'More Europe' = More (Unelected) Government, The U.S. Military Is Quietly Building SkyNet

Does "More Europe" Mean More Government?

Imagine for a moment that you are a British citizen with doubts about Brexit. 

You turn on the television and listen to the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, state the following:

• That the 27 countries of the Union should adopt the euro and be in Schengen by 2019.
• That “we are not naive defenders of free trade”.
• That Europe needs a European superminister of Economy and Finance who is also Vice-President of the Commission and President of the Eurogroup.
• That a European Monetary Fund should be created

Probably, at that moment, many doubts will dissipate. Unfortunately, for those who would like the UK to remain in the European Union, in the opposite direction of their wishes. You would probably think “thank God we are out”.

Juncker’s speech on September the 13th did not seek to find elements for an agreement with the United Kingdom, but to strengthen the current model of the Eurozone at all costs. 

It was presented as an opportunity to remind us all of his real project for the European Union, clearly based on the French interventionist economic and financial “dirigisme”, and very far from the UK, Finnish, Irish or Dutch open model of economic freedom.

That is the big problem. The message of “more Europe” is always oriented towards “more interventionism” .

A few weeks ago we questioned in this column the triumphant message of the European Commission affirming that “Europe has left the crisis thanks to the decisive action of the European Union“. With Juncker’s speech we can say that the slightest hint of taking advantage of Brexit to improve in freedom, flexibility and dynamism disappears.

Instead of reflecting on the reason why the hyper-regulated and massively intervened Europe has taken more than three times as other countries to emerge from the crisis, we are faced with the classic response of bureaucratic power.

According to Juncker and others’ in Brussels, one could think that if Europe grows less, creates less employment and comes out of the crisis later, it is not because of excessive bureaucracy, but because there is not enough.

The EU runs the risk of falling into the glorification of centralized planning first and foremost, absolute uniformity, and obsolete interventionism that has nothing to do with the plural, free and diverse United States of America and which shows too many coincidences with the Soviet Union dependent on the politburo.

Juncker’s call for efficiency can be interpreted as a breath of fresh air, but it contrasts with reality.

According to the Intelligent Regulation Forum and with the official data of the European Union for 2015, the member countries are subject to more than 40,000 rules by the mere fact of being part of the EU institutions . In total, including rules, directives, sectoral and industrial specifications and jurisprudence, they estimate that there are some 135,000 obligatory rules.

A European Monetary Fund is clearly a subterfuge to give free rein to the uncontrolled financing of white elephants to greater glory of governments and rent-seeking sectors. Faced with the evident failure of the already forgotten “Juncker plan”, no one seems to consider the failure of constant wastefulness in industrial and stimulus plans that have led the European Union to overcapacity of more than 20% and huge financial holes. According to Transparency International, in the European Union, between 10% and up to 20% of all public contracts are lost in excess costs and 5% of the EU’s annual budget is not accounted.

No one thought about it before… A mega Monetary Fund that finances megalomaniac projects with no real economic return with unlimited funds paid with taxpayers’ money, and a superminister that joins to the other superministers and the national and supranational superstructures. A strategy that has worked perfectly … never.

An incorrect model

The fundamental problem of these proposals is that they push forward an incorrect model, which could be improved by learning from those that this “more Europe” message intends to ostracize, be it the British, Finnish, Irish or Dutch.

That none of Juncker’s advisers and assistants have questioned the convenience of including the following phrases is revealing: “We are not naive advocates of free trade”, “We propose a new community framework for the control of investments”.

But no. It is not a question of correcting the evident errors of interventionism. It is not a serious debate on why Europe does not have a Google, an Amazon or an Apple while maintaining dinosaur conglomerates. It is not about improving in openness so that the investment comes to Europe. It is about imposing “dirigisme” above all, whether it works or not. It is about creating a sanctuary of adoration of bureaucracy at all costs, and covering it with unnecessary expenses and burning the printing machine when the evidence of stagnation is imposed after minimal rebounds.

The worst thing is not that the British citizen thinks “it’s a good thing we’re out.” The worst thing is to ignore a part of the European Union that does not want a photocopy of French interventionism.

When Brussels equates more Europe to more interventionism, the EU runs the risk of being less. A lot less.

The US Military Is Quietly Building SkyNet

Maybe Elon Musk had a point…

The US’s military leaders have agreed on a strategy to guarantee the US military retains its global dominance during the twenty-first century: Connect everything with everything, as DefenseOne describes it. 

The result? An unimaginably large cephapoloidal nervous system armed with the world’s most advanced weaponry, and in control of all military equipment belonging to the world’s most powerful army.

A networked military – an extreme take on the “internet of things” - would connect everything from F-35 jets to the Navy’s destroyers to the armor of the tanks crawling over the land to the devices carried by soldiers – every weapon would be connected.  Every weapon, vehicle, and device connected, sharing data, constantly aware of the presence and state of every other node in a truly global network.

Of course, the development of these “smart” weapons should unnerve Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who has repeatedly warned that AI and machine learning poses a greater threat to the future of the US than North Korea. If not properly regulated, Elon suggested that machines could turn against their human masters.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff described their vision for a completely networked military in the newest iteration of their National Military Strategy, which lays out their plans for building the military's weapon of the future. Ironically, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said he had based the plan on a certain money-losing electric-car manufacturer. Goldfein was particularly impressed by Tesla’s ability to remotely extend the battery life of vehicles as their owners fled Hurricane Irma earlier this month. 

As DefenseOne explains, the idea of a networked military borrows from the  “network centric warfare” concept that first emerged more than a decade ago. However, the concept that military leaders proposed in their latest review is less a strategy for increasing efficiency than a plan to connect all military equipment on a single network. The result would be better coordinated, faster, and more lethal operations in air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace.

As DefenseOne explains, although most of the research into the networked military is being conducted by the Air Force, once implemented, any system would likely include weapons from across the military, like Navy destroyers, said Chow.

“Our scope would be in helping the Air Force to think about operations they would be conducting that would incorporate joint sensors and platforms, like destroyers, I think that has to be part of it. And that is within the charter of the study,” Chow  said, adding that the study has “the highest priority level for Air Force leadership.”

The Marines are also looking at tanks that are digitally connected through their armor, according to Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, who leads Marine Corps Combat Development Command and serves as Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration. Navy leaders have also authorized research into connecting every object on the sea, land, air, space and in cyberspace. This is no exaggeration. Adm. John Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations, said during a Navy expo earlier this year that he’d eventually like to “network everything,” explaining that creating such a system would be crucial to maintaining US military dominance.  

In an amusing aside, DefenseOne notes that, despite the obvious parallels, military leaders detest comparisons between their tech pet projects and anything from the plot of the Terminator franchise.

And while enabling instantaneous communication between military units would undoubtedly improve efficiency and tactical prowess, as Musk as pointed out, these projects should be undertaken cautiously.