This is the forecast track of Hurricane Polo, probably the most severe hurricane to ever hit Baja California:
The “explosive” Polo is a harbinger of what we will see more frequently due to climate change:
Several observers leaned on extreme rapid intensification—a technical classification meaning the storm's wind speeds increased at least 60 knots (111 kilometers or 69 miles per hour) within a 24-hour period. By September 22, the storm’s maximum sustained wind speed had risen by 90 knots (167 kilometers per hour or 104 miles per hour) within 24 hours, hitting category 5 strength. In its normally staid forecast discussions, the National Hurricane Center called the intensification "truly remarkable."
When NOAA's Hurricane Hunter aircraft flew over the storm on September 22, researchers estimated winds of nearly 285 kilometers (180 miles) per hour. That would make it the third-strongest storm on record in the eastern Pacific by maximum sustained winds and the fastest on record to go from a tropical depression to a category 5 storm, according to some analysts.
If click on the link for that quote, you’ll see an amazing photo of how Polo has intensified.
The good news is that Polo will likely pass through a relatively uninhabited area of Baja California and Sonora. It looks like it will pass north of La Paz, the capital of Baja California Sur and the largest city in that state. It will also probably miss Hermosillo, capital of Sonora (on the mainland). Still, homes will be destroyed, and people will be killed.
Mexico is a “poor” country when compared to the US, but it is by no means a third world country. The people who will be affected by Polo will be assisted by the Mexican Navy and other government assets. Mexico has pre-positioned one of their two humanitarian relief ships, the Isla Tiburón, to assist in the relief effort. This is the mission of that ship:
The Logistics Support Ships project was born from the need to rethink the definition of the basic characteristics of the surface units required by the Mexican Navy, to fulfill its mission in terms of supporting the civilian population in disaster areas, by transporting and disembarkation of vehicles, supplies and personnel on beaches and/or docks. they have a platform for the helicopter to takeoff and land (MI-17 and UH-60 Black Hawk) and a JP-5 fuel supply system for helicopters, with a storage capacity of 15,000 liters. In addition, it will have two landing craft with the capacity to transport personnel and load vehicles.
Mexico doesn’t have a Coast Guard in the sense that the US does — that’s the Navy’s mission. So the Mexican Navy does a lot of relief work, as does the Army. They will all be working:
“Marina” means “Navy”. The Isla Tiburón was built to house female sailors. Like the rest of modern Mexican society, women play a big role.
I’ve watched video of Claudia visiting areas ravaged by natural disasters, and part of the footage is members of the Mexican military with shovels fixing things: moving mud off of roads, clearing entrances to houses, etc. There’s not a lot in this world that can’t be accomplished with some hard working Mexicans with basic hand tools.
This is not to denigrate our service members: our Coast Guard is full of brave men and women, and it’s underfunded and overutilized. The only good news out of Katrina was how the Coast Guard stepped up to perform their mission. When we think of the future of the US military, the more that we think of the mission in the way our Coast Guard, Mexico and Canada do, and the less that we think of ourselves as a global power, the better, as far as I’m concerned.
Related to this, I came across this discussion of the future of New Zealand’s navy. New Zealand is a tiny country (5.2 million), but their GDP is $248 billion USD. By comparison, Mexico has a population of 133 million and a GDP of $2.12 trillion. (The US has a GDP of $8 trillion.) So, Mexico really has all the money they need to have a big ass navy, but they don’t, for many complex reasons, including the way that the US would lose their shit if Mexico did. New Zealand, by comparison, has been trying to play with the big countries. They have a couple of billion dollar frigates that can participate in exercises with the US Navy and the Australian Navy. Mexico has no such vessels: their Navy has patrol craft and humanitarian craft.
I came across a piece that argued that New Zealand shouldn’t build more of those frigates once their current ships reach end of life. It argues that the US experience in Iran shows that low-cost drones can overwhelm high-cost defenses, and that New Zealand would be better served by beefing up their drone defenses, and by buying ships that can actually help their people in case of natural disaster. (The billion-dollar frigates are ill-suited for that mission.) New Zealand, like Australia, has also struggled recruiting for their armed services, so perhaps a force that actually helps the people at home might get a few more recruits.
I don’t know a lot about New Zealand, other than their Prime Minister was pregnant, had a baby and was able to continue running the country. Still, I think that piece is right, and there’s a lesson for Democrats. We should approach the re-arming of the US military after Trump’s disastrous Iran War. My take is that we need to get back to the intention behind the renaming of the Department of War to the Department of Defense — we need to have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard force that is ready to help with the increase of natural disasters and also defend our country. We need to pull back from having bases everywhere. Honor our treaty commitments, but we don’t need a bunch of aircraft carriers and expeditionary forces to “project force” everywhere. We can have a robust defense, and save a few billion dollars to plow back into healthcare and other social programs.
I realize this will lead to fewer “bang bang” videos to satisfy the bloodthirsty press, but, hey, sacrifices must be made.
