Naval strategy, naval power: uses & abuses

[carl]

That's an assertion. Prove it.
(Obviously, you can't. That would require parallel universe experiments as evidence, and those don't exist. This, of course, means that the assertion is unfounded.)
I might as well say the UN has kept maritime trade safe. That's about as impossible to prove.

No, that wasn't an assertion. It was a comment upon your opinion.

Well, this kinda ridicules the whole assertion of protecting global maritime trade even for countries such as China, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. It just means it is a normal thing not intervene on behalf of an enemy when a third party attacks it. I pays not be enemies with us, or it has in the past.

It was no mistake. it was an attempt to murder two Iranian aircrews and went wrong, killing much more and other Iranians instead.

That is your opinion. Mine is that it was an attempt at self defense gone awry for a number of reasons, some of them not very good ones.

That's rather "depending on the degree of DoD and Congress procurement incompetence".

The effect is the same.

Even the RN has never based such a large percentage of its ships in distant waters, nor were said waters ever very distant to English crown territories as is for example the Persian Gulf from CONUS.

I don't know the specifics but things were very different then from now. Technology accounts for a lot of that. Geography accounts for a lot more. I'll have to look it up but I think the RN had squadrons and bases in India, the Pacific and Singapore. Those places are pretty far from the British Isles.

I get it, you surely bought into those talking points / myths.

I always do when they make sense to me.

Your whole thinking here is illogical. There's no reason to assume the USN size as fixed, thus no reason to explain its relative size with the other's small size.

The USN is so large because of
- political inertia
- bureaucratic behaviour

It's much bigger than required for land attack AND bullying AND defeating other navies combined. It's really politics and bureaucratic behaviour that explain its size.

I don't think my thinking is illogical. I think it is perfectly logical. I just think you are wrong.

Oops, I forgot. Cuba crisis. Unilateral naval embargo (after deploying own nukes to Turkey was apparently totally OK).
Maybe some people have an idea why a so terribly self-contradictory and unreliable global maritime shipping protector ain't no global maritime shipping protector, but a threat to global maritime shipping.

We were involved in the cold war at the time. In times of war, we don't permit enemies freedom of the seas. We interfered with Japanese shipping from 1941 to 1945 also. Of course sometimes we don't, the Korean War and the Vietnam conflict being two cases in point.

Besides; that "anti-Americanism" thing is lame in discussions. Sounds a lot like "the terrorists hate our freedom" BS.
I won't call it an ad hominem attack for being contra a country is not in itself bad (although I'd rather say I'm anti-U.S. policies than anti-American).
After all, certain countries in the world deserve the pushback they receive because they torture, kidnap, assassinate, invade other countries in wars of aggression, bomb other countries at will, support evil dictators, threatened the world with nuclear holocaust for decades ... well, you get the point.

Anti-Americanism may be lame but it is real. Go ahead and push. I'll push back. Yes, I get the point. We're evil hypocrites.

I think it useful to look at how some of the countries closest to China view their naval ambitions. They seem a bit suspicious. The Viets haven't purchased submarines because they are afraid of the USN. It is because they are afraid of China's intentions.

[Fuchs]

Have a look at the non-existing air/ship combat capabilities of a F-14 fighter, at the altitude it was supposedly flying at, the straight line it was supposedly flying at, typical air/ship attack patterns, the USS Vincennes' (not Tico, sry) CIWS and then tell me again that was self-defence.
Self-defence in peacetime, of course.

Maybe sometime the Cubans should kill a New Orleans-Rio de Janeiro airliner and claim it was a ship's self-defence against a RC-135. Then we'd see how see how serious and consistent the U.S. is in its idea of what's self-defence and what's not.

I'm seriously fed up with this "bombing a wedding was a F-16's self defence against AK muzzle fire" line of institutionalised lying.

[Entropy]

I'm seriously fed up with this "bombing a wedding was a F-16's self defence against AK muzzle fire" line of institutionalised lying.

That's a pretty bold accusation. You are saying here that these weren't accidents or even negligence but "murder," which the intentional killing of innocents. That means that the people who gave the orders that led to those deaths and/or the people who "pulled the trigger" knew they were murdering. That analysis doesn't match the facts of any of the cases you've cited, Fuchs, but obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion and people can judge for themselves what to think of your accusations and come to their own conclusions. Frankly I'm surprised that someone who has studied conflict and war as much as you have would think that such incidents can only be explained by murder.

As to the roles of the US Navy, it's important to keep in mind that many countries are defensively allied with the US where the US is obligated to militarily defend those countries. For such treaties to be effective, the US must have the credible ability to actually come to the aid of said nations. That requires a strong Navy so that the US can assure sea access to its allies in times of war and crisis to transport troops, supplies, equipment, etc. Without that ability our defensive treaties are greatly diminished in terms of credibility. We have allies in the Middle East, Europe and Asia and guess where our Naval forces are concentrated?

I think Fuch's is right to a certain extent that during peacetime the "sea lanes" are open by default because it's usually in everyone's interest to keep them open. But we don't live in a perfect world, the world isn't always peaceful, and the US economy depends on global trade. As a result, the US is not about to simply assume that commerce will never be interdicted (even if we had no defense alliances).

[Fuchs]

Entropy, a F-14 is no threat to a cruiser, shooting it down is thus no self-defence, still trying to shoot it down equals trying to kill the pilots and since that happened without a state of war or similar it's an attempt to murder them.
One might discuss the difference between murder and manslaughter in this case, but that's about it.


About the repeated bombing of civilian concentrations with the "muzzle flash, self defence" excuse: There's no way how counter-attacking is safer than flying away with afterburner. Thus it was no self-defence. Furthermore, those pilots can be expected to know that no 57 mm AAA was with any degree of likeliness the source of the muzzle flashes, and anything below that (basically only 23mm, 14.5mm, 12.7mm or 7.62mm) is pretty much ineffective unless the aircraft was really, really low. In that case, attacking would again be the least safe path of action.


The U.S. military has a pattern of using wrong "self-defense" claims as an excuse for when trigger happiness went wrong or when it was eager to kill at the fringe of the ROE. I know that it's not the only military with this defect; others have reacted similarly in Afghanistan and Iraq, even the Bundeswehr. It's a discipline and leadership issue.

But we don't live in a perfect world, the world isn't always peaceful, and the US economy depends on global trade.

Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.

[Ken White]

... still trying to shoot it down equals trying to kill the pilots and since that happened without a state of war or similar it's an attempt to murder them.
One might discuss the difference between murder and manslaughter in this case, but that's about it.

As was said above you're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure some agree with you. I for one do not...

Negligent homicide, yes. Manslaughter or murder, no. That's not a semantic quibble, it's the difference between the right of self defense inherent to any military or naval element and an intentional and deliberate criminal act -- which that shoot down was not.

The U.S. military has a pattern of using wrong "self-defense" claims as an excuse for when trigger happiness went wrong or when it was eager to kill at the fringe of the ROE...

The latter is quite rare, the former quite prevalent -- we are in fact trigger happy. And we are in fact suckered into firing on occasion by those astute enough to play on that as that penchant for trigger happiness is well known. We know it too. We do not feel a need to apologize for it. Self defense may be alien to Europe nowadays, it is not to us.

Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.

France and the UK?

Or Pakistan . Egypt didn't do too bad...

[Dayuhan]

Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.

Whoever has the greatest capacity for intervention will always do the most intervening, UN or no UN.

[Entropy]

I don't really have much to add to what Ken said.

[Fuchs]

You really need to check out the meaning of "self-defense", for to you guys it seems to mean something like "we are allowed to kill you if we can make up an excuse".

To be acquitted of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification, one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_defense

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...ited_States%29

Can't see how the airliner did assault the Vincennes violently.

In Cross v. State, 370 P.2d 371 (Wyo 1962) the Court found that the Due Process of Law clause in the state constitution guaranteed "the inherent and inalienable right to protect property."
However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (...), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_...f_self-defense


The muzzle flashes ceased to be a threat seconds after being seen. The aircraft had to return for so-called "self defence".

While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death.

Identifying an aircraft flying high and straight as F-14 (a 100% fighter without ground attack capability beyond 20mm strafing in that version) does in no way create a reasonable fear on part of the Vincennes bridge crew.

It goes son:

Some states also include a duty to retreat (exceptions include Louisiana and Florida: see castle doctrine), when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...ited_States%29


You guys need to bend the definition of self-defense even beyond definitions from the U.S. in order to excuse the kills. Don't expect any foreigner to buy into this if he's got a critical mind and respect for human lives.

On the other hand; you guys had it comfortable for 20+ years buying into the propaganda excuse of the own team. Who am I to expect that I could break through the cognitive dissonance with some petty forum posts?

Just be alerted at the fact that there are wildly different interpretations for what the U.S. military does, and said expectations have good reasons.