South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[wm]

The world has come a long way since then and found the weaknesses in the US's armour.

For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.

Only a fool will entice the US into a conventional conflict and so we see a variation on the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.

Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.

I suspect the examples cited are not germane to the final paragraph. US involvement in the Levant and SWA/Afghanistan is at best, adventurism or a display of testosterone (not unlike Grenada and Panama) on the part of some US leaders. To draw conclusions from the engagements of the last 20 odd years about how the US might respond to a perceived existential threat is a mistake because no meaningful basis of analogy exists between the two sorts of cases.

BTW, the earlier appeal to Korea as an esample of US capabilities vis-a-vis PRC is equally a mistake. If memory serves, the principle global concern of the US senior leadership during the Korean conflict was the USSR advancing further in Western Europe. I seem to recall that the US sent as many or more troops to reinforce Europe as were sent to fight on the Korean peninsula.

[JMA]

Yes, it did. Need not have but it did because the Politicians wanted it that way. Your'e familiar with that...

Yes I am and I am also familiar with the fact that in the main US soldiers will do their duty when called upon to do so with the utmost bravery... your politicians are the pits... in fact if at all possible worse than that.

...but then again... in a democracy you get the government you deserve.

Remember this?

“It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

Something got lost somewhere?

[Ken White]

Certainly for near normal times. However and fortunately, we still do crunch time fairly well...

[carl]

Let me put it this way. I haven't been embarrassed by anything the US has done in my lifetime. I could and have wished that some things had been done better but that's mostly from an effectiveness standpoint. You may or may not have been embarrassed, don't know -- but I do know some who've been embarrassed by US actions. Pity...

I have. I remember reading that during the Vietnam War, there was some kind of agreement between the US and the North Vietnamese. We weren't supposed to fly over. Unfortunately, there were around 40 or so South Vietnamese agents that were still in the DRV when the agreement went into effect. The USAF guys wanted an exception made so they could be extracted. It was not allowed. So we left them there and all were picked up. I am actually not embarrassed by that. I am ashamed. Then there were the 3 Marines we left on Koh Tang Island. I am ashamed about that too. An exagerrated (sic) sense of shame I guess.

Regardless, the nation has not been embarrassed. As an expander, the word 'we' refers to persons, not things. A nation is not a person.

Thank you for that. Now I know.

Or you could become carrier qualified -- and don't bother with carrier killer ICBMS and / or cruise missiles. Unproven technology -- and unannounced technology (ours or theirs) are unknowns. For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere.

I don't know how to respond to that. I am certain you know about logistics trains, sea and air and how those change with distance over which something is to be supported. You know about American dependence upon air refueling, how carriers can't go swanning off by themselves, that VLS systems can't be reloaded at sea. You know all that stuff and all the rest inside and out. Since you know, the only thing I can conclude is that you delight in faking obtuse.

Umm, question. Just out of curiosity, did you mean you read superficially or that the books treatment of things you read is superficial?

It was a straight line that was yours to use if you cared to. You did.

Not a rhetorical technique, just a statement of opinion -- note the first word here; "If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian..." A statement of opinion and potential followed by a logical premise that isl predicated on that IF.

Ok. I get it now.

[carl]

Um, you did note that I mentioned those guys were 30-40 years out of date? So are some of those inept Generals and Admirals you despise...

Et Tu?

Yes I did note that you mentioned that. But I prefer to judge for myself and if they recognize the importance of conveniently placed island and land bases, I figure they are seeing what has been plainly evident throughout the whole history of sea fighting.

Me too what?

[carl]

You got the American RPI(Rich People s's Insurgency)

Slap that is as good as it gets. Hit home too because I am reading right now Charles Murray's book Coming Apart and it is about how the US splitting into radically different cultures and the RPI describes one of those cultures well.

[Dayuhan]

I am reminded of small island called Diego Gracia....

...It is an atoll occupying approximately 174 square kilometres (67 sq mi), of which 27.19 square kilometres (10 sq mi) is dry land.

The land area of Pag-asa island is about 0.37 square kilometers. Big difference.

An atoll also has certain natural advantages, as it creates a protected anchorage. Nothing like that at Pag-asa. The cited article claims that

Manila is looking to rebuild the seaport and adjoining runway on Pagasa Island

but the term "seaport" is a ridiculous exaggeration. There is neither port nor harbor. Manila is building a small wharf for supply ships.

Again, the article reports baseless speculation from a completely untrustworthy source. To jump from there to a "US military base in the Spratlys" is pretty absurd. There's no reliable information to suggest that such a thing is happening or has ever been contemplated.

[Dayuhan]

China’s military rise
There are ways to reduce the threat to stability that an emerging superpower poses

http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

Reasonable article, and I agree with the general approach. This quote:

prudent concern about China’s build-up must not lapse into hysteria.

might be addressed to some here.

[Bob's World]

The US has always been a conglomeration of 'radically different cultures." That is one of our strengths, while for many nations it is indeed a source of weakness. Why? Because of the unique form of governance we possess and the shared belief that to some degree all of those radically different cultures have in that system. Most countries don't have that.

This is what Ray misses as well with his condemnation of our politicians and political structures. Fortunately for America and Americans we are possessed of a system of governance we can believe in and that we believe we possess reasonable control over, even when, especially when, we find little to believe in in the politicians who actually man the system.

While I believe our founders intended the Executive to be far less powerful than under the current system; and the Congress to be far more powerful than under the current system, they intended all to be answerable to an armed and informed populace that felt itself free to express its concerns in print, or in large gatherings, and with the full trust that their vote would come as scheduled and count. It makes for a messy, inefficient system, constantly tripping over various "checks and balances." Nowhere near as efficient as found in places where the populace is largely left out of the equation, or where one small part of government is allowed to dominate over the rest.

Personally I take great comfort in the inefficiency. Because efficiency of government is the enemy of stability of that which is governed. We are learning this Soooooo slowly in Afghanistan, where we swooped in and put in place all manner of highly efficient systems, such as the outrageous (to Afghans and foreigners alike) amount of power vested in the President under their current constitution. Such as US controlled and ran CT operations and prisons. Very efficient, yet horribly destructive of the very stability used to rationalize both. The examples go on and on.

Embrace messy politics. Embrace inefficient COIN that lends to host nation legitimacy and sovereignty rather than robbing from the same. From such inefficiency comes stability. It's a crazy world. Finding that balance of just enough control to keep the country on the road, that's the trick.

[carl]

The US has always been a conglomeration of 'radically different cultures." That is one of our strengths, while for many nations it is indeed a source of weakness. Why? Because of the unique form of governance we possess and the shared belief that to some degree all of those radically different cultures have in that system. Most countries don't have that.

I don't know about "always" but Mr. Murray so far has made a persuasive case that when he begins looking at data, around 1960, things like workforce participation, marriage rates, rates of legitimate births (I am not finished yet) etc were quite similar amongst the white population of the US. Since then things have changed, and changed radically. So much so that what it amounts to are radically different sets of primary cultural values. That is not a source of strength, it is more like it is in those other nations you mention, divisive. The shared beliefs are not there anymore which appears to be the main thesis of the book.

We are learning this Soooooo slowly in Afghanistan, where we swooped in and put in place all manner of highly efficient systems, such as the outrageous (to Afghans and foreigners alike) amount of power vested in the President under their current constitution. Such as US controlled and ran CT operations and prisons. Very efficient, yet horribly destructive of the very stability used to rationalize both. The examples go on and on.

Good point. Upon reflection I thought it strange that we supported the creation of a national police force over there. We hate the idea of a national police force and get along just fine with sort of an accidentally coordinated system of local and regional police forces with some national detective agencies to supplement them.

[Ken White]

I have. I remember reading that during the Vietnam War, there was some kind of agreement between the US and the North Vietnamese...

No need to be embarrassed or ashamed. You didn't have anything to do with it and you couldn't have prevented that. Many far worse things tha happened there. If one wishes to be embarrassed or ashamed of anything that occurred in or about Viet Nam, one could start with the fact that the Brothers Kennedy started the totally unnecessary war to boost the US economy and to prove the Democratic Party could be tough on Communism. It was a war in which we had no business and in which there was no real US interest.

Since you know, the only thing I can conclude is that you delight in faking obtuse.

I'm not the one being obtuse nor am I faking anything. I mentioned Carrier qual only with respect to you and your comment:

"Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land. They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too."

I said nothing about using carriers to mess with China, in fact I think that would be sorta dumb. That's why I suggested that the nuke boats, SSBN, SSN and particularly the SSGNs. None of which most other nations can really counter and which don't have a refueling problem. Nor would I send Bones, B2s or 52s -- or F15Es for that matter -- anywhere until the Tomahawks had pretty well done in the relevant -- not all, just relevant -- ADA systems.

"I still think land bases and islands are as useful to navies and naval power as they ever were."

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.

They always told me the Generals and Admirals prepared for the last war -- no one mentioned that civilian Pilots did so as well.

My fellow curmudgeon Bill Sweetman not withstanding, the F35 brings some new capabilities for later phase of operations while the production models of the X-47B as AQ-whatevers, will aid in the initial effort, not least because they'll have twice the range and loiter time of the 18s or 35s -- and even that can and will be extended by by Buddy Tanking refueling from other AQ-whatevers. Then there's the X-37...

... I prefer to judge for myself and if they recognize the importance of conveniently placed island and land bases, I figure they are seeing what has been plainly evident throughout the whole history of sea fighting.

Do they recognize importance or are they parroting conventional wisdom based on 30-40 year old concepts and capabilities? Good for you arriving at your own judgements; bad for them that they, like some Gen-Gens and Admirals are still looking behind instead of ahead. Both the FlagOs and the punditocracy have a vested interest in as little change as possible; makes 'em look smart. Fortunately, as Ernie King said on 30 December 1941; "When they get in trouble they send for the sons-of-bitches." So we do that and the young SOBs discard the old ways and get with the program. We may not have as much time in the future but we know that and people are thinking...

Me too what?

A tongue in cheek reference to old ways; 30-40 year old concepts...

History can never be more than a 'sorta, maybe' guide, militarily one should not let it cloud thinking or ever dictate what one can or will do. In fact, one should do their best to avoid what went before lest they establish a pattern that can be circumvented. Though it's quite okay to let folks think one is planning on doing that old, tired thing while he or she actually contemplates something entirely different. We do that fairly well..

[carl]

Ken:

As far as the importance of land bases and island bases go, you're wrong. The entire history of sea fighting from the time of rafts with spearmen on board has demonstrated the need for bases. The latest tech toys don't change that. Some people fight the last battle, some recognize the fundamentals, and some fall in love with the latest and greatest gimmick and tool and think that changes the fundamentals.

Oh. I thought of something else. In any kind of sea fight with anybody, you are going to have to move supplies with surface ships. I can't think of one where that didn't happen. And when you do that, you have to defend them from air attack. Subs can't do that. You need surface ships or aircraft...which brings us to the need for land bases conveniently located.

[Ken White]

As far as the importance of land bases and island bases go, you're wrong.

As I wrote earlier, that happens. Rarely. And not on this.

I didn't write they generically were unimportant. You do a lot of standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions. I didn't write they were all unnecessary, merely that the ones you've mentioned are not totally critical and that there were workarounds. You might also consider the issue of when which Islands may be a detriment and when they might be beneficial...

In any event, I'll now go a step farther and suggest that for a variety of reasons (not least including who can best cope with time:distance issues and net weapon available numbers) we're better off without that outer perimeter you and John Foster Dulles like. Ducks sitting and all that. Recall that Pearl Harbor was an attack on US Soil and it got a response. An attack on Taiwan or the Philippines will NOT get such a political response -- nor should it.

You may have seen me rail against the FOBs in Afghanistan -- that's a tactically unsound approach that violates the fundamentals of avoiding tieing down force to fixed locations, avoiding tactical repetition and not providing easy targets as well as several others. The Islands you want -- as opposed to all the other places available in the pacific -- are FOBs and they are as dumb as the bases in the 'Stan. Fixed Bases are targets and they severely inhibit the most important fundamental, Maneuver and it's ally, Flexibility.

Some people fight the last battle, some recognize the fundamentals, and some fall in love with the latest and greatest gimmick and tool and think that changes the fundamentals.

And some learned the fundamentals the hard way and know that some, not all, new tools will not change everything but can and will aid in accomplishing those fundementals and changing, if slightly, the way business is done.

Some also are far too old, experienced and cynical to fall in love with much of anything...

A lot of new stuff is borderline worthless for warfighting -- but some of it has great merit and applies directly to those fundamentals. Note the subject of my last comment and Google it. Not much new under the sun -- or sea. Nothing I've mentioned is really new except possibly the X-37 which is only kinda new; all those items have been seen and used before and all the current iterations have been in development for years except the X-47B which the Navy is moving big bucks to -- do those stodgy Admirals know something...

As an aside, it is important to realize with fundamentals that one cannot pick and choose those one likes -- you have to take them all, they're part of an inseparable total package...

Oh. I thought of something else. In any kind of sea fight with anybody, you are going to have to move supplies with surface ships. I can't think of one where that didn't happen. And when you do that, you have to defend them from air attack. Subs can't do that. You need surface ships or aircraft...which brings us to the need for land bases conveniently located.

At the risk of sounding Clintonesque, define 'conveniently.'

Define also 'sea fight.' Sub surface, surface, above the surface or way, way, way above the surface...

You may not think so but the Navy thinks it fights in all those and does so simultaneously. They consider themselves a Sea service. They also have well over 50 year experience at it and that matters a great deal -- plus they have a lot of experience dealing with 'inconvenience'...

All unduly bellicose, the Chinese, hopefully, will be smarter than we are likely to be and none of this is likely to be problematical for a good many years if ever. You worry too much...

[Entropy]

Bob,

Great comment, with a caveat. On one hand I totally agree with this:

Personally I take great comfort in the inefficiency. Because efficiency of government is the enemy of stability of that which is governed.

On the other hand I'm reminded of the <a href="http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/this-is-obscene.html">F-35 program</a> along with any number of other boondoggles and plenty of example of waste personally witnessed by me.

Anyway, the gist of your comment seems to be that the US needs more federalism.

[Ray]

This is what Ray misses as well with his condemnation of our politicians and political structures.

Where did you get that idea from?

In fact, I am throughout stating that the US rules and will rule the waves.

It is some of you who are being defeatist.

The land area of Pag-asa island is about 0.37 square kilometers. Big difference.

An atoll also has certain natural advantages, as it creates a protected anchorage. Nothing like that at Pag-asa.

Philippine Navy renamed Naval Station Pag-Asa in the Kalayaan Islands in the province of Palawan as Naval Station Emilio Liwanag.

The airstrip takes C 130.

[Ray]

No need to be embarrassed or ashamed. You didn't have anything to do with it and you couldn't have prevented that. Many far worse things tha happened there. If one wishes to be embarrassed or ashamed of anything that occurred in or about Viet Nam, one could start with the fact that the Brothers Kennedy started the totally unnecessary war to boost the US economy and to prove the Democratic Party could be tough on Communism. It was a war in which we had no business and in which there was no real US interest.

If Kennedys are to be blamed, one could start with John Foster Dulles.

[Ray]

The land area of Pag-asa island is about 0.37 square kilometers. Big difference.

Indeed, comparisons makes things appear to have 'big difference'.

One wonders if Diego Gracia would be worth having, if one could get, say, Mauritius or Seychelles! Diego Gracia in comparison would very inadequate.

The whole issue of anything military is threat and need based and one has to make good with whatever one gets and optimise its 'tactical/ strategic throw'.

but the term "seaport" is a ridiculous exaggeration. There is neither port nor harbor.

I would not know if is a ridiculous exaggeration. I take it that whoever has claimed so, is aware of what he is stating. Suffice it to say that there is a port.

Again, the article reports baseless speculation from a completely untrustworthy source. To jump from there to a "US military base in the Spratlys" is pretty absurd.

Everything that is stated from articles, papers etc to you is rubbished as 'untrustworthy source'. What would be a 'trustworthy source' for you?

[Ray]

Ken,

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.

A nuclear submarine is noisier than a submarine working on batteries.

The pumps are noisy, then there is the steam noise, and the electric plant puts out a "hum".

This can be detected by any good sonar system. Even the quietest of nuclear submarine makes more noise than a conventional submarine.

And then there is 'environmental fatigue' and so to believe that a nuclear submarine can continue endlessly is not quite correct.

Supplies also have to be given enroute.

Bases just cannot be avoided.

US is refurbishing the submarine base at Guam.

CBGs may be good targets, but then they have their weapon systems that also protect them and are complementary

It's protection hinges on detecting, tracking, engaging and destroying threats before they pose a danger. .

Be it CBG or nuclear submarines, the danger is always there. Just because we cannot observe a submarine unlike a CBG, it does not mean that it is near invincible.

[slapout9]

Slap that is as good as it gets. Hit home too because I am reading right now Charles Murray's book Coming Apart and it is about how the US splitting into radically different cultures and the RPI describes one of those cultures well.

Hi carl,
Yes, I heard that guy on a talk show the other night, have not read his book but seems worthwhile.
Check this out from the Harvard Business Review
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/04/ther...ible_hand.html
finally admitting that Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Theory was nothing but a bunch of RPI propaganda, there is no such thing and never has been any such thing. China is not burdened by such economic nonsense so they are free to make deals that benefit China not some imaginary Invisible idea
So to get back to the thread China understands that Military power comes from Economic power.

[slapout9]

If Kennedys are to be blamed, one could start with John Foster Dulles.

That's right, the war was going on a long time before Kennedy got to be President.