Sunday, June 4, 2017

How Long Will The U.S. Navy Rule The Oceans?

Tobin Harshaw, Bloomberg: America Rules the Waves. But for How Long?

A Q-and-A with Admiral James Stavridis about China's fake islands, India's real rise and sea power in the 21st century.

China builds fake islands in the South China Sea. Russia fires missiles into Syria from the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. North Korea launches ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan. The U.S. orders three -- three! -- aircraft carrier strike groups to the Western Pacific in response. Houthi rebels shoot rockets at U.S. ships off Yemen. Pacific nations go on a submarine-buying binge. India and China start constructing their first homemade aircraft carriers. Pirates return to the waters off East Africa.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that control of high seas is becoming more vital than any time since World War II. Which makes it the perfect moment for an authoritative new book on the role of sea power in shaping human civilization across the globe and across the ages.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: As long as the American taxpayer is willing to pay for the navy that the U.S. has .... the U.S. will probably be "ruling the oceans" for a long time.


B.Poster said...

In order to ask how long the US Navy will rule the oceans, the US Navy will first need to rule the oceans. Since this hasn't hapoened yet nor is it likely happen, we are not only getting ahead of ourselves to ask this question but the question is a bit silly.

With that said it isn't merely a natter of "willingness" on the part of US tacpayers but a matter of ability. The US is deeply in debt, the infrastructure is crumbling, and while the economy has improved slightly since Donald Trump took office, the economy and its prospects remain bleak for most Americans.

At this point, the US military would be hard pressed to defend the US mainland. To even think of sonething like ruling the oceans is ridiculously farfetched.

Finally, the American people are losing patience with these far flung deployments that do NOT advance American security and economic interests and, in fact, undermine them. As such, even if the ability to rule the oceans is there the willingness is not. As such, these types of operations will be ending soon one way or the other.

Jac said...

Well, money is the bloodstream of war or defense. We first thing we need is to have a very strong economy and the right budget for humans and equipment's will follow easily.

Turfy77 said...

So if the US doesn't rule the oceans who does B. POSTER. you couldn't be more anti US if you tried, every comment is so anti US. I think your a bit delusional. Your off you our head mate

Anonymous said...

Turfy.. you haven't been following this blog, I take it. Bposter is a mentally challenged person who has vivid day dreams about Russian supremacy.
I know, I know. .you'll be saying "what? That almost broke country run by a dictator, Russia?" And you would be right
However. . This is the internet, so we have to live with Russian trolls like bposter. .. Who will of course tell you he is American and doesn't have a poster of a half naked Putin above his bed. ..just go with it.. be nice to him. .he's like the ghost of this blog. ..usually comes out his closet when America Russia or China is discussed. ..

Turfy77 said...

Haha half naked putin poster lol bet it's all sticky

B.Poster said...

Turfy77 and anonymous,

Very respectfully, kindly read the posts in their entirety before commenting. Had either of you done so you it would be obvious that I am not pro-Russia or pro-Putin. I am American and that's where my loyalties are.


To address some of the points you raise, if the US doesn't rule oceans who does? It's a questionable assumption, at best, that the US rules the oceans. Should hot war between the US and Russia, China, North Korea, Iran or a number of other powers become reality the casualties and loss of ships suffered by the US will be enormous. As such, while we might well "win" (an optimistic assumption but nonetheless possible) the enormous losses we would suffer would make this "victory" EXTREMELY pyric.

What is clear is the US CANNOT afford the current level of spending or commitment to enterprises that don't advance our security or economic interests. From your use of the term "mate" to describe me, I'm assuming you are Australian. If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

I'm going to try and spell this out for you as you may not be aware of America's current situation. The US is deeply in debt. If we count just the direct liabilities, the debt is around 20 trillion. When unfunded liabilities are added in, the debt exceeds 100 trillion. The infrastructure is in poor shape and is getting worse, the military is worn down "tapped out" as someone who posts regularly here put it once. In order to try and maintain the current commitments, shortcuts have been taken in training and equipment maintenance which has led to low morale on the part of the troops.

You called me delusional. Very respectfully it might seem to be you who is delusional but I'm assuming you simply are not aware of the facts here. Of course as an Aussie it is not your head or the heads of loved ones who are on the chopping block here. If they were, perhaps you'd be a bit more circumspect before rushing to snap judgments.


You call me "mentally challenged." Very respectfully your reply to Turfy77 is based upon a superficial analysis. As such, it may be you who is mentally challenged, however, I think it is simply a superficial analysis on your part. In any event, respectful disagreements on the correct policies moving forward are understandable and there is no need to insult those who disagree.