> Our allies must do more or this will become an increasingly dangerous world with countries like China trying to fill the vacuum. Canada is an example of a country that could do more, but isn’t.
If you look at the US warfare model you can probably see why. Nobody can afford to wage war like that: not even the US.
The War on Terror is asymmetric, and the terrorists have huge leverage on a cost-per-casualty basis. The war is on their turf — so they don’t even need to pay travel costs — and their equipment cost is peanuts.
How much does an Apache helicopter cost? And how much does the surface-to-air missiles cost to shoot it down?
How much does a HumVee cost? And how much does an IED cost to blow it to smithereens?
How much does a single jet sortee cost — one that drops napalm and kills, say, 20 terrorists?
Who can afford to wage war on that basis? The US can’t. What chance does Canada or New Zealand or the UK or Germany have of affording it if the US can’t?
These desert ruffians don’t really need to be killed with half-million dollar bombs, surely. But that is the US warfare model.
> You have your facts wrong again. China holds about $1.5 trillion of our $11.4 trillion national debt, hardly picking up the tab for our defense.
Actually, my facts are spot-on.
I was picking on the ChiComs because they are funding about a third of this year’s operating DEFICIT so far — which is a different thing to your national debt. (As you will know, the national debt is an accumulation of many years of deficit financing)
On that basis, I venture that the ChiComs are almost certainly funding this year’s military opex, and probably also this year’s military capex as well. And if not the ChiComs, then some other lender.
Who can afford to wage war like this? Asymmetric warfare waged in this fashion will surely ruin the United States.
So why would Canada want to do something like that?
Their model has tended toward peacekeeping instead: as a Nation they have deployed on nearly every peacekeeping mission worldwide since the UN was founded. Their rationale is obviously to keep the peace so that war expenditures can be avoided. So far, not a bad strategy.
New Zealand follows a similar model: we cannot have a large army even if we wanted one: we’re the size of Chicago. We can afford what the City of Chicago could afford, max. And so we don’t have alot of expensive kit: can’t afford it.
But what we do have is a superbly trained military equipped to fight in the South Pacific theater. And we have elite forces trained to the highest standard in the world, capable of fighting in all theaters. And both are always deployed somewhere.
That is what Chicago could afford, so that is what New Zealand has.
Please describe what "warfare model" you are talking about. It certainly worked in Iraq and we overthrew the Taliban in a matter of weeks. And given time and resolve, it will work in Afghanistan.
The War on Terror is asymmetric, and the terrorists have huge leverage on a cost-per-casualty basis. The war is on their turf — so they don’t even need to pay travel costs — and their equipment cost is peanuts.
That has always been true whether it was Malaysia or Iraq. Guerrillas can be defeated with an effective strategy that combines military means and gaining support of the populace.
How much does an Apache helicopter cost? And how much does the surface-to-air missiles cost to shoot it down? How much does a HumVee cost? And how much does an IED cost to blow it to smithereens? How much does a single jet sortee cost — one that drops napalm and kills, say, 20 terrorists?
That is only one way of fighting the terrorists, and it is necessary at times. Big unit action, agressive mobility, imbeding and integration with local forces, intelligence, clear and hold, use of special ops forces, money, etc. are all part of a comprehensive strategy. Helicopters, jet planes, etc. are part of the overall force structure. The objective is to win and not save money.
These desert ruffians don’t really need to be killed with half-million dollar bombs, surely. But that is the US warfare model.
That is pure nonsense. That is not the model we are using in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is far more nuanced and comprehensive than what you describe.
I was picking on the ChiComs because they are funding about a third of this year’s operating DEFICIT so far — which is a different thing to your national debt. (As you will know, the national debt is an accumulation of many years of deficit financing)
It matters not whether it is funding this year's deficit or not. It just becomes a liability for the USG. For the first eight months of the fiscal year, which began in October, the total deficit hit $991.95 billion. The total US national debt is $11.4 trillion of which $7 trillion is publicly held, as differentiated by the Intragovernmental Holdings part of the debt, which consists primarily of entitlement obligations, i.e., we owe the money to ourselves.
As of January 2009, China holds $739 billion [24%]of the publicly held debt and Japan holds $635 billion [21%]. In April China's holdings rose to $763.5 bilion in treasury securities.
On that basis, I venture that the ChiComs are almost certainly funding this year’s military opex, and probably also this year’s military capex as well. And if not the ChiComs, then some other lender.
LOL. Do you think that US T-bills are specifically sold to fund various projects. China has bought our T-bills. We can use that money any way we want. It is not earmarked.
So why would Canada want to do something like that? Their model has tended toward peacekeeping instead: as a Nation they have deployed on nearly every peacekeeping mission worldwide since the UN was founded. Their rationale is obviously to keep the peace so that war expenditures can be avoided. So far, not a bad strategy.<
Canada can afford to do that because the US is providing them with the security umbrella. Peacekeeping is a good way to have the UN subsidize your security forces. The US pays 27% of the UN bill for peacekeeping operations. Canada is also part of NATO. It should have a more robust security force. The US spends more on defense than the rest of NATO combined.
That is what Chicago could afford, so that is what New Zealand has.
NZ has an active duty force of 9,000 personnel and spends 1% of its GDP on defense.
The Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) includes two Anzac class frigates, developed in conjunction with Australia. Eight other vessels are in use, consisting of patrol vessels and logistics. Over the next few years the RNZN will acquire seven new vessels: one large Multi-Role Vessel, two Offshore Patrol Vessels, and four Inshore Patrol Vessels. All of these new vessels will be part of Project Protector and will be built to commercial standards.
The Royal New Zealand Air Force consists of 50 aircraft, consisting of P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft and Lockheed C-130 Hercules and other transport aircraft. The RNZAF does not have a strike force following the retirement of its A-4 Skyhawk and Aermacchi MB-339 squadrons. A plan to acquire 28 F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft was cancelled in 2000. The NH90 helicopter has recently been ordered to replace Bell UH-1 Iroquois. The PAC CT/4 Airtrainer is locally produced.
New Zealand's Army consists of around 4,500 full-time and 2,500 part-time troops. Most troops are infantry. New Zealand does not operate tanks, although it does have 105 operating Light Armoured Vehicles, known as the NZLAV. The New Zealand Special Air Service, an Army unit, is the NZDF's special forces capability.
Chicago Police Department, also known as the CPD, is the principal law enforcement agency of the City of Chicago, Illinois, in the United States, under the jurisdiction of the city mayor. It is the largest police department in the Midwest and the second largest in the United States after the New York City Police Department with over 13,400 sworn officers and over 1,850 other employees.
NZ could be doing more as well. The US is spending over 3% of the GDP on defense.