Body armor is expensive
Everything in life is interconnected. Leaders and policymakers can't really make decisions based purely on the costs of individual items that are part of a larger chain, because there are many factors that affect results, oftentimes unexpectedly.
Body armor for a soldier certainly isn't "cheap", but it also isn't all that expensive, strictly in terms of how much it costs to purchase and maintain a set. So why do I say body armor is expensive?
Here's an interesting statistic: at the beginning of World War I, the standard British infantry uniform included a cloth cap. After the military began issuing helmets to infantry, they noticed that the number of head injuries increased significantly.
Why is this? Did the helmets cause more injuries to occur?
Well, not exactly. In actuality, before helmets, if a soldier was hit in the head by shrapnel, it would kill him. But with a helmet, the shrapnel now had a higher chance of injuring the soldier rather than killing him. So because more soldiers were surviving, there was increased injuries - but fewer deaths.
Obviously, this is a good thing. But economically speaking, it's much cheaper for the taxpayer if a 20-year old soldier is killed on the battlefield, compared to if he gets his legs blown off, survives, and needs special medical assistance and disability pay for 60 years. So body armor and improved emergency military first-aid can help increase the effectiveness of a military on the battlefield. But long-term, it increases the medical costs to be borne by the country. Everyone knows war is expensive, but most people don't realize that it's even more ridiculously expensive than you think.
As most of the world has enjoyed an unprecedented level of peace for the past few decades, and as such we have grown increasingly risk-averse. This in of itself isn't a bad thing. Life is indeed precious, and not to be risked nonchalantly. In democracies, political leaders have to take into account public opinion when making decisions (assuming the public does its job of paying attention and voting out abhorrent behavior, of course). In a democracy, an objectively "good" and "correct" action may be deemed politically unpalatable if there is too much societal opposition, and thus not implemented. On the other hand, a dictatorship can afford to undertake politically unpopular action, at least to a greater extent.
Elections in the U.S. tend to be popularity contests, as opposed to policy. I'm not saying policy doesn't matter - but overwhelmingly, it's clear that people really base their votes on personality, not policy. Looking purely at policy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were actually largely similar, for the most part. But Obama got two terms as President, whereas the country decided that a narcissistic con-man was better than Clinton.
This is arguably one reason why usage of military drones has increased dramatically over the past decade. Part of it is a maturation of technology, making drones more feasible for regular usage than before. In the past, if you wanted 24-hour surveillance on an adversary's military base, you might need to fly spy planes over the area, or send in a small team with binoculars to visually watch the area and report what they see. Now, a drone might not be as effective as some of the other methods. Maybe the bird's-eye view from above isn't detailed enough, and a person on the ground can provide some more much-needed detail. But importantly, voters don't really care if a drone is shot down. They will care if a hundred million dollar spy plane is shot down, or a team of soldiers is captured and executed in the streets.
When the public believes reducing casualties and risk is more important than effectively completing missions, leaders respond accordingly. Now, I'm not saying that we should just give leaders carte blanche to just do whatever they want in the name of "national security". But I do believe if you're going to war, it better be for a damn good reason, and not a cause that isn't worth the sacrifice.
Right now, it's very clear that America doesn't give a shit about the world, and certainly isn't going to be sacrificing its soldiers on your behalf unless it feels damn good about the decision. Body armor is expensive, and taxpayers are growing fed up with the true cost of war.
Where am I going with this? Well, Taiwan recently purchased 18 Mk48 Torpedoes from the United States, for 10 million USD each. First of all, let me note that while they are certainly expensive, 10 million USD is actually a pretty reasonable price for the Mk48. That's just the market rate for an effective, state-of-the-art torpedo.
Understandably, many people looked at the price and balked. At a certain level, I get it. Hell, when a single torpedo costs more money than I'll ever make in my lifetime, you'd better believe I want to make sure they're worth the price to Taiwan's taxpayers! But you know what? Even *if* the torpedoes were indeed "overpriced" and thus actually "protection money" to Uncle Sam, paying up to "extortion" might still be a smart political move.
The fact of the matter is, Taiwan ultimately relies upon the U.S. Navy to save our asses if China decides to invade. And make no mistake - thousands of American soldiers will die. China has devoted its rapidly increasing military budget specifically to this task, and while it isn't a match for the United States yet and would likely lose the war, it is undoubtedly capable of dishing out a lot of damage. If America defeats China at sea and wins the war, yet loses even a single aircraft carrier, the President could easily be voted out of office anyway, because the American public might think losing a 10 billion dollar carrier, its 5 billion dollar air wing, and 6000 personnel on behalf of a small island off the coast of China isn't worth it. It probably isn't news to anyone that America has grown increasingly "selfish" over the past few years, and a "America first" policy has very uncomfortable policy implications for Taiwan.
Therefore, any American leader that decides to go to war with China to protect Taiwan needs to be damn sure this is a politically popular move, because of the high human cost. It's quite possible that domestic American opinion in favor of protecting Taiwan would need to be as high as 80% for a President to feel politically safe to make such a decision.
So yeah, I'm saying that you're in favor of President Tsai's actions in standing up to China (which certainly takes courage!), do note that the success of this strategy relies upon the willingness of Americans to die for your cause. You'd better not be complaining about the high cost of weapons purchases. Hell yes you'd better open up Taiwan to American beef products. And no, you can't complain about it, because if the American public feels you're not "grateful", even a single soldier dying for you may be a step too far.
Is it humiliating? Sure. But everything has a cost. The cost of American protection from China is that we have to kiss Uncle Sam's ass. Is it worth Taiwan's continued independence? I personally believe so, but you might not. If so, then all I can say is you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Here's an interesting statistic: at the beginning of World War I, the standard British infantry uniform included a cloth cap. After the military began issuing helmets to infantry, they noticed that the number of head injuries increased significantly.
Why is this? Did the helmets cause more injuries to occur?
Well, not exactly. In actuality, before helmets, if a soldier was hit in the head by shrapnel, it would kill him. But with a helmet, the shrapnel now had a higher chance of injuring the soldier rather than killing him. So because more soldiers were surviving, there was increased injuries - but fewer deaths.
Obviously, this is a good thing. But economically speaking, it's much cheaper for the taxpayer if a 20-year old soldier is killed on the battlefield, compared to if he gets his legs blown off, survives, and needs special medical assistance and disability pay for 60 years. So body armor and improved emergency military first-aid can help increase the effectiveness of a military on the battlefield. But long-term, it increases the medical costs to be borne by the country. Everyone knows war is expensive, but most people don't realize that it's even more ridiculously expensive than you think.
As most of the world has enjoyed an unprecedented level of peace for the past few decades, and as such we have grown increasingly risk-averse. This in of itself isn't a bad thing. Life is indeed precious, and not to be risked nonchalantly. In democracies, political leaders have to take into account public opinion when making decisions (assuming the public does its job of paying attention and voting out abhorrent behavior, of course). In a democracy, an objectively "good" and "correct" action may be deemed politically unpalatable if there is too much societal opposition, and thus not implemented. On the other hand, a dictatorship can afford to undertake politically unpopular action, at least to a greater extent.
Elections in the U.S. tend to be popularity contests, as opposed to policy. I'm not saying policy doesn't matter - but overwhelmingly, it's clear that people really base their votes on personality, not policy. Looking purely at policy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were actually largely similar, for the most part. But Obama got two terms as President, whereas the country decided that a narcissistic con-man was better than Clinton.
This is arguably one reason why usage of military drones has increased dramatically over the past decade. Part of it is a maturation of technology, making drones more feasible for regular usage than before. In the past, if you wanted 24-hour surveillance on an adversary's military base, you might need to fly spy planes over the area, or send in a small team with binoculars to visually watch the area and report what they see. Now, a drone might not be as effective as some of the other methods. Maybe the bird's-eye view from above isn't detailed enough, and a person on the ground can provide some more much-needed detail. But importantly, voters don't really care if a drone is shot down. They will care if a hundred million dollar spy plane is shot down, or a team of soldiers is captured and executed in the streets.
When the public believes reducing casualties and risk is more important than effectively completing missions, leaders respond accordingly. Now, I'm not saying that we should just give leaders carte blanche to just do whatever they want in the name of "national security". But I do believe if you're going to war, it better be for a damn good reason, and not a cause that isn't worth the sacrifice.
Right now, it's very clear that America doesn't give a shit about the world, and certainly isn't going to be sacrificing its soldiers on your behalf unless it feels damn good about the decision. Body armor is expensive, and taxpayers are growing fed up with the true cost of war.
Where am I going with this? Well, Taiwan recently purchased 18 Mk48 Torpedoes from the United States, for 10 million USD each. First of all, let me note that while they are certainly expensive, 10 million USD is actually a pretty reasonable price for the Mk48. That's just the market rate for an effective, state-of-the-art torpedo.
Understandably, many people looked at the price and balked. At a certain level, I get it. Hell, when a single torpedo costs more money than I'll ever make in my lifetime, you'd better believe I want to make sure they're worth the price to Taiwan's taxpayers! But you know what? Even *if* the torpedoes were indeed "overpriced" and thus actually "protection money" to Uncle Sam, paying up to "extortion" might still be a smart political move.
The fact of the matter is, Taiwan ultimately relies upon the U.S. Navy to save our asses if China decides to invade. And make no mistake - thousands of American soldiers will die. China has devoted its rapidly increasing military budget specifically to this task, and while it isn't a match for the United States yet and would likely lose the war, it is undoubtedly capable of dishing out a lot of damage. If America defeats China at sea and wins the war, yet loses even a single aircraft carrier, the President could easily be voted out of office anyway, because the American public might think losing a 10 billion dollar carrier, its 5 billion dollar air wing, and 6000 personnel on behalf of a small island off the coast of China isn't worth it. It probably isn't news to anyone that America has grown increasingly "selfish" over the past few years, and a "America first" policy has very uncomfortable policy implications for Taiwan.
Therefore, any American leader that decides to go to war with China to protect Taiwan needs to be damn sure this is a politically popular move, because of the high human cost. It's quite possible that domestic American opinion in favor of protecting Taiwan would need to be as high as 80% for a President to feel politically safe to make such a decision.
So yeah, I'm saying that you're in favor of President Tsai's actions in standing up to China (which certainly takes courage!), do note that the success of this strategy relies upon the willingness of Americans to die for your cause. You'd better not be complaining about the high cost of weapons purchases. Hell yes you'd better open up Taiwan to American beef products. And no, you can't complain about it, because if the American public feels you're not "grateful", even a single soldier dying for you may be a step too far.
Is it humiliating? Sure. But everything has a cost. The cost of American protection from China is that we have to kiss Uncle Sam's ass. Is it worth Taiwan's continued independence? I personally believe so, but you might not. If so, then all I can say is you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Comments
Post a Comment