> 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.
Fair enough — seeing as we are comparing the Chicago Police Department with the New Zealand Armed Forces, it makes sense to include figures for New Zealand’s Police and Chicago’s Armed Forces — so that we have an apples-to-apples comparison.
The New Zealand Police have approx 8,400 sworn officers and a further 2,900 unsworn employees. On a per-capita basis it is the second-smallest police force in the OECD (after Finland) but at approx 11,000 members it isn’t wildly out-of-line with Chicago’s 15,000 member police force.
Chicago does not support an Armed Forces capability of their own, whereas New Zealand supports a force of about 9,000.
Therefore, my original point holds: New Zealand can afford approximately what the City of Chicago could afford. In fact, based on the numbers we support substantially more.
> Canada can afford to do that because the US is providing them with the security umbrella.
You mean NORAD? Canada has always paid its share of NORAD.
> 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.
So far that has yet to be proven. It might have worked in Iraq — indications are certainly hopeful in that regard.
Can you name anywhere else that this has worked? It didn’t work in Vietnam. It hasn’t yet worked in Afghanistan — although that is the intention. It certainly didn’t work in Cuba.
How much does it cost, in real dollar terms, to kill one terrorist/guerilla/irregular combatant?
How much does it cost, in real dollar terms, for our enemy to kill one of our soldiers?
I have no hard figures to answer those two questions with, but I would be truly stunned if the former weren’t several orders of magnitude greater than the latter. Which leads to your next question:
> Please describe what “warfare model” you are talking about.
It comprises several features (I may miss a couple — it’s 4:45 AM and I need some sleep):
1) fighting an asymmetrical war with no prospect of converting it into a symmetrical one
2) observing self-imposed rules that work against your war effort
3) having a populace that is not engaged in the war effort
4) having media undermining your war effort
5) upholding constitutional and human rights to the determent of the war effort
If you reflect thru these five branches to your war model, I’m sure you could think thru a few expensive examples for each. I sure can.
#4, for example. Common sense would say that the Office of the Censor should be at work, and that CNN should only be broadcasting what the censor says they can broadcast. That is how things worked in WW-II, and that was what was necessary to win.
#5, two examples come to mind: racial profiling and GITMO, renditioning and waterboards. Should there really be any question that all of these things are necessary during a time of war?
#1, one example amongst many. How much use is an aircraft carrier in an asymmetrical war? It’s handy, sure. But it’s also jolly expensive to run. Even if it isn’t actively involved in killing any terrorists, even if it is parked in San Diego, it is adding to the costs of your asymmetrical war. Tanks same-same. Helicopters same-same. The enemy isn’t using any of these, and thus not incurring these costs...
I could go on, but I’m getting dozy.
Check ya later!
*DieHard*
It is a ridiculous comparison, i.e., a city versus a sovereign country. The city of Chicago isn't responsible for the national defense and our sovereignty. Your point is nonsense.
You mean NORAD? Canada has always paid its share of NORAD.
LOL. No, I mean the "security umbrella" that the US provides as the world's lone superpower. We spend billions on nuclear weapons for example. Under NATO and article 5, an attack against one member is an attack against all. The US provides security in many ways.
Can you name anywhere else that this has worked? It didn’t work in Vietnam. It hasn’t yet worked in Afghanistan — although that is the intention. It certainly didn’t work in Cuba.
Malaya, Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Philippines, and others.
#4, for example. Common sense would say that the Office of the Censor should be at work, and that CNN should only be broadcasting what the censor says they can broadcast. That is how things worked in WW-II, and that was what was necessary to win.
You obviously don't have a clue about America and our system of government or the extant political forces that have a stake in defeat. The media in the US and the UK for that matter are not going to be restrained unless there is a consensus that there is indeed a war that threatens our survival. In fact, Obama has eliminated much of the language that connotes that there is indeed a war going on. There is no longer a War on Terror nor are there terrorists. We are back to treating militant Islamic fundamentalism as a criminal matter to be handled in the courts.
#5, two examples come to mind: racial profiling and GITMO, renditioning and waterboards. Should there really be any question that all of these things are necessary during a time of war?
There has been. That is the reality. Logic and facts are not germane.
#1, one example amongst many. How much use is an aircraft carrier in an asymmetrical war? It’s handy, sure. But it’s also jolly expensive to run. Even if it isn’t actively involved in killing any terrorists, even if it is parked in San Diego, it is adding to the costs of your asymmetrical war. Tanks same-same. Helicopters same-same. The enemy isn’t using any of these, and thus not incurring these costs...
Aircraft carriers are one of the reasons that the US is the only country in the world that can project its power globally. They can support both conventional and asymmetrical warfare. Helicopters give us an advantage over the guerrillas and terrorists by providing mobility and fire power along with evacuating our wounded. They destroy the enemy and save lives. I suggest you go to Youtube go see how effective they really are in combat.