Defense Treaties- who holds what wild cards?
The Unites States has defense treaties with numerous nations with SCS interests: Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia and Thailand. We also have a loose quazi-treaty with Taiwan. The common thread is that the US will help defend these nations if they are attacked. For the SCS the Philippines and to a less extent Japan are the principle concerns. As the maps show the Phils will be hugely impacted by the PRC’s claims. In 2016 the Chinese lost in international arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China has since stated that it doesn’t recognize the decision and continues to claim the Nine Dash areas.
If a defense treaty nation is attacked the US has obligated itself to defend them with the US military. That means China possesses the means to determine the timing and size of any first blow.
In one example of the continuing tensions, the Phils and PRC have nearly started shooting at each other over the Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratley Islands. The shoal is within 200 miles of Palawan Island but well inside the Nine-dash Line so both countries consider the area within their respective economic zones. The Phils intentionally grounded a WWII era ship in 1999 and have kept it manned with a detachment of soldiers since then. Resupply and repair operations are routinely contested by the SCP and PAFMM. Neither side has shot (yet) but the two sides play cat and mouse as the PRC tries to starve out the soldiers while waiting for the collapse of the ship.
Other Situational Considerations
Western analysts often examine security environments using DIME (Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic) considerations. How does the SCS stack up? Let’s start with the “M”.
Military Aspects. The PLA as an institution remembers fighting the Americans in Korea. During the Korean War the PLA suffered around 1,000,000 casualties (~400,000 KIA) and so realizes the cost of fighting a western power. The PLA has long been the “first among equals” within the PRC’s military hierarchy but the current reforms significantly cut army end strength while expanding the PLAN and PLAAF. The PLAN and PLAAF have no institutional memories of fighting the west and like all the world’s navies and air forces focus on their technological capabilities. The PLARF is counting not just on the technological capabilities of their missiles but on the fact they are largely located on the Chinese mainland. They can strike US forces without hitting the US homeland while knowing a counter strike means a homeland attack with the inherent strategic issues for the US.
Neither country has lost a major warship in the memory of the sailors and civil leaders. The US last lost major surface ships during the WWII. During that war the US lost 466 major combat warships and since the Okinawa Campaign (Spring 1945) has lost zero large warships in combat. The PLAN hasn’t even possessed major combat vessels until recently. Modern weaponry will cause large material and personnel losses that neither country has had to deal with within memory. How this will impact tactical and strategic decision making is unknown.
The surface combat ships and aircraft for a US Carrier Group costs $20B to $30B to build and equip and has around 8000 sailors. This does not count the costs and personnel of the CAG’s submarines or logistics ships. As the US moves to F-35’s the costs of the aircraft alone could run up to $120B per CAG. Unclassified estimates are that it takes $400,000,000 annually to operate the carrier and aircraft during a peacetime training pace. This does not include the operating costs of the other 7-10 warships and multiple support ships that make up a CAG. The costs of the Chinese vessels and aircraft is unknown but is significant as well.
China is not yet a peer competitor but it is rapidly developing the naval and aerial skills to be a peer. Their missile forces are massive and as some point out “quantity has a quality all its own.” RAND concluded that in 2017 “China possessed 1,200 conventionally armed short-range ballistic missiles (600-800 km range), 108 to 274 medium-range ballistic missiles (1000 to 1500+ km), an unknown number of conventional intermediate-range ballistic missiles (5,000 km), and 450-1,250 land attack cruise missiles (1500+ km). RAND also estimated that improvements in the accuracy of China’s ballistic missiles may allow them to strike fixed targets in a matter of minutes with an accuracy of a few meters. RAND assesses that key U.S. facilities throughout Japan could already be within range of thousands of difficult-to-defeat advanced ballistic and cruise missiles.” Even US bases on Guam are now at risk from the DF-26 missile force.
It is important to remind yourself that the US (and Russian) non-ICBM’s are limited to an effective range of 500km for air and ground launched systems. Neither party can possess missiles that range 500-5,500km. China never signed the Intermediate Missile Treaty (aka INF) so they are free to build systems that are not in compliance with INF limitations. For the US to design and build missiles to meet the Chinese threat is “problematic” because of Russian concerns. These concerns, and accusations of Russian non-compliance, are why the US is discussing withdrawing from the INF Treaty.
Aircraft are no longer quick and relatively inexpensive to build. In WWII the US produced ~300,000 aircraft (including 59,000 lend lease) and lost 53,000 in combat (95,000 losses in total). Even in Vietnam, the US lost 2,197 fixed wing and 5,607 helicopters. Since then fixed wing losses in combat have been very light and since 9/11 only 70 helicopter have been shot down and 305 lost from mechanical problems or accidents. The issue with modern aircraft, especially modern fixed wing fighters, is there are few in service, production rates are slooooow and unit costs are high. The US is buying F-35’s at around $85M per copy and the full production rate is ~100/yr. (Some production is for allies and not US) While the numbers vary as aircraft are replaced with newer models it is safe to say that the entire inventory of combat fixed wing aircraft for the USAF, USN, and USMC is less than the number of fixed wing aircraft lost in Vietnam. China is aggressively purchasing modern fighters and bombers and want to have 200 of their new J-20 fighters in place for the SCS facing commands by 2025 which they believe will give them at least regional parity.
The US has almost no ability to rapidly replace sunk/badly damaged shipping or warships. The great industrial might we had in the Second World War has been outsourced or dissipated. As a Nation we have moved to other economic drivers, but in the event of a protracted conflict with a peer competitor this lack of building capacity will be a factor.
Diplomatic impacts of a fight within the SCS will roil the region. A minor military incident could be initiated by China in the belief that if they just cut off this one piece of salami from a minor country , quickly announce they are done and thereby prevent a major escalation. This might be accurate, or it might not be. Other nations have tried this approach recently (e.g. Russia) and have not found the “fuck it, we are fighting” response from the West, But attacking a defense treaty nation is different from grabbing Crimea or parts of Georgia (the nation and not the state).
Obama SecDef Ashton Carter was very critical of Obama ceding the initiative in the SCS to the Chinese. Carter has stated “recommendations from me and others to more aggressively challenge China’s excessive maritime claims and other counterproductive behaviors’.” Carter further stated “Obama even bought into China’s vision of a G2-style arrangement with the US.” This leaves the current and succeeding Administration’s in a difficult diplomatic position since the ASEAN and other regional nations saw the US inaction during the period before the military infrastructure was in place.
Never has a permanent UN Security Council member directly attacked another SC member in a known, public and major way. Even during the Cold War 1.0 the USSR and US/GB/FR used proxy conflicts. The best known case of a potential direct challenge, the Cuban Missile Crises, had all sides trying to defuse conflict. The impacts of a Chinese missile strike on a single US cruiser are unknown. If the Chinese were attack a Carrier Group in a systematic way the stakes would be exponentially higher. Presumably the entire diplomatic world would try to turn off the conflict as quickly as possible to spare a possible nuclear exchange. If the US went along with a cease fire without imposing major losses on the Chinese the diplomatic costs throughout the region would be immense.
Informational impacts of a crises could be stark as well. The Chinese again would hold the initiative and you can expect them to start coercive diplomacy via public media well before any military action. After the start of conflict the world information environment would be loaded with Chinese and China proxies’ messaging. One can consider that the “Great Firewall of China” would be expanded to limit internal knowledge of the conflict. The US response would probably be muddled, slow and largely ineffective in the short-term. This would largely be due to the overly bureaucratic “Whole of Government” interagency process combined with a very loose definition of “the truth” in Chinese messaging.
Economic impacts of any China/US conflict would be huge and felt worldwide. The economies of the SCS neighboring and ASEAN countries would tumble. If the conflict went for any time the worldwide impact of just changing shipping patterns would jar economies throughout the world far beyond the indo-pacific region. If blockades were established by either or both major combatant the cost of almost everything would rise. Markets throughout the Western World would soon face shortages of every product that either originated or passed through China. China’s “One Road” trade system would make up for some shortages, to those countries that the PRC chose to continue doing trade with. This in turn will build diplomatic pressures from both the US and China on nations to side with them for economic reasons.
“Experience differential” China’s armed forces are not experienced in actual combat operations, are still developing how to fight carrier groups, and their training environment does not routinely conduct Joint or realistic exercises. However the various parts of the Chinese military have taken efforts to increase the realism of training and introduce Joint operations.
The US Army, and USMC, are both extremely experienced at conducting company to brigade sized combat operations. The US armed forces are very experienced at conducting Joint operations to support disbursed small unit operations in a low threat combat environments, and are really the only nation able to routinely conduct extended carrier group operations. Bottom line, the US military is damn good at what they do.
The problem for the US is that a generation of service members have not seriously exercised how to conduct high end combat operations against a peer competitor. The US is trying to re-learn how to fight outnumbered and win an extended fight. So at the ground tactical level the US probably would curb stomp the PLA. However a fight over the SCS would be air and maritime dominated while fighting outnumbered against a foe fighting on short interior lines of communication. In addition the foe would be fighting over an issue considered close to existential for the China’s ruling class while being perceived as minor long term issue for the US home front.
WAR! The details are hazy. But in short, re-watch the series “Victory at Sea” and imagine it in color and high definition. The biggest question will be what happens after the first shots are fired. Will the two sides act like they touched a hot stove, pull back and spend more time blustering at each other? Or will the remorseless calculus of combat assert itself and both sides get drawn more deeply in as subsequent losses make it increasingly difficult to stop without losing too much face? (In respect to Xi and his cabal. Lose their foreheads to exit wounds?)
Okay, so what? All this wordiness might be interesting (or merely depressing) but why should I worry about my monocle mining orphans, pot and Mexican ass sex?
This is the big question. The accommodation of the rise of Germany in Europe bothered Russia, France and England and didn’t go very well in most people’s opinions. The rise of the US was accommodated by England to the world’s betterment; and the fall of the USSR went better than most people feared. The rise of China is presenting the world with a similar challenge.
China is an illiberal socialist nation whose ruling Chinese Communist Party leaders need to keep the economy growing to stave off revolt and their own executions. While the economy was growing at double digit annual rates, the CCP could keep the new internal “middle class” content enough. Now that the economy has cooled (a discussion of that would be several books of material) the CCP is looking at how to re-spark growth and finding external enemies to distract the populace. Xi as the “Authoritarian in Chief” stresses that by 2049 China will emerge from the “100 years of humiliation” as a recognized world power. Xi is looking at Taiwan but recognizes that fighting for Taiwan may involve more risk to the ruling CCP powers than they are willing to accept at this time. The SCS may offer a chance to throw off “humiliation” at much less risk and before 2049.
Why less risk? The SCS is close to the mainland and very far from the US mainland. The Chinese would operate on shorter lines of communication and present the US with multiple dilemmas. The Chinese see opportunities to consolidate their gains with smaller and quickly completed military operations directed at the edges of US interests. These operations present US and regional decision makers with having to respond fait accompli to CCP gains. If the Chinese can keep away from direct PI and Japanese interventions then they steer clear of US treaty obligations. It would be hard to mobilize the American people to support the claims of Vietnam, Malaysia or Brunei. If China directly assails the PI and then coerce or bribe the Philippine government into disavowing combat or recognize the Chinese claims hoping to sate the dragon’s hunger then US reactions are massively limited. The payoff for China for consolidating their claims in the SCS would be huge if they can do so without triggering a very destructive war with the US. The map shows the scale of the economic benefit that would result from capturing the exclusive use of those resources and being able to restrict free trade.
The military advantage gained would be huge as well. China would gain unobstructed access to the Central Pacific and hold every regional economy at risk. The diplomatic impact of success would demonstrate to the region and world that China must be accounted for and that their approval would be vital for local regime stability.
So what are some options for the US concerning the SCS?
The options presented to the US all have downsides because of baked in prior treaties and policy decisions. The choices the US faces also involve multiple secondary and tertiary impacts that cannot be fully known at almost any point of decision. A well-known truism of strategic decision making is: decisions made concerning one issue never completely solve that issue, they just help define the next issues that will need to be dealt with.
Renouncing or changing defense alliances and treaties is always a possibility. These changes come with known and unknown risks as all parties relook their internal and external calculus. For example: The PRC and the PI are both confident that a major military action against the Philippines will bring the US into the conflict. Any change to the US/PI defense treaty will be quickly known by all three countries and will change the decision calculus. The PRC may take a more aggressive step and seize a PI claimed SCS feature confident that the US would not become involved. But even under the new treaty, the US may still enter the conflict for its own reasons using the old, or revised, treaty as a public rational. Strong defense treaties are made to reduce confusion on the part of potential adversaries, so any changes the US seeks will need to be carefully thought out.
The US can withdraw from the SCS area and explicitly or implicitly recognize the PRC’s claims. The US stepping away from the current global hegemon role in respect to the western Pacific Region could save us in current military related expenses (Carrier Groups are not cheap to own or operate) but again this COA will have second and third order impacts. Except for the PRC’s designs on Taiwan, the modern history of China rarely features major grasps for territorial expansionism. Besides the current SCS efforts the PRC has demonstrated expansionism in the past in regards to Vietnam and the 1950 invasion of Tibet. Xi and the CCP would most probably grab their entire SCS claims quickly filling any perceived vacuum left by the US. The next steps are more a mystery but the economic impacts of preventing or regulating and taxing maritime and aerial transit of the SCS would rapidly roil the global economy.
The US loss of access to the western Pacific will have diplomatic and defense impacts as well. The US currently is seen as the “cop on the beat” by nations all over the world. If the US is seen voluntarily taking a major step away from that role in the SCS it will cause the rest of the world to relook all aspects of America’s role in defense. As a matter of public debate leaving the SCS would quickly eclipse the worthwhile exit from Syria and drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would pulling back from the SCS embolden Russia, Iran, or others in making additional extraterritorial grabs of terrain or establishing “satellite states” and thereby create new defense issues?
The PRC already is attempting to establish their currency as an international benchmark and pulling away from a long term defense commitment would influence many nations to replace dollars for yuan in part or in whole. This would impact interest rates and the relative strength of the dollar for us to buy Romanian wine, Japanese noodles or German hops.
The US can maintain the status quo in the SCS. The current US policy is that the SCS issues must be handled peacefully by the various claimants. The US also supports the international tribunal findings between the PRC and PI mentioned above. The US has stated that we regard the SCS as non-territorial waters and not part of the territorial waters or EEZ by any claimant, but especially China. The US deciding to continue maritime and aerial operations backing free navigation through the SCS waters and air will keep potential adversaries internal calculus including the question of “What if…?” around the world.
The US can work with ASEAN and interested nations to draw a new path for the SCS which reduces US open ended commitments while securing the vital SCS transportation lines of communication and economic assets for all parties. China will continue to oppose this COA and will regard this COA as a way to “fence in” proper Chinese aspirations and the US attempting to influence other states to gang up on China. China dislikes any multilateral agreement unless they feel comfortable with their ability to ignore the agreement without serious repercussions. (See the Paris Accords, MTO and IMF agreements.) Despite the difficulties with this COA, it is probably the best way, over (significant) time to reduce the threat of war while maintaining economic progress. Just don’t think that this way will be quick or easy.
KEWs FTW!
Yes Minister covered this so well: Yes Minister on the Salami Strategy.
Ahhhh, shades of 1938, this time with rockets and ships, there will be War.
ZARDOZ SPEAKS TO YOU, HIS CHOSEN PROPHESYING WAR ONE. ZARDOZ IS PLEASED. ZARDOZ HAS SPOKEN.
Romanian wine
Meh.
Japanese noodles
Pfffft.
German hops
OH SHIT!
LEAVE ROMANIAN WINE ALONE!
*cries on video*
Metrosexual!
*wipes away mascara*
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
*snips Swiss’s manbun, runs away*
SNARK!
You lost your man bun!
Its the Rape of the Lock all over again!
Very informative, info that we never see in the media. Thanks much for your analysis, Dbleagle
Seconded. Although it makes me pretty nervous.
“The US is buying F-35’s at around $85M per copy and the full production rate is ~100/yr. ”
By the end of WWII the Willow Run operation was putting out one B24 every 63 minutes. The B24 was certainly simpler than the F35, but today’s manufacturing support technology is vastly super to that of the 1940s. If we need more of these things, we had better up our manufacturing game. Oh, and learn how to make computer chips here instead of buying them from China.
We’d also have to stop domestic automotive production the way they did in WWII.
We still build cars?
Sure – Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, and VW all make cars here.
As a byproduct of our national labor union industry.
I doubt anyone thinks we need an F35 every hour, but if we decide we need more of these things some day we should start figuring out how to make them faster.
If it ever got to that point, we would be mass-producing drones, simplified versions of something like an F-16, and loading missiles and bombs into 737’s.
Or F-15’s. I’m still not convinced that stealth is going to be as effective as they claim when it comes to real combat conditions. And if they can see the plane anyway, might as well just be a danged good one that stands a chance and we know how to build a ton of.
Even though the Air Force doesn’t want it someone is trying to make them buy a couple hundred new F-15’s with upgraded sensor packages and the ability to carry more than 20 A-A missiles
Honestly it is a pretty good idea as a second line suppliment to the F-22’s as they can get targeting info from the Stealth planes and use their huge weapons payload to allow the Stealths to stay in the fight longer
The key is to allow your less stealthy airframes be able to locate and engage enemy forces without radiating and giving themselves away. F-22s and F-35s have this synergy built in. The F-22, which is stealthier can paint the targets, share the info over the CEC network, and the F-35s/B-1s/B-2s/B-21s can then rain death on them
Without adding the CEC capability to the F-15 – so they can let some other system do the targeting – this would not be a big game changer. And that CEC capability is a big chunk of the cost for both the F-22 & F-35 prize tag. Its a bit cheaper to add to a platform with more space like a bomber or ship, but it is still pricey.
That seems to be the general idea…
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/boeings-new-f-15x-fighter-really-joining-us-air-force-39677
Also without the stealth coatings it keeps the cost per flying hour down somewhere near half of what it is for the F-35
“Or F-15’s. I’m still not convinced that stealth is going to be as effective as they claim when it comes to real combat conditions.”
It is all about the doctrine and use. Stealth will be a huge factor for most first strike scenarios and will provide a decisive advantage during any initial engagements. Especially when the element of surprise is key. Once the fight is on though, stealth is not going to be that big of advantage (unless you have some ambush scenario or long range engagement capability where the stealth aircraft paint the target for shooters outside the range of the enemy’s defenses), and might even be/become a liability. But the doctrine around stealth today is that the initial exchange will come as a surprise to the enemy, and be so devastating because of that, that a follow up scrum will not be able to reverse the result of the initial exchange.
But will stealth win the hearts and minds of the citizens being bombed?
Trying to win hearts & minds is how you lose conflicts. War can only be won by destroying the enemy’s will and ability to fight.
Don’t you feel more special knowing we dropped a $10 million stealth, GPS and Laser Guided, three-stage, thermite bomb on your ass?
Yea, I’d think modernization or simply building more of what works, like F-15/16s. Those are still good designs that newer tech like thrust vectoring could be introduced to (maybe..).
Honestly it is a pretty good idea as a second line suppliment to the F-22’s
This too.
The MN Natty Guard 148th Fighter Wing flies F16s out of this airport. They are pretty awesome airplanes. I got to see several take off with afterburners on and the nearly full moon underneath them in the back ground this week. They are LOUD.
To modify a F-15/16 to be able to handle thrust vectoring would take so much work you might as well buy F-35s.
Grab as many airframes as you like from one of the boneyards; put new engines on it; and installed simple remote controlled avionics.
Where is the “Add massive amount of explosives” part?
Remote Kamikaze!
I was just pointing that we already have a plentiful supply of bomb-delivery vehicles in stock.
My job is to make’em fly. Someone else can fill’em up.
Efficient distribution of labor. Works for me…
If you haven’t already, fire up Google earth, point it at Tucson and look along the southeastern edge. Can’t miss it.
The first time I saw the boneyard, I was driving out of Tucson for the first time and took the road that runs along it purely by accident. I had no idea it was even there, and then I was all “OMG! Totes awesome.”
I rather liked the old Afghan one….before it got all hauled away for scrap.
The ship building issue is the one that kills me. Obviously this was a publicity stunt – but a Liberty Ship in 4 1/2 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Robert_E._Peary
I understand the benefits of cheap cargo construction in Korea – of course ineligible for Jones ACT use – but the lack of facilities and infrastructure in a country this size is just ridiculous.
The Chinese Civil War didn’t end until August 1950. The Commies were still mopping up the Nationalists and Muslims when the Korean War started. The Commies believed in efficiency so they didn’t kill all their prisoners or send them to reeducation camps. Instead, they issued new uniforms and marched them into Korea to die in front of American guns. So Mao really didn’t care in the least about his casualty numbers. He outsourced the execution squads to us and our allies.
They got their noses bloodied by the Vietnamese in 1979 though.
And continued a pretty good LIC for the next decade, including gaining control of part of the Spratleys (indirectly touched off by UNESCO).
Great article db!
I think the only real option on the table is the status quo while Japan rebuilds it’s navy. There will be fighting at some point but China understands how badly their economy needs the US, so I don’t see major conflict. They will continue chipping away at the resistance until they know that we don’t have the will to counter them. Had they been farther along in their plans, my guess is they would have made their move while Obama was in office.
As for the yuan replacing the dollar, I think China has already overplayed it’s hand. The economic extortion happening around the world with China taking over major infrastructure to repay debt has many countries spooked. Taking a loan from China is like taking a loan from Tony Soprano to prop up your sporting goods store.
Yeah, countries are starting to catch on that China’s idea of a fair deal is “we get the benefits, you get the costs.”
The economies of the SCS neighboring and ASEAN countries would tumble.
I know China is shifting to more of a domestic consumer economy than an export economy, but losing the US market would crush their economy, and unless they can secure sea lanes all the way to their other major markets, they will lose those, too. Even if they push out of the South China Sea, their exports need to go a lot further than that.
While there are definitely strategic considerations to the US striking the Chinese mainland, there are also strategic implications to cutting off most of their export trade. Their economy will collapse, and I don’t think the PRC wants to deal with a no-shit popular uprising while trying to fight a war.
I’ve been to Guangzho a couple of times. I mentioned before I watched a crew of people cutting the grass in the median of the highway with hand clippers. The current Chinese economy cannot fully employ the people that live in the major cities. It’s worse in the countryside. Any disruption in exports will completely fuck the Chinese economy.
Hey! At least there are no awful, exploitation factory farms in China!
The bit I’ve heard, and I think this still holds true, about the relationship between the US and Chinese economies is that if that link was severed it would wreak havoc with the US economy and utterly destroy the Chinese economy. In other words, the two are interdependent, sure, but the US economy can import from other sources and just suffer higher prices and hiccups in supply chains that would eventually even out, whereas the Chinese economy needs American dollars spent on their exports just to keep their economy afloat and doesn’t have a decent substitute waiting in the wings.
“The bit I’ve heard, and I think this still holds true, about the relationship between the US and Chinese economies is that if that link was severed it would wreak havoc with the US economy and utterly destroy the Chinese economy.”
Most people would agree with this. The thing is that the Chinese leadership fully believes they can avoid that end result and that they could have a lightning campaign and then the US, not wanting to suffer more loss, would just cave in and accept the new reality.
This is like the fucking idiots that made the argument during the Cold War that they could control the use of nukes and keep the conflict mostly a conventional war. Once you cross that threshold, the odds that it remains limited is near zero.
Yeah, a short, victorious war is rarely short or victorious. Discuss amongst yourselves.
I don’t think I recall any of those and I would like to pretend I am fairly well informed on the subject. That number one rule of war – that it is a democracy and the enemy gets a vote to, which means that no plan survives past the initial stage – exists for a reason…
Grenada.
/sarcasm
Panama.
How far out do things have to be to negate a victory?
I would cite the Six Day War as short & victorious although the situation would recur.
What I mean by that is usually the side who initiates the conflict thinks it will be short and victorious for them. Usualy when it works out short and victorious, it isn’t the initiating party. I first ran into the phrase as the title of a science fiction novel by David Weber:
So you’re saying we need to invade Grenada again?
That was not a war. It was a joke.
That was the first thing I thought of when I read that. A fun series of books IMO. The latest one has some not-so-subtle condemnation of the Deep State and “inside the Beltway” mentality, too.
The war in Iraq was short and victorious.
The occupation of Iraq has been a clusterfuck.
The thing is that the
ChineseJapanese leadership fullybelievesbelieved they can avoid that end result and that they could have a lightning campaign and then the US, not wanting to suffer more loss, would just cave in and accept the new reality.PI is the weak link – very susceptible to Chinese pressure. Were I the PRC, I would lean on them hardest. Easiest to buy off or bully.
There seems to be a lot of internal disagreement between Duterte and his legislature and MinDef – the military is set on keeping their gains and even trying to “claim” some additional islands, while Duterte flips on Chinese issues every couple of days publicly.
Did somebody say voluntary?
“In a country of more than 329 million people, the extraordinary potential for service is largely untapped,” said Joe Heck, chairman of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. On Wednesday, he and his fellow commissioners unveiled the panel’s interim report to Congress.
An overarching goal of the commission, Heck said, is to “create a universal expectation of service” in which every American is “inspired and eager to serve.”
We’ll let the Ministry of Love run it.
What’s the worst that could happen?
Heck and the rest of his commissars should be tarred and feathered. Voluntarily, of course.
What makes this any different than indentured servitude?
Indentured servants generally signed up for it as a way to pay off debts. This is worse than indentured servitude.
Who doesn’t want a vast army of eager, young Community Organizers snitching to the Feds?
We will declare victory when our country beats the East German record of having one out of three people be state informants!
The populace are a resource to be tapped. Like cattle.
Hey, I’ve seen this movie before!
Wait, I did that wrong….
“You know who else had a universal expectation of service?”
The God-Emperor of Mankind?
David Ben-Gurion?
Pharoh
LET MY PEOPLZ GO!
*ahem* (((PEOPLE)))
WATCHUTALKINGBOUT WILLIS?
Leonidas I?
“inspired and eager to serve.”
Do you know who else was inspired and eager to serve?
My ex-girlfriends?
Do you still have their numbers?
After traveling around the country to hear from members of the public, the commission wrote, “We heard from people who believe strongly that the United States should pursue a transformative effort to involve many more Americans in military, national, and public service.”
One option, those commenters said, would be to create a universal obligation, with the suggestion that “all Americans be required to serve, with a choice in how to satisfy the requirement.”
But other members of the public asked how such requirements would be implemented — and whether they would be legal under the Constitution.
Those smug, smirking shirkers. We’ll show them the meaning of civic duty.
I turned 19 in ’76. The first year they didn’t pick lottery numbers even though the draft itself ended in ’71.
Mr. Heck can go fuck himself.
Fuck.
Off.
Slavers.
the extraordinary potential for
serviceinvoluntary servitude is largely untappedSounds like they can hardly wait to tap your ass.
legal under the Constitution.
Not that it matters, but the 13th Amendment says:
How they got around that for purposes of the draft, I don’t know. Regardless, I’m sure Roberts can author an opinion that is just a tax you pay in kind with your labor, or somesuch.
How they got around that for purposes of the draft,
FYTW
Different context, but I get hung up on that wording whenever I hear something about somebody “failing to follow lawful orders” from a cop. It’s not lawful for a cop to issue orders to anybody who hasn’t been convicted of a crime.
Because the draft is special, “exceptional” service that was never meant to be covered by the thirteenth amendment, regardless of the meaning of the words used in the amendment. The supreme court never explicitly ruled on the constitutionality of the draft, but that was the reasoning they used to uphold people being forced to work on highway construction in Butler v Perry:
Another FYTW invisible ink carve out to the plain words in the text.
Sounded better in the original German.
Arbeit macht frei
Tempting but no.
pursue a transformative effort to involve many more Americans in military, national, and public service.
As repulsive as I find the idea of a miliatry draft, honestly, I think you can morally justify it more than you can “national or public service”. In theory, you can aregue that making everyone fight solves the “free rider” problem of providing for protection from foreign aggressors, where the cost is literally life and limb. Okay, you can stop laughing now. I did say “in theory”. But, cleaning parks? Teaching inner city yutes? No, those aren’t comparable at all.
Yes. Under the Constitution, national defense is at least a legitimate function of the federal government. The rest of that stuff? Not so much.
That said, fuck slavery in all its forms.
That said, fuck slavery in all its forms.
Agreed.
When government forces you to give up the fruits of your labor it is not slavery…
Taxation already normalized that shit.
There’s always a lot of exceptions that seem to apply to the wealthy/better connected. Korea/VN produced a lot of young marriages/babies since fathers were exempt (poor person’s exemption). Some even got out of service with bunions or spurs or going to school. Could start a whole new career for a lot of young men/women.
whether they would be legal under the Constitution.
No. See 13A.
Even US bases on Guam are now at risk from the DF-26 missile force.
So you’re saying Guam will capsize.
*snickers*
Didn’t even watch the video.
That is a U.S. Congressmen right there.
Capsize? What’s that? A hat measurement?
I think the technical term you’re looking for is “tip over”.
“You know who else had a universal expectation of service?”
Wilt Chamberlain?
Our military needs a space force which as its first mission will drag an asteroid into orbit for mining. We then build KEWs and change war was we know it today by making it unlikely anyone wants to play that game.
Peace and prosperity? Through exploitation of space? The powers that be would never go for it.
So you’re saying fricken lasers.
Fuck Lasers! Drop a two ton tungsten coated kinetic rod from space and watch what hell really looks like when it hits…. The mechanics of elastic/inelastic collisions are brutal.
What the Empire in Star Wars should have done rather than build those Death Stars.
Well, yea.
Just moving it into orbit ends the game essentially.
You start mining rare earth from the asteroid and refining it in space before dropping it down to robotic manufacturing facilities domestic side. The mining by products make for nice Rods from God. It also neatly avoids the potential for conflict over Africa.
If it doesn’t involve a moonbase with chicks in sexy moonbase outfits, I’m out.
How about we just bring our people home and allow the Japanese to build nukes and further buff up their military? That would balance out the Chinese quite nicely.
Do you know what happened that last time?! //jk But yes they can and should defend themselves.
As an aside, I find your
lack of faithnew avatar disturbing.That cute little butterball? He’s harmless.
*zooms in, faints*
Dude, that’s… ugh. Why?!
FYTW?
Pearl Harbor dude. Can’t trust them Nips.
Basically. Everyone – including everyone who currently fears the ChiComs -remembers the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere.
“How about we just bring our people home and allow the Japanese to build nukes and further buff up their military? That would balance out the Chinese quite nicely.”
Well said.
Also, you have a bag of dicks as your profile pick now.
Aren’t there some FCC decency rules that CNN violates by continuing to put a bag of dicks as one of its anchors? They’re not fooling anyone. ‘
I think that’s all they have anymore after the Covington fiasco.
Someone should change their avatar to Jim Acosta smiling at Jim Acosta in the mirror
But then who would prop up the Okinawan economy?
Against the explicit will of the Okinawans….
But not against the will of the Filipina bar girls!
Wouldn’t the Nips have to actually start fucking before this could realistically work? I mean it is kinda hard to build an army when half your males are over 55 years old
I have no idea why the Japanese are not banging non-stop. Japanese girls are cute. And they like to do the cos-play thing. What gives?
Two points I would add. First, between economics and demographics, China is headed for trouble – the kind of trouble that ends with the ruling class decorating lamp posts. This is extremely bad news in many ways, but there is a potential advantage – Xi can’t be too patient in his salami tactics or he’ll run out of time. And the quicker China moves, the more resistance it will encounter.
Second, India. China’s aircraft carriers aren’t necessary for a war in the SCS…
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/2183546/us-warships-sail-through-closely-watched-taiwan-strait-turning-pressure
This was an interesting read. I worry things won’t end well here.