Last year, Boring Company management quit and cried foul on its safety practices.
‘We have consistently flirted with death’: Elon Musk wanted the Boring Co. to build a tunnel system below Las Vegas. Former employees say they feared for their lives while working there
This week Boring work has been halted after someone on the job needed nearly 20 rescue workers for a life-saving extraction.
Tunneling halted at Boring Company job site in Las Vegas after ‘crushing injury’ of worker reported
Historical pattern analysis of political assassinations reveals there is systematic convergence in weapons proliferation doctrine across ideologically disparate threat actors.
My 2010 assessment clearly documented fifteen years ago the Israeli military leadership characterizing the Gaza conflict as escalation inevitability:
…a senior Israeli army officer is calling a war with Gaza “a question of when, not if”. The rearmament of Hamas is held up as evidence of new and greater concerns.
This followed my earlier 2006 analysis of asymmetric warfare tactics normalizing weapons integration within civilian infrastructure:
Grenade launcher beside a baby’s bassinet
Charlie Kirk’s assassination today eliminated a prominent advocate for ubiquitous civilian armament doctrine. His outspoken tactical philosophy—weapons proliferation in all civilian spaces including proximity to children—demonstrates domestic convergent thinking with Iranian-proxy terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.
How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there’s not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there’s all these guns. Because everyone’s armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?
Cross-platform analysis reveals weapons saturation doctrine appears across ideologically opposed threat actors, suggesting tactical utility transcends political motivation. This convergence indicates proliferation strategies serve operational objectives (e.g. Palantir “self-licking ISIS-cream cone“) rather than ideological consistency.
Historical precedent from multiple security environments demonstrates inverse correlation between weapons proliferation and sustainable security outcomes.
National security professionals should apply identical threat assessment methodologies to domestic proliferation advocacy and international terror group tactics. Both seek to embed weapons within civilian populations using identical justification frameworks.
Gaza’s escalatory cycles, American frontier experience, and Civil War reconstruction (not to mention many other conflicts) demonstrate consistent historical pattern: sustainable security emerges through institutional control mechanisms, and NOT a proliferation assumption that increased armament creates increased safety.
Proliferation strategies benefit actors seeking systemic instability rather than community protection.
Americans (especially the USAF) frequently misunderstand there was no deterrence effect of dropping nuclear bombs on Japan. Their misunderstanding instead fed an endless congressional-military-industrial funding cycle of unnecessary technological complexity, which undermines agility and outcome-driven response necessary for sustainable defense.
Current policy environment demonstrates dangerous convergence between domestic extremist doctrine and international terror group methodology. Federal troop deployment in American cities represents identical disproportionate response patterns as Gaza operations—both driven by institutional capture by eliminationist ideologies following systematic democratic breakdown.
Policymakers ignoring these historical convergence patterns compromise the security of communities they claim to protect through policies that serve instability actors trying to force military dictatorship rather than protect civilian populations.
Attacks from Russia on Poland have drawn NATO defense forces into direct armed conflict.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk told the Polish parliament that Polish airspace had been breached 19 times. Polish F-16 fighter jets and Dutch F-35s plus other aircraft responded and shot down at least four drones.
NATO tells us “Since the Alliance’s creation in 1949, Article 4 has been invoked seven times.”
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
What will be discussed for Article 4? The cost imbalance stands out most to me, as it represents the most fundamental challenge for NATO defense. Traditional air defense methods become economically unsustainable against swarm attacks of low-cost drones.
Poland says at least 19 drones were tracked in the attack. Consider that in context of Russia launching nearly 20,000 missiles, meaning nearly 15,000 one-way attack drones, at targets in Ukraine from September 28, 2022, through December 28, 2024.
The Polish are illustrating a dangerous NATO asymmetry perfectly: expensive fighter jets (F-35s operating at $36,000+ per hour) were sent to intercept Russian drones that cost a fraction as much. Even though Shahed drones only hit their target less than 10 percent of the time, such low cost means Russia can fire mass salvos almost daily and NATO will be desperate to force rapid deflation into symmetric or better defense spend.
This is not theoretical. Ukraine developed systems that cost around $5,000 against the Shahed drones that cost around $50,000 each. Meanwhile, an IRIS-T missile fired by NATO would cost around $450,000. Imagine spending nearly half a million dollars to stop a $35,000 drone, because that’s what just happened.
Defense against 19 drones for NATO? Nearly $10 million.
Firing 19 drones at NATO? Costs under a million for Russia.
Thus, with a 10:1 spend ratio, Poland shows NATO military technological superiority becomes their liability against Russian tactics of sloppy commercial grade drone swarms. The EU, like Ukraine, now urgently needs to innovate and deploy more logical interception methods, whether through directed energy weapons, electronic warfare, or lower-cost interceptor drones, to rapidly invert an economic attrition that Russia is deliberately imposing on the EU.
The drones are being made of commercial parts from companies headquartered in the United States, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Japan, and Poland… so Russia is also literally attacking NATO with its own commercial technology, optimized for mass psychological impact at low cost rather than battle domination.
And it reads to me like classic evil KGB plausible deniability (“navigation errors”) that systematically poison and drain a victim — Soviet dezinformatsiya updated for the drone age. Each “stray” drone forces the alliance into an overresponse, a dangerous attrition without hitting obvious red lines.
Poland theoretically could drag NATO into spending over $70 million daily just responding to terrorizing drone attacks, while Russia’s daily production costs would remain ten times less. NATO cannot ignore the airspace violations, so each cheap drone automatically triggers this massive response cost.
Also, here is the history of Article 4 invocations, which mostly have been local disputes by Turkey:
Breaking news of more tragic gun death in America, as reported by the CBC:
“It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” [Charlie Kirk] said during an April 5, 2023, appearance at the Salt Lake City campus of Awaken Church. “That is a prudent deal.”
[…]
Moments before Kirk was shot on Wednesday, numerous livestreams of the event showed an audience member asking him how many mass shooters in the last 10 years have been transgender Americans.
“Too many,” Kirk responded.
The person said five was the number, then asked Kirk if he knew how many mass shooters in total America had seen in the last 10 years. “Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk replied.
Seconds later, a loud crack that sounded like a gunshot rang out and Kirk was seen briefly moving his hand to his neck before falling from his chair…
The victim was known for speeches advocating mass proliferation of guns as the solution to gun violence.
How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there’s not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there’s all these guns. Because everyone’s armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?
Because everyone is armed? That sounds like war, and there’s a lot of death in war. The end of killing is denoted by the point where almost everyone puts away their guns. This was the real history of the Old West as well, not the fantasy version, as towns strictly banned guns to keep the peace.
Dodge City, Tombstone, and Deadwood often required visitors to check their firearms with the sheriff upon entering town. Literally the exact opposite of what the victim had been telling his large crowds.
Dodge City formed a municipal government in 1878 and its first ordinance, for example, stated:
Any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the provisions of this ordinance, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars or be imprisoned not exceeding thirty days.
Tombstone had similar laws, and even the famous O.K. Corral gunfight partially stemmed from the Earps enforcing the town’s gun ordinance, officials removing guns to keep the peace after the Clanton gang (like Charlie Kirk) had refused to disarm in town.
Josephine Marcus Earp later recalled:
…in all our years together, he [Wyatt Earp] never described a gun battle to me. He considered it a great misfortune that he had lived in such a time and under such circumstances that guns had figured at all in his career.
Kirk’s argument that gun shows don’t have mass shootings because “everyone’s armed” reflects his philosophy that increased danger creates deterrence. This directly contradicts common sense and how actual frontier communities achieved peace, through regulation and control, not proliferation.
His tragic death from gunfire has drawn bipartisan condemnation from political leaders across the spectrum. This violence represents the breakdown of democratic discourse, regardless of one’s position on any particular issue.
The post-Civil War period, despite its many challenges, saw the end of the massive armed conflict precisely because one side laid down their weapons. Or, as the great President Grant put it:
Grant, the best General and President in American history, told us to choose peace over the escalation of armed conflict. Having seen more armed conflict than perhaps any American leader, his choice to memorialize “Let us have peace” rather than any celebration of military victory speaks volumes about what he learned from that experience.