John Michael Greer: The God Of Technological Progress May Well Be Dead

Dave said,

It is a fascinating discussion on how we view the world.  I find it really useful.  It helps illuminate how Jim and I both see things.  I'm more willing to accept imposters in exchange for fewer false alarms, while he is unwilling to accept any imposters - but in exchange, he must tolerate repeated false alarms.
You really think that's it Dave?  Was this a false alarm back in 2005?   
And now the Bank for International Settlements, the central bank of the central banks, has confessed to the gold price suppression scheme. The confession of the BIS came last June in a fairly candid speech by the head of the bank's monetary and economic department, William R. White, to central bankers and academics gathered at the BIS' fourth annual conference, held in Basel, Switzerland. The speech was provided to GATA this week.

White's speech was titled "Past and Future of Central Bank Cooperation" and he said in part:

"The intermediate objectives of central bank cooperation are more varied.

"First, better joint decisions, in the relatively rare circumstances where such coordinated action is called for.

"Second, a clear understanding of the policy issues as they affect central banks. Hopefully this would reflect common beliefs, but even a clear understanding of differences of views can sometimes be useful.

"Third, the development of robust and effective networks of contacts.

"Fourth, the efficient international dissemination of both ideas and information that can improve national policy making.

"And last, the provision of international credits and joint efforts to influence asset prices (especially gold and foreign exchange) in circumstances where this might be thought useful."

That is, central banks collaborate – and since they do so in secret, it may be said that they conspire – to rig the gold and currency markets. To use White's word, the central banks collaborate "especially" to rig the gold and currency markets.

If the central banks were cooperating to rig the gold markets back in 2005, I'd say they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  Their rigging was such a success, it led to a 600% rise over an 11 year period.  Time to celebrate a grand market-rigging victory!

Oh wait.  Maybe you meant they were cooperating in order to try and stop the gold market from rising.  They weren't actually trying to encourage the market higher.

Well in that case, I'd say the rigging efforts were an abject failure.  Wouldn't you?  600% is, after all, a very impressive move.

[And Jim - I was really talking about COMEX defaults here more than anything else]

Awhile back, I learned my lesson the hard way with humidity and its effect on an instrument. Later, my piano technician drove the message home. He told me all wood instruments can handle high and low temperatures pretty well for short periods of time as long as the temperature swings don't happen quickly, but extreme highs and lows in humidity is killer on an instrument, even for a day. Anything over 85% humidity can permanently damage an instrument, new or old. Same goes for too little humidity…not sure of the threshold, probably below 30%.
Needless to say my piano's electronic damp-chaser is on 24/7.  Well worth the investment.

I've really enjoyed following the discussion between Chris and Dogs too. 
Based on what I've read, perhaps the only disagreement between you two is on timing.  Chris has said that the offensive technology is evolving more quickly than the defensive technology.  He claims that the age of the carrier is over already, but there hasn't yet been a conflict with a foe powerful enough to demonstrate it.

Dogs says:

Cruise missiles, and to a lesser degree torpedoes (for entirely different reasons) are the things that keep carrier COs and CVBG commanders awake, alert and prematurely grey.  My contention is with Chris' conclusion that that time is upon us.  It is not.  Yet.
I'm not sure if we want to continue this any longer, but I'll ask anyway.  Dogs, do you have any thoughts on how far off "yet" is?

…is unwise and whatever one writes makes no sense.
Dave, sorry for not getting back to you last night.  Here we go.

This is all 100% speculation.  DF-21 is an interesting system.  It uses ballistic boost to extend range and then has some type of terminal guidance and homing.  Typical ballistic missile employment is little more than a physic and orbital mechanics problem.  If I am at point A and I want to shoot at Point B, there's a unique arrangement of trajectory, booster burn time, boost velocity, exoatmospheric flight, reentry and impact.  You have to tell the missile where it "is" so it knows where to "go".  It's not as simple as plugging in your Dong Feng Garmin and punching up lat/long.  Input positioning has a big affect on downrange accuracy.  We'll assume they have that part sorted out. 
The dynamic is that the target is moving.  That necessarily complicates the targeting process.  Not only do you need to know exactly where the target is, you have to know where it was so you can predict where it's going.  That requires a robust over the horizon targeting capability and that is no small challenge.  A CVBG 800 miles away presents a unique problem in that there are few platforms that can be employed to provide precise locating data and track history on the CVBG without exposing themselves.  Let's say a CVBG is transiting in the Philippine Sea 800 miles east of Taiwan (course 270, 20 knots).  A satellite could theoretically provide locating data but there are latency issues.  An aircraft could fly against the CVBG to try and position, but it couldn't do so without being detected and engaged.  A submarine could theoretically be used, but in order to locate and intercept the CVBG it would have to maneuver at speeds above 20 knot in order to close.  Submarines at high speed suffer varying degrees of sonar performance degradation which reduces search effectiveness which translates to longer search times.  More time spent repositioning at high speed is more opportunity to be detected.  As I've stated earlier, submarines transiting at high speed are very detectable.  For argument's sake, let's assume a boat was able to locate  the CVBG and get close enough to make a periscope observation and determine course, speed and range.  The only way to get that report off is to transmit into the EM spectrum.  That transmission will be detected.  If I'm the BG commander, I immediately order course north and 30 knots.
Remember that the boat reported the CVBG was on 270, at 20 knots.  That targeting data gets put into the DF-21 system and that takes time.  30 minutes is probably a generous, but a reasonable assumption (it at least frames the problem).  After launch preps, launch order is given and the DF-21(s) are fired.  Assume that entire process from locating report, to launch preps, launch, boost, flight, reentry, terminal flight to impact is an (very generous) hour.  The missile thinks the CVBG aimpoint is 20 nm further down track on 270 when in fact it is 36 miles to the northeast.  That may or may not be out of the detection footprint.  The unknown is what type of terminal guidance capability may exist - but there's only so much you can do in terminal ballistic flight to move something very far off the original aimpoint.
The EM spectrum will be full of signals, and the missile would then have to sort through to discriminate where the primary target was.  I would not like to be the DDG in screen.

It bears mentioning, that the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense system could be utilized during the boost phase (assuming the launch is detected).  That too is a physics problem and it's a very hard problem.  There are any number of unclassified documents that outline BMD test firing results, but these were constrained tests and didn't have the pressure of "if this doesn't work, we're toast, sucks to be us".

In short, the maneuverability of a CVBG is the biggest challenge to effective targeting.  While a successful shot is theoretically possible (and certainly a non-zero probability), the search-detect-report-engage-kill chain is a series event and all you have to do to defeat the system is to interrupt any one of them.  Obviously, the earlier in the chain the better.

Take note that for this discussion, we have only been postulating action on the part of the CVBG and the DF-21 launch sequence.  You can bet that the CVBG won't be the only thing going on.  Things that the DF-21 has no capability against.
There was NO possible way I could have written this last night.  I highly recommend the Short Mountain Distillery Prohibition Tea Moonshine and their Shiner's Select 105.  If you ever visit the distillery in Tennessee, a plate of moonshine bread pudding at the Blue Porch is a must, but take a designated driver.

At this point in my career, the only person who can put me in hack that I am concerned with is COMNAVDOGHOUSE.  Not only does she outrank me, I'm also married to her - I guess that's the same thing.
So Armchair away shipmate…B4…it's a miss.  C7…it's a hit and I sunk your battleship.
C7 is one of my favorite chords…it's very cowboy tunelike.  Dsus4 is also nice.

Thanks for the speculative scenario, and the primer on ballistic missile firing.  Once the fuel runs out after boost phase, you know pretty much exactly where it will land, plus/minus some terminal maneuvering.

It would seem that simply firing the missile into a region of ocean where you hoped the ship would end up, hoping the guy in charge didn't change course - not gonna work.

So for this to be even remotely effective, you'd need terminal guidance, either:

a) remote controlled, with telemetry from a radar satellite (or a realtime imaging satellite) constantly updating the warhead with the ship's course & speed.  (perhaps the transmission itself comes from a com sat of some sort).  This approach is vulnerable to jamming - of the updates, and spoofing of the radar signature.

b) sensors onboard the warhead.  Realtime visual sensors would have to locate the target in real time, calculate course and speed, and home in.  This is much harder to do, but also much more difficult to spoof.  Lasers fired at the sensor might be able to blind the missile, assuming they hit.

Without one of those two terminal guidance methods, weapon won't work.  Presumably, if such a weapon has been deployed, it has one of the two features enabled.  That, or its a massive, classified bluff - which of course is possible too.

If I were faced with 20 of these things coming at me, I wouldn't be putting my faith in our classic BMD point defense.

Seems like there are countermeasures possible - but cost of failure is a lost multibillion dollar carrier.

Was a great read.  Perfect weekend reading and did a nice job of weaving the kinds of concerns JMG shares with the PP community into a quick paced, very readable and entertaining story.  Never heard of this guy before, thanks Chris for having him on.  


in the discussion above of  possible future battle scenarios , alot was talked about past and present methods and technologies… as history shows all wars are fought fighting the  next war using the methods and tactics of the last war fought.
  when arrows defeated the knights armor is on example.

when american  rebels defeated  the british redcoats tactics and orginization not to mention the redcoats offered good targets for snipers.

air carriers defeated the  battleship.

and in the future … nano bot warriors.

a swarm of bee sized one gram or less  100,000 strong ,all organised to seek out electromagnetic discharging equipment , when unable to progress closer to  the source of emission they self immolate.

a 100,000  swarm unit payload will be around 200 lbs and be able to be produced at less then $1,000,000  per payload and mass produce one payload per day.

part science fiction, partly on defense budgets now.


 i should say when gunpowder defeated the knights armor,  so will nano warriors crawl into the orifices of a war ship and immobilize its electronics and defenses .

Great podcast.  Your discussion demonstrates that there are maybe a couple of dozen enlightened, aware intellectuals in the world. All perhaps affiliated in some way with They are the real thinkers, the personality types that aren't enslaved by popular acceptance. The truly self-aware.
Those people should be our leaders but instead our culture has been devolving for a while into a democracy that prefers to be led by optimism, popularity and, in many cases, some kind of weird lust for cuddles and free lunches - probably programmed into society by decades of vote-buying "institute" propaganda. These values are 'good' on the face of it but they are often impractical and contradictory to the anthropology (the science) of being human.

At the end of the day, the human race is an organism made up of the average of all human intellect and awareness. It takes decades, even centuries to move that organism in any one direction and the bigger it gets the harder it is to control. There is simply no way we can "fix" it or move it away from its current path of collapse, revolution, reformation or fracture. The inertia in the averages is simply insurmountable.

We can only hope that out of that reformation groups of real-thinkers emerge to carry some part of the human species into a brighter, more just and logical future. Hopefully evolving the culture into something better. Equally however I fear that other groups will also form with a much more fundamentalist culture, reverting to a religious following dependent on rigid (thought stopper) rules. I just hope the latter doesn't form the majority by centuries end