RE: China Attacks US Carrier Battle Group and Okinowa Air Base
Bored at work. If our entire bomber fleet was loaded to the gills, we could drop over 14 million pounds of bombs in the opening salvo of our retaliation.
RE: China Attacks US Carrier Battle Group and Okinowa Air Base
(09-04-2015 03:55 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote: Bored at work. If our entire bomber fleet was loaded to the gills, we could drop over 14 million pounds of bombs in the opening salvo of our retaliation.
Or launch some ICBMs with multiple nuclear warheads...
RE: China Attacks US Carrier Battle Group and Okinowa Air Base
(09-04-2015 04:51 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(09-04-2015 03:55 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote: Bored at work. If our entire bomber fleet was loaded to the gills, we could drop over 14 million pounds of bombs in the opening salvo of our retaliation.
Or launch some ICBMs with multiple nuclear warheads...
China Attacks US Carrier Battle Group and Okinowa Air Base
(09-04-2015 03:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:
(09-04-2015 03:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Well, it looked like on hell of a video game.
On a serious note, history tells us that a confrontation is more likely than not. But, in solid news, sea powers generally win which is good for us.
Does history tell us that? Trade partners of our magnitude rarely go to war, at least that's what I've always thought.
Depends on ones definition of war. From most people's POV, China's actions appear benign. But I would argue that a state of war already exists in the minds of the CCP. China's goal is to achieve their objectives without having to deal with a direct US confrontation. The creation of artificial islands, the constant cyber attacks, the military build and frequent challenges to innocent air and naval passage all point an attempt at local control of the South China Sea. They trying to make the game too rich for us blood.
RE: China Attacks US Carrier Battle Group and Okinowa Air Base
(09-05-2015 05:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:
(09-04-2015 03:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:
(09-04-2015 03:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Well, it looked like on hell of a video game.
On a serious note, history tells us that a confrontation is more likely than not. But, in solid news, sea powers generally win which is good for us.
Does history tell us that? Trade partners of our magnitude rarely go to war, at least that's what I've always thought.
Depends on ones definition of war. From most people's POV, China's actions appear benign. But I would argue that a state of war already exists in the minds of the CCP. China's goal is to achieve their objectives without having to deal with a direct US confrontation. The creation of artificial islands, the constant cyber attacks, the military build and frequent challenges to innocent air and naval passage all point an attempt at local control of the South China Sea. They trying to make the game too rich for us blood.
On the other hand, I don't know that control of the South China Sea is something that is close enough to our wheelhouse that we should be getting directly involved. The historic US approach to regional conflicts was to use both diplomacy and military force (or the threat thereof) to confine regional conflicts to the region and preserve some degree of equality among the contestants. We got away from that in Vietnam and have certainly strayed far from that in the Middle East, with pretty discouraging results across the board.
I have posted before, I would prefer a foreign policy that returns to the former approach. If China has ambitions beyond the South China Sea, then that may become a matter of interest to us. But as long as they don't venture outside that area, and so far they really aren't equipped to do so, then I think there should be a severe limit on our degree of involvement.
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2015 10:54 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
China Attacks US Carrier Battle Group and Okinowa Air Base
(09-06-2015 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:
(09-05-2015 05:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:
(09-04-2015 03:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:
(09-04-2015 03:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Well, it looked like on hell of a video game.
On a serious note, history tells us that a confrontation is more likely than not. But, in solid news, sea powers generally win which is good for us.
Does history tell us that? Trade partners of our magnitude rarely go to war, at least that's what I've always thought.
Depends on ones definition of war. From most people's POV, China's actions appear benign. But I would argue that a state of war already exists in the minds of the CCP. China's goal is to achieve their objectives without having to deal with a direct US confrontation. The creation of artificial islands, the constant cyber attacks, the military build and frequent challenges to innocent air and naval passage all point an attempt at local control of the South China Sea. They trying to make the game too rich for us blood.
On the other hand, I don't know that control of the South China Sea is something that is close enough to our wheelhouse that we should be getting directly involved. The historic US approach to regional conflicts was to use both diplomacy and military force (or the threat thereof) to confine regional conflicts to the region and preserve some degree of equality among the contestants. We got away from that in Vietnam and have certainly strayed far from that in the Middle East, with pretty discouraging results across the board.
I have posted before, I would prefer a foreign policy that returns to the former approach. If China has ambitions beyond the South China Sea, then that may become a matter of interest to us. But as long as they don't venture outside that area, and so far they really aren't equipped to do so, then I think there should be a severe limit on our degree of involvement.
As someone who has questioned the relevancy of Mahan's doctrine in the 21st century, I agree with your assessment. The issue I'm sure you know is the Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan and the Philippines all verbally oppose Chinese expansion. Unfortunately all those countries lack the military capacity to thwart the CCP's efforts.
RE: China Attacks US Carrier Battle Group and Okinowa Air Base
(09-06-2015 01:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: As someone who has questioned the relevancy of Mahan's doctrine in the 21st century, I agree with your assessment. The issue I'm sure you know is the Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan and the Philippines all verbally oppose Chinese expansion. Unfortunately all those countries lack the military capacity to thwart the CCP's efforts.
I don't know that Mahan's doctrine is entirely inappropriate or irrelevant. I would say more that we should apply it differently in a different context today.
And I agree that those countries lack the capability to thwart China. Therefore I think a reasonable strategy would be to assist them in getting to where they could provide credible opposition.
/
China Attacks US Carrier Battle Group and Okinowa Air Base
