> Gautam again:
> That's a very nice thing to say. It's a little harder to actually do,
you
> know. The hijackers were all educated upper-middle class products of
Arab
> societies. So I guess that the best way to cure the disease would be to
> eliminate economic prosperity in the Arab world. No? I don't feel like
> doing that either, actually. So saying "wipe out the disease" is really
> awfully simplistic. The disease is - they hate us because we are
> what they
> are not. The West Wing said it best today - they'll like us when we win.
> Show strength, show power, show resolve, show determination, and they
will
> like us when we win. _That's_ how you cure the disease.
No, no, no. Whip a horse a lot and it will do what you want. But it will
never want to do what you want. Hearts and minds is always cheaper than
force, it just might take longer.
Why are so many middle class Saudis so virulently anti-Western? Answer that
question and you can then formulate some answers. Then, maybe, you can also
ask if an overwhelming military force is the appropriate answer to the
problem. I mean, a squadron of B2s is an awful expensive piece of material
if what you really need is a SEAL team or two, or a few hospitals.
Me:
See, I _do_ know why so many middle class Saudis are so virulently
anti-Western. The thing about people from other cultures is that they
really are different in meaningful ways - not just that they dress in funny
clothes and eat sheep's eyeballs. The idea of tolerance towards other
cultures - that's a Western concept. The Saudis _don't believe in it_.
They hate us because we are different than them, and to them that means we
should be their inferiors - except very obviously we aren't. That's why.
Different culture means that they think differently. These are not people
who ever went throught the Enlightenment. The idea of sitting around and
talking and rationally debating something? That's an Enlightenment
concept. They _don't believe in it_.
Brett:
What missile programs do the Axis of evil have?
- Iraq: SCUD based missiles, range max 1000 miles (if they get them to
work)
- N Korea: SCUD based missiles, range max 1000 miles
Does NMD suit battlefield deployment against short/medium range missiles?
No.
Therefore, is NMD a pressing post September reaction? No.
Me:
Umm, this is wrong, you know. Among the NMD systems that are being
explored several - most prominently the boost phase defense that will
almost certainly be chosen in the end - are, in fact, designed to work
against short/medium range missiles. Any system that will eventually be
deployed will be designed to protect Taiwan, Japan, and forward deployable
bases against ballistic missile assault. All of them are, of course,
developing ICBM technology as well. It's probably not a bad idea to have
the defense _before_ they're ready to launch an ICBM at Washington, DC.
But even if that wasn't a possibility, it's _definitely_ a good idea to
have one now that North Korea (for example) has the capacity to launch an
SRBM at Tokyo.
> Gautam:
> The Administration is proposing a $379B defense budget. The total
> budget is, I believe, approximately $2.2 Trillion. The total GDP is
> in the range of $10 Trillion. Which means we are spending less than
> 4% of the GDP on defense. In the 1980s we routinely spent more than
> 6%. Given that 3000 Americans just got killed by agents of a
> hostile country - a striking demonstration of the violent
> potential of the modern world - spending more doesn't seem like a
> bad idea.
Total spent by Al Qaeda.
20 x salaries of terrorists for approx 3 years = $3,000,000 (tops)
Flying lessons = $ 100,000 (tops)
20 x Box cutters = $ 80
US response $379,000,000,000 (est)
Me:
Since we're doing something a little different from crashing civilian
airliners into civilian skyscrapers, it's _possible_ that a comparison of
the budgets involved might not be meaningful. Just a thought.
> Gautam again:
> Bravo. I'm all in favor of it. The militaries of the next 15
> countries are
> quite ineffective. (snip) We,
> on the other hand, need to be able to fight 7000 miles away on a moment's
> notice. Which we just did. It's not cheap. The force structure
> is smaller
> because it is more capital intensive. That's a good thing. I'd rather
> spend money than blood. We have global responsibilities. No one
> else does.
Brett:
The US has global responsibilities, yes. Does it have to do it all by
itself? No.
[snipping stuff about other ways this could have been fought]
Me:
No. All of that is, well, just not true. We do have to do these things
alone because no one else even _begins_ to have the capacity to assist us.
If you'd like to think that Australia does, Brett, go right ahead, but it
doesn't. At all. A good article on the subject from February 1st
Financial Times:
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3ARHXB6XC
Quoting from the article, "in military terms there is only one player on
the field that counts." He doesn't mean Russia.
Brett:
Let's face it. If the US decides to park a Carrier Task Group just outside
anyone's territorial waters (except maybe for Britain, China, Germany,
Russia and France) you've already got air superiority. Australia could put
up a reasonable fight, mind you.
Me:
True. And in a couple of years we will have _thirteen_ Carrier Task
Forces. _Each one_ will be more powerful than the second largest Navy in
the world - arguably, since no one else has any meaningful carrier forces,
each one will be more powerful than the _combined_ Navies of the world.
This is one capacity (among many) that other countries just don't have. If
you want to talk about strategic affairs in the world today, you have to
start with the basic understanding that the US is vastly different from
every other country in the world - more different than any other country in
history.
Brett:
Look, yes it will probably end up working. But remember it took an awful
long time to get the M1 Abrams workable, and most of the rest of the world
has in the meantime gone for the much more reliable, equally capable and
cheaper Leopard tank. And I think the Germans already have a comparable
system to Crusader.
(Let's face it, if you want a really good tank, Germany's a pretty good
place to start looking for one.)
Me:
You know, Brett, in the face of the evidence of the last 10 years, you're
in an awfully poor position to claim that other people's military equipment
is in some way more effective than its American equivalents. It might be,
but it's a hard case to make. Particularly since we've _kept improving_
our equipment since the Gulf War (which was fought with late 1980s
technology) while everyone else has stood still. The Leopard isn't even
close to being equally capable with the M1A2. Its electronic equipment is
2-3 generations behind - there isn't another military in the world that has
anything vaguely similar to IVIS. Its night vision systems are inferior.
Its armor protection is inferior. It doesn't have the M1s unique engine
system that is a huge advantage over most others. It's an excellent tank.
It's undoubtedly the second best tank in the world. But I'm unaware of an
American soldier who'd be willing to swap the Leopard straight up for an
M1A2. And we have a _lot_ of M1A2s.
Brett:
Super Hornet looks to do much of what F22 would do, plus more. And F35
(JSF)
is pretty damn close on the horizon as well. F22 looks like it will only be
in service a few years - it could be cut pretty easily. Now, F15 has been
around for 25 years, F/A-18 has been around for 15. Both have a good decade
left in them. Go with the bloody ugly JSF, which at least isn't the hideous
Boeing version, and let Super Hornet and some fleet upgrades cover the
rest.
What are the threats? MiG29, MiG31, SU-32/35?. All very good aircraft, but
the US aircraft carry the better missiles (AMRAAM, etc). Really, you
shouldn't get into a dogfight very often cos your AA missiles already
include over the horizon, lookdown/shootdown capabilities. Plus Western
training and tactics are FAR better than anyone else's. Then you've got the
AWACS etc as well.
China's best is effectively a reworked MiG 21, don't forget.
Me:
Super Hornet can do what the F-22 can? Unless someone has _radically_
changed the design specs, Super Hornet is not stealth capable and can't
super cruise. If you put the Super Hornet into an environment with double
digit SAMs - it's dead. And so is the very valuable American pilot inside
it. I would actually rather kill _Super Hornet_ and let the Navy move into
the stealth age. Of course the F-15 is very good. In the entire history
of the F-15 _not even one_ has ever been shot down in air-to-air combat.
The kill ratio for the F-15 is, I believe, 155.5:0. But it's never faced
double digit SAMs either. Technologies change. We have to change with
them. I'm not the biggest fan of the F-22 (I think its legs are too short -
but then, that's what we have mid-air refueling capacities for). But it's
vastly beyond anything else anyone's even thinking of putting in the sky.
>The Comanche? Why?
Australia's just chosen the Eurocopter Tiger. Maybe you could look at it.
And there are zillions of Mil-24 and Mil-28 helicopters about, cheap.
Me:
We could. Does it have stealth capabilities? Does it integrate into
American data networks? No, and, well, no. The most difficult part of the
Comanche has actually been the electronics. Can the Tiger work with the
Apache Longbow system? The Mil-24 and 28?
>The Seawolf? Why?
Brett:
Isn't Seawolf a British missile? Or is this something else, like a
hunterkiller sub? Jane's can't tell me anything on it.
Me:
Janes' doesn't list the Seawolf? That's very odd. It's the 688(I)
follow-on. The best attack submarine in the world. It's _unbelievably_
expensive. The only reason to keep building it, actually, is industrial
preservation. There is no civilian market for nuclear submarines, oddly
enough. They ordered two just to keep Electric Boat from going out of
business. But it's a _remarkable_ submarine. Almost as quiet as an
Ohio-class, an integrated weapons platform that gives it superb tactical
capabilities, and so on. If the American Navy would only adopt Britain's
superb system for training captains I'd be much happier, but nevertheless,
Seawolf is a wonderful piece of machinery.
> Centurion? Why?
I can get you a Centurion with spare motor for $20,000AUD. Now there's a
tank! ;-)
If you're talking about the Global Hawk UAV, please do buy them cos the
RAAF
would love to buy a couple.
Me:
The Centurion is the (considerably cheaper) Seawolf follow on, constructed
on the idea that _even_ the US couldn't afford more than two Seawolf's.
It's still on the drawing board. It will, presumably, be the second best
attack submarine in the world when it's finished.
Brett, we're looking at militaries from very different perspectives. There
are individual systems used by other nations
that are comparable in quality to those used by the US. What no one else
has are the force multipliers that we use. AWACS systems? The Japanese
have a few, other people a few as well, but no one has them in the same
quantity or quality. J-STARS equivalents? No one else in the world has
them. Electronic warfare? The best European systems are 2 generations
behind their American equivalents. Electronic data networks linking _land
warfare systems_? There's only one in the world - the IVIS integrated into
the M1A2 and the M2A2. Tests in the NTC suggest that IVIS improves the
effectiveness of an armored unit by _multiples_ of 3-4. During Kosovo
American aircraft flew more than _90%_ of the at-risk combat sorties. It
wasn't because the Europeans weren't brave. No one has ever criticized the
courage of British or German soldiers. It's because the European
governments hadn't modernized the electronic equipment on their aircraft
since the mid 1980s, so they couldn't be risked in hostile environments.
That's the single most important difference - the electronic systems that
turn American forces into a single, unified, whole, instead of disparate
parts. All of these systems are exceptionally hard to integrate. But when
you have them it improves the effectiveness of your military by multiples,
not fractions. We buy American equipment pretty much exclusively because
the equipment sold outside the US isn't the same. It's not even playing in
the same world any more.
Look - the Bush Administration asked for an increase of $48B in the US
defense budget. That's _twice as large_ as the entire Italian defense
budget. It would (all by itself) be the largest defense budget in the NATO
alliance. Considerably larger than Australia's, I believe. The US
accounts for something in the range of _40%_ of global defense spending.
It accounts for considerably more than that (somewhere in the range of
60-70%, I believe) of global spending in defense-related R&D. On top of
that it has huge capital investments already made in things like aircraft
carriers, refueling aircraft, and bases in every corner of the planet.
When you spend that kind of money, you get something for it. Yes, we did
have to go it alone in Afghanistan and (earlier) in Iraq. When the NATO
powers initially tried to invoke Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty,
the Pentagon asked the Adminstration to prevent them from doing so (it very
correctly refused). It felt that with some very limited excpetions (the
British and Australian SAS and SBS, still the best SpecOps forces in the
world, and British intelligence help) other people's militaries would just
_get in the way_. They would actually put American forces at risk since we
would have to protect them. Even the Special Ops system is changing. We
can never match Britain's (and, by extension, Australia's) unique SpecOps
culture, but the Pentagon has decided it's going to try, and is pumping
money into the program, plus making it a career enhancing (as opposed to
career limiting) tour of duty.
I'm not trying to insult Britain or Australia or the European powers. This
isn't about courage, or smarts, or anything like that. It's about money.
But if you want to discuss defense matters - this is the way things are
now. The Western militaries are, for all practical purposes, appendages of
the American one. They can't deploy without our logistical support. Once
they are in theatre, they can't fight without cover from our electronic
warfare systems. If they go into a high-threat environment they'll get
shot down anyways - because the only stealth systems in the world are on
the F-117 and the B-2A. This is the central problem of NATO (I'm writing
about it professionally right now). We have a multilateral military
alliance where only one of the countries involved has an effective
military.
Gautam
