Ghost Fleet

The following is an edited book review I wrote for an IBOLC assignment. It is short and no where near complete, but I think it is worth sharing a couple of my thoughts on the book.

Ghost Fleet by August Cole and P.W. Singer provides a cursory mention of a variety of topics that are now pertinent in a new age of warfare. Although none of the topics covered in the novel are explored in any sufficient amount of detail, their mention provides the necessary inception to start military leaders thinking about their implications. The book offers a second-rate story which is barely tolerable enough to glue the disparate topics together into a cohesive narrative.

The first area that Ghost Fleet explores is space-warfare. Space is a frontier that was barely breached in the later years of the 20th century, but it will certainly constitute a significant portion of the next conventional war. The opening scenes of the novel see the Chinese military shoot the entire U.S. Military Satellite System out of space. As is the case with much of our technology, we take our Military Satellite System for granted. However Ghost Fleet poses the question: what would we do without it? Everything from communication systems to GPS guidance systems would be unable to function. Although some of our communications systems do not rely on satellites and our troops could maneuver using manual land navigation practices, huge portions of our standard methods of Command and Control used at higher echelons would be useless. In addition many of our weapons capabilities would be useless.

A second topic which the book draws attention to is the the myriad of new reconnaissance and surveillance techniques available to the modern military. Although the United States is familiar with the advantages of using technologically advanced observation techniques against unsophisticated enemies, we have never had to defend against these methods. Singer and Cole do a great job of showing readers how new devices like drones, quadcopters, and other electronic surveillance devices pose a huge problem for any fighter fighting against another modern force. The novel shows how a small band of guerrilla fighters spend a majority of their time and energy avoiding these relatively cheap detection methods. One can only assume that a conventional force would be almost completely unable to avoid these detection systems.

A final point which the book investigates is the pre-planting of deficient electronic chips. The authors suggest that Chinese suppliers would be able to provide American defense companies with sabotaged chips which could destroy the system they were incorporated into. I personally believe that this point is unfounded. Perhaps this idea was meant as a cautionary point against bloated defense contractors and the challenges that globalization imply for military leaders, however I believe that sufficient safeguards exist to prevent such problems from occurring. Defense contracting is such a protected and secretive industry that chips would not be simply ‘pasted’ into designs without being sufficiently vetted. In addition the capability to receive a signal and make a significant change in function (even if only to self-deactivate)would mean the inclusion of a substantial functional group on the chip, and would not be able to be disguised among the valid processes of the electronic.

Overall I found Ghost Fleet to provide a decent exposure to a myriad of new ideas that any military leader operating in the modern world should consider. However I believe the novelization of the ideas takes away from the intellectual reputability of the ideas it presents. I believe that the white papers (here, here, and here) upon which the book is based provides a more in-depth look at the ideas without forcing them into a narrative.

Is it Better to be Feared or Loved as a Leader?

In my first year of ROTC our instructor posed us the question "As a leader, would you rather be feared or loved?"  After several minutes of debate filled with logical fallacies, personal anecdotes, and poor reasoning, the class was stumped for an answer and more entrenched in their opinions than they had been at the start of class.  Our instructor swooped in with the trick answer of "Why not both?", claiming that a Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant together could play both sides of the coin for maximum leadership.  At the time I nodded my head, told myself that as the PL it was my job to be loved, and moved on.

But years after that class, the question still plagues me.  I still hold firmly to the belief that I had in that class: being loved will drive your followers to go above and beyond, being feared will drive your followers to do just enough to avoid punishment.  Picturing a young private alone and unsure, I believed that him loving me his leader would drive him to not just clean his weapon to the standard, but until it was carbon free.  He would clean his weapon to impress me.  If I were a feared leader, he would have no reason to clean it beyond what was acceptable.  He would clean it enough to avoid my wrath, and be done with the task.  So I still believe that without any confounding factors, a leader who is loved beats one who is feared.  But leadership doesn't happen in a vacuum.

A friend who was in that first year ROTC class and who recently attended Ranger School wrote a piece Tax Summary 2012 in which he talked a little about the dichotomy of leadership between love and fear.  The post is incredibly well written, deep, and touches on a myriad of topics.  I plan to write several more responses to different parts, but for now we will focus on leadership in combat.  Doris writes:

when it comes to the lethal small unit missions Ranger school trains for, masculinity inspires more confidence in the troops and more fear in the enemy. It enables longer movements through harsher conditions in shorter times. I’m not going to bother to explain this any further, because any soldier reading this will agree with me, and any non-soldier reading this doesn’t have much leg to stand on. I’m not sure why this is: perhaps it is due to human nature, or perhaps it is due to deeply ingrained sexism. But for the time being, it is absolutely true.

 Now this made me think.  Is it really better to be loved?  Is Doris wrong?  Couldn't you just inspire your subordinates with the best OPORD brief ever seen, and get them to go above and beyond for you during your mission?  Maybe being feared is better? Sometimes?  For the past week and a half I have been thinking about that article.  I've thought about it, talked with friends, and thought about it more.  This post is my attempt to articulate my findings and provide a justification for my updated view on leadership.

My new view on leadership: Why not both?  Yes I have reverted to the trick answer, but this time I recognize the ability for the same leader to inspire both fear and reverence.  I still believe that given the best circumstances, and enough time inspirational leadership will drive your subordinates farther than distress based leadership.  But leadership doesn't happen in a vacuum.  We don't have infinite time in combat[1].  We have a very short amount of time to impress upon soldiers what needs to happen or where they need to be.  In that situation trying to inspire them to do something is not the ideal way to do it.  In fact it would be more efficient to scream at them to move rather than to 'inspire' them to move (I am not even sure how to do that).  In doing so, you might even 'inspire organized violence' (to again quote Doris) in your soldier, so that after they move they will be more aggressive with the enemy they find there than they would have been if you had coaxed them into moving.

Being a 'feared leader' doesn't mean you have to be malicious.  It means being blunt and loud and ignoring other's feelings.  Sometimes that method of leadership is what is needed.  In fact calling it being feared isn't entirely correct.  You don't have to kick your subordinates in the direction you want them to move, you can yell and curse and be extreme in that regard.

So I have been inspired to change my view of leadership.  I now recognize the place of fear-based leadership.  I still believe that inspirational leadership is the better to use in general, and fits my personality better, but it isn't the only answer.

I intend to write more about this (and much more about Tax Summary 2012) in subsequent posts, but I want to get this piece out as a starting point.


[1] Neither I nor Doris have been in combat, but I believe that we can both speak intelligently on the subject.

JHU Steam Tunnels

During my Sophomore year I somehow stole enough time away from homework and studying to explore the fabled Steam Tunnels that run under the Johns Hopkins Homewood campus.  Although I started out thinking I was pretty cool by showing my friends how how to walk between Remsen and Mudd Halls while staying out of the rain, that short passage was just the beginning of an elaborate subterranean system.

After my curiosity had been piqued I spent several weeks sneaking into the tunnels and exploring where they could lead me.  I spent most of the spring testing doors that were obviously not meant for students to go through.  After the semester ended my interest faded, but I was left with a basic map that I had compiled along the way.  I decided to keep the map to myself for a while, but now I am sharing it with future Messrs.

Before I go any further I should probably include a disclaimer: you shouldn't take advice from people on the internet, and if you do and get hurt doing it and blame the internet you are dumb.  Also while I am protecting myself: this is entire post is hypothetical.  If I had gone in the Steam Tunnels during my Sophomore year, this is what I would have found.

Now that we have that out of the way, here is the map:

 Maintenance Tunnel.  These are well lit, wide, and often populated.  No one cared when I walked by them in these tunnels.

Steam Tunnel.  These are dirty, narrow, and not well lit.  The more narrow the black line, the more narrow the actual tunnel is.  The wide tunnels allow you to comfortably walk upright, the narrowest tunnel (cutting from the Freshman Quad west towards Mergenthaler) barely allows passage moving sideways and crouched.

Entrance to one of the tunnels.  This can be anything from a loading dock (Chemistry Building) to a door, to a small cupboard door (Gilman Hall).

Crossover between the two tunnel systems where you can enter one from the other.


Vent or manhole where you can see the outside world from inside the tunnels.


I could spend several thousand words describing the intricacies of the tunnels, but I am not going to do that.  Instead I will highlight three main points which I think are important, add a couple of notes, and leave the rest up to you.

Two Tunnel Systems

I dichotomize the tunnels into two systems.  There are the 'Maintenance Tunnels which run under Mergenthaler, Mudd, Macaulay, and Dunning Halls, and the real Steam Tunnels which run under the majority of the older buildings on campus.

The Maintenance Tunnels are almost an extension of the buildings.  They are well lit hallways, which can comfortably fit two people abreast.  These tunnels were unsecured and I have walked past JHU Employees in these tunnels without any indecent.  If you are thinking of using the tunnels as an actual means of transportation then these are your only bet.

The actual Steam Tunnels are not as refined as the Maintenance Tunnels.  They are dimly (and sometimes not at all) lit, dirty, sometimes flooded, and as their name implies they have unprotected pipes running along the walls which can be hot enough to burn if you touch them.  If you are venturing into these tunnels then you certainly are up to no good.  The only legitimate reason for which I would advocate going into this tunnel system is to see what I call The Computer Room (see below).  Other than that you are simply exploring an area that you are not meant to be in.

The two systems intersect at three points:

• In front of Mudd, the Maintence Tunnel dips down and then back up.  At the bottom of this dip a door on either side of the hallway leads to the Steam Tunnels.
• In between Remsen and Dunning the  Maintence Tunnel floor has a section of several feet which is metal plate.  This metal plate is actual covering the Steam Tunnel that runs underneath.  On either side of the Maintence Tunnel are small doors that lead into the Steam Tunnel.
• The third entrance is in Remsen Hall and leads to a small loop of Steam Tunnel.

Entrances

There are four main entrances into the The Maintence Tunnels.  Three all are relatively easy to find in the Basements of Mudd, Dunning, , and Macauly Halls.  The entrance into the Maintence Tunnels from Remsen Hall is hard to describe other than to say that the entrances are directly outside of the exits from the main lecture hall.

There are many entrances into the Steam Tunnels, but only two are open reliably.  The North entrance in Maryland Hall is usually left open, and can be found at the back of the last flight of stairs in the Northern stairwell.  The second entrance is at the Western end of the basement hallway in Krieger Hall.  Although this door is locked, it is very easy to use the credit-card-swipe method on this door.  Most of the other entrances can act as exits once you are in the Steam Tunnels, but do not allow entrance into the tunnels from outside.

The Computer Room

What I call 'The Computer Room' is probably the most interesting thing I found in the Steam Tunnels, and what fueled my interest to continue exploring.  Located approximately under Latrobe Hall, this room was a small room off of the tunnel.  The room had some very old computer equipment, a couple beverage cans, and an excessive amount of what I believe were old-time computer printouts covering the entire floor.  Simply listing the contents does not properly describe how cool finding this room was.  Imagine finding an old-school hacker dungeon in the bowels of Hopkins.

Notes

• The map I provided might have some errors (specifically the Maintenance Tunnels between the Chemistry Building and Mudd Hall).