# U.S. Navy only has 273 boats... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 8, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347 "2015-09-08T16:49:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/81 "2015-09-11T02:16:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Because he was being bombed from 25,000 feet with insufficient ground troops to prevent his escape? > > Wow. You’ve just made my point for me. What an embarrassing argument. You’ve only embarrassed yourself. Rather than having fought on the ground and watch him escape, find out where he was before a war even started and then, without warning, drop a bomb on his head. Or send an assassination team in, or pretty much anything other than the way it was done. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/82 "2015-09-11T02:20:06Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > You’ve only embarrassed yourself. Rather than having fought on the ground and watch him escape, find out where he was before a war even started and then, without warning, drop a bomb on his head. Or send an assassination team in, or pretty much anything other than the way it was done. You don’t actually know what happened at Tora Bora, do you? Google “Jawbreaker” sometime and figure it out. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/83 "2015-09-11T02:37:13Z")
In the modern era, don’t most non-rigged war games show that carriers are toast in a real shooting war? They’re basically giant floating graveyards waiting to happen. Mighty useful for brush fire wars, though. But I thought subs are the real heroes when shit hits the fan. > [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I think it was in the 1980s that someone was decrying the fact that the Soviet Union had an outstandingly large number of ships in their navy. But experts pointed out that the Soviet fleet was made up largely of rust buckets. Anyone else remember that? Throughout the Cold War various elements of the MIC were inflating the capabilities of the USSR: bomber gaps, missile gaps, etc. They wanted to push for the need for more weapons programs and defense spending in general. Didn’t change much after the Cold War either, just changed some names around. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/84 "2015-09-11T02:48:18Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > In the modern era, don’t most non-rigged war games show that carriers are toast in a real shooting war? They’re basically giant floating graveyards waiting to happen. Mighty useful for brush fire wars, though. But I thought subs are the real heroes when shit hits the fan. > > Throughout the Cold War various elements of the MIC were inflating the capabilities of the USSR: bomber gaps, missile gaps, etc. They wanted to push for the need for more weapons programs and defense spending in general. Didn’t change much after the Cold War either, just changed some names around. Don’t forget the mineshaft gap…😛 ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/85 "2015-09-11T03:08:06Z")
> [@XT](#): > > We aren’t enforcing it btw. Like I said, our claim is that the waters are international and free to transit for all. We do that because it’s in our best interests to do so of course. So,…You’re not a signatory. Anything else is just fluff is you’ve not signed on the dotted line. > [@](#): > > So, you are a might makes right type. Well, learn something new every day. I guess it’s ok as long as the bully with the biggest stick in the area says so and all. Would this be a ‘Team China’ argument? Worked for Russia in the Crimea very recently. I’m not saying it is right, btw. The reality is that someone will claim area and I have no reason to think that China is any less ‘deserving’ than any other country. > [@](#): > > I wonder how you’d feel if the US decided to do the same thing. I mean, we COULD after all. We could easily build islands just about anywhere. How about off the coast of Cuba? Are you disputing Cuba’s ownership? China is building islands in the area under dispute, not off the coast of Hawaii. > [@](#): > > Because here is the thing…if China gets away with this, is allowed to do this, it will set a precedent. Anyone who doesn’t think so is deluding themselves. It would allow any country with the power to do so the ability to simply extend their territorial waters wherever they liked, however they liked. If you can’t see that this would be a Bad Thing™ then I guess we are done here. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/86 "2015-09-11T13:34:44Z")
Why do people still think of naval battles being confrontations between massive fleets (a la Jutland)? this will never happen, it went out in 1916. the fact is, hostilities between two large naval powers (like the USA and China) would be over within hours (if not minutes)missiles would sink surface ships, subs would hide. take the British experience in the Falklands war- had the Argentines had more Exocet missiles, the British task force would have been decimated. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/87 "2015-09-11T13:47:08Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > China is building islands in the area under dispute, not off the coast of Hawaii. Do you think China seizing disputed land is just not that big a deal or something? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/88 "2015-09-11T14:02:27Z")
[QUOTE=Uzi] So,…You’re not a signatory. Anything else is just fluff is you’ve not signed on the dotted line. [/QUOTE] We are a sovereign state and have our own policies. We don’t need to be a signatory to have those. As the Wiki cite I showed you demonstrates, the US agrees with most of that treaty, with the exception of one provision. > [@](#): > > Worked for Russia in the Crimea very recently. I’m not saying it is right, btw. The reality is that someone will claim area and I have no reason to think that China is any less ‘deserving’ than any other country. Good example…excellent in fact. You know that Crimea was part of the Ukraine, a sovereign state, yes? Well, Russia basically snaffled it away because they have the biggest gun and Ukraine could do fuck all about it. But then you are a might makes right sort so it probably seems perfectly ok for Russia to do what it’s done. > [@](#): > > Are you disputing Cuba’s ownership? China is building islands in the area under dispute, not off the coast of Hawaii. China is building sea islands literally thousands of nautical miles from their coastline in a disputed region that isn’t even close to them. It would be exactly as if we did this off the coast of Cuba or maybe in the Bahamas. Still haven’t looked at the map, right? Because anyone who isn’t a Chinese mouth piece and bothers to actually look at the map is going to immediately notice something…that being that this whole thing is manufactured by the Chinese who have no reasonable claim to the area outside of the fact that they are the biggest bully in the region. Sadly for them, the US is an even bigger bully and big brother to several of the nations in this dispute. And, getting back to the OP, while we might have drawn down on the Navy in the last decade or so, it’s still an order of magnitude more powerful than China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (I always get a kick out of that :p). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/89 "2015-09-11T14:08:44Z")
[QUOTE=marshmallow] In the modern era, don’t most non-rigged war games show that carriers are toast in a real shooting war? [/QUOTE] Cite? There have been SOME war games, usually those that put carriers at some disadvantage or use a surprise tactic (such as fast rubber gun boats) that have managed to kill a carrier, but most war games? No, I think that’s horseshit so let’s see a cite that most of them show that (should be interesting to see how your cite asserts the ones that don’t being ‘rigged’). > [@](#): > > They’re basically giant floating graveyards waiting to happen. Mighty useful for brush fire wars, though. But I thought subs are the real heroes when shit hits the fan. People have been saying that literally for half a century. The Air Force tried to kill the things once nuclear weapons were invented (and they got control of the ICBM and bomber force to deploy them). Yet they are still here, still doing the mission, and still haven’t become floating graveyards. And, of course, they are still being built and developed, and countries with supposed sooper dooper carrier killer missiles or torpedoes are, ironically, building and developing them as well, despite the fact that they would know they are obsolete ‘floating graveyards’ and such. Wonder why that is? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/90 "2015-09-11T15:02:35Z")
> [@XT](#): > > We are a sovereign state and have our own policies. We don’t need to be a signatory to have those. As the Wiki cite I showed you demonstrates, the US agrees with most of that treaty, with the exception of one provision. Well, as long as they ‘agree’ with them, then no need to sign it along with the 167 who have. > [@](#): > > Good example…excellent in fact. You know that Crimea was part of the Ukraine, a sovereign state, yes? Well, Russia basically snaffled it away because they have the biggest gun and Ukraine could do fuck all about it. But then you are a might makes right sort so it probably seems perfectly ok for Russia to do what it’s done. Certainly not. There are people there who should have a choice on what happens to them. But then 58% of the population is Russian and Russia controlled it for 170 years before they gave it to the Ukraine in 1954, so a case can be made that the Russians have some claim to it. But I’d leave it up to the people there to make the choice. > [@](#): > > China is building sea islands literally thousands of nautical miles from their coastline in a disputed region that isn’t even close to them. What does distance have to do with it? Falkland Islands being a good example. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/91 "2015-09-11T15:12:16Z")
[QUOTE=Uzi] Well, as long as they ‘agree’ with them, then no need to sign it along with the 167 who have. [/QUOTE] If they wanted us to sign then they would have changed the provisions we disagreed with…or simply lived with the fact that while our own internal policies align with most of the treaty, we won’t sign it because of those provisions. C’est la vie. > [@](#): > > Certainly not. There are people there who should have a choice on what happens to them. > But then 58% of the population is Russian and Russia controlled it for 170 years before they gave it to the Ukraine in 1954, so a case can be made that the Russians have some claim to it. But I’d leave it up to the people there to make the choice. Yeah, and that vote was SO democratic, right? 😛 I mean, when 98% of the people say they want to join with the Russian Federation, how can it not be? Had nothing to do with all those Russian troops in the Crimea or on the border I’m sure… > [@](#): > > What does distance have to do with it? Falkland Islands being a good example. The Falkland Islands being a good example of, you know, an actual freaking island. The Chinese ‘islands’ being a good example of someone going into a disputed area and MAKING A FREAKING ISLAND THAT THEY CAN THEN CLAIM, AND BY EXTENSION CLAIM AS TERRITORIAL WATERS. Yes…that’s an excellent example. And did you know that the UN has a definition of an island and what can and can’t be claimed? And it doesn’t include a bring your own island option because if it did then every nation that could do it would simply extend their territory by fiat. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/92 "2015-09-11T15:40:25Z")
An earlier thread in which these issues have been discussed at some length, particularly in posts since late 2012: [When was the U.S. Navy at its most powerful? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=643488) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/93 "2015-09-11T16:41:40Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Well, as long as they ‘agree’ with them, then no need to sign it along with the 167 who have. Actually, the United States is a signatory to the UN Law of the Sea treaty. The Senate has not ratified it. Under the Vienna Convention, any signatory to a treaty that hasn’t yet been ratified is required not to undermine the treaty. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/94 "2015-09-11T17:06:40Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > An earlier thread in which these issues have been discussed at some length, particularly in posts since late 2012: [When was the U.S. Navy at its most powerful? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=643488) I was thinking about linking that thread, but I wasn’t sure that any firm consensus was reached in it. (And it doesn’t address the current highjack of whether or not the USN is a force for evil and villany.) ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/95 "2015-09-11T17:32:37Z")
I’m not saying it’s a force for evil and villainy. 1. So China plants their little flag on an artificial island they made at great expense. Yawn. What can they even realistically do from there? A port city like Honolulu is vastly larger, it has to be to support the infrastructure needed to meaningfully be a naval base. I just don’t see the need to panic. Yeah, if they actually invade a populated island and try conquering it, we’d have to…politely…blow up enough of their ships so they stop. It’s got to be polite, China has nukes too. Also, if they stop sending us container ships full of stuff, where are we going to get all these cheap goods? Also, even if the U.S. Navy is a little smaller than others might say it should be, as long as it is bigger than the Chinese Navy, its all good. And that’s the problem. The Chinese can probably add, didn’t they invent the abacus? What’s worth more to them. Some fishing rights and random crap if they steal an inhabited island, or the trillions of dollars in trade with the USA and Europe? Go have a military wankfest about a throwdown with China in some other thread - even if we just defunded the U.S. Navy, and expanded the Coast Guard to the point needed to be an effective defense force, stopping trade would ruin China’s whole day. (so we’d decommission every carrier but the coast guard would now run attack subs since those are a very effective weapon for stopping attacking ships) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/96 "2015-09-11T18:36:01Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > I’m not saying it’s a force for evil and villainy. > > 1. So China plants their little flag on an artificial island they made at great expense. Yawn. What can they even realistically do from there? A port city like Honolulu is vastly larger, it has to be to support the infrastructure needed to meaningfully be a naval base. > > I just don’t see the need to panic. Yeah, if they actually invade a populated island and try conquering it, we’d have to…politely…blow up enough of their ships so they stop. It’s got to be polite, China has nukes too. Also, if they stop sending us container ships full of stuff, where are we going to get all these cheap goods? > > Also, even if the U.S. Navy is a little smaller than others might say it should be, as long as it is bigger than the Chinese Navy, its all good. > And that’s the problem. The Chinese can probably add, didn’t they invent the abacus? > > What’s worth more to them. Some fishing rights and random crap if they steal an inhabited island, or the trillions of dollars in trade with the USA and Europe? Go have a military wankfest about a throwdown with China in some other thread - even if we just defunded the U.S. Navy, and expanded the Coast Guard to the point needed to be an effective defense force, stopping trade would ruin China’s whole day. (so we’d decommission every carrier but the coast guard would now run attack subs since those are a very effective weapon for stopping attacking ships) It’s important because China is taking the reefs and the mineral rights by force from countries that are friends of ours who may have a more legitimate claim. Remember the infamous comment about the US not having interest in disputes about oil rights between Iraq and Kuwait? Which, as the story goes, led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? So, you’re saying that the US doesn’t have interest in who has resource rights in various spots of the Pacific. How well do you think this message will work out this time? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/97 "2015-09-11T18:42:42Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > I’m not saying it’s a force for evil and villainy. > > 1. So China plants their little flag on an artificial island they made at great expense. Yawn. What can they even realistically do from there? A port city like Honolulu is vastly larger, it has to be to support the infrastructure needed to meaningfully be a naval base. > > I just don’t see the need to panic. Yeah, if they actually invade a populated island and try conquering it, we’d have to…politely…blow up enough of their ships so they stop. It’s got to be polite, China has nukes too. Also, if they stop sending us container ships full of stuff, where are we going to get all these cheap goods? > > Also, even if the U.S. Navy is a little smaller than others might say it should be, as long as it is bigger than the Chinese Navy, its all good. > And that’s the problem. The Chinese can probably add, didn’t they invent the abacus? > > What’s worth more to them. Some fishing rights and random crap if they steal an inhabited island, or the trillions of dollars in trade with the USA and Europe? Go have a military wankfest about a throwdown with China in some other thread - even if we just defunded the U.S. Navy, and expanded the Coast Guard to the point needed to be an effective defense force, stopping trade would ruin China’s whole day. (so we’d decommission every carrier but the coast guard would now run attack subs since those are a very effective weapon for stopping attacking ships) 1. I don’t think China is trying to build a military base as extensive as Pearl Harbor. I think they just want to plant a flag for political spin purposes. (Along the lines of the logic that “Possesion is 9/10th’s of the law.”) The installations themselves would be used to provide a Casus Beli (if desired) if overflown or encroached upon by other nations. 2. Please click on the link to a map I gave above. China is trying to claim the entire South China Sea as territorial waters (and not other “inhabited islands”), reinforcing that claim by claiming the Spratly Islands. This would mean nobody but China can mine, fish, or drill for oil out there without China agreeing to it. Oil. Look at how close it is to Brunei, a major oil producer. I think it highly likely that there are substantial oil deposits below that sea. (More, if you slant drill into Brunei.) IMHO, China is not claiming the Spratly group out of some sense of historical nostalgia… 3. Please don’t point at economic ties as a shield that prevents war. Guess who Britain’s biggest trading partner in 1914 was? Conflicts/wars start for emotional reasons, not logical ones. * * * So why do _you_ think China is building the islands? A new water theme park? Typhoon/tsunami warning stations? Wildlife preserve? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/98 "2015-09-11T18:48:08Z")
[QUOTE=Habeed] 1. So China plants their little flag on an artificial island they made at great expense. Yawn. What can they even realistically do from there? A port city like Honolulu is vastly larger, it has to be to support the infrastructure needed to meaningfully be a naval base. [/QUOTE] I’ve explained it like 4 times in this thread alone. I linked to a wiki on it, linked to a YouTube video on it. About the only thing I haven’t tried yet is braille or perhaps smoke signals. If you haven’t gotten it by now, you simply don’t care enough to try. > [@](#): > > I just don’t see the need to panic. Ignorance is bliss after all. > [@](#): > > Also, even if the U.S. Navy is a little smaller than others might say it should be, as long as it is bigger than the Chinese Navy, its all good. And if the US Navy only had to deal with the Chinese Navy and only in the South China Sea and nothing else you’d have a point. Sadly they don’t and you don’t. > [@](#): > > And that’s the problem. The Chinese can probably add, didn’t they invent the abacus? China and the Chinese can also look at a map, something that is seemingly hard for some to do. Again, if the US Navy could concentrate all it’s force in Asia and didn’t have to do anything else then we’d have sufficient force to deal with China…no doubt about that. Unfortunately, the Navy’s mission is global, and includes a lot of places that aren’t in Asia at all…unlike any other navy on the planet today (the only other one in history with similar commitments would have probably been the British Royal Navy during empire). > [@](#): > > What’s worth more to them. Some fishing rights and random crap if they steal an inhabited island, or the trillions of dollars in trade with the USA and Europe? Again, they aren’t stealing an island…they are trying to steal the entire region by building an island. And it’s not an either or proposition to them…it’s a steal the region AND get all that trade with Europe and America. You handwave away the real issues as if they are nothing because, frankly, you are ignorant on this subject (well…this subject AND the one about the Navy the thread was originally asking about). Like I said, ignorance is bliss, but since you don’t seem to want to change that I’m unsure what the point of you continuing to ask questions that have already been answered and make assertions that show how little you know instead of directly engaging what’s been written in the thread and, you know, doing some research, reading a wiki page or just watching a freaking YouTube video on it. But what the hell, if it works for you then it’s all good. > [@](#): > > Go have a military wankfest about a throwdown with China in some other thread - even if we just defunded the U.S. Navy, and expanded the Coast Guard to the point needed to be an effective defense force, stopping trade would ruin China’s whole day. Says the guy who is clueless on this subject and is speaking out of his ass. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/99 "2015-09-11T18:59:43Z")
Actually, I would like to clarify. I think China wants to plant a flag, and is banking on the assumption that most folks will take a position like **Habeed** , in that the island group is not worth going to all out war over. It’s essentially brinkmanship at it’s old fashioned finest. However, some nations have miscalculated in how the “other side” will react to a particular gambit. (See Roosevelt, the rebasing of the US Pacific Fleet to Hawaii, and the Oil Embargo of 1941.) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347/100 "2015-09-11T19:14:59Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Actually, I would like to clarify. I think China wants to plant a flag, and is banking on the assumption that most folks will take a position like **Habeed** , in that the island group is not worth going to all out war over. It’s essentially brinkmanship at it’s old fashioned finest. However, some nations have miscalculated in how the “other side” will react to a particular gambit. (See Roosevelt, the rebasing of the US Pacific Fleet to Hawaii, and the Oil Embargo of 1941.) Exactly. Well, specifically, they are banking on the US taking Habeed’s position and not caring enough and not thinking it’s worth our bother. They already know that the other regional powers DO care and DO think it’s worth the bother, but they also know that none of them (or probably even all of them combined) are no match for them, so it’s back to Uzi’s position of might making right in their case. I think that they have miscalculated in this case, and the US does care enough to pay attention, and our president is doing the right thing IMHO with his pivot to Asia. I think that all of the powers in the region, with the exception of China but including Vietnam WANT the US to do what we are doing, and probably want us to do even more, though I’m not sure doing more would necessarily be in our best interests. I think what we are doing is the right course, and if China escalates at this point it will make itself even more unpopular, since they will be totally in the wrong. But I don’t think they will…I think all it’s going to take is the US to just continue as we have been, treating the area as what it is…international waters. I don’t really see why folks are so worked up about the US’s stance on this, to be honest, or why folks are so willing to bend over for China. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-navy-only-has-273-boats/730347.md?page=6)