Doug Cole

This is an important article from former JCS Chair Mark Milley and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, highlighting how the US military must reform to renew US military power. It contains nothing new but is notable in that it comes from a top military man and a top tech innovator. What do they prescribe? -- shorter acquisition cycles focused on innovation -- diversification away from the major primes purveying legacy systems to new companies producing new systems -- move away from military hierarchy to empowering more nimble fighting units more like the Special Forces All three of these prescriptions have been called for by many people for decades. Indeed, the German army pioneered that last one--in WWI. Empowering sergeants is also a hallmark of US tactics. A former Army guy could have given some credit to the United States Marine Corps for recently adapting its squad tactics to drone fighting. The article probably should have disclosed that Mr. Schmidt is putting his money where his mouth is and would financially benefit from the US making this pivot. He is an investor in Anduril Industries and the lead investor in D3 Venture Capital Firm, one of only two US firms with a significant presence in the Ukrainian military innovation space (the other being my firm, MITS Capital). I am pessimistic about the US adapting to reality in the near term. Neither presidential candidate "gets it." Congress uses our military budget as a jobs program to buy votes rather than as a tool to win wars. We spend way too much on legacy systems that cannot win a war and way too little on current technology, much less innovations for the future. We are the high-cost producer of everything. We can't even produce enough ammunition. Democracies, perhaps because they do not start major wars, have a history of being reactive rather than proactive in military adaptation. It takes a crisis for them to get in the game. In my view, that crisis has been ongoing since 1991--yet we do not recognize that WW3 is "game on." We act as if nothing is changing. We continue to actively aid the adversary on multiple levels. The consequences of this inaction are dire.  We are losing. Time to wake up. Atlantic Council Council on Foreign Relations Center for a New American Security (CNAS) RAND Hudson Institute American Enterprise Institute #foreignpolicy #nationalsecurity Institute for the Study of War William Collins J. Scott Christian Matt Abrams #foreignpolicy #nationalsecurity National Security Council, The White House Ashley Roque Lara Seligman Haley Britzky Joe Gould The Merge DefenseScoop Defense Brief Defense News Tony Capaccio Paul McLeary Connor O'Brien Jake Epstein Colin Demarest Valerie Insinna Breaking Defense Defensemirror.com The Defense Post Audrey Decker Giedrimas Jeglinskas Defense One Eric Schmitt Sam Skove https://lnkd.in/gv5ps2jF

21

9 Comments

Most Americans believe that the US is invincible. The US has such a technological lead on its potential adversaries that we are undefeatable. That might have been true at one time, but it is certainly not true today, and it is becoming less true every minute. World War 3 started in 1991. Spoiler alert: we are losing. Here is an article that indicates China is breaking the US's technology monopoly on targeting. Guess where they learned to do that? In China? They learned about this technology from the hundreds of thousands of Chinese students at US universities. We are literally handing over our competitive advantages in every sphere to a hostile nation. Everyone is culpable in this, from The White House down to me and you. America hasn't been this weak since the Civil War. Our economic might has been dissipated, while our national debt has ballooned to finance consumption in excess of our means. This leaves little resilience for future black swans or the war we are in but don't seem to want to acknowledge. We do not protect ourselves in the most fundamental ways. We have let autocracies infiltrate and chip away at the liberal world order our parents and grandparents sacrificed so much to build. We thought it would make them more like us. Not only has it failed to do that, but the policy of engagement has made them stronger and us weaker. It has engendered a massive transfer of wealth and capacity from democracies to autocracies. And they want even more. They are coming for us--every day. If you are Ukrainian, your family has felt the physical assault, and you wonder what it will take to wake up the US and Europe that this is not a war for Ukraine, that this is a war for the entire democratic system. In the US, it is more subtle. Like what I read in this article: https://lnkd.in/gRVAGmJK Why does a tiny, impoverished country like North Korea keep doing this? What possible use do they have for the information they glean? They sell it! To the Russians and the Chinese. Time to wake up. Atlantic Council Council on Foreign Relations Center for a New American Security (CNAS) RAND The Brookings Institution Hudson Institute American Enterprise Institute Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) United States Department of Defense U.S. Department of State #foreignpolicy #nationalsecurity The White House National Security Council, The White House Department of War Studies William Collins J. Scott Christian Matt Abrams #china #russia #iran The Fletcher School at Tufts University Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Harvard's Belfer Center Institute for the Study of War. General David H. Petraeus, US Army (Ret.) Admiral James Stavridis

8

2 Comments

https://lnkd.in/gpHQsCJx This article made me think about the definition of winning. Are the wins required by the investment community, the Mil Industrial Complex and DOD acquisitions aligned with the wins required on the battlefield? Russia, China, Iran and N. Korea are investing in manufacturing, cheap and scalable capabilities with disregard for ROI, SBIR’s or Programs of Record. Ukraine is the test bed, near-peer is the game, are we aligned to win?

8

Funding our Adversaries: We need a cohesive strategy to force and penalize American VC and PE firms from continuing to fund the technology programs of our adversaries. No Good Return Comes from Funding our Adversaries We are at war. There is no doubt about it. Nation-state adversaries are attacking us at this very moment. #China, #Russia, #Iran, and #North Korea attempt to leverage the #cyber and technology battlefields to inflict harm on U.S. economic and national security every day. Oh, I forgot to mention that China’s IP theft costs U.S. companies $600 billion a year. Our Venture Capital and Private Equity machines are fueling Chinese military and intelligence capabilities with one purpose – defeat the U.S. economically and militarily. Ouch. Research earlier this year from Future Union highlighted the stark reality. It found that nearly half of the top 100 venture capital investors have directly invested in Chinese companies focused on overtaking U.S. technology dominance. Future Union found that GGV Capital, GSR Ventures, Qualcomm Ventures, Sequoia Capital China, and Walden International invested nearly $2 billion in Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) companies and more than $1 billion in semiconductors. We are in a technology arms race where #AI is the next great weapons platform, and semiconductors are the foundational “natural resource.” We cannot have a system funded by Americans that contributes to the war efforts of our enemies. Are #venture capital and private equity firms knowingly working with companies owned and groomed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? It is hard to claim naivete when you are investing billions of dollars. It doesn’t take a lot of digging to find CCP fingerprints. There are no good explanations or excuses – none. Some might ask, “Isn’t it the primary responsibility of venture capitalists and private equity firms to make the largest return possible for their investors?” Yes, that is true, but realizing a short-term gain that ultimately leads to long-term destruction is not a return in the best interest of American investors. It is time to shine a light on the dark investment underworld that is working against the best interests of its constituents. We need stronger regulation and oversight of overseas technology investments. The venture capital and private equity industries must fully disclose who, when, and what they have invested in China. There is a reason that Global Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) pioneers like Strider Technologies - is one of the fastest growing tech firms in the U.S by revenue. The private sector is lightyears ahead of Governments in using OSINT and data science to see who is who in China, Russia and Iran. It is time that investors have the opportunity to prevent their money from aiding and abetting China’s mission of American destruction. #venturecapital #cybersecurity

76

5 Comments

"The bureau’s stellar track record seems, on paper, inexplicable. INR is tiny, with fewer than 500 employees total. The DIA has over 16,500, and while the CIA’s headcount is classified, it was 21,575 in 2013, when Edward Snowden leaked it. You could fit over 47 INRs in the CIA, and even if you exclude the non-analysts on the CIA's payroll, Langley’s analytic headcount is far greater than INR’s. Tom Fingar, who led the bureau from 2000 to 2001 and 2004 to 2005, once told a reporter its budget was “decimal dust.” In 2023, it came to only $83.5 million, or 0.1 percent of overall US intelligence spending. On top of that, INR has no spies abroad, no satellites in the sky, no bugs on any laptops. But it reads the same raw intel as everyone else, and in at least a few cases, was the only agency to get some key questions right. The most important factor in building this culture, every veteran I spoke to stated, is the unusual way that INR selects and uses analysts. The CIA and DIA tend to favor generalists. Analysts rotate between roles every two to three years, often changing countries or even regions. At INR, the average analyst has been on their topic for over 14 years. “At most of the other intel organizations you rotate out of your portfolio every two to three years,” McCarthy says. “At INR, they die at their desks.” https://lnkd.in/gDP54Wjj

2

NATO Innovation Fund (NIF), Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), European Investment Fund (EIF) - please take note. Spending lots of money on expensive-but-far-from-the-frontlines tech is not always going to be the answer. #UkrainianResourcefulness focuses on problems and finds solutions every single day. A Yak-52 may be an extreme example, but please consider more ways to provide funding for this current generation of Ukraine's brilliant, but not-yet-NATO, not-yet-EU startups to access funding to share their very real world defense tech problem solving with the West. From Kyiv, Green Flag Ventures finds great UA dual use startups that see problems and find solutions. But we can only do so much.

84

3 Comments

Interesting article about Mr. Lighthizer, 77, former key trade negotiator under the Trump administration. A longtime trade protectionist, Mr. Lighthizer also earned the nickname "missile man" during the Reagen administration in the 1980s, as he took one of the printed proposals from Japan officials, folded into a paper airplane and sailed it across the table. It is time to refresh the insights from his book <No Trade is Free https://lnkd.in/g5Sytb6n > which i read earlier this year, as it is widely believe that, if Trump wins next week, Mr. Lighthizer, certainly will return as a prominent role in shaping the U.S. trade policy. "American trade policy should revolve around helping working-class American families. Enhancing corporate profits, increasing economy efficiency, lowering consumer prices, are important, but in my view, secondary to this goal. " "It is imperative remember that our citizens are first producers and only second consumers" "Free trade, should be fair trade" #Election #USChina #China #Trade

11

“Salt Typhoon,” will have a hayday with old fart administrators. Recent reports indicate that a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group, known as Salt Typhoon, has infiltrated the networks of major U.S. telecommunications providers, including Verizon, AT&T, and Lumen Technologies. This breach has granted the hackers unauthorized access to sensitive data, notably information related to lawful wiretaps conducted by U.S. law enforcement agencies. The compromised data includes customer call records and, in certain instances, the private communications of individuals involved in government or political activities. Additionally, the hackers have reportedly accessed information subject to U.S. law enforcement requests made under court orders. This intrusion has raised significant concerns about national security and the integrity of U.S. surveillance systems. The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have described the cyber espionage campaign as "broad and significant." Investigations are ongoing to assess the full extent of the breach and to implement measures to mitigate its impact. The Chinese government has denied involvement in the cyberattacks, asserting that China opposes and combats cyberattacks and cyber theft in all forms. This incident underscores the critical need for robust cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive information and maintain the integrity of national security operations.

4

"However, the use of FDPR has two major drawbacks: bad politics and loopholes.  First, the assertion of extraterritorial control is particularly unpopular with U.S. allies and serves to hurt the U.S. in the international political arena. While FDPR is a short-term fix to a lack of multilateral support, it damages the United States in the long term by weakening its alliances. Second, FDPR is not a silver bullet. While the regulations give Washington vast authority over the export of chipmaking tools around the world, they cannot cover everything. In fact, opportunistic multinational companies seeking to continue selling to China can re-tool their supply chains to rid them of U.S. inputs, freeing them from Washington’s oversight." Der Fred. It pisses off allies no end until they decide to no longer be allies. This does not happen all at once. It happens with one citizen after another, in an actual democracy, those with justice and the rule of law, stiffing their middle finger to the arrogant foreign autocracy in #FoggyBottom. Happy to be counted among such defenders of democracy.

2

Excellent opinion piece by Glen Sturtevant in the Richmond Times-Dispatch today. Virginia's gain by Glenn Youngkin blocking PRC-based and CCP-tied Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited on account of the national security threat it presents, has become's Michigan's loss after Gretchen Whitmer Michigan Economic Development Corporation Ford Motor Company greased the skids for CATL coming to Michigan through billions of taxpayer dollars in "incentives". It seems this was the first shot taken by a governor in the Untied States to counter subnational incursions/influence operations by the PRC/CCP, that most often occur beyond the view of the eyes of the federal government. Governor Whitmer threw caution into the wind, ignoring the directive of our national security and intelligence agencies for states to perform strict scrutiny and due diligence on "deals" w/PRC-based and CCP-tied entities. Rather than ensuring transparency, accountability, and integrity, government and business elites shrouded the "deal" with binding and punitive 5 and 10 year NDAs and a silly secret code name. What the ensued in Michigan was a $178 million no-bid contract; Ford now scaling "deal" way down with rumors that it may never happen as planned; Ford pivoting hard to hybrid and hydrogen; CATL tied to forced labor and Uyghur genoncide in XUAR, with three Congressional investigations underway, and now a call for blacklisting CATL by Congress. The national and economic security of the United States and Michigan are now imperiled. https://lnkd.in/grw7n7Ft

12

1 Comment

Deflecting a massive airborne attack of drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles have a cost. The Aegis missile defense system Standard Missile-3 fired from US vessels to take down (at least) 3 Iranian ballistic missiles cost some 10 - 20 million dollars per shot. The air-air AIM-7 Sparrow (Mach 4 speed) missiles cost USD 125.000 per pop. The AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles were probably used to take down cruise missiles - at 430.000 per missile. The M-SHORAD Stinger missile Inc-3, presumed cost-effective, only comes to market in 2027, so meanwhile Stinger missiles are 120.000 USD per missile for drone defense. https://lnkd.in/dVucaHfu #costofwar #iran #usa #israel #uk #france #raytheon #mshorad #sidewinder #stinger #sparrow #whopays

6

10 Comments

How to counterattack short sellers and force them to cover: Wall Street has become trench warfare with bully groups of short sellers on the attack. Do you think they will cover by writing a strong Press Release? That is not the case with 80% of Newsworthy Companies. There is one sure way to ambush short sellers and that is with "psychological keywording": Unlike in the 20th century, The Markets are now run by computers/robots and AI so it's not the investors to get your stock to cover, it is all AI and just a few words will in fact cause the short sellers to become your best friend. www.kinsleystreet.com

4

1 Comment

Days like these remind me of Kim Stanley Robinson's novel, The Ministry for the Future. As I travel through East Africa, I hear firsthand from locals about the profound impacts of climate change. Recently, severe floods hit the region, disproportionately affecting the poorest in rural and urban areas. Weeks after the storm, water levels around Lake Victoria remain about 3 meters higher than usual. We must accelerate #emissionreductions and support the growth of #carbonremoval solutions. The best time to act with urgency is NOW.

30

7 Comments

Yet another example of how Chinese propaganda permeates the US intelligentsia. How else to explain this article from The New York Times? The authors bury their point in the last sentences: "But new thinking and new diplomatic efforts could incentivize China to reciprocate in meaningful ways. At the very least, it’s necessary to try. Focusing on military deterrence alone won’t work. Trying to find a way to cooperate with China is the best way — perhaps the only way — to steer the world away from disaster." What disaster are Mike Mochizuki and Michael Swaine referring to? A kinetic battle over Taiwan? Is their objective to make us too scared to defend ourselves? They can rest easy--as I have laid out in other posts, China can take Taiwan without precipitating a new battle front in WW3. Their logic is...illogical. Where is there empirical evidence that China can be incentivized to reciprocate? Why won't military deterrence alone work? Historically, boxing in autocratic expansion has worked better than incentivizing reciprocation. Trying to find a way to cooperate with China will mean what it has meant for the past thirty years—giving in to China to avoid paying a price for defending a rules-based order. We are in WW3. The Autocracies are winning. Fewer people live in freedom than did 20 years ago as China, Russia, and Iran chip away at the liberal world order. Appeasement only postpones confrontation and usually magnifies its cost. How do we avoid disaster? Clearly define our geo-strategic vision. Regain our economic strength to stop the erosion in our military strength. Strategic disengagement from autocracies. Bolster democracies. Stop autocratic expansion by creating stronger borders. Better to do this now than later. It's a lot cheaper and a lot safer. Noah Smith

6

After raising nearly $1B in capital in recent months, some acquisitions are especially fulfilling - this one being the case. But, first, a thanks and brief recap. In a stage in life I’ve come to learn as 'post-achievement,' my good friend Damien Rocchi told me recently: “Jeff, you may not feel the need to share what’s been going on in your world, but there are probably many people who would like to know because they care about you.” Thank you, Damien, for the wisdom and kindness. Now, for the recap. Hard to believe, but this year marks a decade since I signed the contracts governing the sale of my former company to Baker Tilly. The years following the merger brought great experiences, scale and phenomenal people into my life - both professionally and personally. Lots of good decisions (and some mistakes) that led to a tremendous journey which included: * The privilege to work and create value across 100+ countries * Effecting large-scale, positive impact spanning multiple industry sectors, companies and the teams within them * The invitation to consider the global CEO role for a $4B organization If someone told me in 2014 that this is what would be ahead, I may not have believed it. The years since the merger were indeed great - and the people even better. My hope during the time we worked together is that I brought each of them some small measure of the significant enrichment they brought me. As in life, one’s career has seasons. In 2020 it was time for a new one to begin in mine - even if such change would not be immediate. In long being a 'free agent' post-close in the sale of my company, the pandemic marked a point of observation, reflection and clarity: it was time for a change. Specifically, it was time to return to industry as CEO through acquisition, with a focus on sectors aligned with my experience. The aim: find a company that does good work but facing an evolutionary hurdle - whether in leadership succession gap, growth, recapitalization or otherwise. Once identified, acquire it, lead it and honor the legacy of those who founded it by generating outsized market value and positive impact post-close. And to such work I took, starting in earnest in mid-2022 and joining forces with a small but mighty group of great people. Together, we raised nearly $1B of capital in support of single asset fund deals where we could lend our experience in turning good companies to into great ones. While there have been many deals in recent months, one where I can combine my love for healthy company cultures with my passion for value-creation and all things tech, mobility, space and the conquest of flight, this is an especially fun one share. Heartfelt thanks to those of you who have been part of the journey thus far, and who continue to be part of it going forward. Means a great deal. Excel always and in all ways - and keep in touch. https://lnkd.in/dsGiYnD2

179

39 Comments

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is designed to be overseen by five Presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed commissioners has had a vacant seat since June 2023. A few weeks ago, President Biden nominated Matthew Marzano, a relatively young nuclear energy industry professional who has been working in Washington DC policy roles since 2020, to fill the important position. That choice was novel in the sense that just 16% of the commissioners that have served the NRC since its creation in 1974 have any nuclear industry experience at all. While Marzano has received letters of support from a number of groups, Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute – a man who has repeatedly earned my respect and admiration – believed that Marzano was too inexperienced and too tied to the way things have always been. He felt so strongly that he published two critical opinion pieces with damning headlines - Is Matthew Marzano the Most Under Qualified NRC Nominee Ever? and Matthew Marzano Is Exactly Who I Said He Was Those pieces sowed doubt and concern among some of my nuclear advocate associates, so I took a hard look at Marzano's education and career path. I obtained valuable background information from longtime colleagues and friends in the nuclear world. My conclusions are the polar opposite of Ted's. I'm pretty sure this topic will not damage our professional relationship. It might sound weird in today's world, but disagreements can happen agreeably. Marzano is a good fit with important experience. He will help improve technical understanding and diversify decision making processes on an important commission in a positive way. He has been committed to taking full advantage of safe atomic energy since he made his undergraduate decision to major in nuclear engineering. He will help enable nuclear energy to cleanly serve an ever larger portion of the world's energy needs while also taking actions that should improve its acceptance and social license through sustained superior performance. I published a much longer version on Atomic Insights. https://lnkd.in/eg839eEW Ted Nordhaus

58

43 Comments

For anyone interested in DeepTech and U.S. National Security, read Edlyn V. Levine, PhD and Fiona Murray opinion piece in MIT Technology Review. QUOTE: "For the US and, especially, its allies in NATO, a particular problem has emerged: a “missing middle” in technology investment. Insufficient capital is allocated toward the maturation of breakthroughs in critical technologies to ensure that they can be deployed at scale... the United States and its partners lack the production know-how that will be crucial for tomorrow’s batteries, the next generation of advanced computing, alternative solar photovoltaic cells, and active pharmaceutical ingredients. While this once mattered only for economic prosperity, it is now a concern for national security too—especially given that China has built strong supply chains and other domestic capabilities that confer both economic security and significant geopolitical leverage." https://lnkd.in/e_jQe2TT

10