Happy Veterans Day (Observed)!

Yesterday was Veterans Day in the United States. Today most business are taking the day off. That's nice, but I really want to talk about reducing the number of veterans rather significantly. This of course means reducing the size of the current armed forces, and keeping them that way. I have a couple of suggestions that I think are reasonable preparations for the day when we will no longer need any military at all.

Reduce the size of the nuclear armament.

I am in favor of entirely eliminating nuclear weapons, they are nasty and don't seem to be relevant in modern warfare anyway. The air force does not need nuclear weapons, as any global nuclear state (a country that has nuclear weapons capable of being delivered anywhere on the earth with short notice) has the capability to shoot down almost any plane before it delivers its payload. The UK currently has 4 nuclear submarines that carry nuclear ballistic missiles (16 each, for a total of 64 missiles, or up to 768 warheads total, but probably less). One is out to see at any given time, the other three in port or on transit. The US has borders two large oceans, so a fleet of 8 nuclear submarines, 4 for each ocean, seems reasonable. The current nuclear missile submarine in the US, the Ohio class, has room for 24 missiles each, or up to 288 warheads. A fleet of eight would have 192 missiles with up to 2,304 warheads, plus probably extra missiles not deployed but kept as a reserve. (In practice, this would probably be limited to about 1500 deployed warheads, due to treaty limits) Each warhead is about 475 kT, or just under half a megaton. A weapon this size could destroy an area about 8 times that of the Nagasaki bomb, large enough to completely wipe out a city’s industrial area, harbor, or a decent sized military base. Even 100 of these bombs should be a sufficient nuclear deterrent.

Reduce the number of active duty army and navy personnel, with a corresponding reduction in ships and bases.

With the exception of the training bases, which obviously need to maintain a certain size, reduce army base size as well. A well staffed base should probably only have 100 people assigned full time to it. Reduce base acreage as much as possible. Transfer the excess land either to the BLM or to a state or national park. Reduce the number of naval bases significantly, I would suggest two on the Pacific coast, two on the Atlantic coast, and two on the Gulf coast, with one in Alaska, one in Hawaii and (possibly) one in Guam. Totally eliminate overseas bases. Convert surplus bases to additional civilian dock facilities.

Reduce overlap between branches 

Transfer all aircraft operations to the Air Force, and either eliminate special forces or transfer them all to the Marine Corps. (Alternately, eliminate the Marine Corps.) Most military action in the last decades has been highly coordinated between the various branches, increase efficiency by reducing overlap and promoting cooperation, not competition.

Expand the role of the Coast Guard

Expand the role of the Coast Guard, and move it out of the military. At this point in time, the coast guard is essentially a police force. It is even managed by Homeland Security. Complete the conversion by integrating with an existing police force such as the FBI. Spend more effort on enforcing drug laws and promoting boating safety in coastal waters. Move defense to a much more subservient role.

Charity and Business

Recently it has become very fashionable for large businesses to give money to charitable causes and advertise that they do so. This causes me to wonder. I certainly don't begrudge the cause its funding, but I wonder sometimes about the businesses doing the giving. It seems to me that the marketing team is trying to associate the product with a cause to increase sales. but unlike direct giving or buying directly from a charity, an almost negligible percentage of the purchase price ends up at the charity. (If you buy popcorn or wrapping paper or candy from a charity they usually end up with about half of the purchase price.)

It seems to me that the main impact of this giving, besides increasing sales, is to raise the price of products. A better course of action might be to keep the price lower and let me do my own giving. A counter argument is that the giving does not increase prices, it only decreases stockholder profits. I think the same argument applies to stockholder, let them do their own giving, especially since they are hardly the “fat cats” or “1%” that they are often portrayed as. Do you have have a retirement account? You are a stockholder. You pay money into a retirement account, and the retirement account managers buy stock, bonds, and other investments to increase the holdings, and thus the payout when you retire. (The exact details are really complicated, and some government run retirements work a little differently, but this is the basic idea.)

This whole phenomenon seems to stem from a very unhealthy idea that being in business or making money is bad. Business is good. Remember your history class, the part in the beginning where they talked about people settling down and specializing in tasks and how civilization is a direct result of this specialization and resultant food surplus. Specialization leads to business. The only alternatives are being hunter gatherers in small bands or having a command economy, one where the king owns everything and everyone is basically a slave. For various reasons both of those are unpalatable to most people. Think of it another way. Is the money you make evil? Is it bad that you make money? Of course not, you feed your family, pay the rent, and try to do something fun once in a while.

These are just some thoughts I had.

followup about "Mormonism Obsessed with Christ"

I received an email from Stephen Webb the author of "Mormonism Obsessed with Christ" about my comments on his article. He writes

Thanks for your letter

I wish First Things had gotten it in time to print it. But they did publish 6 or 7 other letters, and my response is in the new, just out, issue. I've really enjoyed hearing from so many LDS folk, and I will continue to work on expounding our common faith!

In Christ,


Stephen H. Webb
Professor of Religion and Philosophy
Wabash College

I was surprised both by the personal response and his polite tone. If only there was more of this in public discourse. (The response he mentions does not appear to be freely available online, so I can't link to it.)

A Response To “Mormonism Obsessed with Christ”

I am writing today in response to an article “Mormonism Obsessed with Christ” published in the Feb 2012 edition of First Things. (online here)

I must first say that Stephen H. Webb is remarkably respectful, especially considering he is discussing a faith not his own. I further applaud him for taking the time to read the Book of Mormon before passing judgment on it. He represents well both First Things and Wabash College, where he teaches. If his classes are at all like this article he deserves to be emulated by many teachers. I have found errors with several beliefs he mentions, and would also like to respond generally to several points he makes.

Prof. Webb claims that “Mormonism is more than Christianity, of course—most obviously by adding the Book of Mormon to the Bible—and that makes it much less than Christianity as well.” I would claim that it is neither more nor less but exactly Christianity, pure and complete. Even a non-believer should recognize that belief in Jesus Christ is the sole defining characteristic of being a Christian. Prof. Webb is correct however, if one substitutes “traditional Christianity” or “creedal Christianity” in his statement, which is probably closer to what he meant.

“Yet it [The Book of Mormon] is dull precisely because it is all about Jesus.” Prof. Webb claims. I personally would say that anything about Jesus is not dull, it is divine. I cannot argue too much however as he at least got the main point of the Book of Mormon: Jesus is the Christ.

The above points are minor, and may be more related to my faith and his doubt than any other point, but the next point seems seriously in error. “They [Mormons] also deny the virgin birth.” This is emphatically not true. The passage from Isaiah, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son” is accepted as scripture by all active members of the church. President Benson gave a great talk “Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ” published in the December 1980 Ensign where he talks about the birth of Christ. More recently at the December 2011 First Presidency Christmas Devotional Pres Eyring quoted Isaiah again. I have heard some idle speculation as to the exact mechanics of Christ's birth but these are fringe ideas and don't reflect the general thought. LDS people in general tend to be an intellectual bunch, and often think and speculate. They even sometimes write their speculations in books and sell them. This does not make them doctrine, or even generally accepted. Ask “the Mormon on the street” if he believes in the virgin birth of Jesus and you will probably get a “yes.”

Some of Prof. Webb's discussion about LDS beliefs regarding matter and spirit are not how I understand them, but this is an area of little official doctrine and some speculation. His comments probably represent one viewpoint, but it is not a majority viewpoint, and he fails to mention that.

The last, and probably the pickiest, point is Prof. Webb's claim that “Even heaven is merely another kind of galaxy, far away but not radically different from planet earth. [in Mormon belief]” This is wrong. Heaven is a broad concept in LDS doctrine, and most members rarely use the word, preferring to use one of the more specific words such as “Celestial Kingdom.” The Celestial Kingdom is Earth, just glorified and perfected. He may be speaking instead of Kolob, which is a planet, somewhere, that is close to the throne of God, but is not the location of the throne (see Facsimile 2 in the book of Abraham). Almost anything else you hear about Kolob is speculation, and pretty rare speculation at that.

I would like to commend Prof. Webb for accurately describing Mormon metaphysics (I would say doctrine) as “Christian metaphysics minus Origen and Augustine—in other words, Christianity divorced from Plato.” Plato's philosophy was and is foreign to Christianity, and this is probably the second nicest thing Prof. Webb says about the LDS faith. The nicest thing he says is “Mormonism is obsessed with Christ, and everything that it teaches is meant to awaken, encourage, and expand faith in him.” That is the nicest thing anyone has said in a long time.

I want to end with a challenge for Prof. Webb. Look back to the copy of the Book of Mormon on your shelf, turn to the last few pages, read the promise of Moroni, and they pray to God asking if the book is true.

More speculation about the new Provo Temple

A few months ago I said “I furthermore don't think that the LDS church is interested in purchasing the street [100 South].” What do I read today in the Daily Herald? "Though plans are still in process, the church has proposed purchasing the adjacent parking structure located west of the temple site, as well as an adjacent portion of 100 South."(Read the whole article here ) So I'm wrong. The trick seems to be purchasing the street outright (for probably $1 million or so) rather than carelessly leaving an easement across the property.

This is a map of the property currently owned by the church.

If all the purchases go as proposed, the church property will look like this.

I guess that either parking will be were the current Nu Skin parking structure is, but underground, or down at the far end of the property. It is possible that underground parking could go under 100 south. People have been talking about the post office property, but I don't think that is probable. A post office is a good neighbor, people visit it during business hours, especially lunch. People go to the temple outside of business hours. When I was in Provo a weekday midday was a very small session. The real thing to acquire is the ugly Nu Skin building. I don't imagine it is for sale. One nice thing is that the temple is there to stay. Where will Nu Skin be in 20 years? 30? 40? 100? When the building becomes available, the church may purchase it.

This is what I think now anyway. I wonder how much of it will happen.