10. Venezuela
9. Iraq and Saudi Arabia (Tie)
8. The European Union
7. Nigeria and Congo (Tie)
6. Israel and Palestine (Tie)
5. Iran
4. Russia
3. Pakistan
2. China
1. The United States
My first comment on this list is that the idea of a "tie" in a top 10 list is stupid. David Rothkopf is a coward for suggesting Israel and Palestine are somehow equally dangerous. The truth is, Israel is much more dangerous and the guy lacks the gonads to say it because it is politically incorrect to suggest criticism of Israel.
The same is true of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is clearly more dangerous based on the criteria as explained, because they have military power that can be used in a war where Iraq's military power is concentrated on protecting the people of their own country from an insurgency. How David Rothkopf misses the distinction and claims a tie is very questionable.
Finally, the absence of North Korea on the list is a remarkable oversight. More people could die on the first day hostilities in just Seoul between North Korea and South Korea began than has died to war in the entire 21st century to date. The population of Seoul is well over 10 million people, if 10% died to massive shelling and bombing that would be over 1 million people, more than all the civilians, soldiers, and bad guys killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined since 2001, by a factor of around 9!
For the record, the US as number one on this list is exactly right, because when we do something we tend to do it with the force of a sledgehammer. I think the day the US is no longer #1 on this list will be a bad day, not a good day. I'd much rather be known as a the most dangerous than known as the least dangerous. Bully's tend to pick on the weak. It is generally not courage, but a bit of crazy, in the people who choose to pick on the strong.
The second list at Foreign Policy worth checking out is The World's Biggest Military Boondoggles by Brian Fung. It is an interesting list I guess, but I am not sure I agree with the list. He lists, and I don't believe in any particular order the Type 45, the Bulava ballistic missile, the Chinese Type 085 and Type 089 aircraft carrier projects, the French Porte-Avions 2 aircraft carrier project, and the A-400 heavy transport.
Considering Brian Fung has about zero hard information regarding Chinese aircraft carrier projects, much less how much has been or will be spent on them, his inclusion of that item on the list is silly. There is some realy stupidity in this analysis.
But can China deliver? Critics say the country has neither the technology nor the skills nor the time to achieve its targets. It could conceivably field a small carrier fairly soon -- a military hardware expo on July 4 revealed mock-ups closely resembling a Soviet Kuznetsov-class vessel. That type of carrier, however, doesn’t feature the steam catapults necessary to launch heavier, more sophisticated planes off the deck. China would have to design such a system from scratch or modify its existing maglev technology to fit. The albatross potential here is considerable.I think Brian Fung just revealed he doesn't know much with that comment. We are banking on the albatross being China's inability to get 'steam catapults' to work, and we make this assessment on models at a hardware expo? The aircraft carrier boondoggle he should have mentioned is the Admiral Gorshkov project Russia is working on for India, the biggest boondoggle taking place in the military export market today.
While the A-400 and Bulava are clearly Boondoggles, the question I have is whether the Porte-Avions 2 is more of a boondoggle than the Ford-class aircraft carrier to date, or whether the Type 45 is even in the same league of boondoggle as the DDG-1000 right now. I still wonder if at the end of the day, the Joint Strike Fighter becomes the biggest boondoggle in military history, and it didn't even make Brian Fung's list.
No comments:
Post a Comment