At least a half dozen Tesla in the past month have crashed fatally at high speed around 2AM. It begs the question of driverless software flaws and what’s being done to investigate as a group. Here’s yet another one.
Police in Claremont are investigating a fiery crash involving a Tesla that left two people dead overnight.
The crash happened just after 2 a.m. Monday at Mills Avenue and 6th Street, according to the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
If there’s one thing my time at LSE studying asymmetric war taught me, it’s that we must learn from history or be doomed to repeat it. The recent CENTCOM press release regarding operations against the Houthi forces is very concerning as a virtual carbon copy of the exact mistakes that led us into the quagmire of Vietnam. Frankly, it’s worse because we should know better by now.
When I look at their statistics and claims, I’m transported back to the military briefings I read from the late 1960s. They were called “Five O’Clock Follies” for good reason—saccharin press conferences filled with optimistic assessments that bore little resemblance to ground reality. Today’s claims are just as divorced from strategic reality as they were back then.
The Metrics Mirage: From Vietnam to Yemen
What strikes me so forcefully about the current situation is how we’ve regressed to the same flawed thinking that characterized our approach in Southeast Asia. The parallels are not just concerning—they’re downright alarming.
| Vietnam Era Mistake | Current CENTCOM Approach | Why It’s Worse Today |
|---|---|---|
| Body counts as measure of success | “Killed hundreds of Houthi fighters” | We know from Vietnam that attrition metrics don’t translate to strategic victory |
| Bombing statistics (“X tons dropped”) | “Struck over 800 targets” | We’ve replaced tonnage with target counts, but it’s the same meaningless metric |
| Gulf of Tonkin incident (unverified claims) | Unilateral reporting with no independent verification | After decades of lessons about the need for transparency, we’re back to “trust us” |
| Vague claims about Ho Chi Minh Trail interdiction | “Destroyed multiple command-and-control facilities” | Using the same generic terminology that obscures actual operational impact |
| Blaming outside powers (Soviet Union, China) | “Iran undoubtedly continues to provide support” | Still failing to understand local motivations and resilience |
| Bombing reduction = success narrative | “Missile launches dropped by 69%” | Sophisticated adversaries adapt tactics, and even improve accuracy, rather than give up objectives |
| Endless escalation without clear endgame | “Continue to ratchet up the pressure” | Repeating open-ended commitment despite historical evidence of its failure |
| Minimizing civilian impact | “Minimizing risk to civilians” | Claims without evidence or monitoring, despite better technology for verification |
Missing the Strategic Forest for the Tactical Trees
What disturbs me most is that we’ve had fifty years to internalize the lessons of Vietnam. We spent decades analyzing where we went wrong. Military brass, let alone academics in history departments, sponge up these lessons. Yet here we are, seeing the same fundamental errors in strategic thinking.
The press release’s emphasis on percentages of reduction in missile launches is particularly troubling. The release tosses out a “69% drop in ballistic missile launches” and “55% decrease in drone attacks” as meaningful. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean any reduction in actual damage or successful strikes. During Vietnam, the U.S. often emphasized metrics like “body counts” or “bombing tonnage” that didn’t translate to any strategic gain.
As any basic reader of Vietnam War 101 could tell you, guerrilla forces adapt. When America dramatically interdicted the Ho Chi Minh Trail in one sector, supplies easily moved through another. When North Vietnam’s ports were pummeled with bombs, the logistics dispersed as should have been expected. The Houthis will do the same, and already have given how the Saudis thoroughly bombed them for years.
Attributing Houthi capabilities solely to Iranian backing echoes Vietnam-era assertions that any localized adversaries had to be merely a puppet of China/USSR, grossly underestimating factors and motivations. A fixation on bogus military metrics obscures political reality, like the makeup room for men fiasco glowing up in Hegseth’s face. He literally posted the following statement to deflect attention from him spending so much time and money on his makeup routines:
We should have installed tampon machines in every men’s bathroom at DoD…
In Vietnam, we could win nearly every battle on paper yet lose the whole damn war because we oversimplified us/them and then failed to understand the obvious political dimensions of conflict. Today’s CENTCOM press release shows we’re still thinking in terms of hair gel and eyeliner (appearances of bombs dropped) rather than meaningful political objectives achieved and measured on the ground. I’m reminded particularly of when the USAF claimed it was so successful it had destroyed more trucks than had ever existed in Vietnam.
The notion that destroying a port facility will “impact Houthi ability to conduct operations” misunderstands asymmetric warfare in the same way we misunderstood it in Vietnam, the same way the Italians misunderstood it in Ethiopia. Determined adversaries adapt, improvise, and overcome.
The Way Forward
If we’re serious about not repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, we need to fundamentally rethink our approach. This means:
In Vietnam, we kept doubling down on failed strategies, believing that just a little more force, a little more bombing, would turn the tide. It never did. I fear we’re on the same path again, but this time with Pete “dirty lines” Hegseth kitting out makeup rooms without the excuse of ignorance. This time, we should know better.
This is quite the headline for a conservative paper like the Independent.
New York man took Elon Musk at his word that Teslas could drive themselves. Then he hit a tree
The lawsuit calls out that the victim was enticed to spend a huge premium for driverless based on statements of safety. Let that sink in, he paid extra to increase safety from a technology that in reality is known to dangerously lower his safety.
“Tesla knew for years that its statements regarding its ADAS technology were deceptive and misleading, but the company made them anyway,” the complaint states, claiming the carnaker did so “to generate excitement about the company’s vehicles and thereby improve its financial condition by, among other things, attracting investment, increasing sales, avoiding bankruptcy, increasing Tesla’s stock price, and helping to establish Tesla as a dominant player in the electric vehicle market.”
Further, the complaint alleges, Tesla itself “has admitted” that the term “full self-driving” is inaccurate. In fact, it says, full self-driving Teslas are not fully self-driving, as they still require a driver to steer, brake and accelerate “as needed.”
The pivotal moment was April 2018 when both Tesla and Uber ran over and killed a pedestrian because both had dangerously flawed technology. Uber cancelled their program and the driver went to court. Tesla hired more lawyers, and asked customers to pay more, and more lawyers, and asked customers to pay more… and I rarely if ever meet anyone who knows about the Tesla crash at all.
The gap in knowledge about a 2018 Tesla danger is because of the extremely deceptive marketing campaign that covered it up.
BYD, founded in 1995 as a Chinese battery company, has achieved some significant engineering advantages over Tesla according to a new scientific study. While Tesla has promoted its battery innovations extensively, this research reveals that BYD’s Blade cell outperforms Tesla’s 4680 cell in several important areas, particularly thermal efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Comparing this specific heating per volume, the Tesla 4680 cell creates around 2× of the heat to be dissipated at a 1 C load (Figure 8). Thus, when designing a system with the same power requirements, the cooling needed for the Tesla 4680 cells must dissipate approximately 2× more heat per volume than that needed for the BYD cell at the same load.
The study clearly demonstrates BYD’s engineering prowess in developing more thermally efficient batteries. Tesla’s 4680 cell generates twice the heat per volume compared to BYD’s Blade cell at the same charging rate, requiring significantly more cooling to maintain safe operation. For consumers, this translates to important advantages in fast charging capability and longevity of BYD vehicles.
Beyond thermal performance, BYD’s cells are also more cost-effective, with the research showing approximately €10/kWh lower material costs than Tesla’s cells. This efficiency in both thermal management and cost reflects BYD’s practical engineering approach versus Tesla’s focus on energy density.
BYD’s technology demonstrates that engineering addressing real-world concerns like heat management, cost, and safety ultimately provides better and more sustainable value to consumers than maximizing a single metric.
Findings on Tesla batteries generating twice the heat of BYD’s also points the discerning technology professional towards critical safety questions. The connection between higher heat generation and observed fire risks demands urgent independent investigation. Further research should determine if such measured differences help explain the real-world safety outcomes. This scientific study provides clear technical evidence why thermal management in EV batteries requires closer scrutiny for consumer safety.
Higher energy density of Tesla (more energy pushed into smaller volume) can create greater risks for thermal danger. Batteries that force more energy into a smaller space, makes heat more challenging to engineer back down from, because it can lead to a chain reaction:
For the vast majority of consumers, safety isn’t a preference but an expectation rooted in engineering ethics (cars as trusted systems). Professional engineering codes explicitly require prioritizing public safety above all other considerations. Random performance metrics are irrelevant when they ignore basic safety principles, like the absurdity of a South African man claiming in 2016 he will be launching rockets to colonize Mars within five years despite no real plans for survival.
BYD’s engineering approach demonstrates adherence to established principles in the engineering code of ethics, where safety and reliability take precedence. A focus on thermal efficiency and cooling systems reflects an ethical obligation to design systems that minimize foreseeable risks. This isn’t simply a market strategy but fulfillment of the foundational ethical requirement that engineers hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Consumers rightfully must demand that vehicles are safe regardless of any marketing claims in a design change.
Tesla’s singular pursuit of energy density without adequate thermal management directly challenges engineering ethical standards. No engineering innovation can be considered successful if it creates undue risk to users. Just as an engineer cannot justify a structurally unsound bridge that falls down by highlighting they developed more density in its cables, battery systems that generate excessive heat cannot be defended solely on more density. Obligation to prioritize public safety is not optional or secondary to performance metrics, it is the fundamental ethical requirement upon which all legitimate engineering is built.