Category Archives: defense policy

“Tit-for-tat”

Posted on by
Reply

Commenting on tit-for-tat, former People’s Republic of China People’s Bank of China Governor Yi Gang offered this at an economic forum in Tokyo last December:

Tit-for-tat trade retaliation [he said] is “never a good choice” from an economic perspective…. “But there’s not much policymakers can do about that.”

He’s right on the first of that, but tit-for-tat is a terrible tactic in any venue, economic, military, political or other. The far better move, the only serious move, is to retaliate through escalation, escalating far higher and far faster than the enemy can adapt and respond. And keep on with that until the enemy adjusts his ways in manners suitable to us.

Yi is mistaken, though, in his claim that policymakers can’t do much. Of course, they can: they’re the ones who push the tit-for-tat retaliations and who should push escalatory retaliations.

An American general once said about getting into a fight: “Bring a gun, and bring all your friends with guns.” Use overwhelming force—economic, political, military, whathaveyou—to end the conflict the most quickly and the most favorably to you. Not a fair fight? Irrelevant. What’s not fair is losing the fight and having our national, economic, international behaviors dictated to us by the winner of that fight.

It’s time to get off the dime and move, promptly and at pace, to cut all economic ties with the PRC, whose stated goal is to overwhelm, replace, and dominate us. The PRC has already made its opening moves, cutting us off from the rare earths we need to manufacture our national defense systems, from weapons to computers, and flooding Mexican cartels with the precursors of fentanyl for the latter to produce and ship into the US along with mixing into what used to be legitimate medicines produced in Mexico.

It’s time to stop selling rope to the PRC.

Why So Slow?

Posted on by
Reply

The  International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran hasn’t been cooperating with inspection efforts and that it has continued to greatly enrich uranium, increasing its stockpile of 60%-enriched uranium to 408.6 kilograms from 274.8 kilograms in early February. That’s enough to produce 10 nuclear warheads. That compares with my estimate of the number of nuclear bombs that, if used and they worked, would destroy Israel as a nation and as a people: 4-5.

It would take only two weeks to enrich those ~400kg to the 90% purity needed to make a nuclear warhead.

The slowness problem as I see it:

The IAEA has said it can’t verify that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

And

The report is an important steppingstone in the European powers threat to reimpose the sanctions lifted from Iran under the 2015 nuclear deal.
…
European diplomats have said if Iran failed to cooperate with the agency, they would follow up Saturday’s report with a push to declare Iran in noncompliance with its obligations as a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. …
A noncompliance resolution could be voted on at the coming meeting of the IAEA board of member states, which starts June 9.

And this bit of unconscionable dithering:

European officials have said they will decide by the summer whether to press ahead with the so-called snapback of sanctions on Iran at the UN Security Council, if Tehran doesn’t start to fully cooperate with the nuclear probe. The option of reimposing the sanctions expires in October under the 2015 agreement.

9 June is a week off—half the time Iran would need to produce nuclear warheads. Then the European government men and women will dither and hem and haw through the summer before they think about taking action—and that predicated on whether Iran merely begins to cooperate. Then these Wonders would go argue the matter at the UN, knowing full well that the Security Council doesn’t have the votes among the veto-capable members. And: even were sanctions snapped back via a miraculous Security Council decision, it would take days to weeks to implement them, and it would take months for them to start to interfere with the Iranian economy—while never reaching the impact level necessary actually to stop enrichment and production.

Keep in mind these two things, also: the Iranian government men have sworn to destroy—exterminate—Israel, and those government men care not a single dinar about their own people; sanctions won’t be a practical impediment.

Time is nearly up. Iran needs to receive a kinetic elimination of its nuclear weapons development program, and it needs to receive it promptly.

More Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s in a letter to the Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section by Isaiah Wilson (USA Col, Ret):

Understanding social dynamics in combat, including race and identity, is necessary for effective leadership and unit cohesion.

The problem with this claim is that in combat, logistics, maintenance, any other support function and in training for these, race is irrelevant, and identity is strictly and solely American. Subdividing our American military members, as it does in civilian life, only divides those members from each other, thereby creating…division, and that works disastrously against preparation and against execution.

Then Isaiah compounded his error.

Perhaps the reason America has struggled in combat is that we have underestimated the role of identity-centered understanding in military operations.

To the extent our military has struggled in combat, there has been too much emphasis on identity-centered understanding and the intrinsically racist and sexist divisions that emphasis creates. For all that, though, our military has not struggled in combat all that much. Our political leadership, though, has struggled mightily with combat, and that has gone to our detriment in nearly every conflict we’ve fought since WWII.

Keep the social justice claptrap out of the foxhole and out of our military in general, and return the training and operational focuses to producing the most lethal soldiers and the most lethal military establishment in the world.

There’s a Hint There

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s (R) National Security Council is being reorganized and downsized streamlined in a badly needed revamp. One demonstrated need is this:

The goal, according to one official, is to streamline processes within the NSC, which coordinates national security and foreign policy for the president….

This is a continuation of Fiona Hill’s (remember her?) anger over her ad hoc interagency coordination group foreign policy inputs not being obeyed by Trump I. It’s not the NSC’s job—or it should not be—to coordinate national security and foreign policy for the President. It’s the NSC’s job—or it should be—to coordinate national security and foreign policy inputs to the President’s own national security and foreign policy development and decisions.

The move is intended to increase DoD’s and State’s direct involvement in those inputs, and that’s entirely appropriate. Homeland Security’s inputs should be increased, as well, given that that Department was created long after the NSC. The three departments, too, already form—or should form—the core of all of those policy development inputs.

Rome Said to Carthage

Posted on by
Reply

Rome Said to Carthage

“You don’t need those weapons,” in prelude to the Third Punic War, which ended in the complete destruction of Carthage.

The People’s Republic of China objects to the US’ Golden Dome plans, a defense system in orbit, among other places, that would defend our nation against missile attack from any direction and from any source or launch site. PRC Foreign Minister Mao Ning gaslights that Golden Dome has a

strong offensive nature and violates the principle of peaceful use in the Outer Space Treaty[.]

He neglects to mention, though, the PRC’s overt military threats against the Republic of China and each of the nations rimming the South China Sea. Those threats, too, come against the backdrop of the PRC’s massive and rapid buildup of the PLA[1], a buildup that consists exclusively of offensive weapons. That buildup has achieved, so far,

  • four million men under arms
  • world’s largest navy
  • world’s largest coast guard
  • world’s largest naval militia
  • huge fishing fleet whose ships are designed for rapid arming
  • world’s largest submarine fleet
  • third largest, second most advanced (and steadily growing and improving) air force
  • arsenal of ballistic anti-ship missiles
  • nuclear capable theater ballistic missiles
  • large, growing ICBM fleet
  • global reach hypersonic missiles that when fully deployed will give it first strike capability
  • stated willingness to use its “ordinary” nuclear ICBMs in a first strike without concern for the destruction it would absorb from return strikes
    • Mao Zedong: “What if they killed 300 million of us? We would still have many people left.” That promise remains unretracted

Now, Beijing is saying to us, “You don’t need those weapons.”

[1] Cotton, Tom, Seven Things You Can’t Say About China