Joe Biden & "Rudeness"

Everyone know that Romney won the first presidential debate. To say that Obama's performance was awful is an understatement. The president was too passive, too dull, and always stared at his lap. Naturally Romney got some boost in all pollings. When Joe Biden debated Ryan on Thursday night, everything's change. Biden mopped the floor with Ryan, no contest there.

FOXNews complained that Biden was rude. They got a point there, cutting others is not polite. Especially when you cut even the moderator. Nevertheless, I wonder why they focused on that thing? Last time I heard, "The-evil-socialist-communist-Muslim" Obama and his vice president is sooo bad, why suddenly Biden's "rudeness" become the issue? And I thought Obama focusing on "Big Bird" is moronic ...

Other than that, I think Biden has at least 3 good excuses for being "rude":

1) He is the oldest person in the debate.

Face it, people cut you FAR MORE slack if you are the oldest one. If it was Ryan who did it, everyone will think that he is a bully, but older person got some right to bully the young ones, especially when the age different is one generation wide. Nope, I don't like it, but that's still the case.

2) People are aware that he was compensating for Obama's passive and dull performance.

I think people know exactly that this debate is a continuation with Obama-Romney debate. People will be easier to forgive "a rudeness" if they picture it together with Obama's passivity previously. 

And the media LOVE reversal/comeback. Obama was already defeated by Romney, so when people hear: Ryan "The budget expert" defeated Biden? zzzz ... Biden "The gaffe maker" demolished Ryan? OH YEAH, that's interesting!

 Do I like this? Nope, but that's still the case.

3) Biden experienced some serious shit.

He lost his wife and daughter in a car accident. Yes that's happened decades ago, but out of thin air, Paul Ryan brought it to the table when he tried to portrait Mitt Romney as a compassionate person by pointing that Romney helped some car crash victims. What? Seriously, didn't you have another example? Is the only occasion where Romney showed compassion was when he met those car crash victims? A simple rule in debate that Ryan missed: DON'T MAKE THE AUDIENCES SYMPHATHIZED WITH YOUR OPPONENT! Great Scott, Ryan really deserved to be defeated in this debate.

And the Biden won not only in style, but also in substance. Biden's best moment in the debate is when he responded to Ryan's statement that stimulus money is wrong, and pointed out that Ryan himself wrote 2 e-mails asking for stimulus money. OUCH! Ryan was outclassed, outmatched, and outgunned by the energetic Biden.

 

Can Romney still win?

Absolutely.

This race was not, and won't be a cakewalk neither for Obama nor Romney.

The United States 2012 Presidential Election: REDUX

I once said that it is better to vote for Romney in the 2012 election.

Nah, I changed my mind.

First, disclaimer, I am neither conservative nor liberal nor libertarian. I criticized the left as too naive and the right as too eager to be a douche.

Let me put it this way, I like 2 things from Romney & the GOP (rhetorics): his foreign policy and his immigration policy. The US needs to be more assertive, bad regime like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc are basically gangsters that need to go. The Democrats strike me as too eager to appease those gangsters. On the immigration, let me put it this way: illegal immigrant IS ILLEGAL, if you offer them amnesty, you undermine your own law! Don't like it? Better change the immigration law, make every Mexicans who enter America automatically become a legal immigrant. BUT NO!! The Democrats refuse to do that! They basically only said "please use your heart, they are human too! Our ancestors are immigrants too!" In other words: the Democrats told you that they don't care about the immigration law.

That's it, that's what I love from Romney and GOP in general.

That said, I already said in my previous post: both Romney and Obama are politicians. Previously, I think Romney is the better candidate since he promised more awful policies. That didn't change. Obama still promises better policies in general.

What change is, now the Romney-Ryan ticket proudly said they don't give a damn about facts. Here is the quote:

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

-- Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster

It is not just words, they really put their money where their mouth is.
- Even after people pointed out that blaming Obama for the closure of GM plant in Jannesville is baloney, the republican still repeatedly.
- Attacking Obama for rejecting Simpson-Bowles committee without mentioning that Ryan is the one who refuse to send the committee to the congress. 
- Paul Ryan marathon lie. Nuff said ...

- etc.

Seriously? Are they too lazy to lie competently? Did they really insulted Americans with such blatant lies? Americans, please show us, the rest of the world, you still got brain and dignity. Don't vote for them for heaven's sake.

Perang Barbary

Perang Barbary adalah perang bersejarah, sebab dalam perang inilah untuk pertama kali marinir Amerika menjejakkan kaki di negara orang lain. Perang ini tak pernah disinggung dalam pelajaran sejarah Indonesia, sebab, mengutip kata-kata para pejabat Republik Mimpi, hal ini adalah hal yang seen-sii-tiif!! Kenapa sensitif? Mari kita simak ...

Sebelum Perang

Afrika utara, abad 17, Laut Tengah. Perompak di.mana-mana, dan perompak ini sangat ditakuti, sebab mereka bukan cuma merampok, tapi juga memperbudak semua non-Muslim yang jatuh ke tangan mereka. Mereka juga ditakuti karena mereka dipasok dan dilindungi oleh para Dey (Sebutan untuk penguasa di daerah Aljazair, Tunisa, dan Libya.). Kerajaan inggris dan perancis saja terpaksa membayar “Uang keamanan” agar kapal-kapal mereka tak diganggu. 

Kapal-kapal Amerika semula tak diganggu, sebab mereka adalah koloni inggris, dan saat perang kemerdekaan dimulai, mereka dianggap sebagai kapal-kapal perancis. Namun, saat tenang berubah saat mereka merdeka. Kini, mereka harus melindungi kapal mereka sendiri, sebab sesuai keinginan mereka, kini mereka bukan bagian dari negara eropa manapun. 

Maka, pihak amerikapun mengikuti teladan pelindung mereka sebelumnya: membayar uang keamanan. Thomas Jefferson yang saat itu menjadi dubes AS untuk Perancis tak setuju. Menurut Jefferson, pembayaran uang keamanan cuma akan mendorong aksi pemerasan lebih lanjut.  

Tahun 1786, Jefferson dan John Adams memutuskan berunding dengan duta besar Libya di London. Mengenai alasan perompakan, inilah yang dilaporkan Jefferson pada kongres (Diambil dari Wikipedia.org):

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

Jefferson yang sudah panas sebetulnya sudah gatal untuk berperang, tapi John Adams mengingatkan dia bahwa Amerika Serikat saat itu tak memiliki Angkatan Laut yang memadai. Maka, Jeffersonpun memutuskan untuk menahan diri saat itu. Apa yang ditakutkan Jefferson menjadi kenyataan, para Dey terus menerus meningkatkan uang keamanan tsb, sampai² di tahun 1800, seperlima pemasukan negara AS digunakan untuk membayarnya. Kongres Amerika Serikatpun membangun AL untuk persiapan perang.

Perang Barbary

Begitu Jefferson akhirnya menjadi presiden AS di tahun 1801, beliau mengirim armada tempur dan marinir AS ke laut Tengah tahun itu juga. Pengiriman tsb terjadi setelah Yussif Karamanli dari Tripoli kembali meminta “uang keamanan”. Tahun 1805, Yussif menyerah setelah para marinir Amerika mulai merangsek ke Tripoli, dan mau meneken perjanjian damai dengan pemerintah AS. Dia bahkan menerima sejumlah uang yang merupakan “Uang Tebusan” atas pelaut Amerika yang dia tangkap. 

Namun, permasalahan belum selesai. Tahun 1807, perompakan dan perbudakan atas kapal Amerika kembali terjadi. Pihak Amerika saat itu berada dalam posisi tak baik. Hubungan dengan inggris dan perancis memburuk, dan perang melawan inggris di depan mata. Tahun 1812, terjadilah perang melawan inggris. Konsul amerika untuk Dey Aljazair diusir, dan pernyataan perang dikeluarkan oleh sang Dey.

Tahun 1815, perang melawan Inggris berakhir, armada tempur kembali dikirim. Setelah menangkap kapal bendera Aljazair, armada tersebut mengarahkan moncong meriamnya ke Algier, memaksa Dey Aljazair menyerah, mengembalikan semua tawanan, mengganti kerugian materiil Amerika, dan meneken perjanjian yang memastikan tak ada lagi perompakan. Namun, begitu armada amerika berangkat ke Tunisia untuk melakukan hal yang sama, sang Dey mengingkari perjanjian itu. Tahun depannya, armada gabungan dari inggris dan Belanda, yang memutuskan untuk tidak membayar “uang keamanan,” membombardir Algier, memaksa Dey Aljazair meneken ulang perjanjian dengan amerika dan negara-negara lain, mengakhiri secara de facto ancaman para perompak di Laut Tengah. 

Beberapa hal yang menarik dalam perang ini:

1. Pernyataan dubes Tripoli pada Jefferson, yang menyatakan memperbudak penganut agama lain adalah perintah agama. Saya akan menghargai tanggapan dari saudara-saudara muslim yang menyangkal maupun mendukung, maupun menunjukkan letak pasti ayat Qur'an yang dimaksud sang duta besar.
2. Adalah menarik, biarpun Amerika tak mau rakyatnya diperbudak, mereka sendiri terus memraktekkan perbudakan sampai puluhan tahun kemudian. Artinya, standard ganda amerika dan kefanatikan Libya sudah berbenturan sejak 200 tahun yang lalu.
3. Pihak Amerika, setidaknya menurut Wikipedia, tak menggunakan agama sebagai dasar untuk memerangi para perompak ini, biarpun para perompak merasa ini adalah perang agama. Untuk hal ini, saya pribadi angkat topi buat para politikus Amerika. Sebuah perang selalu menjadi lebih kejam begitu sudah menjadi perang agama.
   

Jadi, sekali lagi, intervensi Amerika Serikat di luar negeri bisa berakibat positif. Dalam hal ini, intervensi Amerika Serikat praktis mengakhiri perbudakan dan pembajakan di laut Mediteran dan Atlantik.

Bom Atom Hiroshima-Nagasaki

Source: wikipedia

Salah 1 kontroversi terbesar abad 20 adalah bom atom Hiroshima-Nagasaki. Apakah keputusan menjatuhkan bom atom tsb adalah keputusan yang benar?

Jawaban singkatnya: keputusan pahit tapi yang terbaik.

Mari kita pikirkan alternatif²nya bila bom atom tak dijatuhkan.

Skenario 1, Jepang baru menyerah setelah Uni Soviet Menyerang:

Skenario pertama adalah skenario favoritnya Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. Menurut sejarawan Jepang ini, penyebab utama menyerahnya Jepang adalah serangan Uni Soviet. Beliau merasa, pemimpin² Jepang benar² merasa Uni Soviet bisa menjadi penengah dengan negara² sekutu lain, memungkinkan mereka mendapatkan perjanjian damai yang jauh lebih menguntungkan. Karena itulah mereka menolak menyerah, dan bom atompun dianggap kurang relevan. Karena itulah Hasegawa yakin pemimpin² Jepang baru kehilangan harapan dan memohon damai ketika "sang penengah" malah menyerang mereka. 

Anggaplah Hasegawa benar dan Jepang menyerah murni karena invasi Soviet, tanpa dijatuhkannya bom atom. Tanggal menyerahnya Jepang takkan sama. Suka tak suka, bom atom mempercepat menyerahnya Jepang. Ditundanya tanggal menyerah Jepang akan berakibat hebat sekali.

1) Jutaan orang akan mati. Ingat, pendudukan Jepang di Indonesia, Malaya, Cina, dll bukan pendudukan baik². Laksaan manusia tewas setiap harinya, jadi rasanya tak berlebihan menebak jutaan orang non-Jepang akan mati akibat kekejaman pasukan Jepang di koloni²nya, di jeda di antara 15 Agustus (Tanggal menyerahnya Jepang setelah dibom atom dan diserbu Uni Soviet) dan tanggal menyerahnya Jepang.

2) Uni Soviet sangat mungkin bukan cuma merebut Manchuria, Korea Utara, dan kepulauan Kuril, tapi juga Korea Selatan dan Hokkaido. Ini artinya tidak akan ada Korea Selatan, cuma ada Korea Utara yang meliputi Korea Selatan juga, dan akan ada "Republik Demokrasi Jepang" yang berkedudukan di Hokkaido. Mungkin saja kota Tokyo jadi akan terbagi 2 juga seperti kota Berlin pasca menyerahnya Jerman.

Tak begitu baguskan dibandingkan kenyataan? Jangan kawatir, ini baru skenario pertama ...

Skenario 2, Jepang menyerah setelah operasi Olympic dan Coronet

Di skenario kedua ini, Amerika Serikat dan sekutu²nya menginvasi Jepang dalam 2 operasi: Olympic (Merebut Kyushu) dan Coronet (Merebut Honshu) sementara saya asumsikan Hokkaido direbut Uni Soviet secara terpisah.

Ini artinya 2 akibat negatif skenario #1 terjadi, DITAMBAH korban jiwa akibat invasi. Ketika pihak Amerika Serikat memperhitungkan korban yg akan jatuh dalam operasi ini, mereka memperhitungkan mereka akan kehilangan 1 juta manusia. Perlu ditegaskan, 1 juta ini adalah korban di pihak sekutu saja. Pihak Jepang sendiri sudah memobilisasi SEMUA penduduknya. Anak² mereka saja diajari menggunakan bambu runcing menusuk perut tentara² sekutu yang mendarat di Jepang. Menghadapi perang total macam ini, tak berlebihan kalau saya bilang korban totalnya puluhan juta jiwa.

Skenario 3, Jepang menyerah tanpa operasi Olympic dan Coronet, tanpa invasi Soviet

Apa yang terjadi seandainya Jepang menyerah tanpa invasi sama sekali?  Jepang mustahil menyerah begitu saja cuma karena kehilangan Okinawa, Mariana, Filipina, Irian, dan Pasifik Tengah. Satu²nya cara membuat Jepang menyerah adalah dengan meneruskan bombardemen udara & laut, sambil memblokadenya, memastikan tak ada bahan mentah atau makanan yang memasuki tanah air Jepang.

Skenario ini berarti tanggal menyerahnya Jepang MUNDUR lagi. Korban di kalangan sekutu bisa diminimalisir, tapi korban sipil Jepang akan terus berjatuhan. Seperti kota² yang dikepung, pulau² Jepang akan dilanda kelaparan, penyakit, dll. Entah butuh waktu berapa lama sampai Jepang benar² menyerah. Artinya, korban jiwa di pulau² Jepang dan koloni² Jepang akan bertambah lagi. 

Sudah jelaskan, skenario apapun yang terjadi tidak terlihat bagus.

Bom atom Hiroshima-Nagasaki sudah pasti membunuh ribuan penduduk 2 kota itu, tapi di saat yang sama menghindari jutaan korban akibat 3 skenario di atas. Jangan salahkan presiden Truman menjatuhkan bom tsb, salahkan petinggi² Jepang yang terobsesi pada Bushido, pada "Kehormatan" pada prinsip "lebih baik mati daripada menyerah!" Seandainya pemerintah Jepang memang rasional, memang perduli pada nasib rakyatnya, mereka sudah menyerah paling lambat saat Filipina jatuh, saat mereka kehilangan akses ke ladang² minyak di Kalimantan, sementara kapal² terbang Amerika dari Mariana membombardir Jepang.

Amerika, HAM, dan RRC

Sebelumnya saya sudah bilang, demokrasi bukan panacea semua masalah tapi absennya demokrasi hampir pasti membunuh kemajuan. Demokrasi adalah sine qua non kemajuan.

Lalu, saya membaca sebuah berita dari detik.com tentang RRC tak senang mendengarkan pernyataan Hillary Clinton soal demokrasi. Lagu lama. Biar saya terjemahkan beberapa hal dari artikel tsb.

Ditulis:

"Siapa yang memberi Amerika hak untuk secara arogan mengkritik status demokrasi di Asia?"

"Amerika bukan hakim soal HAM untuk dunia dan Asia. Tak ada sistem umum yang cocok untuk semua negara,"

Dibaca:

"Hei, biarkan kami membungkam semua kritik di negara kami! Biarkan kami menindas rakyat kami! Kamu orang luar tak punya hak untuk mengritik kami!"

Dan makin lucunya artikel itu ditutup dengan:

"Benar bahwa memberantas ekspresi politik atau mempertahankan kontrol ketat atas apa yang dibaca orang atau dikatakan atau dilihat orang bisa menciptakan ilusi keamanan. Namun ilusi akan pudar, karena kerinduan orang untuk kebebasan tidak akan pudar," kata Hillary beberapa hari lalu.

Saat itu Hillary memang tidak menyebut nama China, namun menurut People's Daily, komentar tersebut jelas-jelas ditujukan ke para pemimpin China."

Komentar saya:

BERASA NIH YEEE!!

Gini deh para pemimpin RRC ... siapa yang memberikan kalian hak secara arogan untuk mengontrol segenap birokrasi, hukum, dan rakyat kalian? Siapa yang memberikan kalian status "Kebal kritik"? Hmm? Jawaban paling pro pemerintah RRC yang bisa saya pikirkan, yang tidak melibatkan ngarang² adalah "Rakyat Cina di akhir 1940an." Itu 60 tahunan yang lalu. 2-3 generasi yang lalu. Basi banget. Di sekolah, seorang siswa diuji setiap tahunnya apakah dia pantas naik kelas atau tidak. Di perusahaan, seorang karyawan terus menerus di evaluasi oleh bosnya. Terus, di RRC ini ada sebuah partai politik yang menguasai semua lapisan birokrasinya selama 60 tahun lebih tanpa di evaluasi oleh pihak lain dan mereka bicara soal arogansi?

Amerika tidak sempurna. Amerika juga sering memberlakukan standard ganda, kemunafikan, kesalahan, dll. Namun, bukan berarti omongan menteri luar negerinya bisa langsung diasumsikan "arogan" atau salah.

Apa? Masih menganggap Amerika arogan karena mereka "mencampuri urusan negara lain" karena mereka "meng-injak² kedaulatan nasional"?? News flash: kedaulatan nasional itu OVERRATED.

Obama Care

The Supreme court rule that Obama Care is constitutional!

Hurra!

Hey, I am not an American, why I care about this? Simple, because I still have conscience, and health care is a very fundamental aspect of human's life.

I was really annoyed when I saw conservatives and libertarians repeatedly campaign against "Big government" or "socialism." Hey genius, pure socialism kills, but so does pure capitalism. If you don't believe me, just imagine a world with privatized police force, fire department, and military. Got the picture?

Here is the reason why we still need socialism: there are many things we can't commercialized/regarded as a commodity. Capitalism runs perfectly for commodities, but is a lousy arrangement for non-commodity. I don't believe that many Americans think that human health is something that you can make profit from. Really. I could illustrate it like this:

Imagine that you walked nearby a lake. Suddenly, you hear a scream. There is a man in the lake, gasping! Nearby where you stand, there is a rope and a buoy attached to it for such occasion. Now tell me, is it ethical if you insist that the poor man pay you?

Really, it is like that if you try to monetize/commercialized health care. Of course I don't kid myself. The rope-buoy itself is not free. In health-care case, we still need to pay for the doctor, hospital, medicines, etc. That's why you need some form of taxation to make sure those services were properly paid. Luckily now American has that chance, an Universal-Health-Care similar to the Germany and Switzerland system, where the people with "pre-existing condition" could be insured since everyone share their burden. Thank God for the Obama Care.


Oh yeah, also big thanks to Mitt Romney for the example. Mr. President owe you this one!  We can call it Obamney Care too! Vote for Romney!

Kedaulatan Nasional, Harga Diri Bangsa

Para tiran seperti Gaddafi, Assad, Kim Jong Il, dll biasanya terus menerus meng-ulang² frase "Kedaulatan nasional" dan "harga diri bangsa" ketika berpidato. Serius nih?

1) Negara yang dipimpin seorang tiran TIDAK PUNYA kedaulatan nasional

Perhatikan deh, memangnya siapa yang membuat keputusan di negara macam itu? Yup, cuma si tiran. Semua yang protes dan tak setuju pasti dibui atau ditembak mati. Yang negara² tsb miliki adalah kedaulatan Assad, kedaulatan Gaddafi, dst.

2) "Harga diri bangsa" saat itu sedang di-injak² oleh sang tiran

Perhatikan lagi point #1. Praktis sang tiran berkata L'etat c'est moi, negara adalah SAYA. Memang siapa dia? Hei, breaking news buat bapak tiran: ini abad 21 bukan abad 16.Arogan sekali menyatakan dirinya adalah personifikasi bangsanya! Maaf yah, bangsa anda itu JAUH lebih mulia, jauh lebih besar, tidak sesempit pribadi anda.

Maaf saja pak tiran, fakta bahwa anda sesuku/sebangsa/seagama dengan orang yang anda bantai, TIDAK MEMBUAT anda boleh membantai mereka. Fakta bahwa ada "orang luar" berusaha menghentikan pembantaian itu TIDAK MEMBUAT usaha menghentikan pembantaian tsb jadi ilegal atau imoral.

Charles Carreon vs The Internet

Wow ... just WOW!!

Remember how Charles Carreon picked a fight with everybody on the internet? He goes even further!

This time he wanted to drag Twitter and Ars Technica to the fight!

On the other hand ... the Electronic Frontier Foundation also join the fight ... by supporting Inman.

Oh yeah, he also admit that his legal letter to Inman was based on false information, therefore implying that he disclosed some confidential communication with his client (FunnyJunk.)

Oh boy ... it's gonna be interesting. (Pulling a chair, and pick my popcorn.) This is even funnier than any new Holywood movie! Bring it on mr. Carreon!

Aircraft Carrier in Modern Warfare

I read an interesting article from BBC about the future of Aircraft Carrier. The article basically pointed some doubt that aircraft carrier will play the dominant role they play today.

I have some comment on that topic. To do that, I have to provide a small historical lesson.

Early History

USS Langley, the 1st US Carrier

When the aircraft technology was still in its infant stages in early 20th century, the navy decided that aircraft could provide a very crucial supporting role for the battle fleet. At that time, the most important ship in the navy was the battleship, the largest, most heavily armored ships equipped with the largest cannon. The navy thought that aircraft could become the eye for the battleship fleet, locating other fleet, OR providing fighter cover to shot down any enemies recon aircraft. The problem is, the fleet could be located very far from any friendly aerodrome. Thus the need for an aircraft carrier was born.

The idea that aircraft could sink ship, let alone battleship, was considered absurd at that time. Billy Mitchell from the US Army is the first military officer who disagree with that opinion. He experimented with battleship "Ostfriesland" that the US got from the German navy after they won the first world war. Mitchell bombed the battleship using land based heavy bomber, and managed to sink her. Mitchell concluded that all surface ships now become obsolete, AND he also stated that no ships, even no aircraft carrier, would be able to contest land based airpower. (Morison, 1963 p:8)

Mitchell was considered a prophet because of his experiment and prophecy, but second world war prove him wrong half of the time. Mitchell's experiment was fundamentally flawed. The Ostfriesland was anchored at the time of the experiment. She had no crew, therefore could not shoot the aircraft, didn't have any damage control operation, etc. Therefore, it is not surprising that many of his conclusions was outright wrong. But, his mistakes were not obvious at that time. We need the second world war to demonstrate this.

World War 2

When the US Navy designed the defense against the Japanese threat, they assumed that the land-based, high-altitude, heavy-bomber B-17 Flying Fortress could be ship killers that could be used to attack Japanese fleet. They were wrong. The high altitude bomber lack the accuracy to effectively bombed a sailing ships defended by Anti Aircraft cannons and machine guns.

Partly based on the awareness of the flaw of Mitchell's experiment and the conservative nature of the Navy, the US Navy also still assumed that battleship is the most important ship. This assumption was challenged when the British torpedoed some Italian Battleships in Taranto, and by the Japanese aerial attack on Pearl Harbor. But, reasonably, the navy still thought that those events didn't reflect the actual capability of a battleship to resist aerial attack.

Essex Class Aircraft Carrier

The first sailing battleship sunk by aircraft carrier was the HMS Prince of Wales. She was attacked by land-based aircraft but those aircraft didn't attack from high altitude, they have to fly low, and attack the battleship using torpedo and bombs.

Mitchell was falsified once again by the "Operation Hailstone" in the beginning of 1944. During this operation, US 5th Fleet  consists all kind of warships, but its core is mainly the Essex class aircraft carriers, under admiral Mitscher attacked the Truk Lagoon in Central Pacific. It is important fact that Truk was a major base of the Imperial Japanese Navy, defended by hundred of planes. By the end of the operation, the ships of the 5th Fleet wiped out all Japanese ships and aircraft in Truk by combination of aircraft aerial attacks and naval surface bombardment. On the other hand, the US didn't lost a single ship in this operation.

USS Forrestall, the 1st Supercarrier

USS Gerald R Ford, the newest supercarrier

By the middle of the second world war , or even earlier, all admirals agree that aircraft carrier already replaced battleship as "the queen of the sea." After the war, the United States built "Supercarriers," carrier that are far larger than  any carrier in the 2nd World War.

Modern Warfare

Why the historical lesson is necessary? I want to pointed out some facts that:

1. The navy in some sense is a conservative organization, they need time to adjust to new development.
2. The second world war provide important lessons, not only to the US Navy, but also to any navy in the world.
3. Combined the 1st and the 2nd point, many of the lessons from the 2nd World War dominates the assumption of modern navy.

After the world war, jet propulsion become the dominant aircraft propulsion, and rocket-type weaponry provide even a small aircraft with sufficient firepower to sunk a battleship. Other significant technological developments are: nuclear power, satellite monitoring & positioning.

While the jet propulsion make sure that aircraft will have further advantage over ships, enhancing the importance of aircraft carrier, it also means that minor powers nowadays have the means to sunk any large and powerful ships, including any supercarrier.

Nuclear weapons make sure that any major power in an all-out war definitely will easily destroy all surface ships in a fleet with only one missile.

Satellite monitoring & positioning provides the exact location of any fleet to major powers. Unlike in 2nd world war where the fleet has to search the enemy's fleet by launching recon plane, nowadays modern fleet from any major power knows exactly the location of the opposite fleet.

In this case, it is reasonable to assume that in a naval battle between major powers, the fleet with supercarrier as its core would be easily overwhelmed by all kinds of attack that applied those new developments. In essence: carrier is irrelevant in a naval war between major power.

Nevertheless, nowadays we didn't expect any major power go to war between each other. No matter how heated the rhetoric between the US, Russia, China, India, etc, we consider a large scale naval war between them as highly improbable.

Today's conflict that involve carriers are US intervention in minor powers territory. The US used their supercarrier repeatedly as mobile aerodrome, mobile headquarters. Across those interventions, not a single  supercarrier was sunk. The Serbian, Iraqi, or any other forces never managed to threaten the carrier seriously. Of course the story may be different in case of US intervention in middle power, e.g.: Iran.

Nevertheless, the supercarrier are still useful in power projection in minor power territories. Not only the US, other powers also need some power projection capability to protect their interest in faraway ocean. This ability also will lessened the burden of the US. Other power repeatedly complained about US hegemony, US de facto status as world police, etc. If they really didn't like this situation, they should put their money where their mouth is. They should build some carrier, maintain them, and use them to protect others. If they really dislike "USA: the World police," better they stop become freeloaders like they are doing now, and take some burden from the USA.

What? They thought the concept of a world police is absurd? They thought that "the worst peace is better than the best war"?Tell that to the victim of the Holocaust, Rwanda Genocide, etc.  who lost their lives after the world police didn't exist or didn't intervene. This world need more world police, not less, because psychopaths still manage to become ruler of so many countries. Psychopath like Hitler only understand one language: power. Many of them can be stopped only by military intervention. Another many of them can be stopped by credible threat of military intervention. In that spirit, the world needs more aircraft carrier, not less.

Sources:

Angelo Codevilla & Paul Seabury, War: Ends and Means 2nd Edition (Basic Books 1989, 2006)

Samuel Eliot Morison, The Two Ocean War (Naval Institute Press 1963)

The United States 2012 Presidential Election

 

Let me get this straight, I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, nor a libertarian. When I took the „World's Smallest Political Quiz,“ I got 60% for personal issues, and 40% for economic issues. That makes me a „Centrist“ with inclination to the left. I personally more inclined to the right on foreign policy issues, while I agree more with the left on domestic policy issues. So, I think it is not too far fetched to call me an „Independent“.

I am not an American, but I followed the news about their coming election. If I were an American, I definitely would vote for Romney. My reason is not a conventional reason. I am in the opinion that both of them are politicians. Politicians have this tipical habit called „B.S. Promising.“ Since they will broke their promise … I will vote the one who promise to do more horrible things!

C'mon America, you can't call your country „Land of the free“ while denying healthcare and education for the poor. The republican war against „Socialized medicine“ is so immoral and stupid, luckily they choose a politician as their candidate!! I believe Romney will be smart enough to support ObamneyCare, or even expand it. On the other hand, Obama speaks big about protecting freedom, while signing NDAA, and maintain Gitmo ...

So, if you count on their dishonesty, I am pretty sure Romney will win this election.You know you can always count politicians for their dishonesty! So, this is my proposed campaign slogan for Romney:

„ROMNEY 2012, TIPICAL POLITICIAN, AMAZING FUTURE!!“

Mitt Romney photo from: http://reason.com/quiz/GOP2011/profile/mitt-romney 

Barrack Obama photo from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg

Amerika Serikat sebagai Polisi Dunia

Tulisan ini adalah lanjutan dari artikel Amerika Serikat, Iran, dan Intervensi. Di artikel ini, penulis hendak mengelaborasi komentar penulis thd campur tangan Amerika Serikat thd urusan negara lain. Mari kita mulai.

"Campur tangan" atau "Tidak campur tangan" itu pertanyaan yg salah. "Tidak campur tangan" artinya menolerir pihak yg kuat, mengijinkan mereka mendapatkan apa yg mereka mau. Artinya, negara manapun punya "campur tangan" di negara lain. Jadi pertanyaan yg betul adalah "Bagaimana cara merancang campur tangan yg terbaik?"

Cox & Forkum, 5 Juli 2007: http://www.coxandforkum.com

Banyak yang menyatakan bahwa campur tangan terbaik adalah melalui organisasi supra-nasional seperti PBB. Maaf yah, para tiran kriminal yang membantai rakyat mereka sendiri itu juga adalah anggota PBB. Ini sama saja dg hendak menciptakan kepolisian yang beranggotakan gangster, perampok, pembunuh berantai, dan kriminal lain. Tanpa para kriminal itupun, mencapai konsensus di antara 100+ anggota PBB itu sangat sulit. Bahkan ketika konsensus tercapai di antara sebagian besar anggota PBB tsb, masih ada 5 negara yang memiliki hak veto yang bisa membatalkan konsensus tsb. Salah 1 negara pemilik hak veto hampir selalu membela si kriminal. Menunggu konsensus di antara 5 negara pemegang hak veto itu seperti mengharapkan menang lotere. Namun, polisi dunia tetap dibutuhkan. Di artikel sebelumnya, penulis sudah menunjuk, absennya polisi dunia saat itu membuat Hitler, Mussolini, dan Tojo memiliki kesempatan untuk melakukan kekejian² tak terperi di dunia.

Amerika Serikat, Iran, dan Polisi Dunia

Situasi terkini: sanksi ekonomi sudah membuat hidup Iran jauh lebih susah, tapi mereka masih ngotot melakukan program nuklir mereka. Israel sudah gatal untuk membom Iran.  Amerika Serikat terus menerus mengecam, dan menyatakan mungkin akan melakukan intervensi di Iran. Uni Eropa mengecam Iran tapi tidak menunjukkan gelagat untuk melakukan intervensi militer. Russia dan China menekankan pentingnya kedaulatan nasional. Sementara itu, banyak rakyat Muslim mengecam amerika serikat, menyatakan ketidak sukaan mereka karena Amerika serikat dianggap terlalu mencampuri urusan negara lain.

Perang Dunia 2

Pelajaran sejarah sedikit. Mari kita mundur ke tahun 1930an akhir. Nazi Jerman menganeksasi Austria, lalu Sudetenland, disusul Cekoslowakia. Kerajaan Italia menyerbu Ethiopia. Kekaisaran Jepang mencaplok Manchuria, lalu melakukan perang all-out melawan Cina.