Both North Korea and the US are exchanging tough language. Separating the rhetoric from the reality is very difficult, but absolutely necessary.

If none of the options you’ve mentioned work, it may be time to remove the Kim regime, by force if necessary. A nuclear state must be, above all else, stable, and though it appears so on the surface, neither the state of North Korea nor its leaders are stable. As you’ve said, this is a constantly aggressive regime, and now that they have a nuclear weapon, the aggression cannot be ignored as the ravings of a lunatic mind. At some point, North Korea is going to dare the United States to do something, and we’re going to have to call their bluff.

1. Although many people claim to believe in small government, those are often the same people who support a large defense establishment, massive prisons, and social security. We need to remind small government activists that the above are all government programs. We should indeed try to trim our bloated government, but government has a definite and proven role to play in protecting public goods. The Civilian Conservation Corps and public infrastructure fit that niche perfectly. Instead of “small” or “large” government, we need smart government. That means less debt, fewer special subsidies, and more targeted modest investment in public goods.

2. Yes, many vital landscapes are ugly and unappealing at first look. This surely makes for a tougher sell than the Grand Canyon. On the other hand, beauty is culturally constructed, at least in part. Leaders need to make a case to the public about why a wetland is beautiful for what it adds to the human condition. Leaders should also emphasize how the replacement of wetlands with strip malls is EXTREMELY ugly, boring, and annoying. The human condition craves diversity, and there is a profound beauty in liveable spaces.

I think we can build a public consensus for the role of government in public goods and the preservation of beauty for the human condition. We can do that by enlisting our best young minds and bodies — through a Civilian Conservation Corps.

Thanks again, Courtney.

1) How are we to overcome the visceral horror fiscal conservatives have about establishing and expanding government institutions? I am often tempted to downplay the resemblance of the CCC to what we need, because I worry that it will alienate its opponents further, but I am at a loss for alternatives. How do we make government investment in conservation organizations palatable again?

2) The Grand Canyon is an interesting example. Exactly as you said, it is one of the triumphs of the National Park Service, in large part because it has an important political advantage: it’s incredibly beautiful. The inspiring and picturesque places, however, are not necessarily the ones that have the most valuable in terms of the ecosystem services they provide. Many landscapes with less breath-taking views (eg wetlands) are, in fact, converted to strip malls, even though they represent much greater value to public health, scientific research, biological diversity, and raw resources for economic development. How can we engineer a shift in rhetoric to make not just conservation, but ugly conservation (http://endangered-ugly.blogspot.com/) politically palatable for the first time? In either of these tasks, what role do you see for academics outside the movement of conspicuously hardcore (and thus less politically credible) eco-warrior types?

I would venture to say that the policy decisions of today’s leaders have failed to show the slightest bit of humility. Especially in government today, there seems to be a sense that every problem can be fixed with intelligent leadership and unity of action. From stimulus for the global economy to the reorganization of the health care industry and the whole country of Afghanistan, there is no sense that some problems are too big to solve in a central and planned way.

With every passing year, our solutions and our problems seem to become increasingly grandiose, and I do not find it a coincidence that these two coincide. Often it has been said that big problems require big solutions, but less often is it said that big solutions create big problems of their own. Failure to see issues in light of our limited capacity to know everything and the finite nature of our power shows a stunning lack of imagination.

I believe that the following key points have led to a significant reduction in combat losses over the past few decades:
1. Increased weapons technology: With continued investment in more lethal and precise munitions, these governments have allowed their troops to engage enemy targets, in some cases, without even risking friendly lives. Predator drone planes, global positioning guided munitions, increased range weaponry, and improved lethality of specialized armaments have allowed troops to engage their enemies from safe distances and risk very few civilian and friendly lives. These technologies are continually being advanced and specialized to improve the survivability of friendly troops and reduce collateral damage when necessary.
Better training: Specialized military training schools have drastically improved since the Vietnam era. Troops are now able to train for specific operations prior to engaging within that particular environment. Shared us of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) has allowed Soldiers on the front lines to pass along vital training needs for troops preparing for battle. Often times the enemy that the American, British, etc troops are facing have experienced very little training and have to rely upon their knowledge of the environment and combat experiences when making adjustments on the battlefield. This is often not the most advantageous means of preparing for war since their lessons are often learned upon their death and they usually have the disadvantage of outdated weaponry. The Iraqi Soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom for example told of their inability to train on their weapon and most only were able to fire 2-3 rounds per year. Unlike their U.S. counterparts who often fired several thousand rounds with their weapon prior to any engagement. Becoming familiar with your fellow Soldiers by training and developing a comfort level with the weapons is integral in molding a cohesive fighting group. By training hard, often, and with realistic battle field scenarios, the U.S. and other countries have been able to reduce potential casualties.
Coordination with local militias and training: The ability to work with police, military, and other friendly militant groups, the U.S. has been able to gain a strategic advantage over their enemy. The “home field” advantage is often lost for the enemy when their fellow civilians choose to side against them and share intelligence with U.S. troops. Over the past several years the U.S. has been molding Iraqi and Afghani Soldiers in an effort to develop their military and police organizations. These groups understand their enemy with much greater detail and their knowledge of the terrain is a combat multiplier when it comes to saving friendly lives. By allowing Iraqi and Afghani troops to conduct operations allows more U.S. and other allied troops to remove themselves from the battlefield and ultimately from becoming casualties.
Combined Arms Operations: As discussed earlier, air power and military technologies have come a long way since Vietnam. However, this is only one of several improvements to the military arsenal. Improved artillery, naval gunfire, satellite links, ground vehicles, and many other assets have allowed the Soldiers on the battlefield to call upon a plethora of options to destroy the enemy and save lives. A prime example of this is the use of up armored vehicles to prevent enemy explosive devices from injuring Soldiers. In the past most of these vehicles have been “soft skinned” and were vulnerable to almost every form of weaponry. Now the added armor allows units to move closer to the enemy, engage them decisively with several different types of arms, and reduces casualties.
Forward Operating Bases (FOB) and Improved Medical Operations: Probably the most instrumental improvement to the reduction of combat casualties is the ability to move medical assistance closer to where the engagements are being held. Many FOBs have been developed throughout the current theaters of war and have allowed Soldiers to establish extremely technical medical treatment facilities. These facilities are able to coordinate with helicopter assets to fly injured troops directly to their front door within minutes of being wounded. This was developed in Korea, advanced in Vietnam, and almost perfected in the current theaters of operation. Soldiers who would have bled out and died on the battlefield due to their injuries are now able to be quickly moved to state of the art facilities for care and treatment. Unfortunately these Soldiers will have the scars of war, but will most likely be able to survive their injuries.
These are just several of my opinions as to the decreased level of combat casualties during the past few decades. I told my wife the other day that it was amazing that there have been less than 10 Wisconsin Army National Guard Soldiers killed in all combat related matters since 2001. This is amazing since over 10k have been sent to combat operations during that time and severed over a year in harms way.