Thursday, 14 May 2026

Iran Needs To be Stopped

The USA and Israel have launched a war against Iran. 

The USA seems to have thought that the regime would topple if pushed, especially after recent anti-government demonstrations and the slaughter of up to 30,000 Iranian citizens in the streets.  

Israel took the opportunity to try to exterminate every single Iranian leader and member of the Revolutionary Guards that it could possibly reach. 

Both the US and Israel also tried to destroy what was left of Iran's nuclear program, as well as its miliary forces, especially its missile armaments.

What do we know to an absolute certainty now?

We know that Iran's nuclear program is focused on the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and nothing else. To produce nuclear power, Uranium only needs to be enriched to between 5 - 10%. Iran has enriched Uranium to 60%. If they wanted a nuclear reactor, the fact is that they have had the Uranium to power such a reactor for quite some time. Instead, but for the interference of American and Israeli bombs, they are hell-bent on the continued enrichment of Uranium. When they get to 90%, they will have enough weapons-grade Uranium to build multiple bombs.

That would be a bad thing.

Here is what Iranian leaders have threatened and/or said over the last decades regarding their hatred of certain people, and related to what they would like to see happen to them.

1979–1989 (Ayatollah Khomeini): Following the revolution, Khomeini branded Israel an "enemy of Islam" and the "Little Satan," adopting a policy of non-recognition and calling for the dismantling of Israel.

1990s–2000s: Iranian leadership supported terrorism in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas, therefore translating their rhetoric into action through relentless terror attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets.

2000 (Ali Khamenei): Supreme Leader Khamenei referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor of a state" that "should be removed from the region".

2005–2013 (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad): President Ahmadinejad frequently called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and described it as a "disgraceful stain". He also stated that "the U.S. and its allies" supporting Israel would face destruction.

2010s–Present (Ali Khamenei/Rouhani/Raisi): Leaders continued calling for the "elimination of the Zionist regime". Khamenei has described Israel as a "savage, wolf-like creature" (Thank you, Wiki!)

Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern to these many statements and proclamations! 

To put it simply, "Israel is Satan and needs to be destroyed." Note that many of the above-mentioned leaders have also denied that the Holocaust happened. World leaders and antisemites usually deny the Holocaust because they want to repeat it.

Question - What other countries in the world have threatened to destroy another country that is not even one of its neighbors for the last forty years?

Answer - There aren't any.

Given its consistent, demented and ideologically-driven hatred of Israel, and its constant threats to destroy that country, should Iran gets The Bomb there is a very real risk they will actually use it. In fact, Israel is so small that one would think that two or three bombs would just about do it.

It will never happen.

The moment Israel suspects that Iran actually has a functional bomb, it will do whatever it has to do to destroy it before it is launched. Israel has between 80 and 250 nuclear weapons. It will use them if it thinks it has to. If Israel were to use nukes to stop Iran, millions of people could perish from a combination of blasts and radiation, with most of these people living in Iran itself.

The world has an obligation to make sure this turn of events never happens. Unfortunately, the person leading the charge against Iran these days is not only bereft of the moral clarity it needs to deal with this issue, but he can't negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag. "The Art of The Deal" should have been named "The Art Of The Con" or "Confessions Of A Serial Loser" (Truly, how do you go bankrupt when you own casinos, no less than four times?)

Can we envision something a tad different? 

The people of Iran, formerly Persia, have ranked near the top of human civilization through their achievements and leading human progress in the areas of mathematics, science, literature, architecture, medicine, the fine arts, and even games like chess, for millennia. This ingenious people has languished under the yoke of a demented, Fascist, Suicide Cult and Ideological Tyranny for decades now. 

Dare we hope for a better time when the people of Iran live in peace with their neighbors, forswearing support for terrorism, building a successful economy and society, settling disputes peacefully, and taking their place in a world that would welcome them with open arms?

We here at mewetree.blogspot.com do.

Note - nothing in this should be taken as excusing Israel for its actions in Gaza and/or the West Bank and/or Lebanon, which were and continue to be deeply troubling.



 

   






Friday, 1 May 2026

Alberta Oil

Alberta is Canada's energy powerhouse.  

In 2025, Alberta exported about 3.56 million barrels per day (bpd). There are numerous export expansions in the works including an expansion by Enbridge which will optimize its mainline oil pipe operations in Canada adding up to 150,000 bpd by 2026-2027 and potentially another 250,000 bpd by late 2028, and the TMX pipeline will see additional growth via an expansion beyond the existing 890,000 bpd to a "Phase 2" pump station expansion could add another 360,000 bpd by 2028. 

Together, these changes will expand Alberta's exports to about 4.35 million bpd by 2028.

President Trump has approved an expansion to the Bridger Pipeline from Albert to Wyoming that could add another 550,000 bpd to exports. The governments of Alberta and Canada are working on another pipeline to move Alberta oil to the West Coast of Canada that could see up to 1 million bpd more oil exported from Alberta by 2035.

If these planned pipeline expansions come to fruition, Alberta could be exporting about 5.9 million bpd day by 2035. That would make Alberta the third largest exporter of oil on the planet after Saudi Arabia and Russia, and ahead of the USA and Iraq, assuming the war in Ukraine ceases and Russia can again export oil as it did prior to the war.

For context, it is worth noting that in 2015 Alberta only exported 2.5 million bpd. If planned pipeline expansions and construction goes ahead, by 2035 it would be exporting 235% more oil than it exported two decades prior.

There is an independence movement in Alberta that has complained loudly that Alberta's economic potential has been purposely quashed by federal government policies that have seen the cancellation of pipelines and the implementation of climate change policies. This sentiment is widely shared by the majority of Albertans who want Alberta to remain in Canada. One would hope that the planned expansions of Alberta's oil exporting capacity noted above will go a very long way to address these concerns.



Saturday, 14 March 2026

The British Monarchy On The Tropes

The Epstein thing has rocked the very foundations of the British Monarchy. A summary, so far...


Former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, having been stripped of all titles by Charles III. He had sexual relations with a girl who was underage - Virginia Giuffre. He is a paedophile and a criminal. 

Andrew has been arrested and questioned by the police relating to allegedly sharing British trade secrets. This is the first time this has happened to a member of the royal family in almost 400 years. 

His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, has been disgraced owing to her regular contacts with Epstein, including bringing her daughters to visit with him a week after his release from prison after being convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution and procuring a child for prostitution

The King has banished Andrew from Royal Lodge, where he lived for over 20 years. 

Andrew remains eighth in line for the throne.

We here at mewetree.blogspot.com think this is about to get way worse. 

Read on.

It is inconceivable that Charles III did not know "something". He must have had some knowledge of various allegations against his brother going back decades. 

Charles III would also have known about some of his reprehensible behaviour while he was trade envoy for the British Government, and no doubt many other scandalous goings-on, many of which we do not know about yet. In fact, Charles recommended that Andrew not receive this trade post when it was first proposed, likely owing to what he thought could happen once Andrew was let loose on the world. He certainly knew of the allegations related to Epstein for years, as did we all. He has been the King for three and a half years. He did basically nothing about these things until the release of the Epstein files. He may have even contributed to the pay-off that Giuffre got to settle her lawsuit against Andrew. 

This is a very bad look.

And so, it will likely come out that Andrew has behaved abominably for decades. Now that he is not a royal prince, he is "fair game". The stories are just starting. 

We here at mewetree.blogspot.com strongly suspect that it will soon become obvious that the Monarchy protected Andrew, not for a few years, but for decades. This protection would include silencing journalists, politicians, and any witnesses of his behaviour, especially security personnel. His armour is gone; his crimes and misdemeanors will soon become known to everyone. The fact that he was protected will leave the Monarchy under siege unlike anything since Charles I lost his head in 1649.

But it could get worse...
  
Andrew will soon be removed from the line of succession, which requires legislation in 14 different countries. Once he can no longer become king, we may be witnesses to a revelation that would rock the Monarchy to its very core.

It could be this...

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor may not the son of Prince Phillip, the late husband of the late Queen Elisabeth II. He may be the son of a man named Lord Porchester, who was the Queen's horse manager, with whom she had a close friendship. The clear implication would be that Andrew, "The Bastard", should never have been in line for the Throne at all 

The lies that may have been told by the Monarchy and their protectors to keep this hidden for over half a century could put the bona fides of the Monarchy into question regarding each and every issue they have touched on going back 75 years. Literally everything they stand for and have ever said could be questioned. No one would trust these people.

But it may get even worse...

Reality - Harry looks nothing like Charles, but is the spitting image of Diana's alleged illicit lover, James Hewitt. This affair is said to be impossible as Diana is claimed to have only met Hewitt two years after Harry was born. This has been verified by a member of the security detail that guarded Diana - Ken Warfe - who confirmed the dates.

Regardless, Harry himself has claimed that he thought he was Hewitt's son until 2014! There has never been a DNA test done to confirm paternity. 

Note that red hair is often given as an indicator that Hewitt is Harry's father. In fact, there are redheads on both sides of the Charles and Diana union, meaning there was about a 25% chance that Harry would have red hair. 

What is more striking is the fact that Harry looks nothing like Charles! He is the spitting image of Hewitt! Look for yourself...

image.png

This is Charles and William...

image.png

Harry looks nothing like either of these men. How is this scandal not obvious? 

But what about the defence that Diana and Hewitt did not meet until after Harry was born? Hmmm - a man who was professionally loyal to the Crown was the witness to the fact that the Diana-Hewitt affair could not have happened. Given his sworn obligation to protect the Crown, do you think he might lie about something like that to do just that, namely protect the Crown? How many security people turned a blind eye to Andrew's goings-on?

If Harry's questionable paternity is revealed, the Monarchy will have to go on bended knee to the British People begging forgiveness. This scandal will rekindle and strengthen the veneration of Diana, who will be said to have tried to tell all of us what a bunch of lying creeps these people really are - before she was allegedly killed, that is.

But it may get even worse...

To be in the line of succession, a person must be delivered through a natural birth to a woman who is either in the line of succession, or who is married to someone in the line of succession. Children who have been delivered by a surrogate cannot be in the line of succession for the British Crown.

How were Lilibet and Archie born? 

Did Meghan Markle actually carry them to term? 

There are questions circulating on-line about all of this. The board here at mewetree.blogspot.com thinks much of this is Internet Slop, but you never know.

If Markle did not carry her children to term, it would not matter should Harry prove to have been Hewitt's son as he would not be in the line of succession, so neither would his children. 

If this is the case, coming on the heels of other lies and distortions this could be the end of the Monarchy as we know it. One would think that the only thing that could save it might be the abdication of Charles III to signal a break with the Old Guard, and the ascension of William and Kate to try to pick up the pieces. In fact, even if the Andrew-related things noted above happen, it is hard to see the Crown continuing on as it is.

The Epstein debacle has exposed that the elite of Western society believe they are untouchable. Some of these people carry on in abominable ways, secure in their belief that they are safe from justice. 

No one is more elite in the West than members of the British Monarchy. Andrew has been found out, and there seems little doubt that more findings are to follow. 

Dare we expect an abdication by the end of the year? 

If yes, could the Crown survive?

image.png

Of course, all of this is speculation. 

But if it reads like it's right, might it be just that?



Tuesday, 3 March 2026

Understanding Venezuela and Iran

There is a new war on!  

It's the USA and Israel, and likely others versus Iran! 

What is this all about?

The previous American attack on Venezuela resulted in opening up the country to private investment in the oil sector, reversing decades of national control. 

The negotiations with the Iranians likely involve removing the nuclear threat, but also some private ownership and control of Iran's oil reserves. Iran was about to allow what would have amounted to limited joint ventures between private firms and the national oil company, but it would still have banned outright private ownership of Iran's oil. I suspect that this will be lifted once there is a deal in place after the war is over.  

The key here is that the odious Venezuelan regime was left in charge, with some sops to democracy via release of political prisoners etc. The Mullahs will likely be left in charge as well. There is no plan for regime change because they aren't serious about regime change if they can get at the oil. 

This is about colonialism, not freedom.

The wild-card here is Israel which wants to see Iran's regime utterly destroyed. They want the Mullahs gone, so behind the scenes there is likely a debate between those who favour colonization of Iran with the Mullahs in charge - a.k.a. the Americans - and the Israelis who don't care about oil, but who want this existential threat eliminated. The debate will likely end in an all-around agreement on killing as many Iranian leaders as possible, within a defined time frame.  

These wars were and are clearly illegal. Illegal in international law, and illegal in American law. This isn't even debatable. 

Canada's PM Carney has read the room correctly - stick to Canada's previous position against the Iranians getting the Bomb, and say nothing about the illegality, which is consistent with his "end of the world order as we know it" speech in Davos. 

Query - if the Americans and Israelis can do this, why pre tell, could Russia not invade Ukraine, or China not invade Taiwan? 

"Might is Right" and "The Law of the Jungle" and Hobbes' view of "The State of Nature" all rule again. 

Is every small country on the menu?








Tuesday, 6 January 2026

British WW2 Military Travesties

The real history of WW2 is slowly being written. One key theme that will emerge is seriously deficient leadership by the British. The levels of their bloody-minded stupidity, especially in respect of the equipment that they produced and used is breathtaking at times. 

Here are some examples.

Happy Valentine's Day! It is Tunisia, early 1943. The British were attempting to ward off a German armoured counter-attack as they slowly push them out of North Africa. This is what some of them were using...


The Valentine Mark III infantry tank.

British tank crews had to take on a few of these German tanks....


The Tiger Mark I.

The Valentine weighed 16 tonnes, and had a maximum of 65 mm of frontal armour. It had a 2-pounder (40 mm) gun. It's maximum speed was 15 mph.

The Tiger weighed 54 tonnes, and had a maximum of 100 mm of frontal armour. It had an 88 mm gun. It's maximum speed was 23 mph.

The gun of the Valentine could not penetrate the armour of the Tiger at any range. The gun of the Tiger could penetrate the armour of the Valentine more than 2 km away.  

The British had been at war for four and a half years by early 1943. How is it possible that they were sending tankers into combat in Valentines where they faced certain death not only against Tigers, but also against most German tanks of that era? They did have better tanks than the Valentine - the Churchill for example - but even as late as 1943 they continued to kill their own people by sending them into combat in these death traps. 

Here is another example of British abject stupidity...

Low and Slow: This is what the British sent out to try to torpedo Japanese warships and transports during their invasion of Malaya in December, 1941.


This is a Vickers Vildebeest. Top speed was 143 mph, with a defensive armament of two .303 caliber machine guns. It had no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks which had become standard at least a year earlier on all British combat aircraft.

This is what the men flying these planes faced...


This is a Nakajima Oscar. Maximum speed of the Mark 1 version was about 308 mph, with two .303 caliber machine guns. 

Almost no Vildebeests survived their encounters with Japanese fighter aircraft. Pilots flying this aircraft did claim to have sunk eight Japanese ships while defending Malaya, which is close to a miracle, and which speaks to the high quality and bravery of the aircrew. 

The British did have a much better torpedo aircraft - the Bristol Beaufort - a few of which were actually in Singapore in 1941. But they didn't get enough of these more useful aircraft to Singapore in time, so they had to use these these death traps instead. What were they thinking?

Let's go back to North Africa..

Cannon Fodder: Here are the two primary fighter aircraft that the British used through 1941 and 1942 to try to defeat the German Me-109, which was the primary German fighter aircraft in the theatre...


The Hawker Hurricane Mark II...



The Curtiss P-40E...

The Germans were using these...


The Me-109 F.

The German fighter was about 50 MPH faster that the Hurricane Mark II, and about 30 MPH faster that the P-40E. It could out climb both, and had a much higher service ceiling.

The Germans kept it simple. They flew higher than the Hurricanes and P-40s, swooped down from heights that the other two planes could not reach, gunned them down, and flew away.  They shot down hundreds of Hurricanes and P-40's this way.

The British did have an aircraft that could compete with the ME-109 F; the Spitfire Mark V.  They didn't send this plane to North Africa and Malta until March 1942. The Luftwaffe arrived in North Africa in April, 1941. This meant the Brits left their fighter pilots to take on Me-109's in their Hurricanes and P-40s for almost a year before a really competitive fighter plane was sent.

The Venerable .303!: In the 1930's the British had to decide what weapon they would use to arm their bombers and fighters for future wars. They looked at the .303 machine gun, .50 calibre machine gun, and 20 mm cannon. They decided that Browning machine guns using the .303 bullet would be used to arm their fighter aircraft and their bombers to defend against enemy fighter aircraft.

Choosing the .303 calibre round did make some sense when the decision was taken in the 1930's. At that time, virtually no military aircraft had armour or self-sealing fuel tanks. Other world powers were arming aircraft with equivalent weapons, with the Americans often using one .30 calibre and one .50 calibre machine gun; the Italians using .50 calibre machine guns; the Germans using 7.62 calibre machine guns; and the Japanese using 7.7 mm machine guns. The French and Soviets were experimenting with rifle calibre machine guns, like the British, but they also added single or double 20 mm cannons.

Unlike other nations, the British made up for lack of punch with numbers of guns deployed. The Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire fighters that they fielded at the started the war had a whopping eight .303 machine guns, with four guns in each wing. These aircraft performed exceptionally well during the Battle of Britain, proving competitive with any aircraft fielded by the Germans or Italians. 

After that battle, the British started to arm their fighters with a combination of .303 machine guns and 20 mm cannons, or with four 20 mm cannons. The cannon they used - the Hispano-Suiza - was excellent. By the end of the Second World War, other than some specialized German aircraft, the British probably had the most powerfully-armed fighter aircraft in the world, other than the ME 262.

The problem wasn't with their fighters. It was with how the British armed their bombers.

The .303 calibre machine gun was the primary defensive weapon arming British bombers throughout World War Two. All other nations started out defending their bombers almost entirely with rifle-calibre weapons; only the British persisted in doing so for the entire war. No other nation stayed only with these weapons, and instead they adopted a range of .50 calibre machine guns and 20 mm cannons to defend their bomber crews.

Long after it was obvious that German fighter aircraft had enough armour and self-sealing tanks to very often render these weapons ineffective, the British kept sending bomber crews into the air to try to fight their way through with .303's. The spectre of British gunners in their power-operated turrets armed with two or four .303 machine guns trying to hold off Messerschmitt 262 fighter jets armed with four 30 mm cannons is haunting. The Germans didn't have to get close. They could sit well outside of the effective range of the .303 machine guns, and just blow the bombers away.  

There is an argument used by defenders of the decision to use the .303 that it was an effective weapon until the end of the war as the British bombed at night where air battles were at quite close range, where it could be effective. The response is to note that the British had to bomb at night as gunners using the .303 Browning proved almost totally incapable of defending their bombers in daylight, even as early as the first weeks of the war. The .303 was used at night because it was a total failure during daylight hours, not because the British were trying to fight battles at close range at night. Note that the Canadians, who built a version of the British Avro Lancaster bomber, started to install mid-upper gun turrets armed with the American .50 Browning machine gun toward the end of the war. The British themselves soon followed suit. 

By the end of the war, it is fair to say that the .303 Browning had been effectively obsolete as a defensive weapon for bombers for at least two and maybe even three years. That the British continued to use this weapon to defend their bombers was a travesty. It is worth noting that the first British bomber produced right after the war - the Avro Lincoln - had a turret armed with two 20 mm cannons.

This shows you the difference in the size of the respective shells - see the top three shells. In the scenario where the ME262 took on the Lancaster, the Germans were armed with weapons that fired the round on the bottom of this display, while the British were armed by weapons that fired the round at the top.


Can Anyone In This Country Design A Tank?: The British didn't field a really competitive medium tank  - the Comet - until 1945, in spite of having been in the war for six years! Tanks require a balance of armour protection, firepower and speed. They also need to be mechanically reliable. Every single British medium tank the British produced in WW2 failed to meet one or many of these requirements throughout almost the entire war! 

The British started with the A9 and A10 medium tanks. They had very good 2 pounder (40 mm) guns that were probably the best anti-tank guns in the world in 1939. Here they are...

A9 Cruiser Mk 1

 

A10 Cruiser Mk II


They look very similar. The A9 had two machine gun turrets in the front that were virtually useless, so they were deleted in the A10.

These vehicles were very unreliable. Their treads tore off if they tried to turn too tightly. The board here at Mewetree.blogspot.com does recall reading an account of the British using some of these tanks in an attempt to defend Greece - about 50 tanks. The author claimed that all of them broke down before they could engage the enemy and had to be abandoned.

The A9 had very thin armour of only half an inch in thickness. That was not enough to stop rounds from 37 mm anti-tank guns which were standard with most armies in 1939-40. The British attempted to remedy this by putting 30 mm of armour on the A10. The result was that the speed dropped from 25 MPH in the A9 to a maximum of 16 MPH in the A10. 

So the first cruiser tank that was produced was not well-enough protected and the second was too slow. They both lacked basic reliability. The British attempted to remedy the situation with the Cruiser III, and Cruiser IV. Here the are...

Cruiser III


Cruiser IV


Again, as with the A9 and A10, these tanks look very similar. The difference is in turret design to provide armour sloping in the Cruiser IV, and armour protection which was increased from 14 mm in the Cruiser III to 30 mm in the Cruiser IV. 

These tanks were better than the first two cruiser tanks. The British had adopted the Christie suspension system, that enabled a high speed of 30 MPH. They retained the 2 pounder gun, which was still very  competitive in 1940-41. However, both tanks were let down by a chronically unreliable engine, the Nuffield Liberty, which was a modified American WW1 aircraft engine. Here is an assessment of the reliability of this tank engine.

"The engine was notoriously unreliable in the North African campaign, largely due to specific tank installations (like the Crusader's poor air intake placement and chain-driven fans) that exacerbated its inherent design problems. Issues included overheating, water pump and ignition problems, and oil leaks from the individual, bolted-together cylinder assemblies, which were prone to separating under stress." (Wiki)

The armour protection of both tanks, and especially of the Cruiser III, was also too thin. It was easily penetrated by the 37 mm anti-tank guns used by the Germans, and the Cruiser IIIs sent by the British to France in 1940 were savaged by German tank and anti-tank gunners. The Cruisers III and IV were also sent by the British to fight in North Africa in 1940. There, it encountered Italian tanks, where they proved to be superior to what the Italians put into the field, although they were very vulnerable to Italy's 47 mm anti-tank gun which was used on their M13/40 tanks.

To summarize, the Cruisers III and IV were not well-enough protected and were let down by a chronically unreliable engine. Other than that, they were a significant upgrade on the Cruisers Mk I and II. They did well in North Africa against the Italians when their engines worked, then the Germans arrived and everything changed for the worse.

The next British medium was the Cruiser Mk VI "Crusader" which was the second most-produced British tank of WW2 (5.300 built), after the Valentine tank (about 8,300 built.) Here it is...

Cruiser VI "Crusader"

The Crusader had more armour than the Cruiser IV, with its maximum armour increased to 49 mm. The turret was also redesigned to slope the armour more so as to add more protection against anti-tank guns. The change to tank turret design and increased armour thickness was enough to render the German 37 mm gun largely useless. The Crusader was also quite quick, with a maximum speed of 26 MPH. So far, so good.

But the Germans mostly stopped using only the 37 mm anti-tank gun shortly after the Crusader was first introduced into service. In December, 1941, the Germans started using a new 50 mm Pak 38 anti-tank gun on their man battle tank at the time, the Panzer Mk III.  

The 50 calibre version of this gun could penetrate 60 mm of armour at 1,000 meters. At this point in the war, the Panzer Mk III model H was also being introduced with a maximum of of 60 mm of armour protection. The venerable 2 pounder gun could only penetrate 40 mm of 30 degrees sloped armour at 1,000 meters. 

The British in Crusaders were therefore both outgunned and outranged, as in, when the Crusader was introduced, its gun was already on the verge of obsolescence and increasingly outranged by the guns the Germans were using. Nonetheless, it was still useful, as there were still many Italian tanks around to shoot at.  

The Crusader evolved from 1941 until production stopped in 1943. When introduced, it has a machine gun turret in front that was later deleted. The biggest change was the introduction of a very powerful 6 pounder (54 mm) gun staring in May, 1942. While this was a massive upgrade on the 2 pounder, and the new gun could effectively deal with any German tank, the gun was so large that the number of men in the turret had to be reduced from three to two. The commander became the gun loader as well as commander, which dramatically reduced his effectiveness in combat as it interfered with his ability to command the tank. 

The need for a separate loader, gunner and commander in the turret had been recognized since at least the Battle of France, in 1940. Incredibly, the British did not design the Crusader's turret with a view to upgrading the gun, at least in such a way as to keep three men in the turret.  

While crew crowding made this tank far less useful, the biggest problem with the Crusader was not the limitation to two crew in the turret. The biggest issue, by far, was the decision by the British to continue to use the same Nuffield Liberty engine in the Crusader that had proved so hopeless in the Cruisers Mks III and IV. While the Crusader was upgraded to be competitive with German tanks from 1941 to 1943 in terms of gun power, and even with slight improvements to the armour protection, crews were often beaten by their own engines which were well-known to be ineffective at the time the Crusader was introduced. There really was no excuse for this level of incompetence.

Consider that in 1942, while the British were fielding the Crusader III with mediocre armour, a very good gun and a good turn of speed, but a two man turret and a very defective engine; the Germans were using upgraded Panzer IVs and the first Tiger tanks, both of which had guns that could destroy a Crusader at over 1,500 meters; the Americans were using the mediocre General Lee and excellent Sherman tank; and the Soviets were using the T-34 which they put into service even before the Crusader. There is no question which of these tanks was inferior.

Again, they British built 5,300 of these tanks. They did not use it as a battle tank after the end of the North Africa campaign, switching as fast as they could to the Sherman.

Before looking at the next British medium tank that was actually used in combat, we need to mention the Covenanter. You may have noticed that we skipped one of the cruiser tanks, skipping over the Cruiser Mk V. Here it is...

Cruiser Mk V "Covenanter"
The British built 1,700 of these tanks. None was fit for combat as they used an innovative engine cooling system that put the radiators on the front of the hull to cool an engine which was designed to be kept as low in the vehicle as possible to reduce the profile of the tank. It didn't work. These tanks were all used for training. What a waste.

The increasing availability of American tanks in 1942-43 bought the British some time to design and thoroughly test a better tank, and to stop ordering tanks "off the drawing board" as they did for the first three years of the war. The result was the Cruiser VII Cavalier. Here is it...

Cruiser VII "Cavalier"



This tank was well-balanced, with very good speed, good armour and a very good 6 pounder gun. It had a gunner, loader and commander in the turret. The only obvious down side was the design of the front hull and turret which did not have sloped armour. Still, the armour was 76 mm thick, which was competitive, and the tank was only eight feet high, which allowed it to present a fairly low profile. By comparison, the General Grant tank that the British received from the Americans was ten and a half feet high, and even the Sherman was nine to nine and a half feet high.

So, all good, right!?

Well, no.  

Are you ready for this?

The British used the Nuffield Liberty engine in this tank as well! This decision rendered the tank undeployable in combat, and the 500 examples built were mostly use for training. (If you are counting, that is 2,200 completely useless medium tanks produced by the British during the crucial middle years of the war!) It went into production in 1942, when, if it had a dependable engine, would have made it one of the best tanks on the planet, easily better than the Panzer III and first variants of the Sherman, and even competitive with the T-34-76.

It was not to be.

Before moving on to discuss the tank that came before the Comet, we need to chat about the British decision to not provide their tank crews with high explosive ammunition. 

Most British tanks in North Africa were destroyed by German and Italian anti-tank guns. If you were in a tank, the best way to deal with an artillery piece was to blast it with high explosive shells from your own cannon. Until the next tank - the Cromwell - the British sent crews in British tanks into combat with machine guns and only armour-piercing ammunition for their anti-tank guns, until the start of the Tunisian campaign in late 1942 

There were high explosive rounds developed for the 2 pounder and 6 pounder guns, but unbelievably, they were not provided to tank crews for the first two years of the war in North Africa. This situation changed when the British started to receive first Stuart Honey tanks, then General Grant and then Sherman tanks from the Americans that had 37 mm, then 75 mm guns respectively that could fire both high explosive and armour-piercing shells.  

Here is what was quite often knocking out Crusaders in North Africa..


This 88 mm Flak 18/36/37/41 gun fired an 88 mm armour-piercing shell that could penetrate 88 mm of armour at 2 kms range. The Crusader had 49 mm of sloped armour. When fired upon, British tank crews were expected to use their machine guns or armoured rounds in response. The British tank machine gun was the Besa. It's effective range was no more than 1,000 meters. Unless British tank crews could call in artillery to deal with German anti-tank gun crews, they had no way to effectively respond prior to the introduction of American tanks with their high explosive rounds, and prior to the introduction of high explosive rounds for the 6 pounder rounds in late 1942.

Yup.

The next tank is the Cromwell. Here is it...

Cruiser VIII "Cromwell"

The Cromwell was basically the Cavalier with a different engine and a 6 pounder gun that had been modified to accept the 75 mm round used in the Sherman's gun. 

This was a very good tank. It was quick, it had 76 mm of armour, and a 75 mm gun. The British finally scrapped the Nuffield Liberty engine and installed a version of the Rolls Royce Merlin called the Meteor engine, giving it a top speed of 40 MPH with 600 horsepower. This was an excellent and reliable engine. This tank was operated with the American Sherman by the British and Canadians in the Normandy Campaign where it performed well.

So why was this tank not the one that we can say the British finally got right and produced a war-winner? There were two problems with this vehicle. 

The first was that the 76 mm of armour was still not sloped. That was probably acceptable on the Cavalier which was produced as early as 1942. By 1944, the battlefield had evolved so that flat armour was simply not competitive. 

Let's chat about sloped armour.

The Sherman had receives a bad rap because it only had 2 inches or armour on its front hull. But that armour was heavily sloped, so that the effective armour protection wasn't 2 inches (50 mm), it was between 90 and 94 mm. By comparison, the Cromwell was protected by only 64 mm of flat armour on the hull and 76 mm of flat armour on the turret.

The second problem with the Cromwell was its gun. The move to a 75 mm gun was an advance on the 6 pounder, as it allowed British tank crews to fire a much more effective high explosive round. But the armour penetrating power of this gun was deeply deficient. The gun could only penetrate 68 mm of armour plating sloped at 30 degrees at 500 meters. By way of comparison, the 6 pounder gun that it replaced could fire an armour piercing round that could penetrate 112 mm at 500 meters!

By 1944, the Germans were using Panther tanks. They had 80 mm of heavily sloped frontal armour that gave them about 140 mm of effective armour protection on their front hull. The standard British 75 mm armour piecing shell could not penetrate this armour head on, forcing British tank crews to try to get side on shots at Panthers. The tanks' speed helped here, but Panthers could kill Cromwell tanks at any reasonable combat range, as the Panther had a long-barreled 75 mm gun that could fire a round that could penetrate 89 mm of 30 degree sloped armour out to 2 kilometers! The Cromwell was simply not competitive against these tanks, or even against the older Panzer IV tanks that the Germans used which used long-barreled 75 mm guns that could penetrate 82 to 97 mm of armour plating at 30 degree sloped angles out to 1,000 meters.

With the Cromwell, the British were almost there! The last medium tank they fielded in numbers was the Comet. Here is it,...

 A34 Cruiser Mk I "Comet"



The Comet was fast, it had a low profile, it was well protected and had an excellent gun. It also had a very reliable engine. It would remain in British service until 1958, and with some other countries into the 1980s.

The Comet was one of the best medium tank produced during the Second World War.  A total of 1,200 were produced and it entered combat in December, 1944. The Comet had a "77" mm gun, which was really a "detuned" 17-pounder, which was a 76.2 mm gun. The Comet's gun used a shortened version of the 17-pounder's round, and was excellent, able to put an armour-piercing round through 118 mm of armour at 1,000 yards. Using an APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot) round, it could penetrate 231 mm.

The Comet had more armour than the Cromwell, with 3.98 inches of sloped armour on the turret, and three inches on the hull, which was still flat! This armour could not stop an armour-piercing round from a Panther, but at least the Comet could kill the Panther in return.

The Comets set the pattern for what came after, which was the Centurion tank, which was arguable the first ever main battle tank..

Conclusion: Every major combatant fielded questionable equipment during the war, from the Elefant tanks of Germany, to the T-26's of the Soviet Union, to the abysmal tanks of the Italians and Japanese. The British weren't alone. The examples above do show a certain bloody-mindedness though. 









  

   









 

.
 



 



  




















  
















   

.









 


 














  























  

Tuesday, 30 December 2025

Artificial Intelligence (AI) - The Monsters, The Fraud, and The Conspiracy

The Monsters:

Do you remember this?

https://aistatement.com/

This statement. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”, was issued by AI experts in 2023, including CEOs of AI behemoths such as Open AI and Anthropic, as well as Geoffrey Hinton, who is considered the Godfather of AI.

While some form of AI has existed for decades – Siri came in 2012 - AI in the form of a generative large language model (LLM) was released into the world as Chat GPT in 2022. Other such iterations of AI such as Anthropic and Open AI soon followed.

So all of us were told by AI scientists who worked on the development of AI in establishments like Open AI and Chat GPT, as well as the CEOs of those companies, that AI could evolve so that it could kill all Humans at some point. The clearly stated risk is from AI itself, not from the use of AI. They must have known of this risk when they approved the release. Of course, the end of Humanity hasn’t happened yet, and it will never happen courtesy of AI in and of itself, for reasons outlined below. Before dealing with AI’s significant limitations, we need to ask this question…

How was it that something that was considered a risk to the existence of Humanity by its developers, and by those in charge of the related private companies that led its development, was released into the world without massive and sustained testing to make sure, to the degree possible, that this risk could not manifest itself in the actual elimination of all Humans, everywhere?

These companies didn’t have to release generative LLM AI into the world. They rushed to do so to try to beat each other to the promised massive profits that they thought would ensue should the world adopt AI, much as we adopted the internet itself. The answer to this question seems clear…

Generative LLM AI was released into the world by CEO’s of companies that had a clear understanding that they could be risking the existence of Humanity, solely in pursuit of profit.

The term you are looking for is “monster”, although that doesn’t quite do it. This wasn’t just criminal negligence. In fact, we don’t have a crime to fit what these people did. To make money, as far as they knew, they knowingly risked killing all of us.

Incidentally, the board here at Mewetree.blogspot.com asked Chat GPT if there are any examples from history where a single decision made only in pursuit of profit resulted in a risk to the lives of all Humans. Chat GPT could only come up with one example - the release of generative LLM AI. Fair is fair - we here at Mewetree.blogspot.com do hereby give AI a nod for honesty.

It will never happen, and here’s why…

The Fraud:

Artificial Intelligence isn’t intelligent.

Applying the word “intelligence” to AI, and with that, using words like "reason" and "know" to describe what it does, to the extent that this implies that Artificial Intelligence actually is intelligent and that it reasons and knows anything at all, is completely fraudulent. 

Words mean things. Here is what “intelligence” means – “the ability to learn, understand, and make judgements or have opinions that are based on reason.” 

Let’s look at each bolded and italicized aspect in turn and compare to what AI actually does.

“Learn” means, “to get new knowledge or skill in a subject or activity.” AI doesn’t do this. It accesses the changing and evolving mass of human knowledge available on the internet and spits out data in the form of arranged words and data that responds to whatever question it has been asked. Learning requires volition (i.e. “to get”.) AI has no volition. Without the questions being asked, it is entirely at stasis. 

“Understand” means, “to know the meaning of something that someone says”. The key term here is “to know” which means “to have information in your mind.” AI doesn’t have information in its mind because AI doesn’t have a mind (confirmed by Chat GPT), so it does not, and cannot “know”. Ergo, it cannot “understand”.

“Make Judgements” means, “to make a decision or form an opinion about someone or something after thinking carefully.” The key term here is “thinking” which means “activity of using your mind to consider something.” As we have seen, AI doesn’t have a mind. Ergo, it cannot think, so it cannot make judgments.

“Have opinions” means, to have “a thought or belief about something or someone”. The key terms here are “thought” and “belief”. Thought means thinking, and we have seen that thinking requires a mind. “Belief” means “the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true.” AI does not have a mind so it cannot think, and it also cannot feel so it can’t have beliefs, therefore it cannot have opinions.

“Reason” means, “the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts”. As we have seen, AI does not have a mind. It doesn’t do anything based on reason, nor does it reason.

AI does literally nothing that constitutes the core elements of the definition of “intelligence”. It is not intelligent. Again, it does not reason and it doesn't know anything. Any suggestion to the contrary, and the use of words like "thinking", or even "hallucinating" to describe what it does when it is in error, is entirely fraudulent.

The Conspiracy:

AI can be tremendously helpful if kept within this realm…

"The best uses of AI involve automating mundane tasks, boosting creativity, enhancing data analysis, and improving decision-making across daily life and work, from summarizing emails and generating code to diagnosing diseases, creating art, and tackling global issues like climate change and hunger. AI excels at personalizing experiences (recommendations, chatbots), optimizing complex systems (manufacturing, cybersecurity), and providing powerful tools for education, healthcare (cancer screening, drug discovery), and accessibility for people with disabilities." (Google AI)

When it comes to this stuff, AI has no equal. This is massive progress. AI may not be intelligent, but the people who developed this tool are geniuses. Any intelligence here is Human, not Artificial.

Without an active intelligence AI on its own will never smite all Humans. The AI developers and CEOs of AI companies must know this. They took the supposed risk inherent to all Humanity in releasing AI because they knew there was no such risk. Why? Because they know that AI isn’t actually intelligent, and only an "intelligence" can go forth and smite us all. There was no crime committed here, but maybe there was something else that was entirely normal.

Query - Why did they issue the dire warning noted at the start of this blog, and many other similar warnings?

AI was released into a world with no regulations whatsoever. A declaration by AI developers and CEOs of AI companies that their product could kill everyone on the planet will get them a very important seat at the table when regulations are being drafted to deal with the supposed threat. Having portrayed themselves both as the subject matter experts regarding AI, as well as the harbingers of doom, were they setting themselves up for a profitable round of regulatory capture?

“Regulatory capture” is this, “Regulatory capture is when a government agency, meant to serve the public interest, starts acting in favor of the industry it's supposed to regulate, often due to close relationships, lobbying, and the "revolving door" of personnel between industry and government, resulting in rules that benefit the industry over consumers or the public. This leads to policies that protect established firms, stifle competition, or ignore public welfare for private gain, as seen with examples like financial or pharmaceutical industries.” (Google AI)

The key points are in bold. Companies that seek regulatory capture try to co-opt government into killing their competition, enabling them to maximize profits.

Is this what AI companies have been doing? 

We don’t know yet as AI regulation is in its infancy. If yes, this would be a completely normal activity for dominant firms in a new area of commercial endeavor. 

We shall see.

Conclusion:

AI on its own won't kill us, but will someone try to kill us using AI? That's fodder for a different blog. Until then, this...

What would Tom Cruise, on a donkey, wearing a fedora, in the desert look like?

See here...


Yup.






















 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monday, 15 December 2025

Understanding War and Society

The previous post looked at France and the Second World War, and explored a possible march to war by France in 1939, meaning that France actually sought war with Germany in 1939.

If this turns out to be true (i.e. once we can read internal French archives in another 100 years or so and discern what the French were really up to) what are we to make of this French march to war from the point of view of war as a policy choice and of society generally? What lessons may this have for us today?

One way to consider France’s march is to realize that there were likely two marches underway at the same time, each feeding off the other – France and Germany locked in a dance of death. The “tit-for-tat” build-up to aggression leading to war in situations like this, which sees each side issue threats and commit aggressive acts against the other ostensibly in response to the other side’s threats and aggressive acts, worked in 1939 for both parties, and it works even today. Leaders who play this game, and who issue threats or order aggressive acts “in response” can assess full well what the other side’s response will most likely be well in advance. It is a response expected and even hoped-for on the road to an escalation to war that is often desired by both parties.

Encouraging one side to resist the temptation to respond even in the face of the gravest of atrocities, and exposing purposeful escalation as a “march to war” would obviously assist in halting that very march in its tracks. Halting escalation is, in fact, the essence of peace-keeping – a real contribution to world peace. This would have availed the world nothing in 1939 however, as, assuming the French were also on the march, both sides were intent on aggression.

What to do about war? There seem to be two basic philosophical approaches to the problem.

The first approach could look at the history of marches to war for a contribution to our understanding of how nations go to war, and assert that by better understanding this process – how decisions are made, by whom and for what purpose, and how these are then translated into the mobilization of the population - perhaps we can learn how to avoid war in the future. In light of this, future questions worthy of exploration could include how information is gathered and assessed within the intelligence bureaucracies that served the French leaders who led France into war in the years leading up to 1939. In looking at this, historians would be seeking access to the “secret nation” which existed outside of public scrutiny, and to delve into how this world operates in the search for answers and possible proscriptions for the future. Should such an exploration reveal patterns of behavior common to all societies that inevitably lead to war, and methods by which these may be expunged, the service to humanity that such a turn of events would present is obvious.

A second approach could suggest otherwise - at least a modification. It may be that as the history of this period is further explored, historians may come to understand better how leaders manipulate their peoples in order to march to war, but also that as every politician - democrat and tyrant alike – knows, people can only be lead where they are willing to go. In other words, that the “secret nation” can only manipulate to a limited extent. Regarding France, note that it appeared at times that the leadership was often behind the people in terms of the march to war, not ahead of them. Was this by design, or did it represent a leadership out of control? In light of this, the questions to be explored further could center on the psychology of peoples, not the machinations of leaders and their advisors. The answers to the Human curse of war may therefore lie not at the head of society, but within its soul.

In that respect, it should be obvious that both tyrants and democrats need to justify their actions, especially over such matters as war, because popular opinion always matters to every politician, everywhere. The tremendous advantage that democratic politicians have over tyrants is a mandate to govern that permits them to set aside worry about what the people are thinking, and to just get on with the job of governing. More than that, should they lose an election and thereby lose power, they are always free to try to come back again another day – losing power for a democrat does not mean non-existence.

Democrats then, having the luxury of a mandate, have nothing to fear from letting liberty and the best in humanity flourish, including what may be a natural human pacifism. Perhaps this is the essential explanation for the fact that, generally-speaking, liberal democracies do not fight wars against one another, nor do they experience famine. In short, liberty is liberating for leaders and citizens alike, and the results benefit everyone.

Tyrants, on the other hand, who never assess the will of the people in any meaningful way, must always worry. To stay in power, they must manufacture the illusion of the positive while at the same time emphasizing the negatives that support their control, and especially the triumvirate of “fear, national crises, and enemies of the people”. This approach must always lead to a war of some sort, whether it is a war against some internal societal scourge, or actual external aggression. In matters of external aggression, tyrants mobilize their people by playing on the natural divisions and hatreds that burn in the soul of many a nation. These divisions and hatreds immediately come to be the essence of the wars that are subsequently fought, and they seriously limit the ability of tyrants to control the events that follow. In a tyranny, not even the tyrant is free.

In considering the various democratic and tyrannical motivations that both sparked the Second World War, and which governed its progress, it may be trite to say that this was much more than just a war. Once launched, it quickly became a battle between the negativity needed and encouraged by tyranny on the one side – culminating in horror that will always exist where one finds humanity led by those who are operating absent a higher morality - and the common human decency of the liberal democracies that sought to stop it.

The tragedy of the pre-war years may not be that democratic politicians sought to lead a march to war. It may be that those who could have, and who should have mobilized citizens who were willing to be led in the name of this same common human decency - that is the democratic politicians of the West - simply abandoned their duty, and in doing so permitted horror and hatred to grow and flourish, culminating in war that could have been stopped long before it happened.

Along with a better understanding of the psychology of peoples then – and, it is suggested, such an analysis should look closely at the psychology of people absent the direction of a higher morality - it may also be worth exploring how leaders in democracies sometimes come to forget their most essential duties, and the most obvious national security interests of their citizens. Interests that are easily understood by the citizens themselves.