Connect with us

US army

In half a century, record time by historical standards, the United States militarily dominated the world. In the decades which followed the birth of the new world order, America sought to secure this domination, using the same trick which had panned out for them during World War 2: converting their unrivaled economic power into military might. But the strategy seems to have backfired, due to lack of strategic insight, and the United States Army is now realizing that several armies dispose of better equipment than they do.

The United States came to par on fighter planes during world war two, when it managed to fight Messerschmitts and Zeros on a rather level field. Just after the war, prop fighters were quickly replaced with jets, and thus started the generations. Nowadays, poor countries have no air force, developing countries have third-generation fighters (such as Saab 37 Viggens, Migs 21 to 25 and Sukhois 15 to 17). 4th generation jets replaced them in the 1980s, with new characteristics ranging from long-range engagement (destroying an enemy beyond visual range with missiles), super-cruise (maintaining supersonic flight without afterburners), low-radar signature and computerized avionics. These jets, namely F-14 to 18, Typhoon, Rafale, equip the air forces of all developed countries, save one. The United States used their formidable military funding to leap into the 5th generation, where they stand alone, with the F-22 and the F-35. The gist was to cram all jets into one, able to perform all missions, from ground attack to air interception, and from reconnaissance to electronic warfare. After a bottomless pit of investment (unit cost soared during development and reached over twice its initial price of 75 million dollars per aircraft, totaling a 400-billion-dollar operation) and many years of production lag, the F-35, during a mock-fight against a 4th generation F-16 (30 years older), was unable to intercept the decoy, for lack of turning radius. Which is more: many retrofitted or upgraded 4th generation planes have similar performance, and have cost their owning countries a fraction of the bill. Now, one may say that money is no issue to the bottomless American wallet, but it is known to many that equipment too expensive to be maintained tends… not to be maintained. General Patton, for example, was lucky enough to have been born in wealth, which enabled him to buy the spare parts for his tanks, on his own funds. An eventually inevitable slump in the economy will paralyze any high-maintenance air force.

Americans made the same mistake regarding land vehicles: too much, too expensive, too rigid and without much point. The same US Army was able to defeat hardened enemies using nothing but equivalent equipment, tactics and fortitude in France, Germany, the Pacific, Vietnam, Korea – Iraq being left aside, as the army was ill-prepared, ill-equipped and already disbanding when the Americans invaded. The Future Combat Systems programs intended to replace every vehicle in the army with a newer generation, introducing unmanned vehicles in the battlefield for the first time. A closer look at the artillery section of this program is interesting. The current Paladin self-propelled howitzers (M109s, in all its different variants) is at par with all other equivalent cannons in the developed world, in the sense that it holds the same crucial characteristics. Among those: low deployment time, ability to switch types of shells rapidly, and the so-called “Mercy system” (MRSI – Multiple rounds, simultaneous impact) as well, of course, as standardized ammunition. But having rigged the vehicle with all sort of additional high-tech equipment made it unreliable, to the extent that several NATO partners which had purchased the Paladin quickly phased them out for alternative, more battle-proven and reliable alternatives. It isn’t so much that the Paladin isn’t properly designed (though it has its technical issues), it’s that it was designed to fight something which is nowhere to be found (a large conventional enemy) and not the current enemy. High-tech, but fragile and inflexible, and therefore ill-adapted to the needs of the army.

The Nexter Caesar artillery system makes a good comparison point. The truck-mounted 155-mm cannon was deployed in Afghanistan, where artillery fire must cover immense areas (in a rather conventional way), and in Mali where innovating use was made of it, in a way that intrigued generals around the world. The Caesar was used where it was expected the least, in combat facing armed insurgents in small mobile teams. It performed highly in offensive actions, thanks to its extreme deployment speed (high on-road and off-road velocity, and below three minutes to deploy the cannon) and provided high protection, both with armored cabins and with its scrambling speed which protects it from counter-battery fire. The now-combat-proven Caesar therefore proved a dogged threat to infantry-type insurgent formations, while being protected from them. At the same time, it remained immune to artillery fire, which insurgents did possess but were unable to use effectively, for lack of pinpointing French howitzers.

While proper and adequate funding is essential, pouring money onto the battlefield isn’t the solution to everything. Extravagantly sophisticated weapons systems have proven, prove and will prove unreliable on the battlefield, and they run a fair chance is missing the war. The United States is shipshape to fight the cold war which ended 20 years ago, but unable to prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only rugged and flexible material will pass the test of fire to become battle-proven enough to bring countries to commit to it long-lastingly. While 5th generation fighter sales are either lagging or blocked by Congress, 4th generation sales are healthy and picking up. And while countries are, one by one, decommissioning the Paladins, the Caesar sales are on the rise, with Thailand, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia already in the club, and Vietnam soon to join in. In the last case, Dô Ba Ty, Vietnamese Army Chief of Staff, recently express strong interest for Caesar systems, in the context of rising tensions with neighboring countries and especially China. Something to watch out for, over the next while.

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading
Comments

Opinion

Yes, You Should Start Caring About Politics!

Published

on

One of the most common things that you hear from people a lot of the time is something along the lines of “I just don’t really care about politics.” In fact, you might have even said something along those lines yourself. And it can be tempting to fall into this line of thinking. After all, politics are hardly the most exciting or exotic things in the world. However, the truth is that they impact your life in different ways every single day and if you choose to ignore politics, then that just meant that you’re going to end up falling victim to policies that harm you and the people around you. With that in mind, here are some ways that you can start being more politically minded right now.

Know the issues

Do you know where you stand on many of the most important issues of the modern day? Do you know what most of those issues are? The truth is that many people would rather ignore a lot of the problems that society and the world at large face simply because it can feel as though they’re too big to deal with. Things like the economy, climate change, and social justice aren’t just abstract concepts; they’re things that impact the lives of real people every single day. Being more informed about the issues will allow you to have a much better understanding of your own political views.

Know who to speak to

Do you know who your senator is? Your representative? Most people tend to only know major politicians who have held office at one point or another. Sure, you probably know the president or a senator like John Mccain. But what about all of the other senators like Doug Jones or Mike Crapo? These are the people you can actually contact if you want to start making some changes in the world. Getting to know who you can contact can help you feel much more involved in the modern political process.

Forget about personalities and focus on policies

Modern politics has become as much of a game of personalities as anything else. But the truth is that the personalities of individual politicians are far less important than the policies that they and their party want to enact. After all, the policies are the things that will actually make a difference in people’s lives. You should never vote just because you like or dislike the way that a particular politician talks or what their personality seems to be like. Always vote on policies, not personalities.

Now, this doesn’t mean that you should suddenly let politics take over every conversation that you have or that you need to be constantly thinking about it. But trying to bury your head in the sand and ignore the things that are going on around you isn’t going to do you any good. The only way that you can start to make some genuine changes in the world is if you face up to the realities of the modern world and try to do something about it.

Prev postNext post
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading

Opinion

How Mafia-States Get Away with Criminality

Published

on

In theory, all 195 states adhere to the Charter of the United Nations and therefore pledge “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”. In other words, to play the game and adhere to basic governmental principles. That’s in theory: in practice, a handful of states in the world behave like mafias, and get away with it.

President George W. Bush first used the terms “failed states” or “rogue states”, during his office. Rogue states seem more adapted because, if they are failed states in the sense that they do not carry out their mission, they are not failed for everyone. Afghanistan is, still today, one of the most prominent examples of how to get personally rich by pretending to represent people. In the wake of the NATO intervention in Afghanistan, billions of dollars were poured into the country in reconstruction efforts, based on the belief that if the population was schooled and busy at work, they would be less likely to join rebel ranks. The idea was good, but most of the massive funds were sidetracked to line officials’ pockets and Afghanistan is pretty much in the same shape as it was before the program, if not worse. Business Insider covered the subject (1): “All districts receive central government budget to cover salaries of front-line forces,” reporter Jessica Purkiss wrote for the Bureau. “In many areas in Afghanistan, some of this budget disappears and the actual number of officers tasked with holding back the Taliban is much lower than the number actually allotted.”

And such rogue states also exist close to the Western sphere of Europe and the US. Almost every single State in Central and South America is at the warning level on the Fragile State Index (2) (the term was brushed up to sound less definitively damning than President Bush’s wording). Hungary was bashed this year, along with the rest of EU low-performers, for dropping sharply in the EU’s good governance ranking, as reported by Nicolaj Nielsen, for the EU observer (3): “Bulgaria scored the worst among EU states with 41, followed by Greece (44), Italy (47), Romania (48), Hungary (48), and Croatia (49). Dolan faulted the crackdown on civil society and other independent institutions in Croatia and Hungary for their worsening performance. Both governments were also embroiled in scandals last year. In one case, Hungary’s government allegedly funneled money from the Central Bank to friends and family.” Prime Minister Viktor Orbán learned from the report (4) that “Hungary loses 200 billion forints every year due to the corruption that exists in public procurement cases.”

Not to forget that States are not all mutually recognized and accepted, some of them are self-proclaimed. While some do indeed strive to carry out their stated mission and serve the people they claim to represent, some other are merely mafia groups with a political cover, which deal in various traffics and racketeering. Bordering Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania, lies Western Sahara, where a group named the Polisario Front announced to the world that it was the shield of the Sahrawi people, who originate from the arid strip of land, with the stated intent of creating a sovereign state. But that must be put into perspective with the endless list of allegations and accusations carried against it, regarding the Polisario’s management of refugee camps in Algeria for example. The self-proclaimed government of the Sahrawi – namely the SADR (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) – is known for keeping the refugees captive in the camps, or keeping family members as hostage to guarantee men’s returns, maintaining a general state of violence and lawlessness within the compound. In addition, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has serious doubts (5) as to what becomes of the humanitarian aid it sends. It suspects not only the food to be sidetracked and sold on the black market, but also to be requested in excessive numbers – the Polisario front claims it holds up to 200 000 refugees but has systematically refused census, leading humanitarian donors to believe the figures are doubtful.

Can this be avoided? Hardly, at the general level. Pablo Escobar coined the phrase which underlies the entire system : Plata o plomo (silver or lead). Officials could be paid off to keep silent and play along, or be shot. Therefore, it is in the nature of corruption systems to maintain themselves because, should a “pure” official arise, he will be removed and replaced by a more complacent one.

Mafia states use the cover of darkness or, better still, a politically activist stance. The Colombian FARCs – Polisario’s allies, incidentally… – and the Medellin Cartel, run by Pablo Escobar, had an intense PR activity with many “social and humanitarian” poses, to help improve their public image and stymie political push-backs. The Polisario Front has moved much of its assaults to the judicial level, in a new form of “civilized” piracy, including with the surprise attempt to seize a Moroccan shipload earlier this year in South Africa. “The conclusion of this case will actually tell us whether it is now conceivable, on the judiciary level, that international shipping industry – which carries 90% of global trade – become hostage to some form of unprecedented and increasingly vicious political piracy,” wrote Philippe Delebecque (6), a French judge specializing in maritime affairs.

Mafia states are here to stay, because the mafia creates the state, and not the other way around. Once the mafia has developed its tentacles and political power enough, it will make kings and topple uncooperative administrators. Other states in the world are fully aware of this fact, and that if they bust a mafia-state, another will replace it within weeks. So, in the best cases, neighboring countries let it be; in the worst cases, they get involved in the graft.

1) http://uk.businessinsider.com/afghan-national-security-forces-us-assistance-70-billion-2017-9
2) http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/
3) https://euobserver.com/political/136664
4) http://hungarianspectrum.org/2017/01/26/hungary-has-been-steadily-becoming-more-corrupt/
5) http://www.eubulletin.com/4018-exclusive-olaf-report-reveals-diversions-of-eu-aids-to-western-sahara.html
6)https://seapiracy.einnews.com/article/406654813/_j2VsuC3itgcmo3C?lcf=YCp5Ip9ztVBQmLVnDO55vXzEICMe6RFJuBE3DVQzur8%3D

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading

Opinion

Should You Support Universal Basic Income? Who else is in favour?

Manak Suri

Published

on

In the previous article “Universal Basic Income: In Action” we explored that Universal Basic Income under different variants is already being put to trial in different provinces of a number of countries around the world. Before that, in “Universal Basic Income: The Idea” we weighed the potential of UBI in creating a monumental change in the way humanity as a society functions as of today. While there’s still quite some time required to ascertain how easily and efficiently the system can be put into effect and whether it should be put into place at all, some of the more apparent advantages, as well as flaws of the system, are repeatedly considered by experts in determining the answers to the aforementioned questions. In addition, many influential figures have also come out both in support of UBI as well as against it. Let’s take a look at the support UBI has garnered as well as the supposed benefits and criticisms of UBI.

Pros of Universal Basic Income

The first argument often cited in favour of UBI is for its potential to alleviate poverty, improve the standard of living and vastly reduce income inequality no matter which country it is implemented in. the Alaska Permanent Fund (AFP), which we’ve already discussed, was instrumental in improving the state’s income equality rank from 30 to 2. UBI trials in Namibia, Kenya, and parts of India have also yielded positive results in this regard. UBI has also resulted in the improvement of health, especially mental health, as reported by people who have been part of UBI trials in Ontario, Canada. UBI also encourages entrepreneurial behaviour since it guarantees basic subsistence thereby providing an incentive for people to take up a line of work of their liking. UBI trials in India and Namibia have also shown that it has helped promote financial decision making by women resulting in their empowerment. A guarantee of a fixed income every month also brings more power to people when it comes to deciding where they should spend money. The Roosevelt Institute research we discussed previously also suggests an overall growth in the US economy with a countrywide implementation of UBI. UBI is also expected to lead to a positive job growth and lower the dropout rates in schools since it provides more security to families.

Cons of Universal Basic Income

The critics of UBI argue that money that is essential for the poor is being redirected towards the wealthy and those citizens who have no need for it. Robert Greenstein, founder and President of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington D.C.  “if you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.” In addition to that, it is often argued that UBI programs are highly ineffective when compared to welfare programs that are implemented on targeted populations. Therefore, unless UBI is implemented without the scrapping off of such welfare schemes, it is likely to find opposition from a huge number of people who currently benefit from these programs. Another argument against UBI one may repeatedly encounter is that UBI reduces the incentive to work, which leads to huge costs for the economy. This may also lead to a dearth of skilled and unskilled labour in the economy. The Swiss government have opposed the implementation of UBI for the very same reason, fearing that the current labour shortages may be exacerbated. Finally, an argument that also holds the door open for many debates is that UBI is too expensive to implement and will cost a lot to the government. As opposed to studies which show a growth in the economies through the implementation of UBI, many economists have also opposed it, claiming that UBI in the more developed nations will be very expensive to guarantee an acceptable standard of living to all the citizens.

Who Supports Universal Basic Income?

Since the idea was first proposed by Sir Thomas More in 1516, UBI has found suitors throughout recent history. Founding father of the United States Thomas Paine was in favour of it, philosopher and Nobel Laureate Bertrand Russell argued in its favour, and even Martin Luther King said: “the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.” American economist Milton Friedman, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and even former US President Richard Nixon came close to bringing UBI to the United States. As of today, a number of high profile names in the Silicon Valley have expressed their support for UBI. An advocate of entrepreneurship and creativity, Mark Zuckerberg sighted UBI as an worth a look in his statement at his Harvard commencement address: “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.” Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk believes implementation of UBI is inevitable. “There’s a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation,” Musk said in an interview in 2016. Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay also donated towards a UBI experiment in Kenya. Coursera founder Andrew Ng expressed on Twitter: “More than ever, we need a basic income to limit everyone’s downside, and better education to give everyone an upside.” The list does not stop here.

UBI has at least gained enough attention to get people, investors, world leaders, and governments to talk about it and more importantly experiment with it. The results are not yet out and will take a considerable amount of time still to be able to present a final verdict on UBI and its effectiveness. However, as robots make humans redundant in recurring waves, is there still enough time to just be experimenting?

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading

Trending