The Seven Years' War

Europe from 1748-1766

Map of European colonies in North America, c. 1750. Disputes over territorial claims persisted after the end of King George's War in 1748.

Almost all of the material in this post is sourced from Wikipedia, with much of it copied or heavily paraphrased, but significantly culled and rearranged, except the section on casualties which draws its data but not most of its language from Wikipedia.

When Was The Seven Years' War?

The Seven Years War lasted from May 17, 1756 – February 15, 1763 (6 years, 8 months, 4 weeks and 1 day), parts of which were called the French and Indian War in North America, and the Third Carnatic War in India.

What Was The End Result Of The Seven Years War?

* The status quo remained in place in Europe and West Africa (where Britain had attempted to oust France from its colonies in Gorée, Senegal, and Gambia), but with the perceived power of France and the Austrian Hapsburgs diminished, and that of England and Prussia enhanced.

* Diplomatic resolutions changed control of many colonies, some of which had little or no involvement in the conflict itself (e.g. the Philippines).

* Mughal Empire cedes Bengal to Great Britain.

* France and Spain return conquered colonial territory to Great Britain and Portugal.

* France cedes its North American possessions east of the Mississippi River, Canada, the islands of St. Vincent, Tobago, Dominica, and Grenada, and the Northern Circars in India to Great Britain.

* France cedes Louisiana and its North American territory west of the Mississippi River to Spain.

* Spain cedes Florida and Manila to Great Britain.

Where Did The Fighting Take Place?

Mostly in Central Europe, in North America (mostly in the Northeast United States and Eastern Canada), the Caribbean, and in India. There were comparatively minor battles at sea and near coastal areas in the Baltics, Britain, France, Portugal, and French West Africa.

The large-scale conflict that drew in most of the European powers centered on Austria's desire to recover Silesia, which it had lost in 1747, from the Prussians, in which it ultimately failed. In the European theater, seeing the opportunity to curtail Britain's and Prussia's ever-growing power, France and Austria put aside their ancient rivalry to form a coalition of their own. Faced with this sudden turn of events, Britain aligned herself with Prussia; this alliance drew in not only the British king's territories in personal union, including Hanover, and also those of his relatives in the Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg and the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel.

In India, the Mughal Empire, with the encouragement of the French, tried to crush a British attempt to conquer Bengal. 

In the Americas, the same coalitions prevailed. At the start of the war, the French colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 settlers of whom 10,000 were mobilized in a militia, compared with 2 million in the British colonies which fielded 42,000 soldiers. Both sides added a First Nation partner. Abenaki, an Algonquin speaking tribe, joined with the French. The Abenaki, who were also known as "People of the Dawn", lived in, or had been displaced by, English settlers in the Atlantic colonies. The Iroquois, or Five Nations, joined with the British. The Iroquois, who lived predominantly in lands controlled by the French, wrought havoc on the European trade routes and settlements. The outnumbered French particularly depended on the natives.

In the West Indies, the British and Spanish fought for control of key points in the Caribbean trade routes, particularly the Windward Passage and Havana.

What Caused The Seven Years' War?

In Europe, the conflict arose from issues left unresolved by the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748), over territorial disputes between Prussia and Austria, which wanted to regain Silesia after it was captured by Prussia in the previous war, and Prussia seeking greater dominance. 

Long-standing colonial rivalries pitting Britain against France and Spain in North America and the Caribbean islands were fought on a grand scale with consequential results. 

Austria ended centuries of conflict by allying with France, along with Saxony, Sweden and Russia. Spain aligned formally with France in 1762. Spain unsuccessfully attempted to invade Britain's ally Portugal, attacking with their forces facing British troops in Iberia. Smaller German states either joined the Seven Years' War or supplied mercenaries to the parties involved in the conflict.

Anglo-French conflict over their colonies in North America had begun in 1754 in what became known in the United States as the French and Indian War, a nine-year war that ended France's presence as a land power. Spain entered the war in 1761, joining France in the Third Family Compact between the two Bourbon monarchies. The alliance with France was a disaster for Spain, with the loss to Britain of two major ports, Havana in the Caribbean and Manila in the Philippines, returned in the 1763 Treaty of Paris between France, Spain and Great Britain. 

What Was The Scale Of The Military Conflict?

Several million soldiers and sailors worldwide served in the conflict at some point, although the peak number of combatants at any given point in time was probably under one million.

There were twenty-six major land battles in Europe. The biggest was the Battle of Villinghausen from July 15-16, 1761 in what is now West Germany, in which 60,000 Anglo-Prussian forces (1,600 died) faced 100,000 French-Austrian forces (5,000 died), and the British forces ultimately prevailed. The most deadly battle in the war was the Battle of Kunersdorf in present day Poland on August 12, 1759 in which 18,503 of 49,000 Anglo-Prussian forces died and 15,741 of 98,000 Franco-Austrian troops died leading to a Russo-Austrian victory.

There were eleven major land battles in what would become the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada, with about 13,000 British and Native American casualties and about 18,500 French, Spanish and Native American casualties. The Siege of Fort William Henry near the New York-Quebec border was the most deadly killing 10,716 troops combined on August 3-9, 1757 and resulting in a French victory at a heavy cost in lives. 

There were one major land battle in the Caribbean, the Siege of Havanna from June 6 to August 13, 1762, in addition to some minor ones that involved 31,000 British forces on 31 ships and 160 transports, and 11,670 Spanish forces with 14 ships and 100 merchant ships. On the British side there were 5,366 killed, wounded, captured, missing, sick, or died of disease, and three ships lost. All of the Spanish forces were killed, wounded, captured, missing, sick, or died of disease and all of the Spanish ships were captured.

In India, there were seven major land battles. The British lost the first battle of Calcutta while inflicting disproportionate casualties on the Mughals. The British won to more battles against the Mughals and inflicted disproportionate casualties, despite being vastly outnumbered. The British then won four more battles against French-sepoy forces, against whom they were more equally matched.

How Many Casualties Were There?

About 764,000 people were killed in the Seven Years' War on all sides combined, worldwide, and perhaps another 136,000 were disabled, for about 900,000 serious casualties combined, worldwide.

For comparison purposes, the number of deaths on both sides of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) were about 500,000 with another 350,000 disabled.

About 16,000 of the deaths were in India, about 40,000 were in North America and Caribbean, and the remaining 708,000 were in Europe, with a supermajority of those in Central Europe. 

The European powers involved had a combined population of about 106 million at the time. 

There were about 2.5 million people (British, Spanish, French and Native American) in the area involved in conflict in North America and the Caribbean.

The Moghal Empire in India had a population of about 158 million people at the time.

The area of West Africa involved in the conflict probably had several hundred thousand to a million people at the time.

Casualties Among Europeans and European Colonists

There were 180,000 Prussian soldiers and 33,000 Prussian civilians killed. 

The British had 1,512 battle deaths and 60,000 who died or were discharged as unfit for service (perhaps 50,000 dead and 10,000 disabled), for a combined 20% of soldiers who served in the war.

There were 32,622 Austrians killed in battle, 93,404 Austrians who died of wounds or diseases, and 17,388 Austrians disabled. 

There were 200,000 French soldiers killed, about 20% of French soldiers who served in the war.

There were 28,000 Swedish soldiers killed. 

There were 25,000 killed in other parts of the Holy Roman Empire. 

There were 138,000 Russians and 34,000 Spanish troops were killed, disabled, missing, or captures (based upon the proportions in other forces, perhaps half of them were killed).

Some Portuguese troops were killed in fighting in Iberia in a small number of battles that did not kill a great number of people.

Native American Deaths

Something on the order of 10,000 Native Americans were killed in the North American part of the war (although this estimate is not very precise). The number of Native Americans in British North America at the time was on the order of 52,000 to 100,000, with a probably similar or smaller number of French North America.

The French and Indian War probably killed between 5%-15% of the total Native American population in the region of the conflict, with the participating tribal allies hit harder.

Deaths In India

About 9,000 Mughal troops were killed in India. About one in six of them who fought in the two battles in Calcutta died, and about 1% of those who fought in the Battle of Plassey on June 23, 1757 died. 

Another Military Procurement Fail

The legacy Marine Corps "Amphibious Assault Vehicles" (AAV) require immense maintenance and have profound readiness issues as a result. Their new "Amphibious Combat Vehicle" (ACV) replacement has also been taken out of commission because it doesn't work properly. 

An ACV

The good news is that there hasn't been a militarily important amphibious assault by the U.S. military since the Korean War, about seven decades ago, and the last such assault of any kind was in Kuwait, about three decades ago. And, none of the places where the U.S. Marine Corps is most likely to deploy in the near future require this capability. So, the U.S. military can probably manage without this resource for now. For now, this is just a colossal waste of time and money. 

A defense industry trade journal report explains the situation:

The Marine Corps has permanently pulled amphibious assault vehicles from “regularly scheduled deployments” due to concerns over vehicle safety and resources allocation . . . . After a tragic July 2020 sinking that killed nine troops, AAV operations had been halted. But the Marine Corps renewed its waterborne operations in the spring of 2021, believing the issues had been fixed and operational requirements had been improved. . . . In September the Marine Corps beached the AAV’s replacement, the amphibious combat vehicle, due to issues with its towing mechanism. Stenger said the ACV is still prevented from conducting waterborne operations, leaving the Corps with no amphibious landing vehicles that it can train with in the water. . . . The thorough inspection, based off of initial tests developed by the manufacturers, found that nearly all AAVs in the Marine Corps leaked at unacceptable rates.

Only 10 of 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion’s nearly 200 vehicles passed the more intense inspection, Operations Officer Marine Maj. Justin Davis said while testifying at a board of inquiry for the unit’s former battalion commander, Lt. Col. Keith Brenize, on Dec. 7 at Quantico, Virginia. He said he believed the 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion did slightly better than his battalion. . . . AAVs are extremely maintenance heavy,” he added, noting that an AAV typically requires eight hours of maintenance for every hour of operation.

Another report add this analysis:

The Marine Corps received their new ACVs in 2020 and slowly began phasing out the AAV, which by 2020 had been in service for nearly half a century. However, the road to fielding an AAV replacement has been rocky.

An earlier AAV replacement called the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) attempted to combine all of the Corps’ desires onto one platform: the EFV sported a powerful 30 mm cannon and was incredibly fast on water thanks to a retractable bow flap that gave the EFV speedboat-like speeds. In addition, twin water jets at the EFV’s rear powered the vehicle while in the water, and retractable flaps covered the EFV’s tracks in the water, giving it a very smooth underwater profile.

Despite high hopes and high performance while on land or maneuvering at sea, the EFV was plagued with reliability problems, and breakdowns were common. Moreover, the Marine Corps’ focus on land warfare after 9/11, coupled with the program’s ballooning cost, ultimately led the Corps to ax the program.

Though in USMC service, the new ACV is far from perfect. One Marine Corps evaluation called for several modifications to the vehicle, including a modified troop commander station to aid vehicle ingress, improved vehicle recovery capabilities should the ACV need support, and improved protection for the vehicle’s suspension and steering from debris encountered on the battlefield, concertina wire in particular. So while the ACV is already in service, the Corps still has some work to do on the vehicle to ensure battlefield effectiveness and safety.

The Genetics Of Schizophrenia

We've known that schizophrenia, and schizophrenia subtypes have a strong genetic component for a long time. 

We are far from having a comprehensive genetic level understanding of the condition, but we have identified particular genes that play a major part in about half of the most severe and treatment resistant cases. 

Of course, even if we did have a comprehensive genetic understanding, that wouldn't itself, give us a cure or even a better treatment for it. But ultimately a better understanding of the condition and the various causes of this syndrome is worthwhile and is likely to lead to actionable knowledge in individual cases.

Extreme phenotype sequencing has led to the identification of high-impact rare genetic variants for many complex disorders but has not been applied to studies of severe schizophrenia. We sequenced 112 individuals with severe, extremely treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 218 individuals with typical schizophrenia, and 4,929 controls. 

We compared the burden of rare, damaging missense and loss-of-function variants between severe, extremely treatment-resistant schizophrenia, typical schizophrenia, and controls across mutation intolerant genes. Individuals with severe, extremely treatment-resistant schizophrenia had a high burden of rare loss-of-function (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.39 to 2.63; P = 7.8 × 10^−5) and damaging missense variants in intolerant genes (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% CI, 2.02 to 4.15; P = 3.2 × 10^−9). 

A total of 48.2% of individuals with severe, extremely treatment-resistant schizophrenia carried at least one rare, damaging missense or loss-of-function variant in intolerant genes compared to 29.8% of typical schizophrenia individuals (odds ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.60; P = 1.6 × 10^−3) and 25.4% of controls (odds ratio, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.85 to 4.06; P = 2.9 × 10^−7). 

Restricting to genes previously associated with schizophrenia risk strengthened the enrichment with 8.9% of individuals with severe, extremely treatment-resistant schizophrenia carrying a damaging missense or loss-of-function variant compared to 2.3% of typical schizophrenia (odds ratio, 5.48; 95% CI, 1.52 to 19.74; P = 0.02) and 1.6% of controls (odds ratio, 5.82; 95% CI, 3.00 to 11.28; P = 2.6 × 10^−8). 

These results demonstrate the power of extreme phenotype case selection in psychiatric genetics and an approach to augment schizophrenia gene discovery efforts.

Anthony W. Zoghbi, , et al., "High-impact rare genetic variants in severe schizophrenia"118 (51) PNAS e2112560118 (December 21, 2021). 

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112560118

CBBC

Prove to me that there is no Cosmic Breakfast Burrito Cat! (Banana for scale.)

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Adultery And Illegitimacy Law But Were Afraid To Ask

If a legally married man has a child with another woman, what are the consequences for that child?

1. Who will be the legal father of this child in the child's birth certificate?

It depends upon how the process is handled. The mother's husband is the presumed parent whether or not he is listed on the birth certificate. In some states, "the other man" does not have the right to bring a paternity proceeding, although the husband or the mother would. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this kind of limitation on paternity lawsuits is constitutional.

But, if the mother indicates the biological father's name on the birth certificate (some states require the biological father's voluntary acknowledgement as well), that can supersede this presumption.

The biological father always has some process (sometimes difficult for even a non-blameworthy father to comply with) to assert paternity in cases where the mother of the child is unmarried (or was unmarried at the time of conception at least), however, except that in a minority of U.S. states, rapists do not have the status of legal parents of their biological children with a rape victim.

There is usually a statute of limitations for the paternity of a father shown on a birth certificate to be contested for the purpose of using that as a defense to a child support claim.

Sometimes another statute of limitations applies, however, in other circumstances, such as a lawsuit to collect child support brought by the mother of the child, or the child, where paternity hasn't previously been established, or for inheritance purposes.

The exact process by which paternity is established when the biological parents are not married differs from state to state.

Some states (including California) permit a child to have more than two parents in some circumstances, and to have two parents who have the same sex in some circumstances.

The fact of a genetic parent-child relationship is, as a general rule, neither necessary, nor sufficient, to establish a parent-child relationship, although it is a very important factor to be considered by a court.

There is a special body of law governing paternity in cases of "assisted reproduction" (such as artificial insemination or when donated eggs are used or when there is a surrogate parent who gives birth to a child after having a fertilized egg from a different biological mother and father implanted in her). The majority rule in these cases, where assisted reproduction is intended and all parties to the process consent, is that an assisted reproduction agreement of the parties governs paternity. But not all possible scenarios have been the subject of clear law, and there is not uniformity among states regarding the relevant law.

For example, there is not much guidance regarding the legal considerations that apply in a case where a man artificially inseminates a woman causing her to become pregnant without her consent or knowledge at the time that this happens, and only subsequently learns what happens, or when the sperm of an intended sperm donor is substituted for sperm by another donor, in an artificial insemination procedure to which the woman otherwise consented.

Termination of parental rights and the parent-child relationship is something that, once established, is hard to effect legally in most cases and is a situation in which an indigent defendant facing a parental rights termination has a constitutional right to counsel. But termination of parental rights in adoptions, when the paternity of the father hasn't been established legally, can be done much more easily.

2. Can this child use her/his biological father's last name?

A child can have any name agreed to by the parents designated on the birth certificate. It is customary to assign a child the father's last name (unless no father is listed on the birth certificate or publicly disclosed), but in the United States, the issue of what someone is named is almost completely unregulated.

The child's surname, for example, does not have to be either the father's surname or the mother's surname. Many children, for example, have surnames that are hyphenations of their father's surname and their mother's surname, even if the parents did not change their names upon marriage.

The tradition in Iberia and much of Latin America is for children to take both their father's surname and their mother's surname in a double name surname which is often not hyphenated even though both parts of the name are part of the full surname. The U.S. allows parents to continue to follow this custom as a matter of law, although some governmental and private bureaucratic systems for dealing with people's names in computerized databases don't allow for these kinds of entries and also often disallow hyphens as characters in the name database entries.

The process for naming a child when two parents are designated and they can't agree varies from state to state. Usually, a court would decide, or an unmarried mother would decide.

Also, some states have the common law rule that your legal name includes any name by which you are commonly called and acknowledge as your own, even without a formal bureaucratic change on a birth certificate or other governmental legal process. Every state, however, also, at least, has a bureaucratic or court process by which a person's name can be changed.

3. Is it a crime to have a child outside of wedlock?

Giving birth itself, regardless of the circumstances, is never a crime in the United States.

Some sexual acts which can sometimes result in the conception of a child are crimes (most obviously rape and incest). Circumstances other than rape (including statutory rape and abuse of a position of trust rape), and incest, where a sexual act that can result in the conception of a child are a crime based upon the marital status of one or both of the parties to the sexual act are discussed below.

4. Is it a crime to have sex with another woman while you have married?

In a large majority of U.S. jurisdictions, adultery is no longer a crime (assuming the sexual act is consensual and not incestuous) including 33 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the several U.S. territories. "States which have decriminalised adultery in recent years include West Virginia (2010), Colorado (2013), New Hampshire (2014), Massachusetts (2018), and Utah (2019)."

Adultery is rarely enforced criminally in the 17 states, as of 2021, that still do have adultery laws on the books. This is, in part, due to doubts about the constitutionality of these crimes under federal and state constitutions, in part, due to changing norms, and in part, due to the limited benefit of a misdemeanor or felony prosecution to all persons involved (and the state) in such cases.

The birth of a child who is conceived with a father other than the mother's husband while the mother is married is not automatically conclusive proof of the crime of adultery under either state law or under the U.S. Code of Military Justice.

For example, under South Carolina law adultery involves either "the living together and carnal intercourse with each other" or, if those involved do not live together "habitual carnal intercourse with each other" which is more difficult to prove. Similarly, in Florida, the crime is "Living in open adultery".

Also, in the case of a prosecution of an unmarried man, knowledge that the woman is married would typically be an element of the crime of adultery, and it is similarly never a crime to be raped in the U.S., even if you are married.

In 13 of the states where adultery is still a crime (Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Virginia), it is a petty offense (the maximum punishment in Maryland is a $10 fine), or is a misdemeanor. But it continues to be a felony in four states (Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin) and is punishable most severely among those states in Michigan who someone convicted of adultery faces up to four years in prison.

It is a crime that is actively enforced for active duty members of the U.S. military under the U.S. Code of Military Justice.

In the U.S. military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense, falling under the General article (Art. 134). The Manual for Courts-Martial defines (para. 99) "Extramarital sexual conduct" as being: 

Elements.(1) That the accused wrongfully engaged in extramarital conduct as described in subparagraph c.(2) with a certain person; (2) That, at the time, the accused knew that the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and (3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was either: (i) to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces; (ii) was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; or (iii) to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

U.S. military law on adultery was revised in 2019 in order to include same-sex encounters in the offense.

Neither the U.S. military, nor any U.S. state, has penalties for adultery that differ depending upon whether or not the adultery results in the birth of child.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of adultery crimes since its ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) which decriminalized any kind of sex between consenting unmarried adults that does not constitute prostitution, as a matter of constitutional law (including sex between married adults with each other).

5. Is it crime to father a child outside of marriage?

No (assuming that rape or incest is not an issue).

Laws prohibiting unmarried consenting adults (or consenting adults who are married to each other) from having sex (including anal sex) or children (in non-incestuous relationships and not in violation of a position of trust) are unconstitutional in the United States pursuant to Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

So, even in states where there are laws prohibiting people who aren't married from having sex with each other or living with each other on the books (the former were called "fornication" laws, and the latter were laws prohibiting "cohabitation" of unmarried couples), those laws are unconstitutional (and in the case of laws barring cohabitation are also prohibited by federal fair housing statutes).

Unconstitutional fornication laws, which effectively make all forms of sex outside marriage illegal remain in the law books without being formally repealed in six states: Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah.

6. Civil Lawsuits Involving Adultery Or Rape

In a handful of U.S. states a husband can bring a lawsuit for money damages (called alienation of affections or "criminal conversation" despite the fact that it is a civil lawsuit) against someone who has sex with his wife. The vast majority of U.S. states have abolished such lawsuits, however.

In fiscal years 2000–2007, there were an average of 230 alienation of affections filings in North Carolina per year — a bit over 0.5% of the number of all divorces. The tort is also recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah, but it is frequently litigated only in North Carolina and in Mississippi.

Many of the states where the tort is not commonly used impose restrictions on it that make it less attractive. In Illinois, Hawaii and New Mexico, these limitations make it exceedingly difficult to prevail in an alienation of affections case and recover substantial monetary damages. The standard of proof is lower in Utah and South Dakota, which continue to have actively litigated alienation of affections suits, although not used as often in these states as in North Carolina and Mississippi, for reasons that are presumably unrelated to the relevant legal standards that apply to these lawsuits.

Also, in a rape case, a rape victim can bring a civil lawsuit for money damages against the rapist for assault and battery in most cases, and in those cases, many states allow a spouse of a rape victim to bring a parallel lawsuit against the person who committed the assault that is called a lawsuit for loss of consortium. The right to sue for loss of consortium is not specific to rape cases; it applies in all lawsuits for personal injury where it is available.

Civil lawsuits involving rape can be subject to arbitration requirements by a pre-dispute contract between the parties to submit all disputes between them to arbitration (e.g. in a suit between an employee and an employer related to conduct that facilitated a co-worker's rape of the employee under sex discrimination laws).

7. Relevance To Divorce Cases

In most U.S. state, divorce is granted without regard to marital fault and adultery is not considered in alimony awards or property divisions.

While every U.S. state has some form of no fault divorce, and number of U.S. states also have fault based divorce, and a number of U.S. states, however, allow consideration of adultery as a form of marital fault in divorce proceedings, including how much, if any alimony is awarded and in property divisions.

No state would consider being raped an act of marital fault, however, even if this caused a wife to give birth to a child whose biological father was not her husband, and even if the husband wanted her to have an abortion.

8. Custody Rights And Parental Authority

Adultery generally can be considered in child custody cases only to the extent that it impacts paternity or it was something that a child perceived personally, because every U.S. jurisdiction uses a "best interests of the child" standard for making child custody decisions.

Parents do not automatically have priority over non-parents in proceedings to determine child custody (either parenting time or parental responsibilities and authority) although there is a strong presumption in favor of parents in such cases, even when termination of parental rights is not at issue. A legally recognized parent has a right to only minimal, roughly annual, sometimes supervised, visitation with a child.

Parents do not have the full rights of a legal guardian with respect to their children and the rights that they do have with respect to their children are often not spelled out affirmatively in detail in statutes or case law.

9. Child Support

When a child has parents who aren't married to each other, or are separated, a court may enter a child support order upon the request of either parent, a child or a legal representative of a child, or a social service agency that has paid welfare benefits to one of the parents. The amount of child support awarded is based upon the number of nights that the child spends with each parent each year, the respective incomes of the parties, extraordinary expenses, the number of shared and unshared children that the parties have, and other exceptional circumstances. Normally, there is a state formula that governs the baseline amount in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

This area of the law is fairly uniform between states, despite being a matter of state law, because child support is subject to indirect federal regulation by conditioning federal welfare funding to states based upon following federal regulations related to child support. In particular, marital fault is not considered in entering child support orders. 

Child support debts have special preferences and rights in state law debt collection cases, and in bankruptcy, compared to many other kinds of debts.

10. Illegitimacy Law 

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is illegal for a U.S. law (including a state or local law) to treat a child born out of wedlock whose paternity is established differently from a child born to married parents. For example, the biological father of a child conceived in an act of prostitution with an unmarried mother can be legally established as the father of the child by the mother in every state. Prior to these rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, many states did not allow children born out of wedlock to inherit from the intestate estates of their fathers, and did not create a right to child support connected to children born out of wedlock.

Also, it was historically much harder for a child with a U.S. citizen father and a non-U.S. citizen mother born outside the United States to claim citizenship than it is today, although this still requires a legal process to establish citizenship that is more difficult than for other children when paternity was not promptly legally established between that father and that child.

But the courts have permitted fairly onerous burdens to be placed on a child or a father seeking to establish paternity in either an out of wedlock birth or a birth to a married woman when the biological father is not her husband.

Congress Wants To Spend More On Defense Than The DOD Does

The U.S. does not need to keep two Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers in its active fleet, does not need five more new ships for the Navy than it asked for, and does not need 12 more new late model aircraft carrier based jet fighters. 

All of these proposals are an immense waste of money costing Americans about $25 billion dollars at a time when we are no longer fighting any true wars and should be getting a "peace dividend."

Congressional authorizers are approving 13 battle force ships and saving two of the seven aging Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers the Navy tried to decommission, according to a draft of the National Defense Authorization Act.

An agreement reached by the House and Senate armed services committees authorizes 13 battle force ships, an increase of five ships from the eight the Navy sought in the Fiscal Year 2022 budget request.

The Fiscal Year 2022 policy bill, released today, authorizes funding for three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, two Virginia-class attack boats, one Constellation-class frigate, two Expeditionary Fast Transport vessels, two John Lewis-class fleet oilers, two Navajo-class towing, salvage and rescue ships, and one T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship.

The legislation also seeks to prevent the service from retiring all seven of the cruisers the Navy asked to decommission in its budget request. According to text of the legislation, the Pentagon cannot use any authorized money for FY 2022 “to retire, prepare to retire, inactivate, or place in storage more than 5 guided missile cruisers.” . . . 

Lawmakers also agreed to authorize money for 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, despite the Navy’s pleas to end the production line. The addition of the 12 Super Hornets is meant “to mitigate the Navy’s strike-fighter shortfall and bolster tactical fighter aircraft capacity,” according to a summary of the bill.

While the Navy had planned to buy more Super Hornets in a multi-year procurement between FY 2022 and FY 2024, the service’s FY 2021 budget submission called for an end to the production line of the Boeing-built aircraft after that budget year. The Navy at the time said it would instead use that money to invest in its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which includes a sixth-generation fighter. . . . 

This version of the NDAA includes a $25 billion increase to the Pentagon’s budget, a move that comes after both House and Senate armed services committees approved similar increases in their marks of the bills. While the House passes its version of the NDAA in September, the policy bill has faced numerous hurdles in the Senate and has yet to receive a vote on the floor.

Authorizers’ release of the bill comes several days after President Joe Biden signed a second continuing resolution, as lawmakers also struggle to reach a deal on the FY 2022 spending bills. The current CR funds the government through Feb. 18, 2022.

But it’s unclear where appropriators will fall in their negotiations. Senate appropriators included a $24.7 top line increase to national defense spending in their draft of the spending bill, but the House Appropriations Committee followed the Biden administration’s budget and allotted $753 billion for national defense spending, with about $715 billion going to the Pentagon.

From here. 

Unsurprisingly Appropriate Prison Sentence Lengths Are Partisan Issues

This survey data, combined with the median voter theorem, doesn't bode well for a reduction of mass incarceration in the United States, although given that most of these decisions are made at the state and local level, one would expect growing disparity between red state and blue states on prison sentence lengths. 

I don't know if there is currently, or historically has been, a large disparity between states in the length of the prison terms that they impose for comparable crimes correlated with their partisan leanings. A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (federal government) survey has the data, but the publication I have a link to doesn't break it down on a state by state basis.

From here.

How Many New Lawyers Join "Biglaw"

Big law firms have increased their market share of entry level lawyer hiring since I was a new law school graduate in 1994.

From here.

A Nation Divided In A Likely Pro-Roe World (UPDATED December 19, 2021)

 

The New York Times predicts that 22 states would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade ceased to be good law and estimates the impact of that quantitatively. The darkest parts of the legend represent a drop in legal abortions of about 45%. Gray areas would have no drop. Yellow areas would decline by less than 5%. 

We may find out how accurate these predictions are in less than a year.

More affluent women would travel to states where abortion remained legal or would obtain drugs that induce early term abortions.

Many women, disproportionately those who are poor, would unwillingly carry their babies to term and rely on a social safety net that is thinner than in most other rich nations, and thinner in some states than in others.

Without Roe, the number of legal abortions in the country would fall by at least 14 percent, according to research by a team from Middlebury College; the University of California, San Francisco; and the Guttmacher Institute, based on the effects of clinic closures in Texas between 2013 and 2016.

Ohio, where I grew up and went to college, Georgia, where I was born, and Michigan, where I went to law school and have extended family, would all be greatly affected.

UPDATE December 19, 2021:

The New York Times analysis is based mostly on this study:

Between 2011 and 2014, Texas enacted three pieces of legislation that significantly reduced funding for family planning services and increased restrictions on abortion clinic operations. Together this legislation creates cross-county variation in access to abortion and family planning services, which we leverage to understand the impact of family planning and abortion clinic access on abortions, births, and contraceptive purchases. In response to these policies, abortions to Texas residents fell 20.5%and births rose 2.6% in counties that no longer had an abortion provider within 50 miles. Changes in the family planning market induced a 1.5% increase in births for counties that no longer had a publicly funded family planning clinic within 25 miles. Meanwhile, responses of retail purchases of condoms and emergency contraceptives to both abortion and family planning service changes were minimal.

From an NBER paper from 2017 by Stefanie Fischer and Corey White..

The Active Defenses Revolution

Heavy armor and big slug throwers are giving way to lighter arms and missiles, many of which are primarily defensive in orientation.

Tanks

Despite what the name might suggest, the "Terminator" combat support tank isn't unmanned. 

They are designed as support units for "Main Battle Tanks" with a big 125mm main gun, but it isn't obvious what those heavy tanks are meant to deal with that this platform does not address, or that would not be better deal with via aircraft and longer range missiles that keep their crews out of harm's way.

Russia has deployed its first regular unit of Terminator combat support tanks. The first Terminator company – equipped with nine BMPT-72s – was assigned to the 90th Guards Tank Division, which is stationed in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk areas of the Urals region in Central Russia, according to Russian news agency TASS. While the BMPT-72 has been tested in Syria, equipping a regular army division with the vehicles also known as the Terminator 2 – indicates that the Russian Army believes the vehicle is ready for combat. . . .

The BMPT-72 is considered a “tank support combat vehicle,” which in this case means a tank is designed to support other tanks, as compared to traditional main battle tanks (MBT). The Terminator is built on the chassis of the ubiquitous T-72 main battle tank, of which 25,000 were built since the 1970s. But instead of mounting a 125-millimeter cannon in a big turret, the BMPT-72 has a small turret armed with an array of weapons: two 30-millimeter cannon, four Ataka antitank missiles, two rapid-fire 30-millimeter grenade launchers, and a heavy machine gun.

This diverse suite of weapons allows the Terminator to engage multiple types of targets, including tanks, infantry, fortifications, helicopters and low-flying aircraft. At the same time, using a tank chassis offers the heavy armored protection found on tank hulls, as well as the off-road mobility of a fully tracked vehicle.

The genesis of the Terminator concept was the heavy losses suffered by Soviet armor in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Chechnya in the 1990s, On New Year’s Eve 1994, large columns of Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers roared into the Chechen capital of Grozny to suppress pro-independence insurgents. Ambushed by Chechen fighters armed with anti-tank rockets fired from buildings into the streets below, hundreds of Russian armored vehicles were destroyed.

This should not have been a surprise, least of all to the Russians who had ambushed German tanks in city battles such as Stalingrad. Indeed, numerous conflicts – from World War II to Vietnam and the Iran-Iraq War – have shown the vulnerability of armored vehicles bereft of support from infantry and artillery, especially in urban combat. Russian planners concluded that the solution wasn’t to use lightly armored vehicles – such as self-propelled anti-aircraft guns – for fire support. The BMPT-72 is meant to be a support vehicle with enough armor protection to accompany MBTs like the T-80, T-90, regular T-72s, and the new T-14 Armata into combat. At the same time, its rapid-fire cannon and grenade launchers can suppress infantry and anti-tank weapons that threaten regular tanks, while its anti-tank missiles can pick off enemy tanks.

The concept of a support tank isn’t exactly new. In World War II, the U.S. Army equipped some M4 Sherman tanks with low-velocity 105-millimeter howitzers for extra firepower against infantry and fortifications, while the Soviets mounted a 152-millimeter howitzer on a KV-1 heavy tank to create the SU-152 assault gun. Today’s Israel Defense Forces have the Namur, which is a Merkava 1 tank stripped of its turret, and converted into a heavily armored troop carrier.

The Terminator comes as Russia is testing the Armata, a next-generation family of armored vehicles – including a main battle tank and an armored personnel carrier – with advanced features such as an unmanned turret. One question will be whether the Terminator will be exported. Assuming it has commonality with the regular T-72, which has been used by more than 40 countries, than exporting the BMPT-72 might be easier than selling an entirely new vehicle like the Armata.

From here. 

Warships

The Navy is testing a new combat system for its Littoral Combat Ship . . . Part of the effort includes an introduction of new government-furnished equipment likely intended to improve fire-control, targeting and integration across a group of ship-board weapons systems. These weapons include an over-the-horizon Naval Strike Missile, a close-in weapon system (CIWS) for near-in threats, and mid-range defensive interceptors such as SeaRAM and Rolling Airframe Missile. Over the course of many years of development, the SeaRAM missile has engaged and destroyed an aerial drone. . . This was the first shipboard firing of the new weapon. . . . the Combat Systems Qualification for LCS 19, the USS St. Louis, was recently completed by firing a remote-controlled aerial targeting with SeaRAM and only the second “full-up-display” of SeaRAM detecting and engaging from aboard the Freedom-variant of the LCS. These weapons enhancements are intended to help establish the technological infrastructure sufficient for massive LCS “survivability and lethality upgrades” planned for 2023, Kipp said.

The ship-launched CIWS uses a Phalanx gun capable of firing forty-five hundred small projectiles per minute to blanket an area; the SeaRAM replaces the gun with larger, longer-range Rolling Airframe Missiles. Unlike the CIWS, it uses a twenty-millimeter cannon to shoot down threats close to a ship. SeaRAM fires a Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) from an 11-missile battery. . . . The Rolling Airframe Missile is what defense experts call a “fire and forget” missile, meaning it uses an RF or radio frequency detection technology along with a heat-seeking infrared sensor to find its way toward an approaching threat in order to intercept and destroy it.

Navy destroyers would likely use a Standard Missile-3, also known as an SM-3, to defend against an attacking long-range ballistic missile threat flying through space toward a target. Medium-range anti-ship missiles or sea-skimming enemy rockets could be destroyed by an SM-2 or SM-6 interceptor. Threats a bit closer could be taken out by an Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) or SeaRAM before a Close-In-Weapons-System strikes down approaching fire.

Arming destroyers and the Littoral Combat Ship with more lethal, precise and longer-range weapons can easily be interpreted as being part of the Navy’s larger “distributed lethality” strategy which first emerged in 2015 as part of an effort to massively arm the surface fleet. Since that time, the strategy has evolved and migrated into what the service calls “Distributed Maritime Operation,” a term which perhaps indicates that newer networking, artificial-intelligence-enabled computing and cross-domain operations. . . . the idea is to help the Navy return more fully to a focus on “blue water” combat against potential “near-peer” adversaries following a decade of ground wars wherein the Navy expended more effort on things like counter-piracy, Visit Board Search and Seizure and counterterrorism.

From here.

Infantry

Army ground gunners recently destroyed a drone target with a Stinger missile fired from a new Raytheon-built sensor-targeting unit. . . . initially designed for the Javelin anti-tank weapon, not the Stinger.

The Stinger missile, which has a long history of hitting enemy helicopters and airborne threats, was shot out of the Javelin’s Lightweight Command Launch Unit (LWCLU) at Eglin Air Force Base, bringing new tactical dimensions to ground-based drone defense. It was a first, as it introduces the ability to leverage the new sensor, range and targeting technologies built into the LWCLU.

The development introduces new possibilities for both the Stinger and the launcher, given that when firing the Javelin the LWCLU actually doubles the range from 2.5km to 4.5km and increases ground mobility restraints for soldiers because it is 30 percent lighter than its predecessor. The LWCLU brings increased sensor fidelity and targeting image resolution as well as a “fast lock” technology for improving attacks on the move. . . . The improved sensor performance also helps bring an surveillance and reconnaissance targeting component to dismounted ground war by, as a Raytheon statement explained it, “Offering twice the sight range at night and three times the site range during the day, regardless of weather conditions.” . . . Longer range, more precise targeting also helps sustain doctrinal requirements for the Army, as enables more precise target identification to ensure the proper targets are hit. . . . An ability to hit targets at longer ranges naturally expands the kinds of targets a Stinger missile is able to hit, such as drones. The Stinger, which Raytheon data says has achieved more than 270 fixed and rotary-wing intercepts, will now be able to hit higher-flying drones and other targets previously not reachable.

A Stinger-armed infantry force can add a useful attack option to complement the existing armored vehicle-mounted Short Range Air Defense program which now deploys Stryker vehicles armed with Hellfire, Javelin and Stinger missiles for counter air missions. Now, small groups of dismounted infantry units on the move in combat, potentially operating further forward with less mechanized support, will have a much stronger sphere of defenses against enemy drones.

From here. 

Point Defense

The Moroccan military has purchased the Israeli counter-drone system Skylock Dome. . . . these systems disrupt the connection between the flying threat and its path, taking the target out of service.

“The system is equipped with optical and thermal monitoring devices and a radar that monitors and tracks any suspicious activities. Also, the jamming devices play their role in neutralizing its danger . . . . the systems could help protect vital and sensitive installations from drones, such as critical economic, military and government installations. . . . These systems may not be very effective against military drones that are equipped with electronic anti-jamming systems, but they are very effective against drones used to take pictures inside sensitive places. . . . Morocco has been using Israeli drones for years for reconnaissance, electronic warfare and artillery targeting. Today, with normalizing relations between the two countries, the kingdom aspires to benefit from the Israeli experience in order to exploit the industrial infrastructure for civil aviation that Morocco has equipped, and to expand it to include the military side[.]"

From here.

Contagious Cancer Recap

Approximately 12%-16% of human cancers worldwide (of 20-30 types) are attributed to viruses. Another 4% of cancer cases are attributed to other infectious agents. There are nine known viral causes of cancer in humans:

* Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1),

* Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1),

* Epstein-Barr virus (EBV),

* Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV),

* Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV),

* Hepatitis B (Hep B),

* Hepatitis C (Hep C),

* Human Papillomaviruses (HPV) (some genital-mucosal types), and

* Cytomegalovirus, a common virus in the herpes family.

Three of these (Hep B, Hep C, and HPV), have vaccines available, and one (HIV-1) has a partially effective experimental vaccine available. There are no vaccines available for the other five.

About 90 percent of people are infected at some time in their lives with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), usually with no ill effects. But individuals with compromised immune systems, such as people with organ transplants or HIV infection, have a greater risk of cancer occurring because of this virus. 

Newborns with congenital cytomegalovirus, a common virus in the herpes family, have an increased risk of developing acute lymphocytic leukemia.

See here, here, here, and here (note that some of the text above is closely paraphrased from these sources).

In non-humans, there is one known kind of cancer, affecting the same tissues that M.S. does, in Tasmanian devils, that is directly transmitted by bites without an intervening viral agent. It first appeared around 1990 and has killed about 70% of Tasmanian devils. It could lead to the extinction of the species by 2040. My source for this was a Science News story in 2009, but my link to this source is dead.

White Democrats Are Smarter Than White Republicans And Independents

Razib Khan analyzes the data from the General Social Survey (2016 to the present) using a question that is a decent proxy at a statistical level for IQ. It isn't even close among Non-Hispanic Whites:

Liberal Ideology: 20% in the top 10%; 22% in the bottom 30%.

Democrats: 16% in the top 10%; 27% in the bottom 30%.

Independents: 10% in the top 10%; 43% in the bottom 30%.

Conservative Ideology: 9% in the top 10%; 30% in the bottom 30%.

Republicans: 8% in the top 10%; 31% in the bottom 30%.

Moderate Ideology: 8% in the top 10%; 38% in the bottom 30%.

Roe Is One Of Many Things At Stake In Dobbs

The 6-3 conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overrule Roe v. Wade, despite assurances to Senators and statements in confirmation hearings to the contrary. 

But, as bad as this is (and this is the real deal, not a false alarm to whip up political supporters on both sides this time), it is only the tip of the iceberg. An analysis in The Atlantic magazine explains the larger implications.

The consensus of Supreme Court watchers after Wednesday’s oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is that the demise of Roe v. Wade, or at least its dilution to a point that virtually any government-imposed “burden” on abortion would be constitutionally acceptable, is coming. After all, this Court allowed a Texas law effectively banning most abortions after six weeks to stand pending litigation, rejecting multiple pleas for a temporary stay—as clear a signal as any that at least five justices on the current Court have no problem with women’s constitutional rights (as currently recognized) being violated in the interim. . . .

Consider the 1923 case Meyer v. Nebraska, in which the Court struck down a law criminalizing the teaching of German in private schools. “The obvious purpose of this statute,” the Court wrote, “was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state.” Although its enactment “comes reasonably within the police power of the state,” the Court found that the law ”unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment”—the precise grounding of the now-precarious individual right to decide whether to carry a fetus to term. Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, the Court struck down an Oregon criminal law forcing parents to send their children to public school. “The manifest purpose” of the law, the Court noted, “is to compel general attendance at public schools by normal children, between eight and sixteen, who have not completed the eighth grade.” Citing Meyer, the Court ruled, “We think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children.”

The Court has construed liberty to safeguard numerous other personal safe spaces: the right to marry regardless of race (1967’s Loving v. Virginia) and sex (2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges). The right to use contraception (Griswold). The right to be free from compulsory sterilization by the state (1942’s Skinner v. Oklahoma). The right to be free of government-mandated surgery involving “a virtually total divestment of respondent’s ordinary control over surgical probing beneath his skin” (1985’s Winston v. Lee). And the right to engage in intimate sexual conduct with a partner of one’s choice without fear of criminal prosecution (2003’s Lawrence v. Texas).

In Dobbs, the state of Mississippi’s answer to this line of cases is to suggest that the life of an unborn fetus is especially sacred under the Constitution: “Nowhere else in the law does a right of privacy or right to make personal decisions provide a right to destroy a human life,” it claims. 

But saying so does not mean that critics of other privacy-based rights could not find their own reasons why those rights, too, must be balanced against some other competing interest.