![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cruise Ships and Rule Britannia
Nov. 10th, 2010 10:07 amTwo perhaps unrelated thoughts. First, the Panamanian-flagged but American-owned (and full of American passengers) cruise ship Carnival Splendor suffered a main space fire and is being towed to port. Stricken 160 miles off of the Mexican coast, evacuation of the nearly 3,000 passengers can't be done unless they were taken off to another ship. Since Splendor isn't sinking, the passengers are staying. Note please that the Panamanian Navy is not involved in rescue efforts. Of course, since Panama doesn't maintain a navy, this is to be expected.
Panama doesn't maintain a navy because they don't see a military threat that justifies one. They are, however, perfectly willing to allow foreign corporations to register their ships in Panama, thus paying (low) Panamanian taxes and complying with (lower) Panamanian regulations. Now, I suspect that Panama's regulations had little or nothing to do with the fire. Between US Coast Guard rules on ships making US ports, insurance requirements, and the fact that the ship is barely two years old, I suspect that this fire was just "one of those things." But the bottom line is that the US taxpayer is footing the bill for the rescue, while the Panamanian taxpayer is getting the benefit of Splendor's revenue and the free ride on the US Navy. Looks like an easily-fixed tax loophole to me.
My second thought is this (a bit long) article which asks does Britain really need a military? The author's point is that, with the possible exception of Argentina having a go at the Falklands, there is no conventional military threat facing Great Britain. Therefore, he asks, why is Britain spending $78 billion on defense?
On the one hand, the author has a good point. The recent British defense review focused on the threat of terrorism, the only plausible threat, and one not particularly-well addressed by aircraft carriers and tanks. There are three points that the author doesn't address, the first point being my(perhaps loose) tie-in with Splendor. Militaries are very handy for things like rescue and disaster recovery, and one would think an island nation would want to retain that capability.
The second point is that militaries take time to develop. You don't learn how to fly a fighter jet overnight, and dogfighting takes even longer. More important but less glamorous is the logistics. Fixing and fueling a modern war machine requires experience, which is gained over decades. One can reduce capabilities and develop a cadre system, where the active force is expected to quickly train up a larger force, but capabilities lost are hard to regain.
The third point is what I'll call the "wall theory." It's not entirely original to me, but I can't recall where I got it from. Imagine, if you will, building a wall to keep the barbarians out. For a while, the barbarians will stand next to the wall, testing it. Then, eventually, they go away. Now, should you tear down the wall? Just because you can't see the barbarians, are they gone or just hiding?
Successful militaries, like successful police, make it seem like you don't need them. Until you do, at which point saying "time out - I need to recreate them" is not an option.
Panama doesn't maintain a navy because they don't see a military threat that justifies one. They are, however, perfectly willing to allow foreign corporations to register their ships in Panama, thus paying (low) Panamanian taxes and complying with (lower) Panamanian regulations. Now, I suspect that Panama's regulations had little or nothing to do with the fire. Between US Coast Guard rules on ships making US ports, insurance requirements, and the fact that the ship is barely two years old, I suspect that this fire was just "one of those things." But the bottom line is that the US taxpayer is footing the bill for the rescue, while the Panamanian taxpayer is getting the benefit of Splendor's revenue and the free ride on the US Navy. Looks like an easily-fixed tax loophole to me.
My second thought is this (a bit long) article which asks does Britain really need a military? The author's point is that, with the possible exception of Argentina having a go at the Falklands, there is no conventional military threat facing Great Britain. Therefore, he asks, why is Britain spending $78 billion on defense?
On the one hand, the author has a good point. The recent British defense review focused on the threat of terrorism, the only plausible threat, and one not particularly-well addressed by aircraft carriers and tanks. There are three points that the author doesn't address, the first point being my(perhaps loose) tie-in with Splendor. Militaries are very handy for things like rescue and disaster recovery, and one would think an island nation would want to retain that capability.
The second point is that militaries take time to develop. You don't learn how to fly a fighter jet overnight, and dogfighting takes even longer. More important but less glamorous is the logistics. Fixing and fueling a modern war machine requires experience, which is gained over decades. One can reduce capabilities and develop a cadre system, where the active force is expected to quickly train up a larger force, but capabilities lost are hard to regain.
The third point is what I'll call the "wall theory." It's not entirely original to me, but I can't recall where I got it from. Imagine, if you will, building a wall to keep the barbarians out. For a while, the barbarians will stand next to the wall, testing it. Then, eventually, they go away. Now, should you tear down the wall? Just because you can't see the barbarians, are they gone or just hiding?
Successful militaries, like successful police, make it seem like you don't need them. Until you do, at which point saying "time out - I need to recreate them" is not an option.
