RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Diopolis]

People might complain about sugar from corn, but we have little alternative. Unfortunately we do not have much good land for growing cane sugar.

We could, you know, cut back on our sugar consumption.
We can also use beet sugar, which grows well in the upper midwest, as a way to mollify some of the impact. As well as stepping up cane sugar production in Hawaii, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

i have no idea of the inner workings of the iranian government, but i will reiterate if push comes to shove, iran has china and russia, and let's through iraq in there too, to combat the US.

Ok.

Here is a point.

That is true.

The problem is that advanced military systems are priced in $. I don't literally mean in US, but that their price is adjusted towards the price of internationally traded components (ie microchips, software) rather than domestically produced components (ie some guy who can't read hammering a Kalashnikov together.)

Both China and Russia are relatively weak in terms of international purchasing power. China less of course. Iran is extremely weak in terms of international purchasing power. Iran does not have a lot of dollars it can cash out to buy internationally-priced hardware. Its foreign owned investments are around $5 billion. Its foreign reserves are around $120 billion. And of course nobody will lend it money if its actually being attacked by America.

Unless those people don't want the money back, ever. Which is the point: to defend Iran from the United States, Russia and China have to spend dollars, not roubles and yuan. And dollars are waaaaaaaaaaay more expensive than roubles and yuan. Turkey bought 192 missiles and 36 launchers of S-400 for around $2.5 billion. The Su-30MKMs that Russia sold to Malaysia were about $50 million each and that was a decade ago. Kalibr missiles are >$1 million.

Iran is going to have to burn through its entire stock of foreign reserves and foreign owned investments to buy equipment from China and Russia. In contrast, Iran military budget is only $17 billion, for which they maintain 600,000 personnel which can go to 1 million in time of war. The US can simply outspend Iran in international dollars. It can saturate it with offensive strategic weapons until Iran runs out of defensive strategic systems, because otherwise they will be fighting a war on an unlimited budget from China and Russia.

Now of course when it comes to invade, America's 750 billion budget has only bought it as many men as Iran's 17 billion dollar budget bought it (less, really.) But it does not need to invade Iran. When Iran has run out of standoff defensive systems, it is completely at America's mercy. American occupy Iran's ports and impose terms.

[Italios]

i have no idea of the inner workings of the iranian government, but i will reiterate if push comes to shove, iran has china and russia, and let's through iraq in there too, to combat the US.

Except Iran doesn't. Russia categorically doesn't involve itself in Iranian affairs outside of exploiting the IR's utter hatred for Iran to get more privileges and rights despite previous treaties (like what happened with the Caspian Sea earlier this year) and it has demonstrated its lack of fucks given by not backing the IR in previous near-military crises, while China's sphere of influence doesn't extent that far -provided it can be ensured that its right to plunder the Persian Gulf's fish as much as it wants will continue to be.

okay - I'm willing to throw out the russia thing (although I think you severely underestimate them, in the sense that an iranian incident that becomes war would definitely spill over into russian forcing them to take action) but the china thing is undoubtedly true.

Dubbed as the 21st Century Silk Road, the BRI has essentially become a term which encompasses all of Chinese’s foreign engagements. The BRI comprises a Silk Road Economic Belt – a trans-continental passage that links China with south east Asia, south Asia, Central Asia, Russia and Europe by land – and a 21st century Maritime Silk Road, a sea route connecting China’s coastal regions with south east and south Asia, the South Pacific, the Middle East and Eastern Africa, all the way to Europe.

Naturally, the reaction to has been more than hostile. Many Americans fear that the Belt and Road Initiative is an extension of efforts by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to undermine the security and economic architecture of the international order. China’s growing largesse, they worry, comes largely at the expense of international institutions and American influence. This angst was brought to light at the last APEC gathering: where Australia, Japan, and the United States declared that they had formed their own trilateral investment initiative to help meet infrastructure needs in the Indo-Pacific – forcing the question of what is there to fear?

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is touted by Beijing as an attempt at multinational economic cooperation and development, comprising everything from foreign direct investment to the development of infrastructure. However, the purpose of the BRI is not economic or cultural but strategic, and is an effort to mask the expansion of Chinese power. In its strategic intent, the BRI should be considered an imperial project alongside the likes of the British East India Company (EIC) or the Dutch East Indian Company, Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC). With the BRI, China is exercising the ‘imperial excuse’, just as the EIC and VOC did centuries ago.

Amidst historic U.S. – Iran tensions, Beijing is doubling-down on its strategic partnership with Tehran, ignoring U.S. efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic from global markets. Following an August visit by Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Beijing, the two countries agreed to update a 25-year program signed in 2016, to include an unprecedented $400 billion of investment in the Iranian economy – sanctions be damned.
The capital injection, which would focus on Iran’s oil and gas sector, would also be distributed across the country’s transportation and manufacturing infrastructure. In return, Chinese firms will maintain the right of the first refusal to participate in any and all petrochemical projects in Iran, including the provision of technology, systems, process ingredients and personnel required to complete such projects. According to an exclusive interview with Petroleum Economist, a senior source in Iran’s petrochemical sector had this to say about the new agreement:
" The central pillar of the new deal is that China will invest $280 billion developing Iran's oil, gas and petrochemicals sectors… there will be another $120 billion investment in upgrading Iran's transport and manufacturing infrastructure, which again can be front-loaded into the first five-year period and added to in each subsequent period should both parties agree."

[Diopolis]

And then you will have another Waco.

Imagine a Waco in 2020 holy shit

Like the Branch Davidians? I mean yeah, that would be horrifying. But these people are breaking the law and putting our healthcare workers and essential workers in danger. They need to be stopped. Somehow.

Considering the curve is still being flattened even with all that, I doubt it's necessary to take drastic measures beyond the default "people posture at each other for a while".

[Novus America]

People might complain about sugar from corn, but we have little alternative. Unfortunately we do not have much good land for growing cane sugar.

We could, you know, cut back on our sugar consumption.
We can also use beet sugar, which grows well in the upper midwest, as a way to mollify some of the impact.

Well sure, obviously some people need to cut back on sugar, but is beet sugar that much better anyways? Corn is still going to be our major source no matter what.

[Diopolis]

We could, you know, cut back on our sugar consumption.
We can also use beet sugar, which grows well in the upper midwest, as a way to mollify some of the impact.

Well sure, obviously some people need to cut back on sugar, but is beet sugar that much better anyways? Corn is still going to be our major source no matter what.

Beet sugar is more or less identical to cane sugar, IIRC.

[Novus America]

Except Iran doesn't. Russia categorically doesn't involve itself in Iranian affairs outside of exploiting the IR's utter hatred for Iran to get more privileges and rights despite previous treaties (like what happened with the Caspian Sea earlier this year) and it has demonstrated its lack of fucks given by not backing the IR in previous near-military crises, while China's sphere of influence doesn't extent that far -provided it can be ensured that its right to plunder the Persian Gulf's fish as much as it wants will continue to be.

okay - I'm willing to throw out the russia thing (although I think you severely underestimate them, in the sense that an iranian incident that becomes war would definitely spill over into russian forcing them to take action) but the china thing is undoubtedly true.

Dubbed as the 21st Century Silk Road, the BRI has essentially become a term which encompasses all of Chinese’s foreign engagements. The BRI comprises a Silk Road Economic Belt – a trans-continental passage that links China with south east Asia, south Asia, Central Asia, Russia and Europe by land – and a 21st century Maritime Silk Road, a sea route connecting China’s coastal regions with south east and south Asia, the South Pacific, the Middle East and Eastern Africa, all the way to Europe.

Naturally, the reaction to has been more than hostile. Many Americans fear that the Belt and Road Initiative is an extension of efforts by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to undermine the security and economic architecture of the international order. China’s growing largesse, they worry, comes largely at the expense of international institutions and American influence. This angst was brought to light at the last APEC gathering: where Australia, Japan, and the United States declared that they had formed their own trilateral investment initiative to help meet infrastructure needs in the Indo-Pacific – forcing the question of what is there to fear?

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is touted by Beijing as an attempt at multinational economic cooperation and development, comprising everything from foreign direct investment to the development of infrastructure. However, the purpose of the BRI is not economic or cultural but strategic, and is an effort to mask the expansion of Chinese power. In its strategic intent, the BRI should be considered an imperial project alongside the likes of the British East India Company (EIC) or the Dutch East Indian Company, Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC). With the BRI, China is exercising the ‘imperial excuse’, just as the EIC and VOC did centuries ago.

Amidst historic U.S. – Iran tensions, Beijing is doubling-down on its strategic partnership with Tehran, ignoring U.S. efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic from global markets. Following an August visit by Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Beijing, the two countries agreed to update a 25-year program signed in 2016, to include an unprecedented $400 billion of investment in the Iranian economy – sanctions be damned.
The capital injection, which would focus on Iran’s oil and gas sector, would also be distributed across the country’s transportation and manufacturing infrastructure. In return, Chinese firms will maintain the right of the first refusal to participate in any and all petrochemical projects in Iran, including the provision of technology, systems, process ingredients and personnel required to complete such projects. According to an exclusive interview with Petroleum Economist, a senior source in Iran’s petrochemical sector had this to say about the new agreement:
" The central pillar of the new deal is that China will invest $280 billion developing Iran's oil, gas and petrochemicals sectors… there will be another $120 billion investment in upgrading Iran's transport and manufacturing infrastructure, which again can be front-loaded into the first five-year period and added to in each subsequent period should both parties agree."

Actually Russia would benefit if Iran collapsed. Although they like supporting Iran a bit to troll the US Iran is a competitor fro Russia’s oil exports.

Iran an Russia are competitors in oil.

The PRC is needs to be more concerned (because they are gluttons for imported oil like we used to be but no longer are) but here is the kicker.

The PRC is friends with the Saudis.
Because the Saudis hate Iran, the PRC cannot afford to side with Iran against the Saudis.

[Novus America]

Well sure, obviously some people need to cut back on sugar, but is beet sugar that much better anyways? Corn is still going to be our major source no matter what.

Beet sugar is more or less identical to cane sugar, IIRC.

I mean it is something we can look at producing more of for sure, (although we already produce some 33 million tons of it a year) but I doubt we can produce nearly enough to replace corn. Corn sugar is fine if you are not eating grossly excessive amounts. Which admittedly some do. Cane sugar will still make you fat if you eat too much.

[Diopolis]

Beet sugar is more or less identical to cane sugar, IIRC.

I mean it is something we can look at producing more of for sure, but I doubt we can produce nearly enough to replace corn. Corn sugar is fine if you are not eating grossly excessive amounts. Which admittedly some do. Cane sugar will still make you fat if you eat too much.

A massive increase in the price of sugar- and it's common in the US to use deflavored apple juice as an alternative sweetener to cane sugar/corn syrup/beet sugar, so it wouldn't necessarily be perfect- might be the best thing to happen to the US, public health wise.

[Novus America]

I mean it is something we can look at producing more of for sure, but I doubt we can produce nearly enough to replace corn. Corn sugar is fine if you are not eating grossly excessive amounts. Which admittedly some do. Cane sugar will still make you fat if you eat too much.

A massive increase in the price of sugar- and it's common in the US to use deflavored apple juice as an alternative sweetener to cane sugar/corn syrup/beet sugar, so it wouldn't necessarily be perfect- might be the best thing to happen to the US, public health wise.

I mean fair point, but I doubt people would put up with it. Although that is an argument for us to cut back sugar imports even more.

Banning sugar imports would raise the price.

But doing it suddenly would cause to much anger. That is why you have to start sneaking it in. We already have high tariffs of raw sugar which is good, but we need a value added tariff for sugar containing products.
So they cannot get around the raw sugar tariffs by putting it in finished products.

[Italios]

i have no idea of the inner workings of the iranian government, but i will reiterate if push comes to shove, iran has china and russia, and let's through iraq in there too, to combat the US.

Ok.

Here is a point.

That is true.

The problem is that advanced military systems are priced in $. I don't literally mean in US, but that their price is adjusted towards the price of internationally traded components (ie microchips, software) rather than domestically produced components (ie some guy who can't read hammering a Kalashnikov together.)

Both China and Russia are relatively weak in terms of international purchasing power. China less of course. Iran is extremely weak in terms of international purchasing power. Iran does not have a lot of dollars it can cash out to buy internationally-priced hardware. Its foreign owned investments are around $5 billion. Its foreign reserves are around $120 billion. And of course nobody will lend it money if its actually being attacked by America.

Unless those people don't want the money back, ever. Which is the point: to defend Iran from the United States, Russia and China have to spend dollars, not roubles and yuan. And dollars are waaaaaaaaaaay more expensive than roubles and yuan. Turkey bought 192 missiles and 36 launchers of S-400 for around $2.5 billion. The Su-30MKMs that Russia sold to Malaysia were about $50 million each and that was a decade ago. Kalibr missiles are >$1 million.

Iran is going to have to burn through its entire stock of foreign reserves and foreign owned investments to buy equipment from China and Russia. In contrast, Iran military budget is only $17 billion, for which they maintain 600,000 personnel which can go to 1 million in time of war. The US can simply outspend Iran in international dollars. It can saturate it with offensive strategic weapons until Iran runs out of defensive strategic systems, because otherwise they will be fighting a war on an unlimited budget from China and Russia.

Now of course when it comes to invade, America's 750 billion budget has only bought it as many men as Iran's 17 billion dollar budget bought it (less, really.) But it does not need to invade Iran. When Iran has run out of standoff defensive systems, it is completely at America's mercy. American occupy Iran's ports and impose terms.

i will admit my knowledge of arms deals is severely lacking compared to yours, so there's not really a refutation i would give on that end.

i'd say that because iran is in a really strategically important position to china - essentially connecting africa and asia - china is going to expend a lot of manpower and money to keep it from becoming part of the american heg, because that would severely limit their potential for expansion in almost all of eurasia. see the article i posted in my previous post - in september 2019, when the us was applying mass amounts of pressure on iran to ZERO its oil exports, china was investing $400 billion to prop up the oil industry there.

secondly, iran is building up its security sector right now. so, if this war happens at some point in the future, iran is going to be in a better position than it was today. this has scared the US in the past; in december 2019 the US redeployed 14,000 troops to the ME because intelligence reports suspected that iran was literally just moving troops and weapons. we know that iran is always going to be building up its military, because it's locked in an arms race with saudi arabia, who in turn receives billions of weapons from the US.

thirdly, you have to bear in mind that iran has some kind of nuclear weapon capability at this point - this was very recently admitted by the UN after uncovering various diplomatic communications. while yes, obviously the US's nuclear arsenal is substantially bigger, this still creates the threat of mutually assured destruction that pressures the US to show more restraint. at this point, there's nothing the US can really do to combat iranian nuclear capabilities, as in hindsight, stuxnet was a massive failure.

lastly, iran funds a bunch of proxies in lebanon and syria, to iraq, to yemen, and has incredibly unstable borders, which would decrease the attractiveness of the US occupying any parts of it.

on the issue of the lack of dollars: if we assume that china will unconditionally back iran (which i personally strongly believe) an easy way they might acquire them is selling off its industrial surplus (steel, iron, concrete, etc), there's probably some country out there that will buy it for USD. would also doubly fix china's looming overcapacity issues, killing two birds with one stone, so china would aggressively seek out buyers.

edit: or china could actually start requiring countries to pay back their predatory loans - they've spent like 1.5 trillion USD on loans recently

you're probably still right at the end of the day.

[Diopolis]

A massive increase in the price of sugar- and it's common in the US to use deflavored apple juice as an alternative sweetener to cane sugar/corn syrup/beet sugar, so it wouldn't necessarily be perfect- might be the best thing to happen to the US, public health wise.

I mean fair point, but I doubt people would put up with it. Although that is an argument for us to cut back sugar imports even more.

Banning sugar imports would raise the price.

But doing it suddenly would cause to much anger. That is why you have to start sneaking it in. We already have high tariffs of raw sugar which is good, but we need a value added tariff for sugar containing products.
So they cannot get around the raw sugar tariffs by putting it in finished products.

Most Americans consume most of their sugar in the form of beverages. And the result of an increase in the price of sugar would probably be soda manufacturers- and subsequently sweet iced tea- switching over from corn starch to deflavored apple juice(which is yet another kind of sugar) to keep costs down. Twinkies and candy would probably go up in price substantially more.
A value added tariff for sugar containing products is a good idea IMO, and ideally we should make it higher than the tariffs on sugar. That way the mexican cokes people drink can be bottled here in the US instead of contributing to our trade deficit.

[Luminesa]

People might complain about sugar from corn, but we have little alternative. Unfortunately we do not have much good land for growing cane sugar.

Short of annexing Central America and the Caribbean we are stuck with corn mostly.

*Whistles in a whole ton of marshland good for sugarcane.*

[Novus America]

I mean fair point, but I doubt people would put up with it. Although that is an argument for us to cut back sugar imports even more.

Banning sugar imports would raise the price.

But doing it suddenly would cause to much anger. That is why you have to start sneaking it in. We already have high tariffs of raw sugar which is good, but we need a value added tariff for sugar containing products.
So they cannot get around the raw sugar tariffs by putting it in finished products.

Most Americans consume most of their sugar in the form of beverages. And the result of an increase in the price of sugar would probably be soda manufacturers- and subsequently sweet iced tea- switching over from corn starch to deflavored apple juice(which is yet another kind of sugar) to keep costs down. Twinkies and candy would probably go up in price substantially more.
A value added tariff for sugar containing products is a good idea IMO, and ideally we should make it higher than the tariffs on sugar. That way the mexican cokes people drink can be bottled here in the US instead of contributing to our trade deficit.

Fair point, I agree.
Although we probably then need to apply the same value added tariff to de-flavored apple juice and products containing it.

[Novus America]

People might complain about sugar from corn, but we have little alternative. Unfortunately we do not have much good land for growing cane sugar.

Short of annexing Central America and the Caribbean we are stuck with corn mostly.

*Whistles in a whole ton of marshland good for sugarcane.*

Well true, you could grow some, so a value added tariff on sugar containing products could help you too. Louisiana and Puerto Rico can produce some, Hawaii too but not nearly enough to replace corn, but probably enough to replace our cane sugar imports.

Also it should be noted recent research has found that corn syrup is probably not more dangerous than an other sugar. There is little evidence to suggest other sugars are really any better.

The problem is excessive consumption of sugar overall, but that is why we need higher sugar tariffs, and especially a valued added one on sugar containing products.

It would create jobs, lower the trade deficit, and improve public health.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

on the issue of the lack of dollars: if we assume that china will unconditionally back iran (which i personally strongly believe) an easy way they might acquire them is selling off its industrial surplus (steel, iron, concrete, etc), there's probably some country out there that will buy it for USD. would also doubly fix china's looming overcapacity issues, killing two birds with one stone, so china would aggressively seek out buyers.

edit: or china could actually start requiring countries to pay back their predatory loans - they've spent like 1.5 trillion USD on loans recently

you're probably still right at the end of the day.

I agree that China can find US$ to support Iran against the US. The question is how much China will be willing to pay, and the logistical question of transporting those goods overland. In general, Chinese road infrastructure is built to give them a second option, but moving goods by water is ALWAYS so much more cheaper.

Anyway, the thang about war is that whatever your people say is going to happen is never guaranteed. War has a way of throwing spanners into the works, of having unforeseen consequences, of being very unpredictable. If you study warfare and conflict you can find that people basically had no idea what they were doing or what was going to happen. They had huge internal disputes as well: even highly cohesive, single party states had internal debates that affected their policy. Or worse, they had terrible systems like fuhrerprinzip, or a culture of lying to each other to save face, etc etc.

And miracles can happen, for either side. There's a huge randomness component too.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

When it comes to weapons systems, the Iranians are lightyears behind on domestic tech. If it was just a battle between Iran and US, US would terminate them with extreme prejudice, as it did in 80s when it destroyed entire Iranian navy for 0 casualties. When conflicts are mismatched, they're really mismatched, lol. Of course, war is not just about technology, but when the US strategy is simply to lob standoff weapons about Iran, then it is. The question is whether the US can be drawn, intentionally or accidentally, into occupying Iran, which then becomes a huge problem of both military stretch and diplomatic legitimacy.

But even with a nuclear bomb, which I'm not clear they have, the question is whether they can miniaturise it and put it on a rocket. The rocket is actually the hardest part, much harder than making the bomb, which is why North Korea was making rocket tests even before they had a bomb to put on them. Iran can't hurt US with its nuclear weapons, it can probably destroy US bases in the Gulf, and it might be able to nuke Israel.

[Northern Davincia]

New Führerbefehl:

All autistics of RWDT are to report for a Zoom shitposting session at 6:30 pm Central Time on Friday, April 24th. The date has been changed, pray I do not alter it further. It is open to those who want to attend. I will host and we will be using Zoom. Best of luck lads.

A word of advice, trial the software before it's go time. I'd consider a personal favor.

Furthermore information regarding how to log in and where to connect will be posted in the following week. A TG concerning this information will be sent the night before as a courtesy to those who have so far expressed a wish to attend.

Count me in.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

in fact it is worth remembering that sea transport is SOOOOO much more efficient than any form of overland transport, which is why thassalocracies have tended to dominate the world in the modern period

[Aureumterra]

in fact it is worth remembering that sea transport is SOOOOO much more efficient than any form of overland transport, which is why thassalocracies have tended to dominate the world in the modern period

Yeah, Russia, what a thalassocracy

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

in fact it is worth remembering that sea transport is SOOOOO much more efficient than any form of overland transport, which is why thassalocracies have tended to dominate the world in the modern period

Yeah, Russia, what a thalassocracy

Russia never dominated the world lol, bye

You will notice tho that the Russian controlled part of Europe was heavily accessible by waterway and sea

[Italios]

on the issue of the lack of dollars: if we assume that china will unconditionally back iran (which i personally strongly believe) an easy way they might acquire them is selling off its industrial surplus (steel, iron, concrete, etc), there's probably some country out there that will buy it for USD. would also doubly fix china's looming overcapacity issues, killing two birds with one stone, so china would aggressively seek out buyers.

edit: or china could actually start requiring countries to pay back their predatory loans - they've spent like 1.5 trillion USD on loans recently

you're probably still right at the end of the day.

I agree that China can find US$ to support Iran against the US. The question is how much China will be willing to pay, and the logistical question of transporting those goods overland. In general, Chinese road infrastructure is built to give them a second option, but moving goods by water is ALWAYS so much more cheaper.

Anyway, the thang about war is that whatever your people say is going to happen is never guaranteed. War has a way of throwing spanners into the works, of having unforeseen consequences, of being very unpredictable. If you study warfare and conflict you can find that people basically had no idea what they were doing or what was going to happen. They had huge internal disputes as well: even highly cohesive, single party states had internal debates that affected their policy. Or worse, they had terrible systems like fuhrerprinzip, or a culture of lying to each other to save face, etc etc.

And miracles can happen, for either side. There's a huge randomness component too.

how could you say something so controversial, yet so brave? kissinger wannabes are punching the air rn

in related news, this oil crisis might actually be kind of amazing; it's already erased $800 million in assets for a singaporean billionaire - we can only hope it keeps going!

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

how could you say something so controversial, yet so brave? kissinger wannabes are punching the air rn

I have Epistemological and Etymological Sovereignty so I can say and think brave and courageous thoughts

[Italios]

how could you say something so controversial, yet so brave? kissinger wannabes are punching the air rn

I have Epistemological and Etymological Sovereignty so I can say and think brave and courageous thoughts

"etymological sovereignty" i snorted, we're on like our third iteration of english; your great-great-great-great etc grandfather didn't even know what "j" was

[Novus America]

in fact it is worth remembering that sea transport is SOOOOO much more efficient than any form of overland transport, which is why thassalocracies have tended to dominate the world in the modern period

Although I find the thassalocracy thing over simplistic. Few besides the Republic of Venice really fit the model more exactly, land and sea power are not really mutually exclusive.

But absolutely since the majority of the world is is covered in water, to be a real world power you want naval superiority.
Air and naval power are key.

One thing I think interesting is to look at countries in ratios. The US has generally kept a 5/6*/4 Army/Air Force/Navy ratio since the 70s. And before that is was more 1/1*/1

Whereas the UK has more like 7/3/3

Which seems weird to me that the UK of all places puts so much weight on the army.
When despite us being a bigger land power our Department of the Navy has more personnel than our Department of the Army.

*The US is interesting in that the Navy and Marines are considered separate services, but under the same Navy department, and with some shared functions, all chaplains and medical personnel attached to the Marines are actually in the Navy.