[December 30, 2025] I was sitting inside a command and control bunker in South Korea being briefed on the amount of ammunition and fuel that would be required to defend against a North Korean army invasion. The briefers were U.S. Army colonels, talking in thousands of tons and square feet of space needed to ship and store supplies. In short, they did not talk so we could understand.
I was sitting with several Republic of Korean general officers and, as I glanced at their faces, I could see confusion as they looked about like they were lost in a maze. This is where I stopped the briefing. I was polite, of course, as this was a multi-national exercise being conducted in a simulated environment.
My question was, “How many miles can an armored U.S. travel with this amount of fuel?” And, “How long do you estimate an Infantry division can fight without running out of ammunition?” I was asking them to transform their weight and space measurements into something tangible. I wanted them to do the calculations on the effect of their logistics measures, not for my Korean counterparts and me to figure it out ourselves.
There is an old story from the 1800s that makes my point. James Watt was trying to sell steam engines to a targeted audience; mine owners. The steam engine had only recently been invented, so few had heard of them or what they could do. At this time, mine owners used horses to drain mines of water.
No one wanted a steam engine, unproven as they had been up to that point. James Watt asked what do these mine owners want to know before they can buy a steam engine. Someone said the answer was a very simple calculation of how many horses they can get rid of if they replace them with this new steam engine technology.
Seeing the need to get these mine folks to understand, James Watt invents a unit of power which we still use today; the horsepower. We should wonder why this particular scientific unit of measurement is not named after a famous scientist. The reason horsepower was used then is because it was a marketing contrivance.
James Watt would go in and talk with mine owners and say, if you buy this steam engine, then you can get rid of 25 horses (or whatever number). Immediately, once he presented the information in a way that’s compelling and easily understood, behavior changes immediately. They purchased his steam engines.
Ordinary people do not understand scientific measures and mathematical twists of numbers applied to what they are doing. They must know the effect it has. If that means 100,000 gallons of diesel will last one day in an Armored Division in combat, then that is exactly what we needed. But to tell me we have 100,000 gallons without context, then it is meaningless.
I’m sure James Watt was also frustrated at the time. And now his story helps us understand the necessity to talk so that we understand.
————
Please read my books:
There are just too many folks, mostly in the workplace, who talk in technical jargon. And, there are times when this is necessary but it also is a time where most miscommunication takes place. Don’t do it, unless you and that other person – or a very small group of co-workers – are paying close attention to you and where there are few or no distractions. Better to clearly define your concepts. I had a boss who never used acronyms, as an example, for he said using them was a pathway to getting this out of whack. BTW, great website. And, I do plan on buying your books. Glad Google.com took me to your site.
James Watt, the first marketing gimmick that actually meant something. 🐎
This is just one more example where the capitalism solution works. While not perfect, and in fact, far from perfect (often terrible), it is still the best system ever devised. We are still looking for a better way to run a culture, but the new fad of democrat socialism will fail. Why? Because it is an old system that has repeatedly proven a failure at a terrilble cost. But, the young want to try it out. There was somebody who once said that you can vote yourself into socialism but you have to fight your way out. Socialism means both a heavy bureacracy and a strong man at the top.
Ed, sometimes just good enough is just good enough. The shinny objects often are not valuable.
Sir, thank you. Now, can we please get our politicians to speak in normal English too? Oh, and how about lawyers? They would probably go crazy if they had to stop using law language to describe everything. 👀
Gen. Satterfield right says, “Ordinary people do not understand scientific measures and mathematical twists of numbers applied to what they are doing. They must know the effect it has. If that means 100,000 gallons of diesel will last one day in an Armored Division in combat, then that is exactly what we needed. But to tell me we have 100,000 gallons without context, then it is meaningless.” And he’s right. Give me the info in context. Give it to me so that I can understand what it means, not some mealy mouthed gobbledygook.
HAPPY SOON TO BE NEW YEAR
🎉🥳🎊🎁
Army talk sometimes cannot be understood by even the very soldiers it is intended to communicate to.
This is Gen. Satterfield’s point, and thanks for reinforcing the idea. And, true, regardless of the organization, I’ve seen when acronyms (which Gen. S does use) are misunderstood then you must not use them. Army Speak = a language that confuses the army. There will always be concepts we THINK we know, but is different than what others THINK they know. Mix ups occurs. People are killed or injured. Millions of dollars lost. Communication is difficult so we must be on our guard.
Well said, Nick. If we don’t take the time, or are sloppy in our speech, then things can go haywire. Gen. Satterfield is fond of saying we should be precise in our speech, and this is why. 🤠
Good one, Army Capt.👍