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.
> 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.
Greater Chicago has about 4 million people. New Zealand has about 4 million people. In both cases, some produce wealth and some bludge. Pool the money together in both cases, and they’d both probably generate comparable amounts of wealth.
New Zealand can afford about the same amount of expenditure, all told, as Chicago. Our purses are about the same size.
The comparison is valid. In fact, in this case, it is brilliant. If Chicago had to kit out a military presence, how much could it afford, given its other commitments? Probably the same amount as New Zealand can afford.
Would Chicago be able to afford an aircraft carrier? Not in a million years. Neither can New Zealand.
How about some ICBMs? Can Chicago afford a few of those? Nope — didn’t think so. Well, neither can New Zealand.
Can Chicago afford an elite force? Of course: that would be a good spend. That’s what New Zealand has with the NZSAS.
How many tanks can Chicago afford, given its other commitments? Maybe a few, but they’d get better bang-for-buck spending on other vehicles instead. Ditto New Zealand.
> Malaya, Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Philippines, and others.
Malaya remains a very unpleasant place. Northern Ireland’s troubles are far from over, notwithstanding the ceasefire. Philippines continues to have troubles with the Moros and militant muslims. None of your examples are brilliant cases of winning hearts-and-minds.
> 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.
You’d be surprised. I have a very good clue about America (having been born and raised in Canada and having traveled extensively thru most of the lower 48 plus Hawaii). It’s entirely possible that I am as well informed about America as you are.
> We are back to treating militant Islamic fundamentalism as a criminal matter to be handled in the courts.
That’s a Helluva way to win a war. And an excellent illustration of my point: your warmaking model is gimped.
> They destroy the enemy and save lives. I suggest you go to Youtube go see how effective they really are in combat.
How well they work is not the point: how much they cost is.
Get out your slide rule and calculate the cost of one of those helicopters, then distribute it over the number of enemies it is likely to kill over its useful life. The result is the cost/enemy killed.
Compare and contrast with the cost our enemy is likely to incur to kill one of our soldiers.
The helicopter is bound to be a very expensive option by way of comparison. Ditto the aircraft carrier. By orders of magnitude.