One sees what one wishes to see...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Actually you sort of did write that island and land bases were generically unimportant.
In post no. 232 you wrote "I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era. (emphasis added / kw)
THOSE would be Taiwan, the Philippines (and even Guam...) -- your outer barrier...
Quote:
So in posts 232 and 242 you said things that sounded like simple dismissals of the importance of land bases for navies.
That could be my fault for a lack of specificity, I guess...
Quote:
But then things evolved.
Or maybe not...
Quote:
In post 272 you wrote "They are if you're going to use Carrier Battle Groups and surface warships though I'm unsure why you would do that in anything above mid intensity conflict (where they have their uses). In a high intensity fight, the Carrier and surface ships are big fat targets and an impediment until a lot of sanitizing in the objective area has occurred." This in response to my saying that land bases are as useful as ever. (emphasis added / kw)
As emphasized, I wrote about CBGs and surface warships -- Committing them to major action in a high intensity war ala WW II is likely to have the same result the initial commitment it then did -- loss of half the fleet. So I asked why would one make such a dumb commitment. If one does not, then one does not need bases 'conveniently' located to the conflict zone.
Quote:
So we are getting to an admission that land bases are useful for things mid intensity conflict and below.
Not what I wrote but I can accept that as often if not always correct. I'd design a force that didn't need them, at least as currently used (a more than 30-40 year old concept, more like 3-4,000...) but I'm not in charge and we have what we have. That's what we have but it isn't mandatory that we use it stupidly...
Quote:
Now in post 293 you said "The surface stuff is all necessary, certainly for less than total warfare but also for later stages of major conflicts and for operations outside the primary sea battlespace. Bases are also necessary, no question. Those things are not at issue; the issue is one of where things are located and when they are used. Thus it is not a question of needs and capabilities, simply one of employment."
So now with this post and 293 you say that land bases are needed for navies. Good. Now that we have that settled, we can deal with the separate question of which land bases are needed.
You often misquote or misunderstand what I write, my fault perhaps but it does create unnecessary confusion. To my mind, a need for some bases and / or islands was never an issue or question; I referred to specific Islands / bases and to me, the issue has always been employment; i.e. which bases are useful (and concomitantly, which are less so...).
Quote:
So from this I conclude that... the sea power that would do it has to be close enough to do it. So that means islands, as you say in post 293. So given all that, (which you won't, but I will) it seems to me foolish to give up the first islands in that barrier without a fight, since without possession of those island, I think the best we could hope for would be a stalemate with the PLAN, which would be a long term strategic victory for them and a long term strategic loss for us.
We can disagree on all that. Just because that's what you conclude doesn't make it so; the sea power that will "do it" has to be survivable and effective, not necessarily close. Close can be a significant disadvantage. We have greater reach than anyone -- we should use it wisely instead of playing by the other guys rules on his turf -- or in his ocean...
Quote:
With those considerations in mind, if we lost that first line of barrier islands, we could never retake them. If we couldn't retake them, we could not defeat the PLAN. If we can't defeat the PLAN, strategically we lose and will put on the defensive.
Your basis for those conclusions is? I'm particularly interested in your rationale for the first statement as that seems to be the crux of your argument. You can again elect not to answer but that assertion is not supported by any evidence of which I have knowledge. In fact all those statements appear to be assumptions on your part that have no basis other than whimsy.
Quote:
That possibility worries me.
We noticed...:wry:
Quote:
Google what? I got mixed up. If you mean drones and space planes and hypersonic missiles, that stuff to me is like guided air to air missiles were in the 1950s, of some use but it they would not be what they were cracked up to be until 30 years later.
Which is where we now are and then some; thus my suggestion it might be wise to eschew 30-40 year old ideas. The Google reference was to the USS Grayback. That idea of 1956 wasn't what it was cracked up to be, didn't work that well -- until the nuke boats and Tomahawk got together in 1983. It appeared to have merit about 30 years later, 40 years later it was an agreed winner and now almost 60 years later it's an extremely potent weapon and the SSGN with 154 Tomahawks is unsettling to a lot of folks if not to you.
The Navy wanted to develop high explosive warheads to replace the nuclear warheads on some Trident missiles back in '03. Congress denied it -- but now, they are more receptive and HE Warhead Tridents will be even more worrisome than Tomahawks...
Others also worry about what the X-37 is for even if you don't... ;)
Quote:
Nope, I don't think I will. It is obvious from the context of all I have written on this so you should think back.
I realize what you define as 'conveniently.' Similarly, I'm sure you understand that I disagree with your definition. I asked the question as a suggestive you might want to rethink that. I am not surprised that you do not.
Quote:
Well I should hope so. That is what they get paid for. But the Navy has decided to count hospital ships and PCs as battle force ships so maybe sometimes they don't do so well.
That's domestic politics for you... :D
The Navy didn't decide to do that. The Administration, the SecDef and SecNav decided to do that. Totally different thing. A really rather unimportant thing other than as political fodder. Happens after every war. This is probably your first post war interlude. It'll be my fifth. They get easier to take as they go along. :rolleyes:
Quote:
We'll see. I hope I am wrong.
We indeed will. Perhaps.
blessed are the cheesemakers
To some extent I agree with Ray, the estimable gentleman from Calcutta. There are indications that India is a borderline failed state, and without serious involvement by the US risks a descent into further volatility in an already highly unstable region. Such a descent might serve to embolden nationalistic elements in neighbouring countries who seek to capitalize on such turmoil.
Quote:
Once a beacon of integrity, India's military is in disarray
Indians wearied by a litany of corruption scandals and failures of government in recent years have been able to take comfort in the fact that one national institution – the armed forces – remained unbesmirched, its reputation for efficiency and integrity intact.
No longer. Leaked secret memos, million-dollar bribe allegations, a “near-coup experience” and a bizarre dispute over the army chief’s birthday have badly tarnished the image of the 1.3 million-member fighting force that controls nuclear weapons in a volatile region.
[...]
The pattern is such that the general’s personal motivations have emerged as the leading theory to explain all of the recent developments. Gen. Singh is a distinguished veteran of India’s 1971 war with Pakistan and was a stalwart but unremarkable figure until recently. But to many observers, it seems that having won the top job, he is loathe to leave it.
“He’s lost the plot in the last year,” said Maj.-Gen. Mehta. “This is the last ditch effort of a man who is saying ‘I haven’t got what I wanted’ – the act of a man in despair, saying ‘if I’m going down why don’t I take a few others down with me.’”
Once a beacon of integrity, India's military is in disarray. - The Globe and Mail - April 18, 2012
...
On the positive side, military bilateralism between China and India suggests that China is now taking the China threat seriously and is co-operating with India on the containment of China:
Quote:
India climbdown may help China border dispute
Predictions of a looming Sino-Indian war were "utter nonsense", Gen Singh said.
"I must tell these futurologists and experts to stop this nonsense of predicting a Indo-China war, first in 2010, then in 2012 and now in 2020. They will be proved wrong as we will not fight. We are competitors, not rivals," he said.
"These experts have no ground knowledge, they don't know that Chinese and Indian soldiers actually play volleyball on the borders.
"We have plans for extensive military-to-military interactions between the two countries," Gen Singh told the conference. "That includes joint military exercises."
He said India will nevertheless not compromise on its military preparedness.
India climbdown may help China border dispute - BBC - April 17, 2012.
More Angels on heads of pins...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Yes, so to sum up, we checked the Japanese with ships that were acquired before the need became obviously critical.
Okay, checked and those that arrived in about 1943 were able to move from checked to skunked. Got it.[quote] I thought you said range isn't that important to nuke subs, which they have. Those boats could get there.[quote]How many do they have, how well do they work, how good are the crews? :rolleyes:
Quote:
The trick is to make it harder for them. That is why barrier islands are nice to have.
A big pot of money is nice to have; most of us get by without one.
Quote:
The whole coast down to Shanghai is blocked by Japan and Korea. That is why Japan is called a barrier island.
Uh, okay -- what do you call Korea? I don't recall Japan being considered as on of those barrier islands in this discussion, I acknowledge that it could be so considered but then so could Australia... :rolleyes:
Quote:
If we lost the first line of barrier islands... Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, the game would be over anyway. We would have to get good at groveling.
You have a rationale for all that or is it just a thought?
Quote:
I seems to be determined to be determined about all sorts of things, in your eyes, that I ain't actually determined about.:wry:
Perhaps. Since you mention it, you seem to be determined to take things as personal attacks when none is intended...
Quote:
They do get significant advantage and we lose significant advantage. See all I've written before. We do accrue the risk of making a totalitarian police state cross with us. We have a history of doing that.
I've read most of what you've written on this topic and warfighting in general and disagree with about all of it. Somehow, "the risk of making a totalitarian police state cross with us.' is not going to keep me awake at night. Yeah, we have a history of doing that. How did that work out for them? :wry:
Quote:
Asked and answered. I didn't miss a thing.
Mmm, I didn't see an answer unless you're talking about Post 306 where you stated some opinions that are at very least arguable. He may accept it as an asnwer, but IMO, you just keep saying the same thing -- we can't leave...