Women's Rights are Human Rights

    To most men, the idea that women’s issues affect them seems absurd. Why, boys ask, should I care about women and their rights? To many, the plight of women is too remote for them to care; women’s issues are seen as applying to women only, and thus men refuse to care about them.
    However, even when one overlooks important issues like justice and liberty that make paying attention to women’s issues imperative for men, it is still important for men to care about the issues women face because of economic and social reasons.

First, this is supported by economics. Since women make up roughly half of the population, discouraging women from taking up jobs halves the workforce, thereby hurting the economy. Not only that, but it lowers the chances of a brilliant female inventor producing a gizmo that solves one of the many problems of our world.

    In a 2009 paper entitled "Women's Liberation: What's in It for Men?,” UCLA researchers Matthias Doepkey and Michele Tertlit demonstrate that from a purely economic perspective, granting women greater freedom is beneficial for the economic welfare of men.
    “Women’s rights are closely related to economic development,” Doepkey and Tertlit wrote. “This is true both across countries, where women have most rights in the richest countries, and in time series data: women have slowly improved their legal position in parallel with fast improvements in the standard of living.”
    Thus granting more power and independence leads to more wealth overall. Greater independence for women economically can reverberate in the home, creating benefits there as well. Working mothers are positive role models for children because they exhibit not only a strong work ethic seen in few other people but an ability to be both strong and compassionate.

In addition, the fact that women represent 54 percent of the population means that extending rights and freedoms to women could double the possible output of society in any number of ways. Allowing women to serve on the front lines in warfare, for example, would open the doors for some highly talented female soldiers to enter our army, thereby increasing the strength of our military.

    Even boys who are well off have a stake in the empowerment of women. By perpetuating a male-female dichotomy (the idea that men and women are completely divorced from each other and thus at odds), those who perpetuate sexism end up hurting themselves. By trying to raise themselves above women, men create for themselves the idea of the “macho man” to distinguish themselves from women. By pinning this label to themselves in order to raise themselves above women, the sexist invites his own set of stereotypes: the stereotype of the brutish, beer-swilling, impervious to emotion, and almost sub-human man exemplified by characters like Homer Simpson. Unfortunately, these negative stereotypes are applied to men in general, thereby hurting themselves. Sexists can then use this as a justification for discrimination against women, perpetuating the ugly cycle of sexism and intolerance.
    This macho mindset invented by men to justify oppression of women comes with its own host of problems, almost all of them borne by men. Macho ideas of violence being the way to settle problems lead to violence that is borne almost entirely by men, and the accompanying higher prison rates for men that come with higher violence rates. The idea of male toughness manifests itself in the belief that men should be emotionless, which can cause emotions to boil up inside a person, eventually causing them to be overwhelmed.  
    All these arguments, of course, just address the impact of women’s rights on men. By their very definition, women’s rights campaigns further the causes of equality and liberty for all persons. All people deserve rights, so any morally upright man ought to recognize that denying women equal rights is akin to denying blacks or Native Americans rights. No one who calls themselves a decent person can ignore the plight of women, which is arguably the biggest issue facing the world today. For example, the violent, macho mindset of male dominance fuels war because it perpetuates the belief that combat is an acceptable solution to problems. In addition, denying women the ability to work or succeed in business removes more than half of the potential innovators and laborers from the economy.
    The positive effects of women’s empowerment can be felt at the high school level as well. Many girls are intimidated by the aggressive nature of class discussions, which causes valid and important opinions to be left out of discussions.
    Unfortunately, men cannot instantly become ardent feminists, even after reading this article. To achieve such a radical change in men’s mindset, constant reminders of the necessity of recognizing women’s rights issues are needed. The school happens to be the perfect environment for this. Even a minuscule fraction of the time spent by students in class, if used effectively, could help bring about an acceptance of women’s rights concerns amongst the male population of Palo Alto High School. Ideally, these lectures about women’s issues would be done in freshman world history, or sophomore contemporary world history, since sexism is a global problem.
    If more men can start realizing that women’s rights issues affect everyone, their mindsets might start to shift. Even if the only change that comes out of women’s rights being preached in history class is that some students are more polite to women, that will be a victory for humans of both genders across the globe.

observation on the economy

Below is a list of every major American panic (recession or economic collapse in modern parlance) in the 18th and 19th centuries. See if you notice a pattern.

Panic of 1796: Lack of regulation led to the bursting of the land bubble in 1796, causing a financial crash. The crash soon escalated into a depression that caused economic hardship in both America and Britain.
Panic of 1819: Unregulated overspeculation in Western lands led to economic collapse and depression.
Panic of 1837: Caused by overspeculation in Western lands by unregulated "wildcat" banks. Western expansion briefly stopped because millions lost their wealth, and millions in government funds were lost when several hundred banks collapsed.
Panic of 1857: Too much grain production, overspeculation in land and railroads, and inflation caused by inpouring California gold caused a major economic crisis that is widely considered to be the first international economic collapse, since it was felt throughout all of Europe and in America.
Panic of 1873: More railroads were built than were necessary, causing many railroad financiers to go bankrupt on their railroad investments. Further, lack of regulation in the gold markets allowed Jay Gould and James Fisk to acquire almost all of the market by bribing government officials. When Gould and Fisk began to pull their money out of gold because of a miscommunication, the market collapsed. This panic was so severe that it was known as the Great Depression until the actual Great Depression of the 1930s.
Panic of 1893: Unregulated overspeculation and overbuilding in railroads caused the railroad bubble to burst. This is identical to the cause of the Panic of 1873. This was the most severe depression of the 19th century, with millions losing their jobs.

If you don't see it, here's the pattern that I get from this data: every American economic crisis and depression of the 18th and 19th was caused by unregulated speculation, followed by that speculative bubble bursting catastrophically. Usually, the culprit was overspeculation in land (i.e. real estate), or in the last 20 years of the 1800s, railroads. So opponents of regulation may want to read up on their history, because under-regulation has a tendency to cause massive economic collapses every two decades or so.

Thoughts on Iran

Iran's been in the news a lot recently, so I will share my humble opinion on Iran. Note: I am a Jewish Zionist, so this will be more than a bit biased.

Before anyone can have a reasonable discussion about foreign policy, it's necessary to know what we (the U.S.) wants. In the case of Iran, we want four things: oil, democracy in Iran, a market for U.S. goods, and no Iranian nuclear weapons. The first three make sense on their face, but we need to analyze the third one a bit more. After all, we didn't slap sanctions on France when it got its nuclear weapons.

We're scared of Iranian nuclear weapons for three reasons: First, they could obliterate Israel. Second, they could give their weapons to terrorists. Third, they could use their nuclear weapons to gain leverage and influence, both in the Middle East and abroad.

The first outcome is highly unlikely. Although most pundits consider Iran to be an undeterrable "rogue state" led by maniacs with one goal, that could easily describe Mao's China or the Soviet Union, and yet neither ever initiated nuclear holocaust upon getting their weapons. The Soviet Union, which existed for the sole purpose of spreading Marxism-Leninism at any cost to its own people, never initiated nuclear war. Neither did Mao Zedong, who famously stated "When 900 million are left out of 2.9 billion, several five-year plans can be developed for the total elimination of capitalism and for permanent peace. It is not a bad thing," in other words, that nuclear holocaust is a good thing. Iran's leadership is very rational and self interested, and they will continue to behave as such in the future.

With that in mind, the probability that Iran gives nuclear weapons to a terrorist group is very low. Even the most loyal terrorist organizations can often turn against the nation that sponsors them, as in the case of the U.S. funded Mujaheddin turning into Al-Qaeda. Further, the uranium in a nuclear weapon can be traced back to its source using modern nuclear forensics techniques, so any attack using an Iranian supplied bomb would be immediately identified as an attack by Iran, leading to a swift and deadly retaliation by the west. No self interested state would allow that to happen.
The main concern with a nuclear Iran, then, would be Iran becoming a major regional power and using its influence to spread terrorism, cause instability, and promote undemocratic and unfriendly regimes throughout the region through the use of coups and revolutions. Iran has been trying to do this for a long time, evidenced by its support for Hezbollah, Bashar al-Assad, Iraqi anti-government militias, and the 2011 attempted Shiite uprising in Bahrain. American military might has a record of providing credible deterrence against potentially harmful regimes, and it can continue to do so in the future. Thus, more troop deployments to the Middle East, coupled with more exercises, can help to credibly deter a rising Iran. Further, more financial and diplomatic aid to U.S. allies (and neutral countries) in the Middle East can strengthen U.S. allies in the region and bring neutral countries over to our side. Thus, in the event that Iran attempts to overthrow a friendly regime, the friendly regime will be stronger and better equipped to defeat an undemocratic uprising. To stop terrorism, small groups of U.S. special operations troops can be deployed to terrorist hotspots to train local forces and root out terrorist cells, in a fashion similar to the highly successful Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines.

However, recent events, such as Iran's ultimatum warning the USS John C. Stennis not to return to the Persian Gulf, or this New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/world/middleeast/us-warns-top-iran-leader-not-to-shut-strait-of-hormuz.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2), which claimed that the U.S. Navy would lose against the Iranian Navy, make the deployment of troops to the region look like a dangerous option. These fears are misguided. Although Iran has been making a lot of noise about how it won't tolerate any U.S. forces in the Gulf, the USS Abraham Lincoln and her carrier strike group entered the Gulf this morning without incident. Further, the day after Iran issued its ultimatum to the Stennis, her crew reported that the Iranian warships and aircraft in the Gulf were not stepping up their patrols (as would be expected if the Iranians actually planned to take action against the Stennis. The crew of the Stennis reported that the Iranian warships were returning to port, exactly the opposite of what would be expected. The 2002 Navy computer wargame cited by the New York Times as evidence that the Iranian navy would win in a fight over the Straight of Hormuz was highly flawed: the simulation glitched, allowing the Iranian patrol boats to both teleport and regenerate.

Note that I'm not advocating war with Iran. I advocate increased military exercises and deployments to the Persian Gulf region. War with Iran would be a disaster because it would cost an unreasonable amount of money, hurt our image abroad (which would erase our soft power and fuel terrorism), and probably not even work.

Further, sanctions have failed. Economic sanctions have mostly hurt the Iranian people, and have allowed the regime to skillfully paint a picture of unwarranted U.S. aggression that increases support for the regime, the exact thing we don't want. Besides, sanctions hurt the economies of Europe and our East-Asian allies by denying them the oil their economy relies on.

So what would work? The only policy that has seemed to work so far is covert attacks on Iran's nuclear program, such as Stuxnet or the "accidental" explosion of Iran's nuclear facilities earlier this year. However, a better solution would be to persuade Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. This cannot be done with the overtly hostile current regime, regime change is thus needed. The problem of encouraging regime change in Iran is the high probability of a repeat of the 1979 Iranian revolution (U.S. funded!) which put Khomeini and the current regime in power. To avoid this, we need to covertly fund an opposition group in Iran that aligns itself with U.S. interests. From what I hear from Iranian people, such groups exist. If we can cause such a group to become powerful enough, they could overthrow the government, giving us an ally in the region.

Thus, we could achieve all four of our objectives in Iran fairly easily: lifting sanctions secures our oil, a revolution would spread democracy and give American businesses a market to export to, and increased troop deployments would stop Iranian regional hegemony in its tracks.

Citations:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Quotes/maoterror.htm
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/the_martyr_state_myth
Nuclear Forensics: Role, State of the Art, and Program Needs; Joint Working Group of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Counterstrike: The untold story of America's secret campaign against Al Qaeda, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker. Times Books, 16 August 2011.
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/category/wordpress_tag/iran_sanctions

U.S.-China War

 Everyone these days talks about a potential war between the US and China. Thus, it would be beneficial to find out what such a war would actually look like.

To understand what a China-US war would play out, we must understand why such a war would be fought and what actions either side would take. The most commonly predicted scenario is a Chinese attack on Taiwan, which would involve a massive first strike using missiles aimed at defeating US forces in the reason. The scenario that the Chinese consider to be “most probable” would involve a US attack on the mainland, presumably to hold on to their status as the world’s sole superpower for a bit longer.(1)

In the first scenario, the Chinese would presumably launch a massive surprise attack on US bases in the region using ballistic missiles with submunitions, attack US naval forces with submarines and missiles, and launch an amphibious invasion of Taiwan.

The amount of missiles and aircraft the Chinese can throw at the local US bases would mean that these bases would be disabled even if air defense systems operate as planned.(3) However, the short scramble time of US jets (around 8 minutes)(4) means that most jets would be able to immediately retaliate. The US has around 500 fighters (5) in the region, while China has about 1000 (2), however the superiority of US aircraft and pilots means that the USAF will wipe out most of the Chinese force in the initial combat.(6) However, since the American planes will lack airbases to return to, and since American tankers are highly vulnerable, most US fighters will crash. Thus US air superiority will depend on aircraft carriers, although their opponent, the PLAAF, will be greatly weakened.

The Chinese will also make a point to attack American satellites on the first night of the war (7). Since the US army and Air Force rely heavily on satellite intelligence, they will not be able to operate as effectively as they have in the past. However, US forces will not be completely crippled without satellites, as their functions can be largely replaced by UAVs, shipborne communications, and portable ground radars. (8) The US also possesses advanced anti-satellite technology, which can also be expected to be used extensively. Thus both sides would be denied satellite use, which would again hurt the US more, although NASA and private space launch firms could quickly replace some satellites.(9)

China also possesses nuclear warheads and ICBMs capable of striking the US, although they only have 240 warheads and even fewer ICBMs. Nevertheless, both China (10) and the US (11) abide by MAD theory and have made it clear that they will not use nuclear weapons. However, if nuclear weapons were to be launched, the inferiority of China’s weapons (they are liquid fueled, making them easier to shoot down and less accurate), their slow response times (Chinese missiles are unfueled in their silos, meaning that their missiles would take three hours to launch, although poor detection systems would make the response time even greater. US missiles, by contrast, can launch in under two minutes, and benefit from an advanced detection system), and the huge size of the American arsenal (5,113 warheads) means that China would be obliterated, at comparatively little cost to the United States. Current US nuclear primacy also means that if a war became unwinnable, nuclear weapons would be on the table. (12)

The biggest variable in the war would be cyber warfare. Both sides posses some kind of cyber warfare capability, although only the US possesses industry disrupting technology like Stuxnet. However, the US is also the most vulnerable to a cyber attack, since their forces rely heavily on network-centric operations and UAVs (which can be hacked). In the event of a major war, the Chinese would have the capability to disable most of the US power grid, injure the economy, and somewhat decrease (though not cripple) the US army’s ability to fight. Whether or not they would be willing to do so remains unclear, but all signs point to yes, since there is no military reason why they would not, and politics would be much less of an issue in a war. The US could easily retaliate, however, and since their cyber warfare capabilities are more advanced. An American counter attack would probably result in a crippling of Chinese communications (which are not secured), network-centric warfare operations, power grid, and probably economy. Thus, the US would benefit most militarily from a cyber war (since network-centric fighting is not vital to the US war effort, and since a loss of communication would be far more devastating to the Chinese than a loss of network-centered warfare capabilities would be to the US), although China would benefit most overall (since the destruction of the US power grid and crippling of the economy would reduce support for the war and make the country unwilling to fight).(13)
However, most of the war will be fought at sea. (14) The Chinese would most likely manufacture crises in the Middle East through Iran (and its terrorist network) to tie down US carriers. It would then deal with the much smaller US force in the region using ballistic missiles (specifically the DF-21D), ship and submarine based anti-ship missiles (AShM), submarines, and naval mines. (15)

The primary concern for US fleets is said to be the DF-21D long range ballistic anti-shipping missile. However, all US fleets include at least one ship equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile defense, which has been proven to be effective against missiles that fly much faster than the DF-21D. Most scholars agree that Aegis will be effective against threats such as the DF-21D, so China’s ballistic missiles should pose little threat to US naval forces.(16)
China also possesses regular AShMs, which can be fired from aircraft, surface ships, submarines, or land based batteries. The USN has two means of air and missile defense: fighters on patrol and the Aegis Air Defense System. Since the fighters will be involved with air superiority duties, the task of air and missile defense will fall to Aegis. Aegis is a complex system centered around the AN/SPY-1 radar, considered to be the most powerful shipborne radar in the world. The system integrates long range SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles, Enhanced Sea Sparrow missiles and RIM-116 RAM missiles for close in defense, and Phalanx automated autocannon turrets for extreme close in defense. The system has proved effective in most (80%) (17) test engagements against missiles that simulate both cruise and ballistic missiles.(18) Although there are concerns that the Chinese may be able to overwhelm the system with an unending wave of attacks, Aegis is capable of engaging up to one hundred targets at once, although a new AESA-type radar (AN/SPY-3) will increase that number. (19)

However, China has one missile capable of defeating the Aegis system: the Russian 3M-54E Klub cruise missile. It flies stealthily along the surface of the water, and then launches into a supersonic sprint moments before impact, giving the target ship almost no reaction time. The US navy has stated that they lack a means of defeating this missile (20), although the Chinese only have 50 in their inventory (21), meaning that the US can just attack the ships carrying said missiles.

The Chinese also posses extensive amounts of naval mines. However, the US navy possesses extensive anti-mine technology, which it used to great effect in the Gulf War. Further, the few mines that did strike US ships did little damage, and most ships were able to continue operations while sustaining mine damage. (22) Current US mine countermeasures technologies and experience with using these technologies (23) means that mines will at best be a nuisance that could force the US to expend valuable ships mine hunting instead of carrying out combat operations.

The biggest threat to US naval supremacy is submarines, specifically diesel-electric submarines. Modern diesel-electrics are almost completely silent, can swim in shallower waters than their nuclear counterparts, and are far cheaper. The US navy has consistently lost to both modern (such as the Dutch Walrus class) and outdated (such as Australia’s Collins class) subs in exercises. The US Navy also lacks any effective means to train to detect diesel-electric submarines.(24) China has 52 diesel-electric boats, and has both copies of the advanced American Mk. 48 torpedo and the Soviet supersonic Shkval torpedo, both of which can easily sink a carrier.(25)

Finally, although land forces will probably not be a factor in a US-China war, they are worth noting. The USMC is the world’s finest Marine force, in terms of quality of leadership, soldier quality, and technology. Thus the Marines would probably be able to land in either China or Taiwan easily. (26) Although the Marines are presumed to be superior to the PLA, they would be outnumbered so dramatically that any Marine assault would be quick to fail. Attempts to land Army transports would require total sea superiority, which could not be guaranteed due to Chinese submarines. Thus an American land assault would most likely end in complete and total destruction.

So, with these factors in mind, we can imagine a US-China war in which China strikes first would look something like this:
Chinese forces strike first en masse, destroying US airbases, satellites and sinking several ships. The PLAAF is defeated within several days or weeks by naval aviation, local fighter squadrons, and fighters from around the world. US air supremacy allows for two things: ensuring protection of US fleets from AShMs, and pummeling the Chinese forces in Taiwan. China also initiates a cyber attack that destroys most of the US economy and power grid, although the attacks are repulsed quickly. Retaliatory American attacks on Chinese industry, coupled with conventional attacks on Chinese shipping and bombing of industrial centers eliminates public support for the war. After several months, the American public become war-weary after seeing the extreme casualties inflicted upon them by the Chinese. The Chinese government, seeing the damage done to its navy and its economy, decides to pursue peace. The talks come before a US amphibious invasion of the mainland, and although the option is kept on the table, it is a bluff by the US, since such an invasion would most likely be a failure. A treaty is signed, but only after extreme losses in both blood and treasure to both sides.

The other side: US declares war on China
The US government lacks (to my knowledge and the knowledge of the Internet) a plan to actually invade China, since doing so would be economic and political suicide. However, if such an attack were to occur, it would most likely be intended to overthrow the Communist party.
With that as the main objective, indiscriminate killing of civilians would not be an option. Instead, cyber warfare and traditional psychological warfare (PsyOps) would open up the Internet, radio and news to Chinese civilians while spreading propaganda. Meanwhile, airstrikes and cruise missile attacks on radar installations, air defense centers, and government structures. The hope would be for the Chinese public to revolt against their government to spare the US the need to mount an amphibious invasion.

This strategy would probably backfire, for several reasons. First, the Chinese military is designed with one purpose: prevent an invasion. The Chinese navy consists mostly of small missile boats designed to operate only in the littorals (coastal regions). So while these boats would have little effect on a US force defending Japan or Taiwan, they could be a major nuisance to an invasion force. They have an impressive amount of short range ballistic missiles that would easily rout any force that attempts to attack targets there. China also lacks any targets that if destroyed would cripple their air defense system.There is a possibility that such targets exist, but they are classified, however evidence seems to show that China’s radar installations are too widely dispersed to be taken out by a single blow. (27) Further, China has an advanced air defense system that would frustrate any prolonged air campaign in the country.(28)
Second, the Chinese populace seems unwilling to rise up against their government. Support for America is already very high, so PsyOps would have little effect. The Chinese government has reliably crushed democracy demonstrations in times of war or peace, which would deter any possible revolution.

So while a Chinese attack would eventually fail, albeit at high cost to both participants, a US attack would also fail, although for much different reasons.

Citations
1 If it comes to a shooting war..., Victor Corpus, Asia Times Online, 20 April, 2006 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad03.html
2 Air Combat Past, Present and Future, John Stillion and Scott Perdue, RAND Project Air Force publication, August 2008.
3 Norad on Heightened Alert: Role of air defence agency rapidly transformed in wake of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Linda Slobodian, published in The Calgary Herald, 13 October 2008
4 http://www.af.mil/publicwebsites/sitecmd.asp?id=8 USAF forces in the Pacific
5 Adam Baddeley (February 2011). "The AMR Regional Air Force Directory 2011". Asian Military Review.
6 IBID #2.
7 IBID #1
8 Desert Victory: The War for Kuwait, Norman Freidman, September 1991, Naval Institute Press.
9 Anti-satellite (ASAT) Capabilities of US Missile Defense Systems, David Wright and Laura Grego, Disarmament Diplomacy December 9, 2002.
10 China’s Perspective on Nuclear Deterrence Sr. COL Yao Yunzhu, PLA. Air & Space Power Journal, 1 March 2010. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj10/spr10/yao.html
11 Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited, COL Alan Parington, USAF, Airpower Journal, Winter 1997 http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/AIRCHRONICLES/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html. and Obama Endorses Mutual Assured Destruction, Ron Pistaro, 11 July, 2009.
12 The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy, Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61508/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-us-nuclear-primacy
13 HOW CHINA WILL USE CYBER WARFARE TO LEAPFROG IN MILITARY COMPETITIVENESS, Jason Fritz, Culture Mandala, V ol. 8, No. 1, October 2008, pp.28-80
14 How We Would Fight China, Robert D. Kaplan, Atlantic Magazine, June 2005. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/how-we-would-fight-china/3959/2/
15 IBID #1
16 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, Ronald O’Rourke (Specialists in Naval Affairs), CRS report for Congress, 8 April, 2010.
17 Air Defense: Teaching Old Aegis New Tricks, Strategy Page.com, 20 March, 2010. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20090320.aspx
18 Aegis Cruiser Intercepts Two Simultaneous Targets on Missile Test, Defense Update, 27 April, 2007. http://defense-update.com/newscast/0407/news/270407_aegis_bmd.htm
19 Fact File: Aegis System, US Navy, 2 November 2011 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=200&ct=2
20 Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against ‘Sizzler’ Missile, Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg, 23 March 2007, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home
21 China’s “Peaceful Rise” in the 21st Century: Domestic and International Conditions, Suijin Guo, Ashgate Publishing ltd., 2006
22 IBID #8
23 21st Century U.S. Navy Mine Warfare, Maj. GEN Thomas Benes, USMC, Anne Sandel, June 2009.
24 Diesel-Electric Submarines, the U.S. Navy’s Latest Annoyance, Grace Jean, National Defense, April 2008, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/April/Pages/AntiSub2301.aspx
25 The PLAN Submarine Force, Sid Trevethan, May 2004.
26 Marines.com
27 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, DOD, FY04 (presumably 2004).
28 China’s Air Defense Missile Systems, Carlo Kopp, Defense Focus.

Why we need more ships

There are two problems facing the economy right now: unemployment and the deficit. Meanwhile, both the Navy and experts at the Department of Defense maintain that we need at least 313 [1] ships for our navy to remain the most powerful in the world, compared to the current total of 286. As the main focus of our geopolitics shifts to the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, one thing becomes apparent: we need more ships. Thankfully, we now have an opportunity to kill three birds with one stone.

Even with recent advances in technology, shipbuilding remains a labor-intensive industry. For example Ingalls Shipbuilding, a mid-size shipyard in Mississippi, is the largest private employer in the state, employing over eleven thousand workers. [2] Like most other heavy manufacturing industries, shipbuilding creates additional jobs as local services, like restaurants and gas stations, needed to support the shipyards. In the case of Seaspan Marine corp., in British Columbia, the construction of a shipyard that employed 1,000 residents created an additional 3,000 jobs nearby. [3]

Despite the common perception that heavy industry jobs are low paying and require no expertise, modern shipbuilding requires mostly skilled workers, such as shipwrights, electricians, and millwrights, which all require years of training and are highly transferable trades. The industry also requires highly skilled workers, such as marine and computer engineers and health officers.
However, much of the benefit of shipbuilding is very indirect. Ships require an enormous supply chain of parts, most of which are located in the United States. Thus shipbuilding creates enormous amounts of jobs in a way that few other industries can. [4]

The benefits to national security of more warships are obvious. Nevertheless, merchant vessels are also required for our security. In a future major conflict, which most experts expect to be naval, losses to US merchant shipping would be severe, and there is no guarantee that foreign shipyards will be willing to rebuild American shipping. Also, in a conflict ships in the United States Merchant Marine can be called up to transport troops and supplies. Further, technologies developed in merchant shipyards can and do transfer to improving military ships (such as high speed ferry technology being used in the Independence class Littoral Combat Ships), and merchant shipyards can be repurposed for building, refitting and repairing navy ships.

How this creates jobs and would increase national security seems clear. Reducing the deficit, however, is not quite as clear. The addition of a great number of jobs means a great amount of tax receipts. Although the expense required to build shipyards and ships will be great, the tax revenues will eventually surpass the initial investment.

There are several possibly criticisms of such a policy, namely that shipbuilding can be replaced by other heavy industries that the US already dominates, and that foreign shipyards, namely those in Korea (who produce the majority of merchant vessels) will undercut American shipbuilding.
What sets shipbuilding apart from other heavy industries like automobiles and aviation is that while the US currently dominates most other industries with little threat from foreign nations, shipbuilding is one of the few industries where the US lags. GM and Boeing are still the largest companies in their field, but only one American-flagged vessel has been laid down in the past decade. Since this industry is so critical to our national security and our prosperity (90% of trade travels by sea) we must keep it strong. Also, the complexity of ships means that their parts chains are larger than those for other industries, spreading the benefits further.

While it is true that most merchant ships are now built in Korea, there is little reason this has to be the case. America has a long history of shipbuilding, and currently has several massive shipyards, albeit for military vessels. All that is required is an influx of capital from the federal government.
Thus, I propose two fairly simple things: provide funds and incentives for the construction of merchant shipyards on American soil and give shipbuilders an incentive (both monetary and in the form of guaranteed protection from US Navy warships) to register their ships under the American Flag.

Citations1 http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,187044,00.html Navy Surface Force in Deep Trouble
2 http://www.huntingtoningalls.com/is/about_us/about_us.html Ingalls Shipbuilding
3 http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Shipbuilding+boom+creates+demand+qualified+workers/5718883/story.html Shipbuilding boom creates demand for qualified workers, The Vancouver Sun, 16 November, 2011
4 http://www.boilermakers.org/resources/commentary/V41N3 We Must Build More Navy Ships

China really is a threat

Recently, I read an interesting article in the New York Times titled “To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan.” The premise of the article was that the US should stop protecting Taiwan in exchange for cancellation of debts owed to China. The author raises an interesting point in the article: our main interests abroad are economic.

“He should make it clear that today American jobs and wealth matter more than military prowess,” Paul Kane, the author of the article and a former Harvard professor and Marine, wrote.
So I must ask: is he right? Should the US “go soft?” Here it is useful to look at the current policies of the government before analyzing it theoretically.

In their annual budget report, published in November 2011, the US Department of State wrote that the mission of the United States abroad was to, “Shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere."[1]

So we can see that the United States currently does not act in an economically self-interested way, it currently aims to help those around the globe. The question is: should it?

Those who support Kane will argue that under Locke’s theory of the social contract, which formed the basis for our society, governments primarily have an obligation to their people.2 However, it is interesting to note that governments must conform to the will of the people, not just to their interests, because we must first consult with the populace to know what their interests are. So it would be a misconstruction of Locke to say that we must place economic goals first.

In addition, this was adopted as our political philosophy back in the day when our government was too weak to be concerned about anything other than our own survival. Today, as the world’s most powerful nation, we are in a greatly different position. We have the ability to uphold goods such as democracy, liberty and free trade around the globe. Regular people have an obligation to be just, so the same principles should apply to governments.

In the case of China, we clearly have values and interests, including economic interests, that do not overlap with those of China. China is an authoritarian state that has been attempting to spread its influence around the region. The spread of China’s anti-human rights, anti-freedom model of government would not be desirable for our interests. Another policy of China’s that we should aim to stop is the attempt by China to assert its dominance over the South China Sea [3], through which 50% of world trade flows. [4] Almost all of our oil also flows through this region, and re-routing it would send the price of oil up drastically. [4] Even disregarding the fact that freedom of trade and navigation our two of our biggest goals internationally, giving a foreign country that does not share our values and believes that the U.S. is evil and ought to lose its hegemony control of our oil lifelines would not be desirable.

Economic interdependence is rarely a deterrent of war, as best illustrated by Britain and Germany in 1914 [5] (the two countries were each other’s largest trading partners on the eve of the war, but differences in values and desires to dominate the Earth led to war). For most people, defense of national values tend to surpass prosperity as their greatest interest. This is seen in many wars throughout history where civilians voluntarily put themselves through hardship to continue fighting.

Cites
1 http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/index.htm#mission United States Department of State Mission Statement
2 The Social Contract in America: From the Revolution to the Present Age, Mark Hulliung. September 2007, American Political Thought. ISBN: 978-0-7006-1540-7
3 http://www.indianexpress.com/news/s-china-sea-control-others-question-beijing-wary-india-tests-the-waters/877491/ S China Sea control: Others question Beijing, wary India tests the waters – Indian Express
4 http://www.siis.org.cn/en/zhuanti_view_en.aspx?id=10116
5 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/papa.htm Interdependence, Institutions, and the Balance of Power: Britain, Germany, and World War I, International Security, Vol. 20, no. 4, Spring 1996