I’ve come to discover that we have a major helium shortage. Helium is used in semiconductor manufacture, in MRIs, chemical chromatography, and low temperature refrigeration. I need it for leak checking, something we just started doing, a quality assurance test for our products and now a service. I’m not hit hard by the shortage, but some other industries are.
For gas chromatography, helium can be replaced by hydrogen, as discussed here. I was recently invited to a seminar on it. Hydrogen gives sharper peaks than helium, and slightly quicker residence times, but it has to be very pure. As it happens, We make hydrogen purifiers at REB Research, it’s our main product. These purifiers allow you to do chromatography, or brazing with low-cost, bottled hydrogen, and even with electrolysis hydrogen. The purifier is a one-time purchase, and then you can use low cost hydrogen. You will want to vent the output of the chromatograph; you use very little for chromatography, or brazing, ~50 cc/min typically, but without some venting, it can build up eventually.
Helium monument Amarillo
Some testers have begun using natural gas for leak checking, I notice. It’s not a sensitive, and you have to make sure you’re vented so there isn’t a flame. A safer alternative is forming gas: 5% hydrogen in nitrogen. The leak sensitivity is low, well below that with helium, but above smoke, or smelly compounds.
A major cause of the helium draught is Biden’s sale, with congressional approval, June 24, 2024 of the Federal Helium Reserve. This was a massive underground stockpile of helium, 32 billion cubic feet, that filled a set of caverns that span three states. We’d managed the stockpile for years, with a monument too, see right, but Biden sold the entire reserve including 425 miles of piping, purifiers, and caverns to Messer LLC, a German company owned in China. See an NBC article about the sale, here. The price was $460 million, less than 1¢ per cubic foot of He, with the pipes, storage area, and purification facility thrown in for free. Messer LLC quickly sold off the helium to recoup their purchase, and now it’s gone.
The sale of the reserve would not have been so bad, but in March, the Iranian Revolutionary guard bombed Qatar’s Ras Laffan natural gas and helium plant, the world’s largest helium plant, doubling the spot price of helium, see. AP article here. Why does Iran, a Shia-Islamic republic, bomb plants in Qatar, another Shia Islamic republic? it’s a form of economic war. Russia is another major gas and helium producer, and I expect Ukraine will bomb Russia’s plants too. If you use helium for chromatography, you might want to switch to hydrogen, and invest in a purifier from REB Research.
Canada is poor relative to the US as I discussed in a previous post. Though they have lots of available land, home prices are very high, much higher than in the US because of regulations and fees. Similarly, it is hard to start a business in Canada, and salaries are lower. Again the major problems appear to be regulations and taxes. The Western Provences, Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan complain regularly that their interests are being ignored. So, earlier this year, Alberta’s legislature approved a referendum for separation from Canada. Independence! In part the reason is that Albertans find they are financing the rest of Canada. Independence is something that Quebec attempted Canada some 30 years ago. There the “exit” vote lost by a mere 0.6%, and the argument to stay was mostly economic: Quebec needed Canada’s money. Alberta does not. It funds Quebec and every other Provence of Canada.
Trump praised Alberta’s decision to Canada’s dismay. Some Albertans want to want to join the US, a fulfillment of James Knox Polk’s vision. It may not be legal, though. Alberta judge, Shaina Leonard declared Alberta separation unconstitutional as “secession from Canada will have an impact” on native groups. Why this is different from Quebec, I don’t know. The Alberta legislature is now preparing for a referendum on whether Alberta should “commence the legal process … to hold a binding provincial referendum”. This is a referendum on whether to have a referendum.
Currently Alberta is the only Provence that puts in more to the federal government than it takes out, and the disparity is huge. The Provence of Alberta has more oil than most oil countries, more that Iraq, Kuwait, or Norway, for example. It currently produces ~4.1 million barrels of oil per day. Valued at the current world rate of $100/bbl, that’s about $150 billion per year. If you divide by 5 million Albertans, the oil revenue alone is ~$30,000 per man woman or child, or $100,000 per voter. To this you can add bountiful natural gas, other minerals, and a strong industry, and you see a lot of info e that federal Canada “redistributes” east. Because of Canada’s parliamentary system Alberta has virtually no rights. Each vote is counted equally, and almost every one in Canada believes Albertans should not keep their bonanza. The central Canadian government provides programs, it’s true, healthcare with long waits and medical-assisted suicide. They also policed face masks for truckers, taking away the truckers savings and trucks if Canada found the mandates were being ignored.
Canada’s liberal politicians blast Albertans for being racist and stingy. They spend widely and run a deficit, about 15% of tax income despite the money taken from stingy Alberta. And despite this spending, managed to put Canada into recession, the only G7 country in recession, currently. Canadians are poorer than US citizens, with lower wages, and higher home prices, and Canada looking to China as an ally. I would suggest, instead, fewer regulations and less spending as Albertans want. If Alberta leaves, the rest of Canada will be bankrupt.
Current odds are against Albertans’ separation from Canada, but Quebec almost left, and the economic argument for leaving was non existent. Quebec was taking money from the rest of Canada when the Quebec separation vote came 30 years ago, and even so non-secession won by a mere 0.6%. Economically Alberta is more than self sufficient, and culturally Alberta is so like the US that it could join us easily, or relatively so. A vote for separation, if it were allowed to take place, could easily result in separation.
A proven way to remove a leader is to accuse him of trying to become a king. The Democrats keep trying this, but they lack a great orator to make the case in a way that gets the guy out. The classic speaker for this, someone most everyone in college read, was Marcus Tullius Cicero. Take, for example, his speech against Catiline, his fellow senator, that got Catiline removed, and then murdered. I’ve copied a bit below, in translation from Latin.
WHEN, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now? Do not the nightly guards placed on the Palatine Hill—do not the watches posted throughout the city—does not the alarm of the people, and the union of all good men—does not the precaution taken of assembling the senate in this most defensible place—do not the looks and countenances of this venerable body here present, have any effect upon you? Do you not feel that your plans are detected? Do you not see that your conspiracy is already arrested and rendered powerless by the knowledge which every one here possesses of it? What is there that you did last night, what the night before—where is it that you were—who was there that you summoned to meet you—what design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted? Shame on the age and on its principles! The senate is aware of these things; the consul sees them; and yet this man lives. Lives! aye, he comes even into the senate. He takes a part in the public deliberations; he is watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every individual among us. And we, gallant men that we are, think that we are doing our duty to the republic if we keep out of the way of his frenzied attacks. You ought, O Catiline, long ago to have been led to execution by command of the consul. That destruction which you have been long plotting against us ought to have already fallen on your own head…… ……. speech, source.
It’s strong stuff, far better than the democrats have yet presented, with lines of innuendo and attack that have been reused many times since. Cicero claims to understand the thoughts of Catiline as he sits in the senate. He accuses Catiline, not only of wanting to be king, but of wanting their deaths: “He is watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every individual among us.” Catiline was exiled, and then, with Cicero’s encouragement executed without trial. Julius Caesar argued for Catiline, claiming he should be imprisoned, but no more. So Caesar was exiled to fight the Britains and Gauls.
In time, Cicero and his friends came to believe that Caesar too dreams of kingship too, He had become too successful and uncontrollable. He needed to be re-educated, according to Cicero (below).
“Men who become uncontrollable and overconfident as a result of success need to be put through a round of training in reason until they recognize the fragility of human affairs and the uncertainty of fortune.”
Marcus Cato’s assessment was even stronger, in the senate he, argued that Caesar’s fight with the Gauls was illegal and immoral, and that he should be stripped of power. Democrats argue this today regarding the war in Venezuela and Iran. I think they are wrong, but the argument is the same, that we/I are the rightful power, and I/we know the evil plans in Caesar’s mind. The senate agreed to strip Caesar of power, but use deception getting it. Caesar, knowing how this would likely turn out, returned to Rome, fought Cicero’s and Cato’s friends, and pardoned Cicero 45 BCE. Cato committed suicide. About 1 year later, though, on the 15th of March, a group of Caesars so-called friends stabbed him to death in the senate, as recounted here. Cicero was killed in the bloody civil war that followed. What goes around comes around. And a dictatorship ensued.
I’m not convinced that Cicero’s attacks were legitimate, nor the Democrats’ attacks. In both cases, the speakers claim to know the evil thoughts in the mind of the leader. In both cases, the proposed solution was leadership by group consensus — leadership by a group who could not agree on anything beyond their own unhappiness.
Legitimate or not, attacks by a good orator worked. They caused the death of Catiline and Caesar, and many others over the years. Generally, they don’t benefit the great speaker, long term, nor result in freedom. I’m reminded of Trotsky, here. The lesson for those pushing to depose Trump is you need a really good speaker, and you could get a leader who’s worse. Your speaker needs to convince the audiences that he knows what his enemy is thinking. So far, no Democrat has managed to convince an audience of this, or even vaguely that he knows what Trump will do next.
Fifty years ago, when I was in college, black holes were treated as science fiction entities. According to Einstein and Summerfeld, time stopped at the event horizon, and information vanished, but they were not though to exist, except for a tantalizing theory that our universe could be one giant big black hole! A major problem back then, and today, is that the universe clearly contains a lot of “dark matter” (see here), but no one know what it was. The two theories, such were either Massive Astrophysical Objects (MACHOs) or Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). In a blog some years back, I put forth a version of the WIMP theory here, with lighter particles. I now have a better thought, based black holes.
In the last 30 years we started seeing evidence that black holes were real. At first these were gravitational lenses, large mass concentrations that made distant galaxies seem close. Then, more recent evidence was gravitational waves, a jiggling of space-time, postulated by Einstein, but measured only ten years ago, in September, 2015. The apparent source of the jiggle, the combination of two black holes.
As our telescopes got better, we’ve found more and more black holes visually, including a particularly large black hole near our galactic center, in the constellation Sagittarius. It’s called Sgr A*, with a mass of roughly 4 million suns, and its discovery got the Nobel Prize, 2020. One of the stars that move around this spot travels at speeds up to 3% the speed of light, and it’s paired with a gas blob that moves much faster. See video here, with relativity shifts. You might think that our galaxy revolves around this black hole, but it doesn’t; it it did, we would not have galactic arms.
A recent explanation for dark matter has been proposed, saying that it is black holes, or neutron stars. To make this theory work, there would have to be many black holes in our galaxy and in others, and between them, and the laws of physics would have to change too, so it’s quite speculative. Still, we keep finding more black holes, including a large one near us, relatively, Gaia-BH3, with about 33 million suns mass. It emits no light, and is orbited every 11.6 years by a gas giant. What makes this model scary, and perhaps not true, is that a model like this would seem to suggest a chaotic dance of death that should tear the galaxy apart. Something like this happens in a recent, Chinese Science Fiction book, “Three Body Problem” (also a TV series).
If our galaxy had many many black holes could it be stable? Could it have lasted as long as it has. One thought is we’re doomed. The galaxy NGC6240 contains three large black holes rotating among themselves, see picture. Their dance seems to be destroying the galaxy as we watch. A possible way out of this appears in a recent video blog by Sabine Hossenfelder based on a paper saying the black holes may not be black holes at all, but clouds. I’m not sure that makes things any more stable, but I enjoyed the video content, so I linked to it.
One thing I like about this whole idea is that the existence of many black holes like this would solve a conundrum I presented in one of my earliest posts, that the universe could not be infinitely big and uniform. If it were, I argued, we’d be cooked by all the solar radiation. But if there were lots of black holes (they have to be real black holes) they would be a place for all that light to sink into, and the universe could be infinitely big and uniform. As for how that sort of universe starts or remains stable, or expands, it’s not clear. Maybe if you dark energy, something else that no one understands, but that lots of folks believe iin.
Robert Buxbaum, April 15, 2026. Three Body problem is decent Sci Fi, despite its strong political message and weak characters. We’re attacked by advanced aliens from a dying, 3 sun system, and earthlings help them. The message, emphasized by the author at the end of the book, is that you should not trust outsiders from a more high tech society (like the USA).
Our war with Iran is now a month old and the press is already calling it lost. They see Americans dead, and allies angry, but no value in the removal of a supreme leader who’d been trying to killing Americans for years, and who’d enriched enough uranium, at 60% to make 11 atom bombs. With our European and Chinese “allies” they see no pressing problem inIran’s space program where the missiles are emblazoned, “Death to USA”, or so they claim. Instead they claim our war is illegal, immoral and damaging. They call for a quick (immediate) end to the war (that is, we stop fighting) and refuse to cooperate in opening the straight of Hormuz, saying it’s not their war, though their ships, some 3200 of them are trapped in the Persian Gulf. Some “allies” have even closed their airspace in protest.
In fact, I suspect that the leadership in China and in Europe are glad to see Iran’s A-bomb project impeded, but who knows. They like to bee seen meeting with Iranian leaders, as Chairman Xi below in January 2026, then attacking the US as reactionary. Iran’s gulf neighbors are less happy with Iran because of the attacks. Even Shia Qatar has complained. Though they have not said so, I suspect most are against Iran’s proxy attacks in the Red Sea (straight of Mandab). China benefits from a non-nuclear war, and keeps sending Iran missile fuel and components in support of Iran’s proletarian government that enforces religion and kills Americans and Iranians, and that traps ships in the Persian Gulf. China benefitted from Iran’s sanctions, as they got cheaper oil, and I can see they’d like this to continue. European leaders just want cheap oil, and to be considered as tolerant, peace makers.
Chairman Xi visits Iran in January 2026, photo from the Independent.
My take, I feel bad for the sailors on these ships, some American, but to my mind, the current state of war is better than the state of peace before it, with continuous proxy attacks, and is far better than the atomic war that could follow. I like peace, but don’t see that happening quicker if we stop bombing Iran, nor quicker than a year from now, even with booming Iran. Iran’s mullahs have distributed power, allowing them to hang on indefinitely, if we let them, and our European friends seem intent to promote Iran’s mullah-leadership, such as it is, at least for now. In a year or so, I suspect that will change, but who knows?
So far, no one is suffering greatly. Gasoline is about 30% more expensive, about $3.95 per gallon today in Michigan, but that’s 50¢/gal cheaper than under Biden. European prices are up a similar percent, not welcome, but not high historically. They would go down if Europe would drill or reopen its nuclear and coal plants, or if European leaders would sign Trump’s trade deal that the UK rejected in the most embarrassing, demonstrative way. I don’t expect any signatures in the next few months — there even an anti conference. In a year they’ll sign, or decide to reopen nuclear plants, or maybe the war will be over. Supposedly this war will take 0.5% off of the GDP of the US, Europe, and China, a cheap price for peace IMHO, far less than the Ukraine war.
Trump has asked for European help opening the straight, in part because help is needed, but in part because it would be a sign to Europe’s citizens, that their leaders stand with us and NATO. Trump teases European leaders over their unwillingness to protect their own ships, and seems willing to let oil prices stay high to pressure Europe, China, and the Mid-east. For now, China does not seem ready for direct war, and seems wi, too seems willing to draw-down its oil reserves, as a way to blunt inflation at home, and promote cheap products abroad. All this is good, it’s a version of peace that should lead to a longer peace after the straight is open. Even poor Canada benefits, for now.
Robert E. Buxbaum, April 7, 2026. I don’t expect anything of an oil deal or a defense deal during King Charles’s visit in 3 weeks, nor during Trump’s visit to China, but who knows.
One of my favorite presidents is James K. Polk. While running for president he claimed we would do four major things –and do them as a one-term president. He then did them, and left office — and died 103 days later at the age of 53. Mr Polk’s four stated objectives were: a reduction in the tariff, an independent treasury, settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute, and acquisition of California. Acquisition of California required admission of Texas, plus a war with Mexico and a cash payment, but he was ready. Settling the Oregon border required a compromise and a cash payment. But he did it and more. Modern professors are not happy with Polk, ranking him far below Obama, Kennedy, or Adams, but his aims were good, and he got hem done. Few presidents do that, and even fewer left office if they had the power to stay. No professor I know has ever willingly left if he had the power to stay, and didn’t have a better job to go to.
News from Mexico, oil on canvas painting by Richard Caton Woodville Sr., Düsseldorf, 1848. Polk was a god-send for newspaper sales.
I believe that the clarity of Polk’s four objectives was the reason he was a candidate at all, and the reason he won the election, and also the reason he achieved the objectives. There is a magic in clear objectives, repeated often, I find. It’s a formula that got Trump elected that few seem to understand: “Make America Great Again.” “Build the Wall”, “Drill baby Drill” “Deport illegals” “Tariffs. ” Like these ideas or not, you know Trump’s aims. Also, you know that, if. you oppose them, you oppose him. Trump’s pastor, Norman Vincent Peale promoted this approach, one I’ve thought of trying myself. I suspect that Polk died so shortly after leaving office because he had no further goal beyond relaxing; bad water hurt him too.. I suspect that Trump will die shortly after leaving office too- from lack of purpose.
Polk wasn’t expected to be a candidate, but was a “dark horse”, ex-governor of Tennessee, who had lost his past two elections. Martin Van Burin was expected to be the Democrats’ candidate, but he opposed slavery, and most Democrats were for it. What’s more, he was opposing annexation of Texas, at least south of the Nueces River, and many Democrats were for, as were some Whigs.
Joseph Smith was shot multiple times while campaigning for president.
Polk was pro-slavery, as was the Whig candidate, Henry Clay. But Polk said repeatedly that he would annex Texas — all the way to the Rio Grande, “no matter what any Mexican said.” He also said he’d fight for California and all of Oregon too: “Fifty four forty or fight”. You might not agree with this, Grant did not, but you knew where he stood. And Polk said he’d serve only one term. Thus, if you didn’t like him, he’d be gone in four years. After a few ballots, Polk became the Democratic Party candidate, with George Dallas as his VP. Like Polk, Dallas was pro Texas – they eventually named a city after him. Clay was Polk’s main opposition, anti Texas, and more vague about everything else.
At first John Tyler, the incumbent, also ran against Polk, but when he saw he was losing, he dropped out to help Polk. Also running for president, 1844 was Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder-profit. he ran as an independent because God told him to. He was shot multiple times, and died while campaigning. Finally there was James G. Birney, the Liberty party candidate. He gained few votes running on an abolitionist ticket. It’s been speculated that Polk won because Birney split the Whig vote. My take is that’s unlikely: Clay was pro-slavery. Polk’s win, I think, was in the power of his clarity.
Map of the territory and war.
Once elected, Polk first moved to annex Texas, something he achieved with the help of expresident John Tyler. Tyler sent his Secretary of State, Abel Upsher to negotiat an annexation treaty with Sam Houston, but the Whig-controlled congress rejected it. After the election, Tyler resubmitted the treaty to the new, Democrat-controlled congress, and got two versions passed. The house passed a pro-slavery version, while the senate, pushed by Thomas Hart Benton (a favorite of mine) produced an annexation treaty that divided Texas in half, with a pro-slave and an anti-slave half. Polk liked the pro-slave, House version, returning it to Texas in his first week in office. He instructed the Texas legislature to accept it unconditionally, with no change so he could submit it directly to the Senate. The Texans did so, and congress approved this version later that year. Texas entered the union as one, large, slaveholder state.
With annexation not yet ratified by congress, Polk sent a diplomatic mission to buy California from Mexico along with all of the disputed Texas territory and everything in between for $25 million. Mexico refused, so Polk invited war. He sent 4000 soldiers into disputed Texas territory south of the Nueces River, under command of General Zachary Taylor. Mexican forces attacked them in April 1846, and Polk declared war. The war lasted to 1848, winning all the desired lands including California, and achieving a release of any rights Mexico might have on Oregon.
Polk, as governor of Tennessee
The next Polk goal was resolution of the Oregon dispute, ideally with us getting all of it: land that included the current states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, plus the Canadian Provence of British Columbia. Britain and Russia also claimed this land, so Polk’s first step was to buy off Russia. The British said they’d fight, noting that they had a larger army and navy and that the US was already at war with Mexico. Polk’s response was to back settlers going to Oregon. Americans had started migrating to Oregon in 1843. In his inaugural address, 1845, Polk said he would defend them “against the British and Indians.” By 1846 Britain recognized the difficulty of fighting US settlers so far from home. On June 15, they agreed to a deal that split the territory along the 49th parallel, giving the US the lower half, except for Vancouver Island, thus allowing Britain an opening to the sea. This deal had been proposed by Edward Everett, Tyler’s minister in London. Polk gave up nothing, beyond an informal agreement to lower tariffs on British goods, something he aimed to do anyway. It’s generally thought that Polk’s willingness for war allowed him to achieve so much without fighting. Polk said, in his inaugural, March 1845: “The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our government,” a statement that clearly means the opposite of what it claims to say.
Polk’s third goal was lowering the “Black Tariffs”. High and uneven, they were 32% on average, with cut-outs to help specific, northern businesses. Polk’s secretary of the treasury, Robert Walker negotiated a flat advalorum tariff of 25%, with luxury goods, tobacco and alcohol tariffed higher. The “Walker tariff” bill was passed July, 1846, one month after the Oregon agreement. The British, reduced their “corn tariffs” against US grain, benefitting both countries. Our tariffs average 17%, currently, with many cut-outs. I think our tariffs should be more like the Walker tariff, perhaps 20% and simpler.
Polk’s 4th campaign promise was establishing an independent treasury. This was done to weaken “pet” banks, and stabilize the economy. The treasury would now hold all US assets; they would issue most currency, and would pay people directly, either in specie (gold or silver) or notes of debt. Independent banks could still issue notes, but only in amounts over $20. Polk passed this bill August 6, 1846, one week after the Walker Tariff bill. With this, Polk had already achieved all of his goals except California by the mid-term elections, 1846.
Having achieved so much, Polk set out to buy Cuba, but Spain said no. Some other accomplishments: opening the U.S. Naval Academy and the Smithsonian Institution, overseeing the groundbreaking for the Washington Monument, and the issuance of the first United States postage stamp. By the summer of 1848 Polk confirmed that he was satisfied and would not run for re-election. In his address to congress, December 1848, he said, “Peace, plenty, and contentment reign throughout our borders, and our beloved country presents a sublime moral spectacle to the world.” …. “I am heartily rejoiced that my term is so near its close. I will soon cease to be a servant and will become a sovereign.” I trust that was met with applause.
For the past few months, the US navy has been attacking drug-running boats from Venezuela. Videos show ships trying to run away with packages pushed overboard before the sailors are captured or killed. It’s claimed that the packages contained fentanyl, a deadly synthetic heroin. At the same time, there has been a dramatic drop in the rate of fentanyl deaths. Based on the graph above, it seems that some 1500 US lives were saved per month, from fentanyl death alone.
2023 from the Harlem Coalition. There are far more US drug overdose deaths than firearm or vehicle deaths/year.
Opioid overdose deaths have exceeded gun or vehicle deaths since 2005. But there has been a big uptick since the introduction of synthetic opioids, about 2014. Fentanyl is now the leading cause of overdose deaths, alone outpacing gun and vehicle deaths, see graph.
It’s not clear that the attacks on the boats is a primary reason for the drop in deaths, by the way. A lot of credit goes to seizures at the Mexico and Canada border, including the decrease in migrant passage. Some of those were “mules”, carrying drugs. Improved screening at the border seems to have help stop the mules. In 2025, the DEA seized over 47 million fentanyl-laced pills and nearly 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, some made in the US, some brought in, cross-border.
An other positive change is increased screening of small packages, of value under $800. They previously entered the US, tariff free, at reduced postage rates. Chinese companies could send 2 oz packages to customers here for 70¢, cheaper than Americans could ship cross town. The DEA reports that most of the precursor chemicals enter the US in packages from China. More checking, and help from China, means fewer of these chemicals get in.
Before we compliment ourselves, our drug numbers are still vastly too high, about 70,000 overdose deaths in 2025, a vastly higher rate than in Europe or Japan, see chart below. The reason is, in my opinion, that we are over-diagnosed and over-medicated. We see ads for drugs on TV, magazines telling us to ask for a pill for any pain or discomfort. They’re all addictive. Doctors are happy to comply, and when the prescription stops, or stops being effective, you’re a hooked customer for heroin or fentanyl.
Addiction has become a middle-aged problem affecting mostly those 25 to 45. It’s made US lifespan significantly shorter. Doctors are curing the pain and killing us patients. Magazines, TV, and drug companies, too. Europe has stricter regulations on pills with fewer prescriptions allowed, no drug ads, and no automatic refills. Does everyone over 50 need blood pressure meds, for example.
Japan’s decision to attack the US on December 7, 1941 was made a year earlier, December 1940, largely because of the need for oil, but also because of a perceived need for an empire. An approriate nave was fitted out, and airmen were trained. Nine months later, September, 1941, we cut off oil to Japan following Japan’s invasion of Indonesia and their ceasing the Indonesian oil fields. Japan now had the choice of war with us or of moderating their economy and ambitions. The worry is that China may choose the same if Iran and/or Russia goes off-line. That was my worry at the start of this essay. I’m no longer that concerned.
Some background, as I see it: China’s economy is larger than the IMF gives it credit for, In my opinion. I’ve calculated that it is 11% lager than the US calculated here based on food purchasing parity They also have a larger army and navy, 754 ships vs 440 for the US, with military ambitions for Taiwan and new, man-made islands in the China sea. They continue to add aircraft carriers and submarines (we’re still ahead there), and like Japan in 1940, China fuels all this with oil. They use some 17 million barrels per day: 11.3 million imported by ship. They put another million bb/day into a reserve of 2.2 billion barrels, amounting to 6 months of current use. Japan did the same in 1940-41.
This shows how dependent Japan was on foreign oil, before and during WWII. The cut off of imports sues them to attack Pearl Harbor, source = Sarah Paine, military historian
As with Japan, China’s internal production is far below their consumption, 4.5million bbl/day, a big vulnerability. One of their main suppliers, Venezuela, just went off line, sending 800,000 bbl/day of oil to the US. That’s oil that would have gone to China. Two other of their major suppliers, Iran and Russia have had delivery issues too; a disruption in oil could cause a revolt in China. Perhaps this fear will drive China to war with us in a drive for stability and empire.
Currently, China buys most of its imported oil from four countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq; two of these are under sanction. China used to get another 0.8 million barrels per day from Venezuela, another country under sanction, but that route was closed by Trump last week. Buying from sanctioned countries saves them significantly, and supports the BRICS alliance, an alliance specifically against the US and the EU. The money China pays for oil supports the war against Ukraine, plus ISIS’s, war against us, and the mullahs oppression in Iran.
Oil production worldwide, 2024. How much China buys from each varies month to month.
The problem for China is that Russian production is under attack from Ukraine. Ukraine sank or disabled several Russian tankers, and we took some more; they’ve blown up pumping stations, including three on the Caspian Sea, set fire, to a large liquid natural gas terminal and damaged the major off-load platform for Kazakh oil. According to the Foundation for Democracy report, here, by October 2025, China was down to getting only 800,000 bbl/day from Russia, a major blow, and Ukraine’s attacks continue.
Some dark fleet ships captured by the US navy off of Venezuela, on their way to China with sanctioned oil.
Iran too is under attack. Up until recently they provided nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day, 90% of Iran’s seaborne export. Much of that went indirectly, shipped to Indonesia, turkey, Iraq, and Kuwait where it was relabeled, blended or refined to avoid sanction penalties. Everyone makes a profit here. But Iran is in the midst of a revolution, and last week, Trump imposed an across-the board 25% additional tariff on counties that help Iran avoid the sanctions. My guess is that this tariff will be effective and that it will last until the revolution is over. His tariffs have been effective and profitable, it seems, for us. They’re harmful for China, but not exactly a cause for war.
One reason I don’t expect a war with China is that China has many other, non-sanctioned suppliers, something Japan didn’t have. They buy some 1.6 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, 1.2 million bbl/day, from Iraq, 1.3 million bbl per day from Malaysia, 700,000/ day from Brazil, and about 900,000/day from the USA. While it would cost more, they could make up any losses in Russian or Iranian supply by buying more on the open market. Trump could cut China off totally, and that would be a devastating cause for war, but I don’t expect it. Still, for all I know, Trump’s activities in Venezuela and Iran are meant to force a war decision on China before they are strong enough to defeat us militarily. It seems to have been part of FDR’s logic in cutting off Japan.
The main peaceful way China has addressed it oil vulnerability, as best I can tell, has been to push EVs development. They’ve financed some 500 new EV companies who now (late 2025) provide about 50% of new Chinese automobiles. Another 19% are hybrids, the rest ICs. In the US, only 8% of new cars are EVs, and 16% hybrids. Large-scale use of EVs lessens the pressure on Chinese leaders to find oil sources, some 40% of oil imports can be assumed to go to fuel automobiles; if China were to go 80% EV, it would save 5.5 million barrels/day, more than it gets from Russia and Iran combined. For now, China still has a big need for gasoline, and has a big excess in EV manufacturing. It’s turned to Canada as a customer for EVs and as a supplier for oil, a smart move.
Last week, Canadian PM, Mark Carney visited China and announced a “Strategic Partnership” on Agriculture, energy, finance, and Global governance.” There’s no specific mention of oil, but it’s implied. China gets most favored nation status sending goods, including EVs to Canada at rates lower than on US goods. China will export some 50,000 EVs in 2026, rising to 70,000 by 2030 with tariffs set to 6.1%. US-made cars are tariffed at 25%. Canadians will get visa-free, tourist visits), plus a loan of $1B to be used buying Chinese ships. In Davos last week, “We are in the midst of a Rupture” away from the US. He urged the EU and other “middle powers” to band together. He talks like China is a good, reliable friend to Canada, and like the US isn’t. I would worry more about his comments and the “global governance” phrase, if the EU seemed to be going along, but it is not. Nor do I see a real move in China for war. I see positive effects of increased EV sales for China, Canada, and the world. Even if the quality isn’t great, Go Canada, go peace.
Donald Trump has announced his intent to build at least two battleships, the first built for our navy since the USS Missouri, 1944. The press has been largely negative on this, claiming that these ships are obsolete already, and will be more-so when they are completed — assuming they are completed. My sense is these are useful, overdue really, and I’d like to explain why.
The George Washington Carrier with nine surface support ships.
The centerpiece of America’s military power lies in our aircraft carrier groups, currently. We have 11 carriers in service: two modern, Ford class, and nine older, Nimitz class. Each of these weighs 100,000 tons, is 1100 feet long, and carries some 6000 men and women, 3200 navy crew, another 2500 in the air wing, and perhaps 300 support staff of doctors, nurses, and marines. Because they are vulnerable, each carrier travels in a group with six to ten other ships carrying an additional 3000 people, see photo. Without the support ships a carrier is deemed to be too vulnerable for use. Even with the support ships, Swedish and French submarines successfully “sank” U.S. carriers during exercises in 2005 and 2015.
The support ships are typically slower than the carrier and difficult to maintain. Many are old with relatively short range. Our carriers can go around the world, 30000 miles, traveling at 30+ knots, but the main support ships, Arleigh Burke destroyers, 9000 tons, 350 crew, have a range of only 4,400 nmi at a slower, 20 knots. They require regular refuelings for any major mission, like patrolling the Caribbean. Still, they’re “cheap,” about $2.5B each, capable, and work relatively well. We have some 75 in service, built since 1991, with more on order.
We also have nuclear missile submarines, but these are blunt instruments of policy, not suited to most navy missions, like keeping open shipping lanes in the Red Sea or stopping ISIS, or for blockading Venezuela. The mostly hold weapons of last resort.
The navy has recognized the need for a larger support ship for better carrier protection and more flexible roles, a cruiser likely, with good range and weapons, and with enough speed to keep up with a carrier crossing the Pacific. We’ve built many cruisers over the years, but these are old. Our latest are the Ticonderoga class guided-missile cruisers built from 1980 onward. They have good speed, 32.5kn, and good range, 6000nm, but are well past their retirement date, and break down a lot. Only 7 are still in service.
The USS Zumwalt at sea. Trump said it was “Ugly as F.”
The supposed replacement, was a cruiser-size, stealth ship, the Zumwalt destroyer, 17,000 tons and 600 feet long. It is reasonably fast, 33.5kn, and carries a small crew, <100. We’ve managed to build three of these since 2008, but have cancelled the project due to operational problems and costs that rose to $8B per ship. Zumwalts have inward-sloped sides that deflect radar, but they become unstable in turns. Its main weapons are expensive, too: Aegis missiles and CPS hypersonics costing $28-$50 million each. That’s uneconomical compared to French Aster missiles, Mach 3, 80 mile range, $1.1 million. Originally, Zumwalt destroyers carried a rail gun, but it required so much power that you could not move the ship and fire at the same time. The rail guns were eventually replaced by conventional 5″ cannon with a 24 mile range. The three Zumwalts we have are hardly used today, and no more are on order. Something cheaper was needed at least for support, and that was supposed to be the Constellation Frigate, approved by Trump in 2017.
A frigate is smaller than a cruiser, in this case about half the weight. The Constellation was a proven Italian design, 492 feet long and only 7,291 tons. It had good speed, 26 kn, good range, 6000 nm at 16kn, and cost only $950 million, at least when built in Europe. The contract was awarded to Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM) of Marinette Wisconsin, the US division of the Italian company. What could go wrong? The problem was that the navy kept adding capabilities and weight. As of November 2025, eight years on, the weight had increased by 700 tons, the cost to $9 B for two, and no design has been finalized. The first Constellation frigate is only 12% built! Trump has not quite cancelled the program, but has reduced the order to two from the original eight.
Trump-class battleship, as envisioned, with a rail-gun, lasers and two, conventional 5″ cannon.
And that brings us to the current, Trump class battleship, shown above. It’s long, 840-880 feet, and heavy, 39,000 tons, or 2.5 times the weight of the cruiser-sized, Zumwalt. As was intended for the Zumwalt, the offensive weapons are missiles and a rail gun, 32 MJ, but now there is enough power run the ship and fire the weapon. Japanese versions of the rail gun have launched cheap shells at hypersonic speeds, ~5000 mph (hypersonic) at a distance of over 100 miles and a fire-rate of ~one per second. The shells cost only $85,000 each, a bargain compared to hypersonic missiles.
For defense, these battleships are to carry two, 300kW, Helios lasers, similar to Israel’s “Iron beam,” but 3 times as powerful. They are augmented by smaller lasers, by four, 30 mm chain guns (Gatling guns), and two, 5″ conventional navy guns of 24 mile range. Engines are estimated to be two gas turbines, perhaps 50MW each of for acceleration and to power the weapons, plus ~100 MW in diesel power for cruising at good speed and mpg. I thus estimate a total of ~200 MW, about as much as on a carrier. There is plentiful space for missiles and fuel, so it should provide some resupply of support ships. The crew size is bigger than on the Ticonderoga, 600 to 800, but far less than on a carrier, and the look is impressive. A Trump goal is that it should be an attractive, command ship. Still, there are objections.
A main complaint is vulnerability as discussed here, the claim is these ships are “bomb magnets,” not stealthy, nor as heavily armored as the Iowas. Detractors claim that lasers and chain guns are insufficient for defense from drone swarm attacks. They note that the Bismarck, Yamamoto, and Arizona have been sunk, typically by air attack. What the detractors don’t mention is that it took a lot of bombs and torpedos to sink these battleships nor that these battleships will travel with support ships, while the Bismarck travelled alone.
Detractors also question the rail gun. Can it shoot down an airplane? can it sink a ship? The tests I’ve seen suggest that the rail gun can take out an airplane, but that it can not sink a ship, at least not with one shot. That still needs a missile, but the battleship does have missiles. The gun seems appropriate for shore bombardment too, even against hardened targets, and for dissuading actions by a Chinese navy that is already bigger than ours. As for the defense against drones, the battleship is to have high-powered lasers that have been shown to stop drones and cruise missiles at a cost of only ~$10 per shot. That’s nothing compared to a harpoon missile ($1.4 million each) or Aegis ($28 million). These are great weapons, and I don’t see a smaller ship being able to power them. Also it’s nice to have extra room for expansion — like adding a nuclear reactor.
The time-line is what worries me most. These will take ten years at least. Until then, we will have to rely on our short-range Arleigh Burkes that did not have the firepower to bombard the Houthis effectively on land, nor effectively defend US shipping in the Red Sea. Those ships had to use million-dollar missiles to shoot down $20,000 drones. I expect us to really need the battleships, even if it takes us ten years to get one.
Robert Buxbaum, January 5, 2026. As a totally side issue: some claim this isn’t a battleship. It carries only one gun, admittedly a powerful gun. I half agree, you need at least two big guns to be a battleship, IMHO.
The Economist has run this burger-metric of currency valuation for 40 years or so. I find it instructive.
One can buy a new electric car in China for US $20,000, roughly half of what it would cost in the US. Similarly, a good phone is cheaper in China, or clothes, or a Big Mac. A McDonald’s Big Mac in China costs, effectively $3.55, 59% of what it costs in the US, slightly less than 3/5 the US price. The Chinese explanation is that China is nearly twice as efficient as the US at most every type of manufacturing. I don’t believe this explanation, though there is some truth to it: Their electricity is cheaper, in part because they burn mostly coal for electric power. Meanwhile we have shut-down our coal plants, and have hardly built nuclear since the 1970s.
Another source of efficiency is that China arranges its manufacturing into dedicated cities for different products, one city for toys, another for luggage, others for cars, planes, hair driers… This helps efficiency but I’m not sure how much, and I don’t see these advantages applying to McDonald’s. There is no way I believe their workers are 5/3 as efficient as US workers when it comes to making burgers. It’s not like they ship the burgers from a central factory, and they buy gain and meat from us. My sense, then, is that it’s not efficiency that keeps prices low, but that the Chinese currency, the yuan is undervalued.
It’s hard to estimate how much their currency is undervalued, but I will use the burger-metric, above and say the yuan selling for about 3/5 its true value, and that this explains most of why Chinese shoes, cars, and clothes are so cheap. The rest of the price difference is efficiency, I’d guess. China isn’t the only country with an under-valued currency; Japan’s currency seems even more undervalued. Similarly India, Taiwan… The China is a bigger economy, though, and correcting the Chinese GDP by 5/3, I find their economy is yet bigger, about 111% as big as ours. By a similar correction, European economies appear smaller than they are given credit for.
Chinese electricity is cheap, in part because they burn coal. Also, their currency is undervalued; ditto for India, Indonesia, Turkey.
China’s undervalued currency helps propel its growth, I think, and provides us with cheap goods, but our industry suffers. Also troubling, China will likely surpass us militarily in 3-5 years. One way of slowing this is through tariffs. Trump’s tariff formula, as I understand it, was designed to preserve some China trade, allowing US consumers to benefit, but also taxing the exchange. I think this is a good idea.
Another proposal is to lower the US interest rates. Currently our prime interest rate is 6.5% while China’s is 3%. This provides an incentive for the Chinese industry to invest in the US, maintaining its undervalued currency. The benefit isn’t quite as large as it might seem since we have a 2.7% inflation rate and China has a 0.7% inflation rate. Correcting for this, our bonds return an effective 3.8% and Chinese bonds return 2.3%. The difference is about 3/5 similar to the mismatch in our currencies. Trump has been pushing the Federal Reserve to lower our interest rates, and The Fed has grudgingly agreed, slowly. A lower interest rate would also spike US industry and inflation, and help reduce the government deficit. Trump has also proposed new ships for the navy. Too little, too late, I think. Things should get dicy in the next decade between the US and China.
Robert Buxbaum, December 30, 2025. I started this post not knowing where it would lead. As I research and write, I learn. Perhaps you will too,
