Category Archives: defense policy

Any Excuse To Not Participate

Posted on by
Reply

On the matter of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, we get this from Europe’s government men and women:

Naval escorts for tankers through such a narrow waterway in a war zone would be nearly impossible, say allied officials and military experts. Reopening the strait would more likely come after a cease-fire and through international pressure on Iran, they say.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron made the claim explicit:

“It would take forever and would expose all those crossing the strait to risks” of Iranian attack[.]

Never mind the far greater risks to Europe’s (and Asia’s) economies from letting Iran keep the Strait closed while the chattering classes of politicians yap and arf with Iran’s surviving mullahs.

UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper:

Iran is trying to hold the global economy hostage in the Strait of Hormuz[.]

NSS. But, international pressure? Who will feel that the most? The short answer is Europe and Asia. Iran has already named its terms: pay us a toll and stop supporting the US in any way, and your ships may pass. Tribute by any name….

Stalin’s question regarding the Pope has relevance today, rephrased by me: how many ships do Europe’s navies have? Embarrassingly for those nations’ governing men and women, the answer is virtually none. Farzin Nadimi, Washington Institute Senior Fellow, on the matter of dealing with Iran’s small fast attack boats blocking the Strait:

Such vessels can largely be deterred by the US dominant air power, but “European powers will not be able, and probably not willing, to replace that capability[.]”

This sort of…shortfall…both in physical capability and mental toughness is the result of those governments’ conscious decisions, through generations of governments, to not bother with their own defense establishments and instead to freeload off rely on American defenses, blood, and treasure.

Now they’re hiding from that simple fact and bleating that military action won’t open the Strait. Which of course is true enough absent American participation. Those nations don’t have any military establishment worthy of the name, much less one capable of the task of reopening and holding open the Strait so the oil and natural gas they need far more than we do can flow freely and without humiliating tribute paid Iran.

On Trump’s Budget Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has submitted his budget proposal for the next year to Congress, and on its surface, it does little to address the current large budget deficit and its attendant borrowing on top of the current national debt. It does, though, seriously plus up defense spending, with its request for $1.5 trillion for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

There are a couple of ways to think about that. One is to deal with the threat to our economy, and so to our national security, of that burgeoning debt resulting from the continuing large deficit by raising taxes (as Progressive-Democratic Party politicians demand to do, especially on those Americans of whom they so vociferously disapprove) or by cutting spending (as budget hawks in the Republican Party demand to do).

Raising taxes, though, hurts all of us, not just those Evil Rich. Taking money away from the folks who make it and put it to gainful use reduces private economy investment and innovation—things us citizens do far better than even the most well-meaning government ever can—and that drop negatively impacts business competitiveness, expansion, and jobs, each of which hurts all Americans who are not part of the Evil Rich cohort.

Cutting government spending, on the other hand, always is a very good way to help our economy since it takes government competition for resources and more direct inputs to production out of the competition among businesses for those same factors, which puts downward pressure on prices that both businesses and consumers face. The cuts do, though, reallocate lots of jobs away from politicians’ districts and toward more efficient locations for the work, with efficiency defined by the businesses themselves rather than government politicians.

The other way to think about the budget with its deficit and attendant borrowing is articulated quite clearly by Trump:

We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.

Indeed. We can’t protect our economy and its health, much less reduce deficits and borrowings, if we can’t defend our nation and instead have our futures dictated to us by our enemies—as the People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping has committed himself to doing.

The answer writes itself, as anyone to the right of the Progressive-Democratic Party can see: plus up our defense spending, cut Federal spending everywhere else, and either cut taxes further or at least leave them alone.

When is a Strategic Strength a Strategic Vulnerability?

Posted on by
Reply

The lede laid out the misconception:

The oil states of the Persian Gulf have made great strides to diversify their economies in recent years, but they have also created a new vulnerability: more strategic targets for Iran to hit.

More targets to hit? Sure. But attacking them dilutes and dissipates any ability to attack a choke point in any economy, to seriously degrade or to destroy a Critical Item in an economy. Indeed, by diversifying, an economy’s single or a couple of Critical Items are eliminated, and what replaces them are a larger number of Important Components to that economy.

But that number protects the economy as a whole, and so strengthens the targeted nation: it will suffer economic losses, but it has become much harder to shut down.

When is a strategic strength a strategic vulnerability? Not this time.

A False Perception

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been over this before, but it bears repeating in light of President Trump’s (R) and SecState Marco Rubio’s contemplating the US leaving NATO altogether. The misperception is this:

The alliance’s lifeblood is its deterrent credibility: the perception by potential adversaries that attacking a NATO member would likely trigger a war with the full alliance, including the US.

As the news writer noted a bit later in his paragraph, though, this is a chimera, one that I claim is dangerous by its existence.

The alliance’s political promise to defend its members goes beyond the flexible wording of its famous Article 5, which says that each country in NATO would help a member that is attacked by taking “such action as it deems necessary.”

The relevant part of Article V is this:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence…will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

“Such action” includes—but does not require—a military response.

Congress passed, in 2023 under the Biden administration, a law requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate agreeing before the US could withdraw from NATO. The law has questionable constitutionality, interfering as it does with the President’s constitutional Article II role as our nation’s Chief Executive and our military’s Commander-in-Chief. This question is easily sidestepped, though, simply by adhering to the flexible wording of the NATO treaty’s Article V and declining to commit American military to a fight, confining our response, instead, to diplomatic words of demurral regarding an attack on other members.

Iran’s Nuclear “Dust”

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has repeatedly stated that one of the three goals for our war against Iran is the permanent destruction of Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons. A critical part of that is for Iran to turn over all of its accumulated enriched uranium, some of which is enriched to 60% of what is needed for weapons grade purity. In conjunction with that, Trump is contemplating sending ground forces in to forcibly seize that enriched uranium.

Iran’s enriched uranium is reported to be stored in propane cylinder-sized containers and that those containers are in just a couple of sites, both of which the US Air Force so devastatingly hammered last summer. Which raises a couple of thoughts in my mind.

Stipulate, arguendo, that our ground forces can get in and out in the few days it would take to penetrate those two sites (whose physical accesses have been closed to some depth by those bombing attacks) with no or minimal casualties.

What is the quality, really, of the intel that says that uranium remains in only those two sites? Iran had, after all, more than a few days heads up that the attacks were coming, during which those containers could have been removed and disbursed among a number of new storage sites?

In conjunction with that, what intel do we have regarding the possibility that, having removed those cylinders in advance, the enriched uranium hasn’t been further disbursed among a number of smaller containers—expensive as that might be and cumbersome in handling that might make the “dust?”

Finally, having penetrated those two storage sites, what planning has been devoted to a) collecting further intel regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons development that would still be present in the form of equipment types and research and production documents, and b) setting the relevant explosives to further collapse altogether those remaining chambers? What planning has been devoted to, on the way back out of those sites, (re)collapsing those entry tunnels and doing so to a much greater depth than those earlier bombs had achieved?