Deployment US Navy 2020

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by trelawney126, Jun 2, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
  2. WTF is happening with everyone's posts recently. Why are there so many blank posts?

    IT Guru's have a look please!
    • Like Like x 1
  3. wal

    wal Badgeman

    IT Guru's have a look please!

    Is that not an oxymoron, Trehorn?
  4. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    Not an oxymoron but there is a moronic, redundant apostrophe therein, twice.

    The problem will be addressed when the COs become aware of it. It is surmountable on a post by post basis without executive intervention by using existing forum functionality. Stand fast whale omelettes.
  5. You could have just said aberrant
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Why would the COs would be interested in sorting out redundant apostrophes?
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  7. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    I take it the original post is going on about the USN policy shift away from the North atlantic and on to the Pacific?

    If so good topic. The Ozzies are going to be expanding their naval base at Darwin and some of Uncle Sams Misguided Children are moving in. Closer to home the NZ "NO" to nukes message which has soured relationships with the Yanks for quite a few years now I think will be tested. It has basically meant a cooling in relationships and a lack of US Naval power visiting. Down here the US/NZ troops have just resumed joint training exersises so I'd imagine a "Dont ask/dont tell" policy will evolve over the USN and its ships, obviously the known Nuke powered ones will be a No No.
    What will be interesting is when the lend/lease agreements end on some of the Pacific atolls and lesser Islands and the Yanks are left with the option of paying rent or shifting.
  8. .

    This is just the USN desperately trying to find a reason for tax dollars to be spent on it.

    They seem to think that "freedom of the seas" only applies to the US navy and that should the Chinese dare to send a frigate to Africa this is some sort of threat to world peace.

    I DO acknowledge that China is a threat to Taiwan (which is only a separate country because the US backed its then military dictator) but other than that China is not showing any signs of international sabre-ratling. Their naval forces are, so-far, essentially a coast defence force with pretensions to a REGIONAL force.

    Somehow the US consistently "forgets" that Chinese spending (like national product) should NOT be looked at as a single figure, but more on a "per capita" basis. The US somehow think that a country with something like 4+ times the population, but the same national product (but much smaller defence budget) is somehow a threat (and that is ignoring all the infrastructure and social disparities that need addresssing !).

    As long as US strategic "thinking" (it hardly merits the word) is so self-serving instead of honest then the US forces will be un-necessarily bloated and wrongly focussed.

  9. "China is not showing any signs of international sabre-ratling" ... yet.

    Just like China wasn't a threat to the West's manufacturing industry ...
    As fossil fuels start to dwindle in 30 or so years time, all the friendships that China has bought in Africa will be called into play ... and you'll need to protect that oil on its way to China.
  10. It's not just Taiwan that Chinese interests are focused on; China’s Maritime Ambitions: Implications for Regional Security

    Coastal Area- disputed by Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines and China.
    Gulf of Tonkin - disputed by China, Vietnam
    Paracel Islands - disputed by People’s Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan), Vietnam
    Spratly Islands - disputed by People’s Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan), Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Brunei

    I can understand Taiwan and The Paracels but the Spratly islands?
  11. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator[/URL]

    Where is my text going?
  12. Ahh bollox - my post was eaten by the "feature" ... Ok ... "bug" then.

    IIRC is went something like this?

    Perhaps they want the Spratley's to restrict movement of trade to other countries
    Perhaps they want the Spratleys for access to minerals and fossil fuels on what constitutes land and underwater

    Perhaps they want access to the Sprats? Or have I read that worng ....? :)

  13. Oil and gas, lots of it.
  14. Yes, that has not been lost on me but from a pure territorial perspective the case for China is very dodgy indeed
  15. China don't give up historical claims - if they ever once owned it or had a claim then they want it now. Think the seagulls from Nemo, "mine, mine mine". Alternatively see Tibet.

    Mix in the "South China Sea", potential for natural resources, and just regional power politics and it is hardly in their interest to back down from the current claims. Much like England's previous claim to Sovereignty of the Sea, once you've claimed it the cost of backtracking is rather high, even if the cost of maintaining the claim is pricey as well.
  16. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    Because they have standards...........................................................?

    Fair one....chunter.....chunter..........
  17. Spratley islands.

    From Wiky

    "There are no native islanders but there are, at least for now, rich fishing grounds; and initial surveys indicate the islands may contain significant reserves of oil and natural gas."

    Enough reason there methinks!!!
  18. Reason - absolutely
    Moral authority - No chance
  19. This is the USA we are discussing?

    The nation that used phrases like 'plausible deniability'

Share This Page