I'm not too sure about the advisability of number 3. Has the rationale for instituting a "Secretary of the Coast Guard" been explained? Is the plan to turn the Coast Guard into its own cabinet-level department, separate from the DHS and the Navy?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Alan, yes, that is the intent.

Note:I am not endorsing the idea.

The Coast Guard has been something of an orphan as a organization, being shunted around like an embarrassment having been moved back and forth between other departments of the government since its creation.

I have not looked, but it has been , at various times part of Interior, Treasury, Commerce as well as (during various wars) part of the war department, and after 1947 reorganization, Department of Defense, not to mention Transportation and the Energy dept.

(Please do not ask me to explain it, most of the transfers didn’t come with any rationale provided.)

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Vincent, this is true. Ukraine currently has better practical understanding of the military use of drones than any other nation on Earth.

It is an interesting question whether Ukrainian or American troops are currently tactically better. My personal best guess would be Ukrainian, due to the drones.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 08:26 pm: Edit

As Ukraine has almost zero force projection capability, the american army would have to go to Ukraine.

Hard to see any scenario (however unlikely) playing out where US vs Ukraine were to occur.

More likely to see U.S. with Ukraine vs Russia.

And even that last one requires a megalomaniac type Putin attacking NATO.

Just don’t expect to see it happen any time soon.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 08:39 pm: Edit

My point is that a force with drone competence is likely to clobber a force without drone competence.

It's another good reason to keep Ukraine on our side.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 08:42 pm: Edit

The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are not cabinet level; so the Secretary of the Coast Guard wouldn't be either.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 09:15 pm: Edit

I figure the Coast Gaurd will get a position on the Joint Chiefs. Did Space Force get a Secretary?

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 09:43 pm: Edit

The space force is under the secretary of the air force; similar to the marine corps is under the navy.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Would it be fair to assign the coast guard to the Army, to off set the navy having its own ground force (aka marine corps.)?

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Wednesday, May 28, 2025 - 11:20 am: Edit

Great article about the destruction of the USA ship-building industry (blame Reagan) and what it would take to bring it back:

From the Atlantic.com:

How America Lost Control of the Seas
Thanks to decades of misguided policy choices, the U.S. has an astonishing lack of maritime capacity.

By Arnav Rao

"...the U.S. has an astonishing lack of maritime capacity. Of the tens of thousands of large vessels that dot the oceans, a mere 0.13 percent are built in the United States. China, by contrast, fulfills roughly 60 percent of all new shipbuilding orders and has amassed more than 200 times America’s shipbuilding capacity.

Not only do most U.S. imports and exports travel on foreign-built ships, but those ships are owned and crewed almost exclusively by nine giant carriers based in Europe and Asia. By the end of 2024, these carriers had organized into three cartels that controlled about 90 percent of the U.S. containerized-shipping trade.

After a ship arrives at a U.S. port, the crane that lifts containers from its cargo hold will probably have been made by a single Chinese corporation that produces 80 percent of all ship-to-shore cranes in the United States. China also makes 86 percent of the truck chassis onto which containers are loaded. Some 95 percent of the containers themselves are built in China."

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, May 28, 2025 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Wow, dumping and mercantilism actually work? Someone call Adam Smith!

--Mike

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, May 28, 2025 - 08:51 pm: Edit

We have talked about economics here before.

Like in many other areas, all is not necessarily as it seems.

DUMPING, for instance (emphasis, not shouting.) has some good characteristics, as well as many bad ones.

China has long been accused of using dumping manufacturing goods as well as commodities to gain market share in the US as well as many other areas.

The short term (and often cheered by very short sighted politicians of both parties) benefits primarily come from lower prices of goods in the markets that receive the dumped goods.

Off sets inflation, and home economics students have long been taught in american class rooms to seek out such bargains.

Whenever anyone pointed out the harm done to America (primarily manufacturing but also agriculture and extraction mining industries.) they were attacked and vilified for being racist (in this case anti Chinese) and protectionist.

The bottom line truth, when China (or other nations accused of dumping) export goods at below the cost of production or below market value (which are not the same) they are subsidizing America.

The part the pro dumping loons get wrong, is, under the basic assumptions of a Capitalistic system, when a monopoly raises prices to take advantage of their market monopoly, it suddenly becomes profitable to re-enter the market and start manufacturing goods or mining commodities again to take advantage of the price increase.

The pro-China loonies have taken years (since the 2000 election) to raise all sorts barriers to the markets so as to protect China interests. The current relaxation of rules regulations and “Red Tape” will only serve to encourage manufacturing, mining and agriculture in the United States.

The comment on Mercantilistic Systems is correct in as far as it goes, but ignores the closed markets requirements.

For Mercantilism to function, there must be barriers to trade in place so that lower cost providers are shut out of competing.

The wild card, is what is going to happen when the new tariffs are imposed.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, May 29, 2025 - 09:44 am: Edit

On the topic of trade, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously yesterday against both the broad-brush worldwide tariffs and the Canada-Mexico tariffs. The judges (one each Reagan, Obama, and Trump appointees) didn't do this via a temporary restraining order, nor a preliminary injunction; no, they deemed the government's case so weak as to grant summary judgement for the plaintiffs.

It now goes to appeal (at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). As the appeal was filed literally minutes after the court's decision, it appears that the DoJ pretty much knew that they would lose at USCIT and had the appeal pre-drafted.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 29, 2025 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Fox and other MSM outlets reported that the appeals court stayed the USCIT pending appeal.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, May 30, 2025 - 08:24 am: Edit

That is correct, sir.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Friday, May 30, 2025 - 09:53 am: Edit

With (last I heard) 14 states were suing over the tariffs....
Not hard to imagine that the USCIT Opinion was seen as interfering with the states suits, the appeals court probably figured to let it ride until those were settled....

Report 60 minutes offered a $15million settlement Harris interview, likely to stay in mediation for awhile (my opinion)....

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, May 30, 2025 - 10:30 am: Edit

The ruling was already stayed by the USCIT for ten days; the stay by the USCoA,FC only pushes it back two more days, from June 7th to June 9th, and is fairly standard fare in these kinds of cases.

As a note: the administration's arguments are based heavily on a 1971 case, United States v. Yoshida International, in which the Supreme Court allowed Richard Nixon to implement some (fairly limited) tariffs on his own authority. At first glance, that seems like an excellent precedent for Pres. Trump to use. However, the administration's lawyers had to pick and choose, utilizing the elements of the decision they like, and ignoring the parts they don't like. For example, Trump and his legal team are arguing that tariff rates are not a justiciable question. In Yoshida, SCOTUS said they most certainly are a justiciable question. Needless to say, this kind of picking-and-choosing does not make for a great foundation, as it: (1) brings the judges' attention to a ruling that, in some ways, undermines the administration's case, and (2) it suggests that they couldn't come up with better precedents, because if they could, they wouldn't have used this one.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, June 01, 2025 - 10:04 am: Edit

Ukraine conducted a drone strike against assorted Russian airbases, including one in Irkutsk Oblast, a good 5,000 km east of Ukraine. It appears that strategic bombers were the main target, though they also took out one of the A-50 AWACS. They also managed to bring down two Russian railroad bridges not far from the Ukrainian border.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 01, 2025 - 01:03 pm: Edit

There aren't a lot of A50s left flying for the Russians.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, June 01, 2025 - 01:32 pm: Edit

The Russians, as of the year 2023 only had 8 A-50 aircraft in service.

Several sources indicate that the current estimated strength was only 10 aircraft in service.

With one aircraft destroyed, the presumably means 9 left.

Several defense related sites have had the A-50 aircraft discussions, the consensus seems to be that 9 A-50 are enough to continue operations, but that the loss of 10-11 electronics specialists who did more than actually fly the plane are very difficult to replace.

Flight crews (pilots, engineers, communication services etc) could be brought up to speed to operate the aircraft with two months training.

The specialists could take years of training to reach the skill level of the specialists lost when the plane was destroyed.

It appears that there is a lot to learn to operate the A-50 in today’s environment.

One other point, much of the electronics in the A-50 is Western European or american technology, currently subject to sanctions.

Yes, the Russians have found alternative solutions to get around the sanctions, but such solutions take time.

It might be a while before the Russians can afford to produce more A-50’s.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Sunday, June 01, 2025 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Weren't 1 or 2 damaged destroyed last year....

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, June 01, 2025 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Yes, doesn't look like the railroad bridges were related to the aircraft-killing operation.

This was obviously a terrific operation.

I assume every air force has similar vulnerabilities.

Taranto was the warning sign for Pearl Harbor that the US failed to heed.

The US military had better take note.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 01, 2025 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Point of information, the USN did not ignore Taranto. They knew it was irrelevant because aerial torpedoes dove to a depth below Pearl Harbor’s floor. Any torpedo dropped in the harbor would hit bottom. The USN did not know that the Japs had developed torpedoes that would stay shallow.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, June 01, 2025 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Well OK then, they paid attention but not enough.

Even if they pay a lot of attention to drones, it may still not be enough.

I hope they find a defense in time.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, June 01, 2025 - 05:08 pm: Edit

I hope so too, Verybadcat, but I know how the U.S. does things.

Money gets thrown around like there's no limit. Good example, with few pens working in microgravity (or the extreme temperatures in outer space), NASA spent quite a bit of money to develop a new pen type with a pressurized cartridge that held was amounted to rubber cement. We know of it as the "Fisher Space Pen."

By contrast, the Soviets used a pencil.

What I suspect will happen is that SOMEone will think we need to have some sort of vehicle mounted microwave frequency anti-drone laser system. Millions, if not billions will be spent on developing the weapon and technology and, perhaps in ten to twenty years, prototypes will be in service.

Meanwhile, soldiers on the ground will start using twelve gage shotguns loaded with alternating loads of birdshot and buckshot and will be adequately dealing with drones that they see. This action will lead various nations to start complaining about U.S. shotgun troops and certain members of Congress will...

Oh dear! My mouth almost got me fed to `Gators again...