MGI Might Revive Bushmaster Pistol

Mack Gwinn Industries, the inventor of the Marck-15 Hydra weapon system with modular mag wells and quick change barrels for multiple calibers, and the licensee for the Valkyrie belt-feed system, [which itself was a revival of the Ciener light machine gun,] has publicly expressed interest in the Bushmaster pistol.  Mack Gwinn, Jr, founder of MGI, was the primary developer of the original Bushmaster pistol, which later went to the Bushmaster Firearms company, had a rifle variant, and merged with the Edenpine SAK-30 to become the Bushmaster M-17S bullpup rifle.  Whew, that was a handful. 

Duncan Long's AR-15 Sourcebook said that Bushmaster and Mack Gwinn developed the Bushmaster pistol on their own, and which later evolved into the M-17S rifle.  However, other sources such as Small Arms Review's article as well as Guns.Ru stated that the M-17S directly descended from the Armstech/Edenpine SAK-30.  The original Bushmaster pistol does not appear to have the tensioned barrel that M-17S has, so perhaps M-17S inherited the barrel from SAK-30, and the receiver/fire-control/bolt/bolt-carrier from Bushmaster Pistol.  All three used the gas system from the AR-18.

In any event, MGI said that they want to bring the Bushmaster Pistol back into production, which is great news! [You can find the announcement in their Facebook wall photo album.]  In an earlier ('07-'08?) private correspondence with their marketing rep, they had expressed interest in reviving the M-17S at a later date.  Perhaps the time has come for this bull-pup design.  I hope they bring back the M-17S and the pistol together, but either one would be great.  Given their Hydra mag-wells and quick-change barrels, perhaps MGI can add these features into the new gun.  Guess I need to start saving money now! :D

Books I buy

SAVE THE LAST BULLET FOR YOURSELF: A Soldier of Fortune in the Balkans and Somalia
Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War
SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
Glee Encore
Negima! Magister Negi Magi, Vol. 28  
The Life Eaters
7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores the Changing Face of War in the 21st Century

Humanitarian Service-LAPEL PIN
Shirt Stay Belt
MP5 Mag Pouch - MulticamTM
Iraq Campaign Medal-LAPEL PIN
The Real Ghostbusters: Complete Collection
The Golden Age of Science Fiction: An Anthology of 50 Short Stories (Unexpurgated Edition) (Halcyon Classics)
Lights Out
Panzer Tactics: German Small-Unit Armor Tactics in World War II

Libya and Nation-State Paradigm

Well, the Obama administration sure did dodge a big fat bullet there w/ the Libya crisis.  Before the passage of the UN Security Council resolution, the Benghazi people did everybody a favor by declaring independence from the Qaddafi regime.  With a nominally state structure, we are now able to negotiate with Benghazi for aid and assistance.  The US didn't have to figure out how to deal with a non-state actor.

But the question remains un-resolved.  If Benghazi did not declare independence, could the US provide overt assistance such as a publicized shipment of ammunition?  Like I said earlier, the CIA could provide covert assistance when Obama signs a presidential finding, but not the Defense Department.  The weapon export regulatory regime (ITAR) requires a specific, drawn-out process to make this overt assistance happen.  With this drawn out process, Congress would get involved, slowing things down further.

Maybe this Libya adventure will provide the legislative impetus for Congress to start working this problem.

International Aid: Skip the Middle, Skimming, Man?

Slate had an article this past Friday on the international aid/development community: Is it better to give money directly to the poor people of the Third World, or give to their governments, who in turn distribute to the people.  This article coincides with the current discussion over Mubarak's and Qaddafi's personal fortunes skimmed from their countries.  Many government employees in the Third World are corrupt.  Development groups and advocates have long recognized the inefficiency of corruption.

There have been previous attempts to impose accountability on Third World bureaucracies.  American governmental aid generally comes with auditors, monitors, and reams of forms to fill out, in part to minimize foreign corruption.  The structural adjustment programs of IMF and World Bank were a response to the bloated and corrupt bureaucracies: With the ministries and state enterprises being a source of patronage and a job program for the ruling parties, it was no surprise that these countries would have to default.  To get new loans and aid, then, these countries must pare back their government, enact "austerity measures", to get back to an affordable level.

We can see that the Structural Adjustment was a proximate cause of the current troubles in Egypt: World Bank and IMF forced Egypt to limit government size and to divest state enterprises.  Therefore young men could not get a cushy government job like their parents.  Therefore they can't marry and they got angry.  QED revolution.  Although the fundamental question naturally arises: How did their parents get all those iron rice bowl government jobs?

In any event, Mubarak and his people had it coming to themselves.  Knowing that structural adjustment was coming, they could have prepared their people for a private-sector economy.  The redtape against starting a business in Egypt is legendary, sometimes exceeding the already bloated obstacles in India.  That could have been a starting point for Mubarak, coincident with the privatization.

In any event, the move to cut out the middle man/government in dispensing aid is an alluring proposition.  If you just give poor people money directly, they can spend it well.  We're in the post-Westphalian age, anyway.  But the authors went ahead and cited two native government programs, where the government, that skimming government, was monitoring the poor for compliance with program conditions.  So you end up having to depend on a bureaucracy, either government or private, for ensuring compliance [such as sending kids to school and receiving vaccinations.]

To go around the government corruption problem, aid organizations and donors will essentially have to create their own private bureaucracy to execute the program on the ground.  Then, if corruption is an intractable cultural problem, this private bureaucracy will become corrupt over time, less and less effective.  And that's assuming your conniving government was willing to stand aside and forgo its loot.  Cutting out the government works only when the government has ceased to exist.

In addition, Western donors and aid organizations run into the command economy problem: they just do not have enough information at their level to make effective spending decisions on a long term basis.

The real answer, as many conservatives concluded in the '80s, was to cut the dole.  Most of the Third World governmental dysfunction come from our misguided welfare program.  Western food subsidies drive African maize and yam farmers out of business.  Western aid creates a large bureaucracy more focused on life in the cities than the poor in the countryside.  College grads make more money being the drivers of aid workers than being an engineer.  Only by stopping the money can we hope to starve the distorted incentive structure we have created. 

Book Review: John Reed's Hyperinflation

I wrote this awhile ago.  I just started a new job, hence the lack of activities recently.  Anyway, here it is.

When I found out that John T Reed was writing a book on Hyperinflation and Deflation, I was really excited.  His book, Succeeding, was a true self-help book that focuses on working hard, saving money, and doing the right things.  He writes clearly, with a minimum of flowery language, and includes checklists and other tools to help readers implement his advice.  His preview articles on this subject promised unconventional advice on coping with currency fluctuations.

I pre-ordered 2 copies, and they arrived right after the release date.  The book starts off with a review of the current state, a history of hyperinflation and deflation, and then Reed's financial countermeasures.  The book is clear and well-written, with Reed's characteristically critical tone.  It is an engaging read.

If you have read Laurence Kotlikoff's The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future, then you are familiar with the scale of the US financial liabilities. [IE, The US owes more in current and future obligations (Medicare/Social Security) than it will ever have the money to pay off.]  In fact, Reed cites Generational Storm as a major source in the book.  However, if anything, Kotlikoff understates the problem, if that was possible, as Reed made abundantly clear.  The only saving grace for the US is that the rest of the world is worse off than the US.  Conversely, the US's critical economic position means America will amplify the economic crisis and spread it to the rest of the world.  Regardless, the 'flations are coming soon, and all investors need to hedge the 'flations.

Reed's financial countermeasures are definitely unconventional.  He explained in great detail his reasonings, and cited multiple sources to back it up.  His chapter on precious metals goes against most writings on the subject [of both pro & con], but will help you avoid trouble with future legislation and law enforcement.  The current brouhaha over the 1099-Misc. $600 requirement (Obamacare) is just a portent of the negatives of a PM-only strategy.  Reed is not avoiding PMs altogether, but is serving as a corrective against the lazy-thinking behind a PM-only strategy.  In a 'flationary environment, governments inevitably restrict usage of precious metals instead of currency.  Therefore, the prudent investor has to rely on other countermeasures to adequately hedge against the 'flations.

Every prudent investor needs a copy of John Reed's Hyperinflation & Deflation.  His book is still timely and will help you survive the 'flations.
------------
I wrote that 4 months ago (Sep'2010).  Since then, the economy has improved slightly, making 'flationary concerns less pressing to most of you.  However, the fundamentals has not changed.  The US Dollar is still unsound.  As Reed recently commented, the current debt ceiling debate in Congress is a good opportunity to fix our problems, but that Congress will sadly squander.  With the improving stock market, it is a good time for many investors to diversify their recovered portfolio into the other assets Reed recommends.  Now is the time.  Like the Chinese saying, "Short pain is better than long pain."

For all readers, Fernando Aguirre's The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse is a good complement to Reed's Hyperinflation.  Aguirre provides a good ground-level view of an economic collapse, and gives you a good understanding of the interplay of recession, hyperinflation, and deflation.  Aguirre offers other good tips on preparing for a 'flationary future.  His blogs are good to keep up with.

For readers interested in the academic background on the American debt obligations, Generational Storm, though dated (2005), still offers a good backgrounder.  It explains the math, too.  Kotlikoff's recent works could be good reading, too.

Notes on Survivalist Site Defense

There was a thread on AR15.com, discussing the minimum manning requirement for a site defense. I think it is useful to readers who are not paying members, to archive part of this thread. It also merits further clarifications on the tactical considerations for defense planning in a semi-rural/suburban area.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=10&f=17&t=641061&light=
For a defensive position, you need to establish a perimeter, and station guards. Obviously, not everyone can be pulling security at the same time. You need to let people rest. Also, food production and other manufacturing activities are vital in a long-term situation. So only a small fraction of the group can stand security watch at a time.
The purpose of the sentry is to give time for the reserve/QRF to get ready. The time, in this case, is distance. Say your defenders need 1 minute to go from work detail to defensive positions. People can rush 200 meters (in gear) in a minute, give or take. So your sentry(ies) need to see at least 200 meters out from your perimeter. You may need 8 ppl per shift to cover that distance, but most likely 2 people, in a protected position (rooftop nest), will suffice. So 10 people are capable of handling that duty. I would go with 12am-12pm 12-hr shifts personally, as opposed to the 6am-6pm shift beloved by everybody else. It's easier on your biological clock.
[In a homestead, your perimeter is not the whole farm, but rather the living area complex (barn, house, outhouse(?), et al.)]
Where the people requirement really come in is in the active defense plan. In other words, patrolling. You have to keep up a patrol schedule if hostiles are in the area. The manpower requirement varies, but SOFs give us a guideline here. SAS go w/ 4-men teams, while Force Recon go w/ 6-men teams. If you have 1 team out, 2 teams resting/working, you need a minimum of 12 people. Factoring in the sentries would give you 4 teams min, 16 people.
Your sentry acts as your Observation Post(s). You can go up, or go out horizontally. If you have the altitude, a guard tower is good. If you cannot go up, then you have to put your sentries outside your perimeter. Speaking of guard towers, it is unconscionable to place people in unarmored guard towers. All guard towers need to be sandbagged at a minimum. Overhead shade obviously. A protected entrance. A rooftop nest with internal access is the best. Obviously the house need strategic sandbagging as well. Sandbags are easily accessible to the homesteader. An alternative is using those Amazon shipping box, with a plastic liner. Or just build a sandbox with plywood.
If you are in a built-up area, you will need more people because you need to have eyes-on for all of the dead space, possible infiltration routes. In addition, you need to subdivide your compound, so that infiltrators cannot compromise the defense of your whole site. In other words, you need to have "water-tight compartments", to use a naval analogy. For the perimeter defense, if you have a square, four firing ports/bunkers/strongpoints can complete your defense by putting out a wall of lead along the perimeter.
"Think of the effects of a probe on your BOL site not once or twice a day , but 10,12,or even 20 times a day and night."
Yes, it would be unwise to go battle stations with just a pot shot. Manning the defensive line/battle positions is only for an active assault, ie, you see people breaking from the tree line. And yes, you should clear as many trees as you can, out to 500m from your squad nests/houses, when possible. In a suburb/city, you may have to use obstacles to channel the enemy main assault, and rely on vigilance against the infiltration attempts.

"Lets revisit that probing issue. You say you will just send out a patrol to run them off. Thats a great way to get ambushed, ect."
Well, you do have to clear the area. Active patrolling means you should have a team in the field at all times. If you're doing it right, this is when you call the patrol team back to clear that sniper.
The preper needs to remember that the patrol team is out there to disrupt enemy assault preparations and recon operations. Therefore, the team needs to look for possible enemy objective rally points/patrol bases. They recon enemy ingress routes and vehicle staging areas. They check for signs of passage and occupation at these sites.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Speaking of vehicles, that will be the biggest threat to the survivalists. Think of it as modern cavalry. A pick up can greatly disrupt your defense, if you're not planned for it. You will need vehicle barriers [trenches and those giant caltrops/dragon's teeth] to block and channel a mechanized assault. You may also need to place an OP on the possible vehicle rally points for early warning.
The enemy mode of operation will probably be distributed, 1-vehicle scouting parties, ranging all over their area of ops looking for prey. Upon target selection, the scouts/swarm is recalled to mass against the target. Obviously the mass is depending on the perceived target difficulty. If you happen to be in the AO of such a gang, and you have just repelled the scout, it is time to run away. Unless you are organized and trained enough, or can call in enough posse, to ambush/interdict the gang coming your way.

Education, Global Governance & Development

A couple of interesting links here. One on education, the other global governance.

Althouse commented on an NYT op-ed, which was calling for less emphasis on testing. Instead, Ann commented that we're seeing a debate on teacher's pet vs testing. With so much testing, we're finding out that American teachers have been giving good grades to the "good" students, who behave in the classroom and do what the teacher says. And the testers had been losing out, until recently. Obviously we need to do both. Teaching compliance as well as learning skills. As the Far East has shown, teacher's pets will study hard and test well, if that is the new metric. The key objective, as ever, is to foster creativity. Although people impugn the US education system as good at creativity, it's not certain that is the case. With so little testing, what is left is creativity, so that's what you see. But you can take it to extreme, and it underserves the disadvantaged students, which is what had happened.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/standardized-testing-has-embarrassed.html

Ken Anderson remarked on the Climate Change movement from the global governance and "development" perspective. It dovetails nicely with the current Playboy's article on Vulture Funds, which demand full payment for the bonds of insolvent states. The Playboy article is from the perspective of the "development" community and the subject states, but it does highlight the corruption exposure Vulture Funds do in getting paid. It turns out that, if you expose corruption in, say, Congo, they will pay you to stop doing that. As John Reed would say, a state does not need to borrow money to function.
http://volokh.com/2010/11/29/cancun-and-copenhagen-and-carbon-as-pure-regulatory-object/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_fund
http://johntreed.com

Anderson highlights that third world countries see Climate Change as a way to get paid. Over the past 30 years, international development had been trending away from states, because of the blatant corruption in 60s and 70s. Climate Change offers a way to go back to "state-centric" development, where bureaucracies and rulers can skim off the top, again. For the UN bureaucracy, it is also a way to increase its power over the world. Climate Change advocates often ignored this aspect of the Climate Change movement, which led to gross distortions of the carbon regime.

Anderson also looked into why the BRICS, and China in particular, opted out of the Copenhagen/Cancun rounds, even as the advocates dangled more incentives. It is an interesting thought on the boundaries of Chinese behavior.