Nick Prime

Defense (pseudo) Intellectual, Ph.D @WarStudies, former fellow @ISSYale, Interests in strategy, sports & film, if it reads like sarcasm it is. bluesky: @ncprime

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

I did a podcast on JC Wylie and the virtues of his theory of strategy as control, you should listen!

[The Strategy Bridge @Strategy_Bridge]

In this episode of the #StrategyBridgePodcast we are joined by Dr. Nick Prime to talk about Wylie's “Military Strategy” and its intellectual history.

https://t.co/TSRyllJUTj

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

Owen Hargreaves and Darren Fletcher calling this Sweden v Netherlands has me feeling that vintage Barclays Prem days of Man United.

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

Please, @FOXSports I'm begging you, as an American who loves European soccer. Stop embarrassing us in front of our friends by thinking Alexei Lalas belongs on a stage with Henry and Zlatan. You wouldn't put Nathan Peterman on @NFLonFOX with Bradshaw & Aikman, would you?

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

"kicking off in Boston Stadium"

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

I wish I could be as dapper as Carlo Ancellotti.

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

Alexei Lalas at the broadcast with with Ibrahimovic and Henry is like having Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Nathan Peterman.

Put Dempsey on there. That dude's played for two Premier League clubs. Hell, where is Tim Howard, they got Rebecca Lowe. So why not Howard??

[Andrew Jones @AJTarHeel247]

Given how bizarre everything is right now around UNC Football, how about this:

57 photos by Getty Images of the Clemson-UNC game and 23 are of Jordon Hudson

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

@jackmcd83 @GCREAIM But even in doing what I describe Wylie's theories are, I would argue as close as it gets to a "realist" (in the Waltz/Morganthau-ian sense) theory of strategy as there can or has this far been, assuming such a thing could be exist.

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

@jackmcd83 @GCREAIM And he talks sparingly about coalitions. But he does so neither substantially, nor in conjunction with the earlier plea to bring voices from outside the uniformed military into the fold.

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

@jackmcd83 @GCREAIM The best I can hazard is Wylie's emphasis inclusion of non-military actors in the ideal context of strategy formation. I.e. he argues strongly that legislators, leaders of industry, and actors across what we would call the "DIME" spectrum should have voice in strategy development

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

I hated listening to Jackson, dude was like an AI trained purely on Coach-speak. Van Gundy was awesome and his criticism of the refs was what made him great. Breen Van Gundy and Doris wwouldve been amazing trio.

[NBACentral @TheDunkCentral]

Part of the reason ESPN got rid of Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson was because they weren’t fans of their desire to potentially leave for coaching, per @AndrewMarchand

The NBA also wasn’t a fan of Jeff Van Gundy constantly criticizing officials

“ESPN had company-wide layoffs, and part of the network’s reasoning for singling out Van Gundy and Jackson was because of their perceived continued desire to coach, according to sources briefed on the move. The NBA was not a fan of Van Gundy criticizing officials, according to those sources.”

(Via https://t.co/wIRzx03cyB )

[Mackenzie Eaglen @MEaglen]

The Pentagon just stood up a “munitions war room” given the US armed forces’ shallow magazine depth across the portfolio of missiles, bombs, rockets, ammo, artillery & mines.

The American defense industrial base revival — and expansion — is just getting started.

Private capital is pouring in, nascent companies are forming, and brand new factories and facilities are opening to help rebuild the arsenal of democracy.

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

Ohhhh hell yes.

[Variety @Variety]

Denis Villeneuve to Direct James Bond Film at Amazon https://t.co/PenuVDbQph

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

Man @jackmcd83 and I saw this coming when we watched @POIFans #personofinterest don't come at us with this Mission Impossible BS. https://t.co/TuDY8QPdXK

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

Also this Knicks team is not likeable. This is a team that wants to play football on defense and be defended like they're made of glass. Brunson is as bad a foul grifter as James Harden. Will root for whoever goes up against this Knicks team if they beat the Cs

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

There goes the game. And probably the season.

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

I love Derrick White but he doesn't have the strength or the length to guard Brunson. Put Jrue on him or just put Tatum on him. Tatum has the length to guard him in space.

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

The White/Pritchard backcourt is not a good pairing. Should be the Jrue/Pritchard backcourt.

[Nick Prime @NC_Prime]

This referring is bullshit. Knicks want a tight whistle while also wanting to be able to run through a screen like the screener is a blocking sled.

[Cole McFaul @colemcfaul]

How do we balance "promote" with "protect" in US-PRC technology competition?

A few thoughts spurred by today's forward-looking piece in @TheNatlInterest from @DeweyAM (@CSETGeorgetown's Executive Director) and Bill Hannas (CSET's most senior China Analyst). Link below

Their argument challenges the U.S. strategy for US-PRC technology competition as overly reactive, that it "treats symptoms...[instead of] underlying causes."

Are we too focused on the "protect" tools available to us? They are easier for the executive branch to operationalize quickly. A lot of the "promote" side requires appropriation from the legislature.

That's one advantage of China's system -- Beijing can operationalize promote and protect tools quickly. But the US can't stay ahead by ramping up "protect"!

Especially because the "protect" tools tend to come with greater risks than the "promote" tools.

Every policy tool involves trade-offs. To rightsize the China challenge, policymakers have to carefully balance the opportunities and risks of each.

For example, a few relevant economic security "protect" tools to illustrate the point:

Semiconductor export controls
Opportunity: Cut PRC access to compute
Risk: Spur domestic innovation in PRC chipmaking sector

Research security
Opportunity: Limit IP theft and tech transfer in critical technologies
Risk: Stifle scientific openness and hinder US domestic STEM talent

Inbound and outbound investment restrictions
Opportunity: prevent PRC from benefitting from US assets (capital, talent, technology)
Risk: disrupt the free flow of global capital

For a few of these tools, I worry we over-index the opportunities from the use of these tools, and discount the risks.

On research security, for example, proposals in Congress to ban Chinese student visas greatly undersell the risks that policy poses to the US innovation ecosystem; I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that the instances of PRC IP theft are systemic enough to outweigh the huge benefits to US science from China ➡️ US brain gain.

Gutting NSF/NIH/R&D funding and staff is another example of a policy with significant potential downside to US innovation advantages.

On the other hand, stronger outbound investment screening measures, for example, might be worth the downside risk.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Balancing risks and opportunities is critical, especially as the White House and @mkratsios47 continues to set its strategy for sustained tech competition with China.