hankrules2011

A polymath rambling about virtually anything

Posts Tagged ‘military strategy’

Welcome to the Space Force LinkedIn Outer Space Warfare Discussion Group

Posted by Scott Holstad on January 31, 2020

I received a very interesting and unique email last week regarding a LinkedIn group of which I’m a member. There are several things that make it fairly unique. For one thing, while this is not necessarily the first time, it still is very rare to receive a message of this nature via email sent specifically to me at one of my email addresses that is not in use or listed in or on my LinkedIn account/profile. Indeed, if any such message were to be sent out to an entire group or even, as in this case, just to “select” members of a group, it would almost always be done via LinkedIn’s messaging system. The fact that this was sent to me at a personal address not listed on my LinkedIn profile indicates it would likely be or in fact is a more pointed, personal and selective message to be sent only to certain “qualifying” entities and thus not to the entire group or even necessarily many in the LinkedIn group’s listed membership figures and members, as the group on LinkedIn doesn’t list a membership size anywhere close to the size mentioned in this email, nor does studying the listing of the members in the group on its LI page give an indication that many would be likely to receive a message of this nature. So, that’s fairly odd.

Another somewhat unique thing about this is during my 14 years on LinkedIn, I have been a member or am currently a member of a hell of a lot of groups — in a very diverse number of fields. Many of these have been at the invitation of members or group owners, while I also actually have not become a member of many groups I have been invited to join for one reason or another, often because I don’t feel it’s either a group I’m particularly interested in or perhaps necessarily qualified for. That being said, I have spent my entire life getting education, reading, studying, researching, discussing, engaging, writing about a TON of different things such that one might be inclined to say it’s simply nuts. Moreover, over the course of my lifetime, I have been or am currently a member of dozens of professional organizations, again with a wide disparity of professional specialties. If interested, I have listed on a Page tabbed at the top of this blog a fairly accurate list of Professional Organizations to which I belong. You can find it here. I don’t want to get too bogged down in this area because it isn’t the focus of this blog post, but you have to possess some measure of qualification to belong to most of them. Usually that entails one, two or more degrees in certain academic fields applicable to that organization as well as often 5-10 or even more years of experience in the field. And while some are fairly generous in defining their accepted qualifications, many of them are actually quite difficult to get into and some are what one might consider even “elite” and hence virtually impossible to get into for the majority of people, while many of them also are very narrowly focused and so the requirements are very narrowly defined, such as an organization for military special forces or electronic warfare experts or Foreign Service professionals (State Department), or physicists, etc. Some will basically take your word for it in listing specific degrees in specific subjects at specific named universities as well as specific job titles in specific companies or divisions of companies or federal agencies, etc. Many are tougher and will require evidence in the form of transcripts, proof of expertise or seniority within the industry they represent, and some require sponsorship from members or even actually multiple senior members. As such, one must go through a vetting process for many of these organizations, some of which are so thorough as to simulate or even be like a variation of a security clearance vetting, taking anywhere from 1-2 days to two weeks to 1-2 months, etc. Like I said, some are extremely selective. And like the LinkedIn groups, I didn’t necessarily request or apply to join and become a member of them all — I was invited. However, I often HAVE applied for membership with many, and to be perfectly candid, I have applied to quite a few where one might assume I wouldn’t meet the criteria at all and would thus be rejected. That makes sense. Common sense. After all, I’ve never officially been a Foreign Service Officer or worked for the State Department nor have I been a certified counselor and I’ve never been a professional scientist or physicist, or Air Force general, etc. Yet at the same time, I’ve never applied to an organization I felt I couldn’t prove I wasn’t practically or pragmatically qualified for. Just because I don’t officially have an Electrical Engineering degree doesn’t mean I didn’t spend four years at UCLA studying the material and pursuing a diploma only to not be able to finish and get the diploma because of unfortunately timed necessary geographical relocation, as well as having spent years working in that field. See? Qualified. Nor have I ever had a job where I had the official title of “Systems Engineer,” yet I’ve served in that function and filled that role one way or another in so many of my jobs at so many companies that I am actually a Senior Member of the Institute of Industrial & Systems Engineers (IISE)! And therefore to my shock at times, I’ve never been rejected when applying to any professional organization for which I felt I was qualified, despite a lack of a formal degree in the field or specific job title, etc., because my combination of education, work experience, research, publishing, knowledge, expertise in a large number of areas has apparently made up for the “deficiencies” one might presume regarding the more formal requirements. Still, I’ve been shocked plenty of times when admitted to organizations such as American Physical Society (APS Physics), Espionage Research Institute International (ERII) and the American Counseling Association (ACA) among others.

The purpose of the overly long preceding paragraph is meant to provide some context for the email message (or part of it) that I recently received from the group owner of one of the aforementioned LinkedIn groups of which I am currently a member. (At last glance, I’m currently a member in 96 LI groups, but have been leaving some because that’s just too many, so I’ve left probably 20+ more over the past year alone.) And so finally, one of the LI groups of which I’m a member is the Military Space Warfare Discussion Group (because, yes, that’s been one of my research and engagement areas for some time). The group, as listed on LI, doesn’t consist of too many members, so when I received the following email, I found it surprising, not only for what I’ve already shared, but because it literally gives a demographic/statistical breakdown of the 13,952 “hand-picked” members “with experience in Space Control and Space Domain Awareness (SDA).” I’ve literally never seen such a thing before, for any of these groups. Sure, you could stroll through the various member listings to see what, if listed, they do and in what capacity and for which entity (rarely listed in many of these groups), but who has the time for that? But as a person who has always loved stats, demographics, stuff like that, I got a real kick out of the data enclosed in the email. After the main body in the email there follows listings of various space warfare documents, files, doctrine, escalation ladders, etc., with links to numerous repositories of such. I won’t include that part of the email since it’s not intended for public viewing, but I’ll now post what seems like one of the more unique group/org emails I’ve ever received…

 

 

– Welcome to the Space Force LinkedIn Outer Space Warfare Discussion Group
1 message
Space Strategies Center <Paul.Szymanski@satellitewar.com> Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 2:02 PM
Reply-To: Space Strategies Center <Paul.Szymanski@satellitewar.com>

To: scottholstad@gmail.com

 

LinkedIn Space Warfare Discussion Group:

Welcome to the newly re-launched Outer Space Warfare Discussion Group on LinkedIn! You are a member of this Group by your own request, or because you linked up with me due to my extensive space warfare experience over the past 46 years. This Group is for people who have an interest in warfare in the space environment, and I welcome experts and non-experts alike. I am particularly interested in people with military backgrounds, even if not space related, because I believe military principles honed over many years of history are also applicable to future space combat.

With the establishment of the United States Space Force, it is now critical to better understand outer space warfare theory, principles, policy, doctrine, strategies and tactics, along with the political implications of space attacks, and how these attacks may challenge allied relationships. Setting the correct foundational principles can launch the Space Force on the right path to fight and win the next space wars. All topics for discussion are for general doctrine concepts only, which is always considered unclassified and not sensitive since these foundational concepts must be employed in educating all personnel of the new Space Force.

The Space Warfare Discussion Group on LinkedIn is probably the most extensive collection of senior decision-makers in the United States, if not the World, who have an interest in space warfare. The general membership statistics of this Group are given below. In addition, links to documents used in previous Group discussions are listed towards the end of this email.

As a first topic of discussion for the new year I give a link below for a briefing by one of our long-term Group members, Dr. Mir Sadat (LinkedIn profile), who is a director at the White House National Security Council for space policy.

You may view Dr. Sadat’s talk at the below link:

Space Cooperation in an Age of Great Power Competition

 

Thank-you for your time,

Paul Szymanski

President

Space Strategies Center

National@Policy.Space

 

LinkedIn Profile: www.linkedin.com/in/PaulSzymanski

Professional Websites: http://Policy.Space  or  http://Wars.Space

 

Space Warfare Group Membership Statistics: The Space Warfare discussion group on LinkedIn that I developed is probably the most senior discussion group in the country with an interest in space control critical topics. It consists of 13,952 hand-picked members on LinkedIn with experience in Space Control and Space Domain Awareness (SDA), or at least have expressed an interest in these topics, and includes: 367 members from military colleges (including the former Superintendent of the Air Force Academy), 825 from private and Government think tanks, 293 from public universities, 103 from government intelligence agencies (including the NASIC Chief Scientist and the former NRO Chief Scientist), 184 from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 283 from NATO, 96 from NORAD-USSTRATCOM, 1,262 General officers, Admirals or equivalents (one to four stars, including former: Secretary of the Army, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (3), Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, NATO Assistant Secretary General, Commander of US Army in Europe, Commander of U.S. Air Force in Europe, Commander & Deputy Commander of Special Operations Command in Europe, Commander of US Army Forces Africa, Commander of US Army Pacific, Commanders (2) of U.S. Forces in Japan, Commander of US Central Command, Commander of the Air Force Special Operations Command, Commanders of Air Combat Command (2), NATO Commanders (2), Commander of NORAD-USNORTHCOM, Commanding Generals of the 82nd Airborne Division, 10th Mountain Division (2), 1st US Army, US Army South (2), US Army Special Operations Command, Director of the National Security Space Office, Commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Commander of Navy Installations Command; Commander of Naval Air Systems Command, also current: Commanders of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (3), Commander of AFMC, Director of DISA, Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Marine Corps Commandant and now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also one former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), 293 from the Secretary of Defense office (including one former Secretary of Defense and 56 current and former Under/Assistant Secretaries of Defense), 2 former Secretaries of the Air Force, 14 Under/Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force, 1 former Secretary of the Army, 13 Under/Assistant Secretaries of the Army, 2 Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, 6 Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, past and current Commanders of the 3rd, 4th, 5th (2 commanders), 6th (2 commanders), Pacific (2 commanders) and Korea Naval fleets, and 7th and 8th Air Forces, 2 Assistant Secretaries of DOE, 2 Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, 2 Under Secretary of Commerce, 2 from the National Military Command Center, 421 Congressional House & Senate staffers, 1,132 from specific military space agencies, 716 from various other military services, 126 diplomats & ambassadors, 92 from the State Department (including 9 Assistant Secretaries of State), 3,558 from various space-related defense contractors, 205 from the White House and National Security Council staffs, 103 from NASA (including their Chief Scientist), 27 astronauts, and 27 from The Vatican, among others.

 

Wow! Wild, huh? And here’s something else that’s crazy: I actually have quite a few of the listed individuals as personal connections, in some cases for many years. And by a few, I mean a lot, from the bottom ranks to the very top (not only Joint Staff, but Joint Chiefs), Commander of US Army in Europe, Commander of US Army Pacific, Commander of NORAD, various Assistant Secretaries of Defense, many Assistant Secretaries of States and so on. Life is just surreal sometimes. I really have little more to say except that I think I’ll actually post a list of the LI groups to which I currently belong, in arbitrary order, just to show you how diverse and frankly wacky my professional interests are…

 

The LinkedIn Groups I’m A Member Of And The Number of Members They Have At The Time I Am Admitted To The Group The Present (1/20/2020):

 

  1. EarthLink Alumni – 1,989
  2. CSULB Alumni Association – 10,159
  3. U of Tennessee Alumni Group-Official – 14,629
  4. Queens University of Charlotte – 1,273
  5. University of Tennessee, Knoxville – 23,024
  6. Project Manager Network – 854,417
  7. Society for Technical Communication – 11,738
  8. NetworkTN – 9,613
  9. Information Security Community – 398,124
  10. Technical Writing & Content Management – 13,628
  11. Entrepreneur’s Network – 60,675
  12. Consultants Network – 462,708
  13. IT & Software – 1,479
  14. Information Systems Security Association– 55,539
  15. IT Professionals – 224,675
  16. Cyber Security Forum Initiative (CSFI) – 110,311
  17. USENIX Association – 3,145
  18. Association of Old Crows – 10,920
  19. Telecom & Wireless World – 7,643
  20. Advanced Persistent Threats (APT) & Cyber Security – 61,354
  21. COO Executive Group – 5,621
  22. ISACA – 48,492
  23. AFCEA International – 6,663
  24. ASIS International – 100,050
  25. US Nuclear Energy Foundation (USNEF) – 22
  26. Cyber Intelligence Network – 31,403
  27. Military Intelligence Group: China Region – 2,578
  28. International Relations (IR) & Affairs Group – 100,479
  29. China Studies Group – 4,731
  30. The Intelligence Community – 71,801
  31. Cyber Law & Information Security – 13,229
  32. Quantum Computing – 6,838
  33. Chief Executives | CEO, COO, CFO, CTO & CXO – 81,788
  34. Cool Hand Nuke – 17,700
  35. Foreign Policy Discussion Group – 4,282
  36. Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning, Machine Learning – 280,931
  37. Quantum Mechanics/Physics/Theory/Leap/Computing Information Science! – 2,990
  38. Executive Suite – 342,854
  39. Cloud Computing, Cybersecurity, Saas & Virtualization – 493,061
  40. IACD – Integrated Adaptive Cyber Defense – 1,040
  41. Nuclear Security – 1,922
  42. ACM Members – 14,763
  43. Information Technology, FinTech, Blockchain and Bitcoin Innovation – 343,064
  44. Chronic Pain Management Support – 10,042
  45. Traumatic Brain Injury Support Group – 720
  46. Nuclear Power – the next generation – 46,719
  47. Asia Pacific Analysts, Consultants & Researchers Association – 2,144
  48. IETF – The Internet Engineering Task Force – 8,630
  49. Pittsburgh Penguins Fans – 2,487
  50. Artificial Intelligence – 53,917
  51. Cloud Security Alliance – 97,829
  52. Strategic Planning Society (SPS) – 55,865
  53. Big Data & Analytics – 378,331
  54. HISTORY – Practical History – 14,000
  55. Future Trends – 558,535
  56. Data Science Central – 303,965
  57. Nuclear Energy – 5,715
  58. Machine Learning & Data Science – 103,342
  59. Cloud Storage – 45,648
  60. EW, Countermeasures – 2,206
  61. European Commission – “External relations and foreign affairs” – 882
  62. Defense & Aerospace – 138,691
  63. The Virtualization & Cloud Computing Group – 97,535
  64. Science, Technology & Innovation Policy – 27,423
  65. Irregular Warfare Center of Excellence – 1,429
  66. Robotics and Machine Intelligence – 6,934
  67. Special Operations Research Association (SORA) – 345
  68. Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) – 6,724
  69. Business Intelligence Professionals (BI, Big Data, Analytics) – 244,491
  70. Private Military & Security Contractors – 11,984
  71. Digital & IT Strategy – 15,259
  72. Business Analysis – 13,773
  73. Neural Networks Club – 638
  74. Global SOF Foundation – 3,800
  75. APS Physics – 1,948
  76. The Business Technology Forum – 44,185
  77. INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY – 42,918
  78. CHINA Debate – 1,233
  79. IOSI: Counter-Terrorism & Geopolitical Security – 19,760
  80. NeuroScience Network – 6,528
  81. Institute of Industrial & Systems Engineers (IISE) – 78,248
  82. IEEE Systems, Man, & Cybernetics Society (SMCS) – 62
  83. IEEE Robotics & Automation Society (IEEE RAS) – 23,225
  84. Military Space Warfare Discussion Group – 188
  85. Security, Intelligence & Risk Fusion Group – 363
  86. IEEE Computational Intelligence Society CIS – 5,141
  87. Technology & Society: the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology (SSIT) – 4,234
  88. American Association of Political Consultants – 10,610
  89. Creativity: Authors and Books | Artists and Paintings – 142,556
  90. Politics, Diplomacy, Communication & Protocol (Think Tank) – 585
  91. Sports Techie – 4,800
  92. Business Analysis – 13,776
  93. Defence IQ – 13,782
  94. Aerospace & Security & Defence Technology & Business – 45,724
  95. Space Situational Awareness – 730
  96. Military History & Strategy – 10,838

 

 

FORMERLY A MEMBER OF (at least 22 more in the past two years):

 

  • Knoxville Farragut HS Alumni
  • Writing Professionals and Authors
  • Network Chattanooga
  • IT & Startups
  • Online Sellers Community for eBay, Amazon,…
  • Senior Executive Exchange
  • The IT Entrepreneur
  • Global Business Leaders
  • Audiophile Enthusiast
  • LinkEds & Writers
  • Technical Writer Forum 
  • Vinyl Record Collecting Network 
  • Career Thought Leaders Consortium 
  • Film & TV Tech Professionals 
  • Positions for Scientists 
  • Cybercrime Today 
  • Technology Leaders Association 
  • Chief Strategy Officer 
  • Startup vs Corporate Innovation 
  • Data Driven Drilling & Production 
  • Advanced Clean Energy Summit 
  • Technology and Society: the IEEE Society on Social Implication of Technology (SSIT) 

 

 

[If, for some reason, you would like to confirm this information, you can find the people I follow, companies I follow and LI groups of which I’m a member at the bottom of my LI profile, like everyone else’s:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottholstad/.]

 

 

 

 

[The top section of my LinkedIn profile…]

 

 

 

Posted in military, Space | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Book Review: Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning

Posted by Scott Holstad on May 4, 2019

Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic PlanningLosing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning by Andrei Martyanov
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I have to admit I bought this book because the title and premise were intriguing, matching some of my own concerns about the recent, current and future state of the US military. But, wow, what a crazy scenario! I’m prepared to listen to and accept criticism regarding much about our military, particularly the state and status of many of our frontline weapons, a number of which are largely obsolete now, or have never been produced after throwing hundreds of billions away because of scope creep and countless other issues. Legitimate stuff, and some criticisms I’ve been making for years. And there are many reasons for this, which could probably fill a number of books. Fair enough.

What I did NOT like about this book was the author’s continual comparisons between US weapons and modern Russian weapons, ALWAYS gloating over Russian superiority, boasting how their navy could crush our navy like sardines, citing the fact that our most recent nuclear subs are, largely, ancient while Russia just produced eight new “state of the art” nuclear subs with “superior, world class” technology, apparently any one of which has such Superman-like powers, it could completely demolish our entire military in one shot, followed by wiping out the US with a second. Serious superiority issues, and a real attitude problem.

Okay, I lived through much of the Cold War. I’ve heard enough Commie propaganda over the decades, whether Soviet, Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, North Vietnamese, etc, AS WELL as most of the Arab hardliners like Saddam and Libya’s and Syria’s typical leaders, among many more, and the boasting, bragging and chest thumping is something that any two bit junior college analyst could identify, define, etc, and moreover, ultimately, with many of these loud mouths, some put their money where their mouth is, and some are total bullshitters, witness Saddam, most of the traditional 20th century Arab powers, the beloved Kims, etc. And, yes, the Russians, because as has been found out in most military encounters between many US advanced weapons vs Soviet advanced weapons, typically through proxies, the Soviets have usually had their asses handed to them. And their house came crumbling down, the giant threat a house of cards. So I take it with a grain of salt when a RUSSIAN analyst starts boasting about how their few new ships could take out all of America’s, for all intents and purposes, and I’d love to see the author, via Putin, try to put their money where their mouth is.

Which is not to say his criticism of the reductions in our military personnel, our loss of experience in crucial areas, such as nuclear, our lack of producing virtually any new world class advanced weaponry since the Cold War, at least in quantity, isn’t entirely legitimate. It’s just his snarky and frankly very odd and suspicious personal circumstances as a person and professional that make this book and it’s whole “my penis is bigger than yours” infantile attitude so damn bizarre and frustrating! He’s a Russian, was in their navy, left Russia, immigrated to America, became an American citizen and somehow found gainful, if unspecified, employment with some unnamed … US defense contractor, I believe, possibly working on US weaponry, presumably naval. Now, think about that. The US lets some Russian ex-naval vet immigrate to America, magically become a US citizen, and then let him have freaking clearance to do defense work for our damn military??? Since when does THAT happen? I haven’t heard of such things since the Manhattan Project, and those were largely German JEWISH scientists, who had everything to lose if they stayed in Germany. Of course they’re working to defeat Hitler. But this guy is working to help the US and make our military better? All the while bragging about how much our military sucks now and how fucking awesome Russia’s is??? I mean, you should read some of his claims and assertions. They’re inane! He has a warped grasp on reality, particularly when bragging about Russian military technical superiority to anything the US has got. MAYBE THAT’S BECAUSE WE’VE ALLOWED GODDAMN RUSSIAN SPIES TO COME WORK IN OUR DAMN DEFENSE INDUSTRY AND SABOTAGE OUR MILITARY!!!!!!! What I want to know is, who the hell approved this, who approved his application for citizenship, was he fully, let alone adequately debriefed when he came here, how many polygraphs has he been given, is his work audited, who’s in on it with him, what’s his REAL motive, what’s his ulterior motive, who is he REALLY working for, and yet, if he’s so damn obvious, he wouldn’t be so damn obvious now, would he? So makes you wonder if this isn’t merely IW, put on by the DoD, if the author even exists at all and we’re merely playing at information warfare and propaganda games, and so many other options and possibilities. Frankly, I’m too busy with more important obligations, but if I had the luxury of time, I’d consider doing a little digging, because it seems to me that something’s rotten in Denmark.

Ultimately though, let’s assume the author is correct in his assessment of the wasting away of US military power, which has some truth to it. Again, fair criticisms to put forth. But the antithetical, virtually rabid, boasting, gloating, stiff dick factor for Russian military technology in its alleged superiority of everything American (which is frankly horseshit, in most cases), when he’s supposed to be a US citizen working in OUR defense industry to make our military better, all the while gushing about how damn awesome Russia is and we suck??? Doesn’t that strike you as odd? WTH don’t we deport him back to Russia if he’s got such a hardon for Putin and thinks his new country is pathetic? Why did he even bother coming here? Perchance another Oswald, a US plant? Just a thought, but then I like to conjecture all types of scenarios for most things.

Ultimately, right or wrong, propaganda or truth, the book is unreadable because the author is presented as having such a one sided superiority hangup, for the side he allegedly left. Which makes many Americans ticked off enough to stop reading the book. And so, possibly, maybe the project worked for the DIA or DARPA or RAND or whomever. It stinks too much and too obviously to be legit.

Work of fiction and not recommended. Two stars for amusement and creativity, as well as intended “mystery” scenario given to the author. Sadly, a waste of time and money.

View all my reviews

Posted in Book Reviews | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: