As usual, we are looking across the excluded middle.
We have 11 carriers, everybody else 1-2. So perhaps our allies should pick up a few and we could do with less.
We are dependent on trade, just like everyone else. But between US, Canada, and Mexico (trade routes amongst which seem pretty safe) I doubt there are any essentials we can’t get. So in an all-sideways situation, I think we’ll survive. And the same is probably true for China, Russia, or any other major potential adversary.
Despite all the hand-wringing, the US manufacturing base continues to grow nicely, even as it employs fewer people. So I think we’ll muddle through.
All this is intended to point out that our vital trade interests are not vital to our survival, although perhaps to our continued prosperity. But it seems to me that these trade interests are only really under threat in a war situation, in which case we can live without the Samsungs, Toyotas, and Happy Meal toys while we address a larger issue.
Providing assurance to our smaller allies is a noble, valid, and important use of the military. Providing same to our wealthy allies in Europe, Japan, etc. is why we don’t have money for nice things like a working health care system.
Our military is way too big and we need to start insisting that some of these other countries shoulder more of the burden.
Well they are already grabbing territory by slow creep, US carrier groups are not stopping that. As for reclaiming Taiwan by force, the consensus is that don’t have the ability to mount a successful amphibious invasion on that scale and Taiwan’s air and missile defences would make short work of the invasion fleet. Japan can look after itself, its a “nuclear threshold” state, they have everything they need to assemble nuclear weapons within months if needed.
The US likes to thing its role as “world cop” is essential, but the rest of the world doesn’t really agree.
There are also 8 amphibious squadrons (PHIBRON) of on average 3 amphibious assault ships for deploying Marines and helicopters. So add another 20-25 ships.
I’m sure that they are happy to not have to spend so much money on defense because the US does it for them… The point I was trying to make is that the world is not going to collapse into anarchy without the US 11 carrier groups ‘keeping the sealanes open’. Nukes as a deterrent means the size of your army or navy is largely irrelevant and for deterring pirates you want fast cruisers and patrol boats, not carrier groups. The US asian trade partners have functioning navies and can protect and patrol their own waterways and key trade routes.
Some facts : conservative military policies, like the cold war, the Vietnam war, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars…were utter insanity that killed hundreds of thousands of people and wasted unfathomable sums of money. So I admit skepticism in reading about the accepted ideas of the military “thinkers” who created these disasters. I ain’t saying everyone can get along or that we don’t need armed forces, but I’m questioning the marginal benefits from using those forces in cases where the monetary gain is zero or a fraction of the loss from fighting.
Not everything shows up as a simple cash transaction, but using “money” as a measuring metric, it is possible to quantify the gains from something. For instance, if you think that using the military has a 50% chance of saving 10,000 lives, and you value a life at 10 million each, your budget for fighting is 50 billion dollars. You should only value the lives of your own citizens at that, of course, not that of foreigners.
If the carriers were all docked and we invested in drone missile barges or something more cost effective, things would probably work out. (a drone missile barge is what it sounds - it’s a disposable offensive weapon that is vastly cheaper to have because it doesn’t require training thousands of people to operate it. It’s an semi-autonomous boat, driven remotely by a small number of people, packed with many cruise missiles. You store em dry somewhere or in a protected anchorage and use just a few for trainign while the war-time vehicles are kept in pristine, protected conditions)
So, if nuke deter as you say, then can you explain the actions of Russia and China recently? I mean, they don’t seem to be deterring them very much, if at all. You are making a whole host of assumptions here by saying that without the USN everything would be peachy keen. Of course, you didn’t say that…you were quite specific in going over to top with ‘the world is not going to collapse into anarchy without the US 11 carrier groups ‘keeping the sealanes open’’, right? There is a hell of a lot of middle ground between the current status quo and the world going to complete hell.
But even so, let’s talk about what might happen if the US didn’t have those 11 carrier battle groups out there. China is already in the midst of an attempted land grab. I suppose in your minds eye, this is cool, because if any of China’s lesser opponents squawk, well, China has the bomb and they don’t, right? But let’s say that Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan decide they don’t want to drop to their knees. Then what? At a minimum there would be a shooting war over the entire region, since if China is allowed a free hand they will cut off those countries (plus a few more who really don’t have much to defend themselves with) from the resources and trade routes at China’s whim. But, you say, WE have the bomb? And? We aren’t going to use the freaking bomb over the region. You know it…I know it. And, most importantly, China knows it. It’s not going to happen. So, without the USN China just gets it all…or we have a shooting war in the region. Or both (which is most likely). Oh, and did I mention the arms race that will certainly ensue? Hell, it’s already started because it LOOKS like the US MIGHT be weak in the Pacific. Japan has a shinny new PM who is just starting to look at scaling up Japans military, especially the navy…and who is already looking at ways to reinterpret their constitution.
And this is just ONE region of the world. There are loads of other hot spots where, given China’s victory would flare up. And they just happen to be in some of the most heavily traversed trade areas in the world…areas that are vital not just to the US but to many other nations.
nitpick millions. Millions of people were killed. /nitpick
On the other hand, and don’t think just because I make this point I’m about to make that I necessarily agree or disagree with it, how many millions of lives would have died in a non-cold war with no small proxies wars, but one large fiery war? yadda yadda yadda…deterrents stop wars from happening…blah blah blah…expenisive military=strong credible deterrent…and so forth and so on, as these debates generally tend to go…
But, you see, you are wrong. We ARE stopping them from achieving their actual goals, which is to claim the area as Chinese territory…which let’s them claim that they are Chinese territorial waters. We do that by treating them as what they are…international waters where we are free to travel as we will. In addition, China knows if they get into a shooting war with one of our (many) allies in the region, that brings us in…and then those carriers come into direct play at that point. China doesn’t want that. They were basically banking on us not paying attention in the region, until they could basically hand us and the region/world a fait accompli. Still might happen, but probably not if we are paying attention and if we really do pivot to Asia…which is what we should be doing instead of endlessly screwing around in the Middle East.
As to the rest of the world agreeing, I’d say that they DO agree that the US is the ‘world cop’. Nearly everyone thinks that, even if they hate the US and wish we weren’t. Certainly most if not all of the other powers in contention with China think that…even Vietnam does, who IIRC is or was in negotiation with the US over the potential for some treaty action. Europe might not like it, and doesn’t admit it, even to themselves, but they absolutely rely on the fact that the US is the ‘world cop’ and is in their corner…even as they dislike us for our actions they rely on us as their shield. Especially Eastern Europe today, since it is unlikely the other NATO allies will be able to help if Russia gets frisky. Hell, my WAG is that if you polled the citizens of most of the NATO countries they won’t WANT to help the Eastern European NATO allies if Russia gets frisky, though the countries will honor their commitments regardless.
I might enjoy the attempt to make those both strictly partisan issues unless you are just labeling some key Democrats as conservatives. Please do share.
Let’s use words that mean things. You said nobody wants the U.S. to maintain its military power, and that’s just laughably wrong. Pretty much every country in the Asia Pacific, with the exception of China and Russia, don’t want the U.S. to retreat. The vast majority of Europe is very happy with US military power countering Russia, because European militaries can’t.
Now you change your argument to say the world won’t collapse if we basically gut our Navy. Well, that’s a straw man, because nobody I know has said the world will fall apart if that happens. What everyone has said, to summarize, is that the world is more stable under the current arrangement than without. What you ought to be trying to argue is that the world would be more stable without a large Navy. However, I think you know damn well that this is not a serious proposition.
This is nonsense. Threats to the U.S. are not broken down into “total thermonuclear war to end the world” or “let’s send five guys in a zodiac boat,” with nothing in between. It is perfectly obvious that the invasion of Afghanistan required capabilities that almost no other country could accomplish - sending thousands of troops 10,000 miles away and sustaining them. The Navy was, believe it or not, a really big part of that.
And if you think Asian allies have substantial navies, you’re simply misinformed. Japan has a respectable navy, but it has very little capability to project itself. The ROK is the same. Taiwan’s is rather small, and then beyond that, there’s pretty much nothing of significance. The idea that any of these navies have even a slight chance to hold their own against China if shooting were to start? Puh-leeze.
I suspect there are only a handful of non-US-allied countries that could prevent a USN carrier strike group from bombing whatever targets it selected for as long as it felt like. Russia and China are the two that come to mind. I’m not sure there are any others with enough military power to drive off or defeat a carrier and its escorts or otherwise keep them from having their way with the target’s critical infrastructure (but I’m open to hearing other suggestions).
Has it been determined that they aren’t Chinese territory? Putting aside whether they actually do have a claim, them taking it by force isn’t unusual in world history and would stop the squabbling thus keeping the peace.
And we all know how those adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq turned out. Both are models of democracy and are far better off for the US having been there.
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?
[QUOTE=Uzi]
Has it been determined that they aren’t Chinese territory? Putting aside whether they actually do have a claim, them taking it by force isn’t unusual in world history and would stop the squabbling thus keeping the peace.
[/QUOTE]
Determined by whom? The Chinese have determined, based on some old map(s) (as well as the fact that oil and natural gas are suspected in the region) that it’s their territory. Pretty much no one else acknowledges that, however. It’s inside what would normally be the territorial waters of at least 3 other countries…none of which are China (if you look at a map it’s actually really far from the closest Chinese territory). Undeterred, the Chinese have decided that if they build islands out of the sand bars and reefs in the area that somehow this will magically make it their sovereign territory and they can then claim the rights and goodies to be found there. Of course, the fact that they are also building military facilities on these ‘islands’ lends them a certain weight, or would if the US wasn’t basically ignoring this and flying our planes or sending our warships through the area.
I doubt force will be necessary in this as long as the US remains resolved to treating the territory as what it is, which is basically international waters that no nation has a solid claim too (the Chinese claim is actually the weakest, or would be if they weren’t building military facilities on their artificial islands). No one, especially China, wants a shooting war with the US or between the US and China (or between China and any of the other regional powers ftm). If we don’t, well, I could certainly see several of the other regional powers taking military steps if they really though China was going to gain sovereign control there. Hell, there have already been military clashes in the region between Vietnam and China a decade or so ago…clashes that cost the Vietnamese over 100 soldiers IIRC. And China is doing similar things to the north as well…just to make sure they piss off basically every nation that has a border with them. Wouldn’t want to miss anyone.
