Nuclear war with North Korea; DHS & power-generating clothing; refreshing the water gun, and more

The main purpose of these imagined histories is to generate a self-denying prophecy by alarming readers. By showing what could happen, these books seek to energize people to make the effort necessary for it to not happen. This seems to be Lewis’ motive. I infer that he believes that if the United States stays on its current trajectory (or rather the trajectory it was on when he wrote the book, which was when tensions were particularly high following the North Korean nuclear and missile tests and President Donald Trump’s belligerent reaction to them), the likelihood of war will remain dangerously high. This does not tell us what should be done, however, since multiple alternative policies are possible. British authors in the early 20th century were urging more vigilance against Germany and what we would now call a more vigorous containment strategy. Readers of Lewis’ book will take different lessons from it. Some could perhaps be persuaded to support a preemptive strike. I assume this is not Lewis’ intent. His main thrust is toward policies, presumably more conciliatory ones, based on a better understanding of Kim Jong Un’s hopes and fears. He also hints at the virtues of, or at least the necessity for, abolishing nuclear weapons.
Imaginary histories strike a chord when they involve outcomes that we really don’t think will come about but still recognize as possible. Without the former condition these stories are redundant. Without the latter, they are just science fiction. A nuclear war with Korea is comfortably — or uncomfortably — in this middle range of being neither certain nor impossible. Part of the reason for this lies in the nature of conflict between two nuclear-armed countries, which resembles a game of chicken. Any war between them that is less than fully contained would be worse for each side than any conceivable political settlement, even a defeat. This very fact means that the danger of all-out war can be used by either country as a bargaining lever against the other. The leverage is effective, however, only if it implies some danger that a war will occur. The fact that both sides need to avoid a collision makes it hard for us to see how one might occur. The coercive bargaining tactics that each side can use — and feel they must use — make us realize that the war could happen.
Lewis’ task then is to lay out a succession of steps that lead to war, each one being plausible but leading to a destination that both sides abominate. Almost by definition, this must involve misperceptions and miscalculations on one and probably both sides. Mira Rapp-Hooper and I sketched out such a possibility last spring, but Lewis has the much harder task of developing the scenario in detail. The problem is that unless he relies on crazy generals or malfunctioning equipment, he has to show Kim and Trump taking reasonable steps that take them to their destruction. In this novel, Lewis accomplishes that brilliantly.

DHS wants power-generating clothing (Jack Corrigan, Defense One)
The agency wants first responders’ clothing to be able to generate and store electricity.

Why young men of color are joining White-supremacist groups (Arun Gupta, Daily Beast)
Patriot Prayer’s leader is half-Japanese. Black and brown faces march with the Proud Boys. Is the future of hate multicultural?

Refreshing the water gun (Christina Bonnington, Slate)
A surprisingly successful water pistol Kickstarter could spark innovation in a tired space.

Germany has a Nazi problem. And a refugee problem. (Bill Wirtz, Weekly Standard)
Two things can be bad at the same time.

Chinese hacker group targets tech supply chain, report says (Derek B. Johnson, FCW)
Over the past year, U.S. policymakers have paid increasing attention to threats facing the technology supply chain from foreign intelligence agencies. New evidence of a Chinese hacking group’s links to Beijing could give law enforcement investigators and members of the new ammunition to crack down on economic espionage and threats to the technology supply chain.

How Trump’s pressure on Google threatens government manipulation of search results (Faiza Patel, Just Security)

ES&S security lead: We trust our process over DEF CON village findings (Greg Otto, Cyberscoop)While there are a number of companies that build and sell election-related technology, ES&S has been the most notable as of late. The company’s CEO released a letter last week that took issue with calls from lawmakers to work with anonymous researchers, like those at the DEF CON Voting Village that uncovered various vulnerabilities in election-related hardware and software.