of all this? To invade Australia, all they’ll need is a couple of terra-cotta warriors and we’ll surrender. Our military chiefs need a major clean out. They are disgracing the proud soldiers that served and continue to serve.

A guide to gender-sensitive bombing

Apparently, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is being asked to consider “the role of gender” while bombing under ‘Gender in Air Operations‘ guidelines. It stems from the risk that should a sortie damage a bridge it might cause the local women to have to walk further to perform daily necessities such as gathering firewood or water supplies. Perhaps they should drop leaflets instead of bombs that tell the males on the ground to ditch their toxic masculinity and do their bit for equality!

Isn’t the point of having air superiority one that gives the home side a tactical advantage in warfare against an enemy sworn to kill? Are we funding our military to win wars or assist the enemy to gain tactical advantages against our own ground troops? What next? Shall we supply the enemy with surface-to-air missiles to even out the fight for the sake of battlefield equality?

Our military has lost the plot. Only last week, a ban was put out to stop the use of death symbols. Camouflage Helly Kitty here we come. Seriously though, if such patches make soldiers feel 10 foot tall then surely the morale-boosting benefits outweigh getting in step with the times. As General Patton once said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”

Thank you for your service?

Australian PM Scott Morrison gave a speech at the PM’s Veterans’ Employment Awards in Canberra tonight. He spoke about how we as a nation should be indebted to the bravery and dedication of our armed forces and emphatically thanked them for their service. If indeed he believed what he spoke about, surely he could honour their sacrifice and efforts by not disappearing 30 minutes into the gig. Deeds not words. Telling.

Israel trolls Iran

The Iranian Air Force Chief threatened to “eliminate Israel from earth” after the Israeli Air Force bombed Syrian based Iranian installations. This is how the IDF responded on Twitter to the threat.

Love, Sex & War

Love, Sex and War. Changing Values 1939-45

In the process of researching the backdrop to publishing the important memoirs of a family member that served in WW2, CM stumbled over some fascinating data with respect to infidelity/adultery during wartime, one of the topics that surfaced in his letters. Suffice to say reading John Costello’s ‘Love, Sex & War‘ there are some eye-opening statistics to come from the book. One wonders whether these toxic men, supposedly laying their lives down to protect the women at home, possibly fathomed this into the equation when they enlisted.

Costello notes,

There were the notorious ‘war-brides’ called ‘Allotment Annies’ who hustled departing soldiers into marriage to collect the twenty dollars a month the US Government automatically allotted to servicemen’s wives. With a private’s pay rising to fifty dollars a month for overseas service, some greedy ‘Annies’ took on four, five, and even six husbands. These unscrupulous women made bigamy a business, and in return for V-mail letters to GIs overseas they lived very well off the pale blue-green Government cheques. Some, with the financial acumen of actuaries, specialized in airmen, anticipating that their higher mortality rates would increase their chances of collecting the ten thousand dollar jackpot Government insurance cheque issued if their husband was killed in action.

Elvira Taylor achieved national notoriety as the ‘Allotment Annie’ who operated out of Norfolk Virginia and specialized in sailors. She managed to snare six live ones and was about to hook a seventh when she was arrested as a result of two of her ‘husbands’ starting a fight in an English pub when they showed each other her picture as their ‘wife.’ When they had been cooled off by the military police, they joined forces to expose the duplicitous Elvira, who was discovered by checking the navy pay records to have contracted four other bigamous marriages.

When it came to divorce, Costello went on to write,

One out of every three American servicemen were married by the end of the war. There was a doubling of petitions for divorce by 1945 when, for every hundred couples getting married, thirty-one were legally separated…The wartime divorce phenomenon afflicted British servicemen to the same increasing degree. The number of adultery petitions filed after 1942 rose by a hundred per cent each year above the 1939-42 average. The final twelve months of the war also saw a spectacular eightfold jump in the number of husbands who were suing for divorce on the grounds of adultery. By 1945, two out of every three petitions were being filed by men, whereas until 1940 female petitions had been in the majority.

So much for the patriarchy we hear about incessantly. To think of those brave souls that laid down their lives for those who were only interested in their deaths.

Sir David’s 22,000 disciples won’t be able to sustain frequent flyer mile status

Yes Sir David Attenborough, we’re doomed if we look at history of the very people in place to save us. Not withstanding the 22,000 climate change disciples who have flown to Katowice, Poland to pay homage at the altar of the UNIPCC to cling on to each other hearing about their inevitable extinction. What a shame that instead of embracing technology and live-streaming COP24 to help us mitigate impending disaster, government funded frequent flyer mile status of climate apparatchiks takes precedence to saving us from all of these dangerous CO2 emissions.

Apart from the 100% certainty of me being screened for explosives at Sydney Airport (yet again today), the other is that the growth in air travel suggests that more and more people are happy to save the planet, provided that someone else offsets on their behalf. CM has long argued this position. Our consumption patterns dictate the “true” state of care of the environment. It hasn’t stopped SUV sales dead in their tracks and last year the IATA forecast that the number of airline passengers is set to DOUBLE by 2030.  Hardly the actions of those frightened by climate change.

Oh but you can offset your carbon footprint! In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasts,

We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”

Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.

In the last 10 years Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less. Would dispensing with frequent flyer programs cut emissions? These loyalty programs by their very nature encourage more travel. The more you fly the more you can fly for free!  Surely the IPCC should scream for a ban here. Dispense with first, business and premium economy to maximise passenger loads each flight. Apologies for the preamble.

While the US is not a signatory to Paris, 19 of the G20 are. The irony is that the non-signatory nation has seen its total emissions fall while many of the others have not. What value the ink on a pledge? No sooner had President Macron thrown stones at America, that he’s backed down and postponed a fuel tax hike for 6 months to save his city from burning down. There it is in a nutshell. We’re told if we don’t act now we’re doomed. So 6 months is a long time in “immediate” speak. What we do know this is classic smoke and mirrors by Macron. In 6 months the fuel tax will be all but forgotten. Virtue signaling Exhibit A scrapped. Why doesn’t anyone in the media pick on China? It has promised to increase emissions out to 2030 and is a signatory.

Sir David should get cold chills lifting a rock on the recent saga surrounding the NATO signatories where we can learn how worthless pen strokes can be. In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending. This guideline, according to NATO,  “principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts.” In 2017, only 5 of the 28 members outside the US have met the 2% threshold – Greece, Estonia, UK, Romania & Poland in that order. Despite Greece’s economic problems elsewhere, it manages to honour the deal. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said “the majority [not all] of allies now have plans to do so by 2024.” 3 more are expected to hit the target in 2018. So for all the good will in the world, is POTUS wrong to call the other 19 members slackers that ride off the US taxpayer when so many of them are only likely to hit the target 18 years after ‘committing’ to it?

Alas, who doesn’t want to breathe clean air? The question is once all of the hysteria of 100m sea rises, forest fires (sharply down from 70 years ago & 90% caused by arson or accidents), hurricanes (nothing extraordinary in the data to show increases in ferocity) or sinking islands (sorry 80% of Pacific atolls/islands are stable or rising) are properly analysed what is the most efficient way to get there? Even Turkey wants to be downgraded to a developing nation in order to benefit from wealth redistribution on climate.

What a masterstroke if signatories to Paris are prepared to take on America’s share of saving the planet. American taxpayers can feel happy in the knowledge that other nations are paying for their NATO commitments by rebating them with tax credits on climate, all the while ruining their domestic competitiveness along the way.  Why does Trump need to Make America Great Again, when the majority of nations are prepared to do it for him? Economist Paul Krugman shouldn’t be calling climate skeptics “sinners” but “saints”