There's a big difference between having older soldiers fighting a defensive war on home soil vs sending them overseas.
In the first scenario, you desperately need a lot of warm bodies, most of what these people would be otherwise doing has been shut down, if someone does perform a critical role in society at large, going back and forth is quick, and the alternative still potentially leads to you losing that person.
In the second scenario, recruiting middle aged people robs your economic/industrial/cultural base of its experience and mid-level leaders who are critical to stuff getting done. Substantial resources are spent training, moving, and sustaining these troops who are not as well suited as younger individuals, on top of the opportunity cost. Besides the people already in the military who have spent years gaining applicable military experience, those additional bodies are liabilities, not assets. An argument can be made for raising mandatory retirement age to keep those skills around, but not for new recruits.
Calling it a perfect storm is too generous. This is deliberately tearing down the floodgates that protect you from the extremely normal and predictable storms.
Category A and B incursions increased by 2.8σ. Further, it was 7 years of increases in a row. Either factor on its own would indicate a process out of statistical control.
> but there is a distinct lack of qualified individuals to back that up
Which means either the compensation is insufficient to attract and retain the necessary number of qualified individuals, or the FAA lacks the resources to train an appropriate number of qualified individuals. Either way, it's about money.
But still, even if you need humans when things go wrong, automating away all the work for when things go right is a massive load off those people. There will always be failures, the goal is fewer failures, and especially eliminating known failure modes.
When paying for a (rare) failure is cheaper than paying for the (constant) absence of failure, it's just natural. You know, the optimal amount of fraud in a payment system is not zero. The optimal amount of fatal aircraft incidents is not an exact substitute, bit the pressure is of the same kind, I'm afraid :(
Did the FAA or some other agency release a statement saying they were relaxing safety standards because they deemed the increase in risk economically acceptable? Do you recall checking a box when booking your last flight acknowledging you would prefer a few cents off your ticket to a fully staffed ATC tower? Did safety technology suddenly get substantially worse, increasing the cost of preventing failure beyond a red line we set?
Failures will happen, and resources are finite. But the idea that this particular failure is an inevitable consequence of a rational economic decision, that we as a society got together and decided we would permit X fatal aircraft incidents per unit of time, and that there is no point in improving because perfection is impossible, is patently absurd.
No, we have been and currently are willing to pay for fully staffed air traffic control towers to prevent precisely this sort of accident. If you told someone at the airport there was a single controller doing double duty, there's a good chance they would choose to pay a premium to change flights to a time when the ATC was appropriately staffed. There is a reasonable expectation that when you book a service like a flight that you are paying for the appropriate staffing to provide that service. I'm paying for the person who maintains the engines, and the person who audits the paperwork to make sure the maintenance got done, and the engineer who checks that the latest revision won't cause the engine to explode in mid-air, and all the rest of the massive chain of people required for air travel to work as its supposed to. The airline is supposed to set the price such that they can afford to pay all these people. They don't get to make the decision that they can take my money and pocket what was supposed to be going towards engine maintenance because they don't value my life sufficiently. Likewise for air traffic control.
It is because on zoom no one would participate in the in class discussions really. Everyone seemingly checking out. In class some people are seemingly compelled to engage.
The Iran war hasn't even been the dumbest geopolitical move in the past year.
The US torpedoed its system of alliances which it has spent decades building and maintaining. It through the global economy and its own into turmoil repeatedly in an attempt to extort its friends as much as its adversaries. It betrayed Ukraine for the sake of Russia. It threatened military action against its allies to conquer territory. It rejected the concept of international law which underpinned its position as global hegemon.
Honestly the Iran war isn't even that bad. While it displays the absolute absence of forethought that this administration applied to the situation, that's at least something America can get back with new leadership. The previous blunders which laid bare the unreliability of the US as a partner on the other hand have done irreparable harm.
USA is not even content with attacking one country at a time.
Now there is also the blockade of Cuba that intercepts their imports of oil and has created serious problems there with food and services. This cannot be considered as anything else as an act of war, even if a war is not declared.
Besides the blockade, USA has also threatened with an attack. With the harm done indiscriminately to most Cuban citizens by the blockade, it is even harder for USA to pretend that they are the good guys, while they use their might to attack without any justification a country too weak to present any kind of danger for USA.
You're only saying that because this is only 3 weeks old. Things are going to get a lot worse. If this ended tomorrow, the direct impact will be felt for years before we go back to "normal". And the geopolitical changes are going to be seismic.
First, it's been exposed that the US cannot defend Israel despite spending $1 trillion a year on "defense", billions if not trillions on missile defence and the presence of multiple carrier groups in the region. This alone rewrites regional geopolitics in the coming decades.
Second, the US has exerted influence on the region with a security guarantee that's like NATO on steroids. It's a protection racket (like NATO). We give despotic regimes weapons and we dictate policy, get bases in the region and get the use of terriotiral waters and airspace for whatever we want, basically. But by starting this war of choice, we've shown that there's no security guarantee at all for the Gulf states.
Now, these states will continue to align with the US for purely selfish reasons. For example, Saudi Arabia will do so to maintain the House of Saud, the royal family's control of the country. Many Saudis would prefer this not to be the case but were Saudi Arabia to break from the US, the regime would inevitably fall (IMHO). So they can't abandon the US. But this will only go so far as some of these regimes may fall anyway in a prolonged conflict (eg Bahrain).
Third, the military options here are dire. Militarily, the Strait cannot be reopened. The only military options are retreat or escalation. Trump has threatened to blow up power plants. If he does that, Iran will blow up desalination plants. Or the pipeline that supplies 30-40% of Israel's energy (from Azerbijan through Turkey). The escalation ladder inevitably leads to the use of nuclear weapons by Israel and/or the US, which is untenable.
Fourth, we haven't even begun to feel the impacts yet. Yes, gas prices are higher. That's only the beginning. Utility and food prices are going to spike. Higher diesel costs mean higher transportation. Higher bunkers costs will hit shipping costs. We're likely to see a repeat of 2021-2022 era inflation, if not worse.
If the Strait opened tomorrow, most of those things are already baked in for the next few years.
Fifth, countries are undergoing a sort of "energy nationalism". China, for eample, has stockpiled huge amounts of oil and stopped exported refined petroleum products. Other countries have done similar. This is going to have an outsized impact on countries completely dependent on energy imports, which includes most of Asia.
Sixth, the downstream effects go well beyond secondary products like fertilizer. For example, helium and other materials for chipmaking in Taiwan.
Lastly, this has massively strengthened Russia's position. You will likely see the lifting of sanctions and conceding of territory in Ukraine as an almost -inevitable consequence of an oil supply shock, particularly as LNG prices go up and we hit a heating crisis in Europe.
You are correct that the US has been destroying alliances but it's this war of choice that's going to make that really bite. Iran negotiated in good faith to end the 12 day war, which only ended because of missile interceptor shortages, a problem that's going to take years to address.
This time around Iran has had no choice but to make the consequences of a war of aggression so dire that the US and Israel never think about doing this again.
Also, North Korea demonstrated that the only way to get the US to leave you alone is to have nuclear weapons. The previous Ayatollah had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Well, the US and Israel killed that guy in his house with his family. Iran now really has no choice but to develop nuclear weapons to guarantee their security. And I can't blame them.
With all do respect, it is you who is jumping to conclusions because this is only 3 weeks old.
> First, it's been exposed that the US cannot defend Israel despite spending $1 trillion a year on "defense", billions if not trillions on missile defence and the presence of multiple carrier groups in the region.
The US never has and has no reason to claim that it would or could stop all missile attacks on Israel from Iran. The US has long claimed that it's interceptors have a better than 50% interception rate against ballistic missiles. This has been shown to be if anything a dramatically conservative estimate in recent conflicts. But the math of interception has always been obvious - if you throw more missiles at a missile defense system than it has interceptors, some will get through. For years the main grievance the US has had with Iran has been its massive stockpile of long range missiles and, more recently, drones. That's the whole reason the nuclear agreement reached under Obama was not considered good enough by the subsequent administration (domestic politics aside).
Israel knew when it launched the war that it was going to get hit back. They are certainly not unhappy with the US' conduct of the war.
> Second, the US has exerted influence on the region with a security guarantee that's like NATO on steroids. It's a protection racket (like NATO). We give despotic regimes weapons and we dictate policy, get bases in the region and get the use of terriotiral waters and airspace for whatever we want, basically. But by starting this war of choice, we've shown that there's no security guarantee at all for the Gulf states.
This conflict most certainly does not mean that the security guarantee doesn't exist. The gulf states didn't start a war and find their ally reluctant to come to their aid. They instead found that they didn't have the option to sit out a war if the coalition they have been a part of for years goes to war. They may be rightfully very upset about a lack of communication and coordination before the conflict broke out, but this is again an issue with the current administration, not their long term strategy of alignment with the US.
> Now, these states will continue to align with the US for purely selfish reasons.
That's not a change to the status quo.
> Third, the military options here are dire. Militarily, the Strait cannot be reopened. The only military options are retreat or escalation. Trump has threatened to blow up power plants. If he does that, Iran will blow up desalination plants. Or the pipeline that supplies 30-40% of Israel's energy (from Azerbijan through Turkey). The escalation ladder inevitably leads to the use of nuclear weapons by Israel and/or the US, which is untenable.
That's a rather absurd line of reasoning. While not easy, militarily reopening the strait is very much still a possibility. Even if it remains closed for a period of time, that doesn't really hurt the US directly. Iran does not have the means to escalate to nuclear war, and the US has no motive.
> Fourth, we haven't even begun to feel the impacts yet. Yes, gas prices are higher. That's only the beginning. Utility and food prices are going to spike. Higher diesel costs mean higher transportation. Higher bunkers costs will hit shipping costs. We're likely to see a repeat of 2021-2022 era inflation, if not worse.
Sure if the war goes on for an extended period of time it will be bad for the economy, but this is a temporary pain. Once the war ends, oil prices will go back down. The previous blunders have done irreparable harm that will be felt for decades.
> If the Strait opened tomorrow, most of those things are already baked in for the next few years.
Nothing has been baked in for years. 100% of the concern right now is speculation that the strait might be closed for an extended period of time.
> Fifth, countries are undergoing a sort of "energy nationalism". China, for eample, has stockpiled huge amounts of oil and stopped exported refined petroleum products. Other countries have done similar. This is going to have an outsized impact on countries completely dependent on energy imports, which includes most of Asia.
This is not a change to the status quo.
> Lastly, this has massively strengthened Russia's position. You will likely see the lifting of sanctions and conceding of territory in Ukraine as an almost -inevitable consequence of an oil supply shock, particularly as LNG prices go up and we hit a heating crisis in Europe.
The adminsitration already massively strengthened Russia's position, putting pressure on Ukraine to concede territory and reducing pressure with regards to sanctions. While stepping further in that direction is a further blunder, the previous was far more catastrophic. They already set the house ablaze, this is just pouring gas on the flames.
> Also, North Korea demonstrated that the only way to get the US to leave you alone is to have nuclear weapons.
In the first scenario, you desperately need a lot of warm bodies, most of what these people would be otherwise doing has been shut down, if someone does perform a critical role in society at large, going back and forth is quick, and the alternative still potentially leads to you losing that person.
In the second scenario, recruiting middle aged people robs your economic/industrial/cultural base of its experience and mid-level leaders who are critical to stuff getting done. Substantial resources are spent training, moving, and sustaining these troops who are not as well suited as younger individuals, on top of the opportunity cost. Besides the people already in the military who have spent years gaining applicable military experience, those additional bodies are liabilities, not assets. An argument can be made for raising mandatory retirement age to keep those skills around, but not for new recruits.
reply