From Today’s Inquirer headlines
Move over. The big boys are coming.President Benigno Aquino III said the Philippines was close to finalizing a deal with a state-owned Korean aerospace firm to buy a squadron of FA-50 fighter jets worth P18.9 billion—a move seen to bolster the country’s aerial power and defend its territory in the disputed West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).Mr. Aquino said he discussed the procurement of 12 brand-new multirole combat aircraft from the Korea Aerospace Industries Inc. (KAI) when he met with South Korean President Park Geun-hye at the Blue House, South Korea’s seat of power.He said it was part of the commitment of both countries to improve their military cooperation, in line with a memorandum of understanding they entered into on Thursday.
The first statement should have read
Filipino taxpayers beware. The big taxes are coming
Funny how media glamorizes what has been sold by political agents to the public as patriotic mirage of defending domestic territories. In reality, the territorial dispute has served as smoke screen for expansionist government via bigger deficit spending, more political control (lesser civil liberties), promoting US bases and the military industrial complex (here and abroad)
As the recent Zamboanga City crisis has revealed, superiority and capability plays little in the way the Philippine military operates. The sordid Zamboanga episode exhibits how the much 'superior' Philippine military bungled their operations relative to a much ill equipped, inferior in numbers and in training insurgents (Wikipedia note; MNLF participants 500, Philippines army participants 5,000 with tanks personnel carriers, and air support—attack aircraft, helicopters).
Yet it took 16 days for the military to crush the insurgents (casualties Philippine military: 25 dead 184 wounded, MNLF: 183 dead, 292 captured). This is hardly an example to justify the government's claim to increase defense spending.
And it seems no more than wishful thinking for anyone to believe that new ‘modern’ armaments will serve to neutralize the far superior nuclear and drone equipped Chinese army. A chart comparing the US and Chinese military in Asia, I have previously posted here.
The reality is that invoking nationalism to defend “insignificant scrubby rocks” (John Keller) which supposed ‘rich’ resource reserves will only be beneficial to politically connected allies (cronies) via service contract permits issued by the government.
Societies hardly get rich from resources, they get rich from free trade, the market economy or economic freedom.
Natural resources have in fact been a blight to many countries. This has been known as the resource curse. Resource revenues tend to cover up on government's mismanagement. Also the ruling elite who control these resources tend to pushback on economic reforms.
Yet politicians have been agitating for war, whose benefits will accrue to a few and whose costs will be distributed and paid for by the productive agents of the Philippine society.
Spurious nationalism will be funded by bigger taxes and by more financial repression (inflationism, negative rates, deposit caps and other capital controls)
Of course in case of actual shooting encounters, it won’t be the politicians life whom will be at stake but the lowly foot soldier, who either earnestly believe they are fighting for a righteous cause or out of the lack economic opportunities. Unfortunately they serve as unwitting pawns of grandstanding politicians.
But the best way to resolve such impasse will be to deepen trade and commercial relationships that will promote deeper social interactions that would empower the citizenry rather than brinkmanship politics from politicians.
As I have been saying, all these has partly been about promoting the return of the US military bases—a legacy the incumbent administration wishes to fulfill which had been terminated in 1992 during the incumbent’s mother’s administration.
Despite denials by the US to seek permanent presence, the US wants extended access to Philippine bases. The rehashed US-Philippine military relationship has been framed in the context to become palatable to public opinion.
The Left has alleged that the Philippine government has spent Php 500 million in building base infrastructure in Palawan to accommodate US military. If true, then this has been foreordained as popularity ratings will be used to formally bring back US bases. Except of course, the pork barrel scam has frayed into these populist ratings.
While it is true that Philippines will be buying these jets from a Korean state defense industry, what has not been revealed is that the FA-50 has essentially been powered, equipped and armed by mostly the US-Israel military industrial complex
From the Wikipedia (bold mine)
The FA-50 is the most advanced version of the T-50. It is equipped with a modified Israeli EL/M-2032 pulse-Doppler radar with further Korean-specific modifications by LIG Nex1, and has more internal fuel capacity, enhanced avionics, a longer radome and a tactical datalink The radar selected for the FA-50 has a range two-thirds greater than the TA-50's radar. The EL/M-2032 was initially chosen over Lockheed Martin's preferred AN/APG-67(V)4 and SELEX Vixen 500E AESA radars. Other AESA radars such as Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar and Northrop Grumman's Scalable Agile Beam Radar are options for future production, and will likely be shared with the same AESA radar chosen for the USAF and ROKAF F-16 fighters. Samsung Thales is also independently developing a domestic multi-mode AESA radar for FA-50/ In December 2008, South Korea awarded a contract to Korea Aerospace Industries to convert four T-50s to FA-50 standards by 2012. In 2012, The Republic of Korea Air Force has ordered 20 FA-50 fighters to be delivered by the end of 2014 The maiden flight of FA-50 multirole fighter variant took place in 2011. The 60 FA-50 aircraft are to be produced from 2013 to 2016. Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) received a 1.1 trillion won ($1 billion) order for FA-50 fighter aircraft in May 2013.The T-50 is the proposed base for the more advanced F-50 fighter with strengthened wings, AESA radar, more internal fuel, enhanced electronic warfare capability, and a more powerful engine. The proposal is designated as T-50 Phase 3 program by KAI. Wing strengthening is required to support three underwing weapons pylons, compared to two underwing pylons on the TA-50 or FA-50. The AESA radar was expected to be RACR, which has 90% commonality with the AESA radar of the Super Hornet, or SABR, both of which are competing for KF-16's AESA radar upgrade program. Samsung Thales' AESA radar is also a possible option. The aircraft was altered to a single-seat configuration to allow more space for internal fuel and electronic warfare equipment. The engine could be either Eurojet EJ200 or General Electric F414, upgraded to 20,000 lb or 22,000 lb thrust, which is about 12-25% higher than the F404's thrust. The engines are already being offered for the baseline T-50 for future customers. A similar Korean-led international fighter program exists named the KAI KF-X.
TA-50/FA-50 armaments again from Wikipedia
The TA-50 version mounts a three-barrel cannon version of the M61 Vulcan internally behind the cockpit, which fires linkless 20 mm ammunition. Wingtip rails can accommodate the AIM-9 Sidewinders missile, a variety of additional weapons can be mounted to underwing hardpoints. Compatible air-to-surface weapons include the AGM-65 Maverick missile, Hydra 70 and LOGIR rocket launchers, CBU-58 and Mk-20 cluster bombs, and Mk-82, −83, and −84 general purpose bombs.FA-50 can be externally fitted with Rafael's Sky Shield or LIG Nex1's ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve the fighter's electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities. Other improved weapon systems over TA-50 include SPICE multifunctional guidance kits, Textron CBU-97/105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon with WCMD tail kits, JDAM, and JDAM-ER for more comprehensive air-to-ground operations, and AIM-120 missiles for BVR air-to-air operations. FA-50 has provisions for, but does not yet integrate, Python and Derby missiles, also produced by Rafael, and other anti-ship missiles, stand-off weapons, and sensors to be domestically developed by Korea
The South Korean army has also essentially been supported (28,000 troops) by the US, as well as armed and equipped (from army, navy, air force to marine corps mostly by the US military and US defense contractors.
So the Korean defense industry represents a token of real defense spending $31.7 billion (2013), where according to Wikipedia arms exports totaled $183 million (2012) compared to imports at $1.131 billion (2010).
In July 2013, the South Korean military appealed to the Parliament for an increase 13.7% of the military budget which translates to $38.5 billion to beef up the nation's missile defense.
The point is South Korean defense industry has been deeply tied with the US military complex. So this reflects on the dynamics behind the Philippine government's proposed buying of South Korean jets.
Bottom line: The fantasy of arming for defense by the Philippine government to protect against the far more powerful China serves as economic privileges for the US-Israel defense industry (also Korea’s KAI), the Philippine bureaucracy and the Philippine military as well as the US military.
The first three will be charged to us, the Philippine taxpayers. The US military base/s will be charged to the American taxpayers but whose subsequent social and environmental costs will a burden to local communities in the Philippines who will serve as host/s to the base/s.
23 comments:
I comment that it’s interesting to observe the US-Israel military industrial complex in operation in Asia. From reading in Antiwar, I observe that the US and Israel are diverging, and that the US is open to negotiation with Iran. It appears that President Obama is oblivious to reality that Israel is left to go it alone to destroy the nuclear ambitions of Iran. This leaves the US terrifically overexposed, that is overstretched, in its plans to be involved in Japanese, Philippine, and South Korea conflict with China as well as North Korea. There is a limit to empire, and the limits of the US Dollar Hegemonic empire are being achieved.
Liberalism stands at Peak Empire. Jesus Christ operating in the economy of God, that is in the administration of all things economic and political, as presented by the Apostle Paul, in ephesians 1:10, is making liberalism complete, with the expansion of The US Dollar Hegemonic to its most full capability: peak empire is being achieved. Nation state democracy is at its zenith.
The robust phase of liberalism is being achieved. The banker regime came into being with the birth of the Creature from Jekyll Island, one hundred years ago in 1913, and stands in peak sovereignty and peak seigniorage. The banker regime is in its terminal phase.
Through financial apocalypse, that is a credit bust and global financial system breakdown, as foretold in bible prophecy of Revelation 13:3, the economic head of the Beast System will experience a massive and apparently fatal wound, yet recover, mostly through nannycrats working in regionalism, that is regional integration, for regional stability, security and sustainability.
You conclude your article by relating The fantasy of arming for defense by the Philippine government to protect against the far more powerful China serves as economic privileges for the US-Israel defense industry (also Korea’s KAI), the Philippine bureaucracy and the Philippine military as well as the US military. The first three will be charged to us, the Philippine taxpayers. The US military base/s will be charged to the American taxpayers but whose subsequent social and environmental costs will a burden to local communities in the Philippines who will serve as host/s to the base/s.
I comment further that not only is there a moral hazard, but an economic hazard as well, where social and environmental burdens are transferred to parties that did not sign on to the military deal. Delusions of grandeur are all part of peak empire. Jesus Christ operating in the economy of God, is terminating the banker regime and is bringing forth a new empire, that being regional governance and totalitarian collectivism in each of the world’s ten regional zones, something heralded by the 300 elite of the Club of Rome in 1913, and presented in bible prophecy of both Revelation 13:1-4, and Daniel 2:25-45.
sooo.. what do you want now??? you want China invade our country? do you want to become a SLAVE to the Chinese? the Philippine government is doing every they got to bolster our defence against threats, and you say such trash? c'mon, i always wondering that when it comes to the US, people like you come out to streets and protest, but when it comes to china, you didnt even care, now i only a matter of time, i would rather give my taxes to these JETS rather than to the Facist politicians who support CHINA, but well, im sure when CHINA invaded our country, and we are gone, you will regret everything you said. i assure you.
@anonymous
thanks for your comments.
Some questions
Do you think that an arms build up would serve as a successful deterrent to a country DECIDED to invade another country?
Next question. Have you seen China's military profile? they have nuclear weapons, drones and other modern weapons. How do you think the Philippines will fare against such array of state of the art weaponries?
Do you think that the Philippines has the resources to mount the same degree of weapons acquistion?
At what costs?
Remember, an arms build up isn't just the concern of the Philippine government. They have all sort of spending program, including Pork barrels.
Nonetheless an arms build up will increase the overall
burden of taxpayers which hardly gives any clear benefits to the average residents.
Finally why the need for antagonism when there are always diplomatic ways to go around these?
Your comment serves as a great example of the warning of English historian Arnold Toynbee on the war generation cycle:
The survivors of a generation that has been of military age during a bout of war will be shy, for the rest of their lives, of bringing a repetition of this tragic experience either upon themselves or upon their children, and … therefore the psychological resistance of any move towards the breaking of a peace … is likely to be prohibitively strong until a new generation … has had the time to grow up and to come into power. On the same showing, a bout of war, once precipitated, is likely to persist until the peace-bred generation that has been lightheartedly run into war has been replaced, in its turn, by a warworn generation.
Peace be with you.
Benson
@Benson
Dahil ba mas malakas ang armaments ng China at kailangan na natin isuko ang pag-aari natin sa kanila? Yan ba ang gusto mo para sa mga anak mo? Kung yan ang gusto mo edi punta kana sa China at para maramdaman mo ang kanilang pamamalakad na kumunismo. Alam mo ba na ginawa na lahat puro Diplomatic pero ano ang ginawa ng China hindi nila pinansin. Alam mo ba na ang China ay pomerma ng kasunduan nung 2001(if i'm not mistaken) tungkol sa west ph sea or known as south china sea para itigil ng mga bansa ang pagpapadala ng mga tao pero anong ginawa nila nung 2012 diba kinuha nila ang Scarborough na 100+ KM lang mula sa dalampasigan ng Pilipinas? Kung ikaw ay isang bansa gagawin mo lahat basta may banta kahit hindi ka gaano ka lakas basta may pandepensa kalang. Nasa national anthem namin yan dito sa Philippines na ang "mamatay ay dahil sayo" ikaw hindi ka anman Pilipino kaya hindi mo na intendihan yan.
Dear Mr. Benson_te...
Why do you think that our country is the only one being bullied by the chinese?? Why not Malaysia, Indonesia,Vietnam, or even there renegade county Taiwan? Why? Because they have the ability to Bite Back... The Philippines has no Anti-Aircraft capabilities, Anti-ship/Submarine Capabilities,,, So that leaves us a Tiger without fangs...
And yeah, china has nuclear weapons, a lot of fighter aircraft, surface ships, submarines and 2.5 million strong military personnel... But it doesn't mean that they would be able to defeat us...
Remember Vietnam war? The US is the far more superior Country but they end up resigning the war... The Afghan-Soviet war? The Soviets is far more superior than the Afghans but they also end up like the US- many calls it Russia's Vietnam... Both of those countries are Nuclear capable but they did not use it to win the war.. It would be a shame for them...
The age today does not require a far more superior country to win a war based on numbers, but the ability to defend with a minimum credible force and a good defense strategy,,. We are buying hardware's such as Fighter Jets, Frigates, Corvettes, Tanks, missiles, boots, vest&helmet and guns to defend our MOTHERLAND, to secure the FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN... and what makes you think that our taxes will rise? Do you have proof? I'd rather have my tax to the Military Modernization and the AFP than to the pockets of our F*CKED up politicians,,,
FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OUR PURE AND BLUE WORLD!
ALLEN
Thanks Allen for your comments.
You ask "Why do you think that our country is the only one being bullied by the chinese??"
You have missed a far bigger factor Allen. China has also been bickering with or 'bullying’ according to your terms with Japan. Yet Japan is a world power too armed not only modern weaponry but has US bases on them. Have you not read about the no-fly zone imposed by China on Senkaku?
And don't forget too Japan and Taiwan went into a water cannon battle over Senkaku in 2012.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/9564879/Japanese-and-Taiwanese-ships-in-water-cannon-battle-over-Senkaku-Islands-dispute.html
A few days ago Chinese ships entered the Senkaku
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/01/china-ships-enter-waters-off-disputed-islands-201411275619353616.html
The Japanese government responded by sending jets
http://news.sky.com/story/1191448/senkaku-islands-japan-sends-jets-in-china-row
Oh don’t forget that the Japan had a running water gun boat battle with Taiwan also over Senkakus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/9564879/Japanese-and-Taiwanese-ships-in-water-cannon-battle-over-Senkaku-Islands-dispute.html
So who did the bullying over at Senkaku Japan or Taiwan?
Let me inform you that territorial disputes have not been isolated.
The Thailand Cambodia territorial dispute raged in 2011 with a series of actual military combat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Thai_border_dispute#Clashes
The Kashmir conflict between in India and Pakistan is still a hot issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Army-Chief-Warns-Pakistan-Says-Forces-Needed-in-Kashmir/2014/01/13/article1998512.ece
You ask why others are not being bullied? Perhaps this is one reason, that's in the case of Vietnam
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1331106/china-vietnam-set-group-explore-disputed-south-china-sea
And contra your stateemtn, I guess Malaysia is not in terms with China or other ASEAN claimants too
http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/malaysia-to-establish-marine-corps-and-south-china-sea-naval-base/
So this answers your selective perception.
continued in next comment box
continued from above,,
Basically you are arguing from the presumption that an arms race will prevent invasion.
But this is false
While arms race is not the entire factor, arms race has been one of the key influences that led to World War I and its offshoot world war II
Writes History.com
http://www.history.com/topics/arms-race
open quote
The first competitive buildup in which contemporaries used the arms race metaphor seems to have been the naval rivalry in the late nineteenth century, in which France and Russia challenged Britain in the context of acute tensions over colonial expansion. The British responded with a determination to remain masters of the seas. The ultimate result was not war, but rather an Anglo-French political settlement in 1904 and an Anglo-Russian rapprochement in 1907 against the background of a rising German threat.
The German challenge to Britain in the early twentieth century involved the most famous naval arms race of all. As the post-Bismarck political leadership decided that Germany must become a world power, Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz was able to justify building a large German battle fleet. When the British finally responded, the upshot was a competition that fit an action-reaction model more closely than any other arms race. The Germans in the end could not keep up, because of domestic difficulties in raising taxes and pressures to give greater priority to spending on the army. Though the naval arms race did poison Anglo-German relations, it was the actions of the German army, not the German navy, that ultimately produced war in 1914.
A third major naval arms race, involving the United States, Britain, and Japan, erupted at the end of World War I. It was fueled by Japanese efforts to expand their political influence in East Asia and by an American attempt to gain greater political leverage over Britain. This was a race that, for financial reasons, none of the participants wanted to run very far. It ended at the Washington Conference of 1921-1922 with the first major arms-limitation treaty ever and a new political settlement for East Asia.
Was there, then, no truth at all in the 1925 verdict of a former British foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, that "great armaments lead inevitably to war"? In fact, an arms race among European armies had some part in the outbreak of World War I. In the July crisis of 1914, German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg took greater risks in brinkmanship than he might have otherwise done, because of a presumption that Russia's stepped-up efforts to improve its military capability meant Germany would be in a stronger position to win a war in 1914 than later.
Similarly, Adolf Hitler was in a rush to attack France in 1940 and the Soviet Union in 1941, partly because of the dynamics of an arms race that he had started in the 1930s. Held back by domestic financial constraints, Britain and France had lagged behind. But they, and Germany's other adversaries, had accelerated their rearmament in the late 1930s, and Hitler moved forward his program of conquest lest the German lead be overtaken.
Japan, too, succumbed to "now or never" calculations in 1941. Its naval leaders appreciated that the Japanese navy had gained a lead over the U.S. Pacific Fleet in every class of warship, but that a massive American naval program begun in 1940 would leave them far behind by 1943. Coupled with the effects of an American oil embargo against Japan, this playing out of the dynamics of an arms race helped to prompt an attack on the United States in December 1941 (see Pearl Harbor, Attack on). But in this case, as in the two European wars, hegemonic political ambitions fueled the conflict."
close quote
In short an arms race has the tendency to provoke actual conflict rather than deter them.
continued below,,,,
post 3
Finally, your question regarding nuclear weapons.
In this world of nuclear weapons, what guarantee do you have that nukes won't be used?
Not because no nukes were used in Vietnam and Afghan war, there will be no nukes that will be used in the future. This will all depend on the objectives and reactions of the combatants at the moment of war.
The point where atomic bombs were used against Japan in World War 2 means they can be used anytime.
As mathematician and philosopher author Nassim Taleb pointed out in debunking the Pinker Argument where the world is a lot safer today, “The fact that nuclear bombs explode less often that regular shells does not make them safer”
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/longpeace.pdf
Bottom line Past performance doesn't guarantee future outcomes.
Would you risk losing your family if we became the 'fat tail' for nuclear weapons?
And don't forget too that drones have been used to fight terrorist here.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/03/05-drones-philippines-ahmed
Drones are relatively new in terms of international warfare.
It would be naïve to assume that drones won’t also be used once a shooting war occurs.
Finally where would you put your money, Allen; to victims of Yolanda or Jets?
Hope this helps
Benson
Para dun sa against sa modernization ng AFP, KOMUNISTA KA BA?
I would rather spend my taxes to Modernizing the AFP than spend it to corrupt officials and also leftist congressman whose main objective is to oppose the gain of the government and bring down the Republic of the Philippines.
Do we just sit down and wait? If we dont modernize now we will be leaving ourselves at the mercy of bigger stronger nations and heavily rely on the US for support. If we dont modernize then we're playing into the hands of the US who wants increased rotational presence (in the absence of a base) with the justification that we cannot defend ourselves. If we decline their support China will capitalize on our weakness and grab more islands... so where do you want us to go? What do you suggest we do? Yolanda victims are now financially supported, in fact financial support continue to pour in... do we channel more money to yolanda victims or manage what we already received as contributions?
Going back to the topic, our modernization is looking into equipping our military with minimum credible defense equipments and not excessive or expensive ones because we know we cant afford them. Its like you putting a basic gate and fence to your house to protect your property and family and not highly expensive ones that can electrocute intruders with cctv's etc... again, we just need "minimum" "credible" defense nothing lavishly excessive to deter intruders.
Hmmm, I did not say that we will be Joining an arms race.. We are buying those to have a minimum deterrent in case a invasion occurs or External Threats, Respond to Internal Threats(Remember Zambaonga Crisis) and And Natural Camamities(Bohol quake and Yolanda)- And o yeah, I forgot, We lack Transport vessels.. Transport ships/Aircraft to respond Yolanda and Bohol quake.. that's why they fast tracked it... There are already winners of the Bid for 2 Strategic Sea Lift vessels and 3 Medium lift aircraft's and 20+ units of second hand UH-1H to respond on future calamities...
I would like to ask you, do you want history to repeat itself?? World War II, many of our Women and Children were Raped and Murdered, Brought fear in the lives of the Filipinos, Hunger, Sickness... Why? We don't have the gear to protect in the past even if the Americans are there in that time... Do you wanna live in that time of our Grandfather's? That's why we are procuring modern gear to Protect Mother Land and the Future of our Children...
About Nukes, usually especially on NATO countries.. Using nukes is there last line of defense.. I just don't know if china will use that to gain a tiny group of Islands called Spratly's and Senkaku so you have a point, I'm not sure if they will use it in the future wars... But in the future we could avail the Missile Defense system to counter ballistic missiles especially Missile with Nuke warheads...
And your question Jet's or Yolanda victims.... I would like to put my tax on Jet's and other hardware's for our AFP to respond on External/Internal Threats and Calamities... Filipinos are very resilient people, they can manage to pull it off.. And I saw it on the news, some of them are already selling the donated sacks of rice and other foods.. See, we are very very resilient.. hehe..
And Why would we ask for payment on the tubataha reef damage of the US minesweeper.. US has already gave us 100 Million of Aid.. Is that not enough??
And how many Yolanda's will come in the future?? Will I again repeat history? We lack Hardware's such as transport vessels/aircrafts and SAR Heli's.. How will I again respond to those again?? Seek help to the US and other nations?? what if they dont respond?? What will we do? Nga nga??
For the Preservation of our Pure and Blue World!
Allen
@Onetwelve
Thanks for your nice comment.
I have a different perspective on you regarding the US rotational presence. In my view, neoconservatives and the US military complex have been instrumental in trying to get the goat of the Chinese, for one fundamental reason. War is business. The bigger the threat, the bigger the business. The US tried to invade Iran and Syria but had been spoiled by domestic politics. But nonetheless they will keep trying. This is just one example. Another is the encirclement strategy by the US on both China and Russia that has partly prompted the Chinese to feel the heat and play brinkmanship politics via gunboat diplomacy.
The odd thing is that China remains as the biggest buyer of US debt. And this impliedly means China continues to help finance US military build up. Because of this I even suspect that China could be part of the US scheme of promoting the US military industrial complex. I even suspect that the US is targeting Russia with the help of China. But the latter needs more proof.
Former US President Eisenhower warned of the growing clout of the the military industrial complex in shaping US and international developments
open quote
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
close quote
pls read the rest here
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
continued below
section 2 of above comment...
Also China and Japan are having economic difficulties so they may be trying to divert the public’s attention by the war theatrics.
My article above is an economics article more than it is a political article. As Eisenhower points out: there is ‘the need to maintain balance in and among national programs’
This shows that given resources are scarce, priorities or ‘balance’ will have to be made. My reference to Yolanda is to point out that there will be many natural calamities that will face us also given that the Philippines sits on the “ring of fire”. The buck does not stop at Yolanda. Typhoon Pablo in 2012 remains as the costliest typhoon with Yolanda ranking second
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoons_in_the_Philippines#Most_destructive
And given that the Philippines hardly is a rich country, for me the priority should be enriching society first. Diplomacy should be a priority as defense is largely a non-productive activity that consumes resources.
Besides in understanding geopolitics, any military action taken by anyone will likely have unforeseen consequences or a contagion. For instance, will the US uphold its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines? If so then like South Korea or Japan they have delegated part of their defense requirement to the US. And knowing this, I don't think China will be foolish enough to a move that may trigger the treaty. But of course, anything can happen.
Finally I would not compare defense to a private property. In your property you can do anything you would like to do with it. Politics is not the same with a house, which is why you are arguing about it.
Hope this helps,
Benson
a note on reader comments
I will only answer valid objections and not ad hominems
I will not publish uncivil comments.
I will not repeat to reply on objections I have already addressed.
Hi again Allen
During World War 2, the Philippines was a commonwealth under the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines
This meant that the US provided most of the defense of the country. So the US had bases here which became the magnet for the Japanese attack.
then the fledging Philippine commonwealth army was under the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Philippines_during_World_War_II
So WWII was different from today. but yet US bases failed to deter an invasion by a decided aggressor
There is an unproved quote from Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto%27s_sleeping_giant_quote
just to clarify
Hi again Allen
During World War 2, the Philippines was a commonwealth under the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines
This meant that the US provided most of the defense of the country. So the US had bases here which became the magnet for the Japanese attack.
then the fledging Philippine commonwealth army was under the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Philippines_during_World_War_II
So WWII was different from today. but yet US bases failed to deter an invasion by a decided aggressor
There is an unproved quote from Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto%27s_sleeping_giant_quote
just to clarify
@The Author
IMHO - I do agree here for arming the Philippines for self Defense and security.
As mentioned on one of the post here it is like safeguarding your personal property. (which you have discredited)
I'm sure when you are locking up your doors and windows for security
and have at least a lock for it?
Let see if your diplomacy will work to "Akyat Bahay Gangs"
There is a time for Diplomacy and there is a time of action.
No one will consider your demand for diplomacy if they know you do not have a muscle to demand for it.
Our AFP has been neglected for a couple of decades now are you not ashamed about it?
Probably Not.
If that is the case, don't expect them to defend your country, and provide you security.
Don't blame them for lack of morale, confidence, and being incompetent.
Mentality like this has been ongoing for the Philippines and honeslty "Nakakahiya Na"
I believe it is time to act, put back pride and self-preservation to the people.
And having since of security is part of it...
Being secure promotes growth and confidence to the people on to whoever plans to invest to this country
- Paul
Speaking of Akyat Bahay Gangs. Does the Philippine government send jets to the akyat bahay gang equivalents who plunder the Philippine taxpayer money, e.g. Pork Barrel, Fertilizer Scam etc...?
A clarification
I used Typhoon Yolanda here (or in this comment space) not because I prefer government spending on natural calamity preparations, but as example of the manifold choices the government is faced with. This may be dependent on the issue of the day.
The problem with public’s priorities is that they are fickle and are mostly focused on the sensational. For instance if a bridge collapses tomorrow with thousands killed, the public’s demand will likely be for government to spend on bridge building and repairs. If there should be an epidemic of some sort, the public will likely demand government to produce or buy vaccines for distribution and so forth.
As mathematician and philosopher Nassim Taleb puts it…
Open quote
We humans scorn what is not concrete. We are more easily swayed by a crying baby than by thousands of people dying elsewhere that do not make it to our living room through the TV set. The one case is a tragedy, the other a statistic. Our emotional energy is blind to probability. The media make things worse as they play on our infatuation with anecdotes, our thirst for the sensational, and they cause a great deal of unfairness that way. At the present time, one person is dying of diabetes every seven seconds, but the news can only talk about victims of hurricanes with houses flying in the air.
The problem is that by creating bureaucracies, we put civil servants in a position to make decisions based on abstract and theoretical matters, with the illusion that they will be making them in a rational, accountable way
Close quote
http://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Taleb_Antifragile.pdf
Yet people forget how these projects will have to be funded and the costs underlying the transfer of funds for public spending and that government themselves are in a quandary on what to prioritize.
I guess that this will be my last comment here.
Thanks for all your contributions
The fact that you think the People's Republic of China will potentially utilize nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in a direct shooting war with the Philippines over the Spratlys tells me all I need to know about your competence, or rather lack thereof, as an analyst on this particular topic. When comparing the relative strengths of the armed forces of two potential combatant-states, it would be wise to factor in political considerations and global reputation in assessing which weapons systems would actually be employed in the event of armed conflict. My unsolicited suggestion? Keep to discussing the intricacies of the stock market and the investment climate, and stay away from military strategy and geopolitical analysis. You also need to brush up on our taxation laws so as not to come off as pretentious, and not to mention, presumptuous. Furthermore, answering queries posited by readers through direct quotations from supposedly- authoritative personalities doesn't make you look smarter; it in no way reinforces your arguments. It only gives the impression that you either do not understand what you read, or that you do not know enough of the topic to enable you to defend your position with your own thoughts, hence the superfluous need to quote. Your personal obsession with the so-called military-industrial complex has led me to believe that you've spent way too much time reading/watching conspiracy-theory themed novels and movies. It would be wise to remember that those works are fictional. As to your alternative solution to Chinese hegemonic activities? You ought to know the distinction between between diplomacy and appeasement. Territorial integrity and national sovereignty based on our Constitution, and supported by an international convention cannot simply be bargained away in the name of peace. When a bully approaches you and takes away your lunch money, are you advocating that we just use soft words to make him go away? Seriously, in what world do you live in? What you do not seem to understand is that regardless of motivation, whether it be to buttress the military-industrial complex of the respective countries or to divert attention from their domestic issues, the fact remains the China has become increasingly, and steadily, aggressive and ambitious over the past two decades. That is a fact that needs to be addressed. And no, appeasement is not the answer.
one must agree that spending on defense is very low in the priority of any prosperity seeking country and a third world country at that. but dont expect any country to just roll over and let the chinese have their way. at least a semblance of resistance should be hinted. we know that we cannot match them but that does not mean we should give up what is obviously ours. we only ask for respect but apparently china does not respect nations with weak military forces. It does not even respect the UNCLOS? what do we do? vietnam style guerilla? suicide bombing? let them kill a few filipinos then react? jose rizal style uprising? 300 style spartan topless uprising in the west Philippine sea? please enlighten us.
Nailed it kapatid!:) thats the real filipino heart.
Bro, I think there is nothing wrong in terms of buying those weapons. As long as it was bought in the right price. We also need upgrades in our AFP but not to the point that we would use more funds that necessary. We should be proactive in all fields. Yes diplomacy is a plausible option. But, what if it's just not enough? Remember Hitler? Before he stated the second world war? All his demands were given in the light of preventing conflicts. Does it stopped the plans of Hitler? Sometimes, things will happen it's just waiting for a reason.
Post a Comment