"International law"...a framework of agreements with no central enforcement mechanism, touted when it aligns with a particular party(s) interests, and ignored when it doesn't. Human behavior 101: Activities that generate reward for the actor, punish others without punishment for the actor, will continue and likely increase. Present day piracy and China's activities in the nine dash region are generating rewards for the actors with little actual punishment other than "international law of the sea" rulings and occasional isolated military responses. QED: Such activities will continue and likely increase until enough injured actors band together and pushback meaningfully in the nine dash region and hang a few pirates. Current trends argue against holding one's breath until either behavior modification occurs.
Putting my toe in the water (pun intended), I get it. Every nation, like every individual, sees the world from its perspective, the obvious view of the natural man. And applying Gideon’s First Law of Sociology on a grand scale, no nation sees themselves as the bad guy. (We will set aside the seemingly eternal self-flagellation of the American Left for sake of discussion.). The question is what then does the natural man do with this train of thought? If constrained only by force, and without a belief in absolute truths and a higher power, but with an abundance of historical international abuse and its resulting prickliness, we get aggression and war. In this manner, PRC equals Russia.
The United States and everyone in the first island chain and beyond (looking at you, Australia) sees PRC as a bully - because they are *acting* like a bully. Aggression, in itself, needs no further analysis. Effective responses do. Successive White House occupants, State Department denizens, and DoD have all failed to hold the line. The time to have stopped PRC build up of minor coral reefs clearly in the EEZ of their neighbors was the day they showed up with construction equipment. We fumbled the ball. Period. The question is what to do now. One option, only one of many possible, is to treat the re-supply of those armed outposts the way the PRC have responded to the re-supply of the Philippine outpost on Second Thomas Shoal. That would be very hard to do for any number of reasons. What we *can* do is be part of the Philippine Coast Guard’s efforts at Second Thomas Reef, and everywhere else PRC is trying to make inroads.
In other words, China sees the Pacific the way we see the Caribbean. How would we feel if Communists controlled or tried ot take over Cuba, Nicaraugua, Grenada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, etc. ? We might send humanitarian and military aid. We might bribe officials. We might encourage coups or rebellions. We might even invade with our own troops.
I have news: Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are already controlled by Communists. The Chinese own much of the Panama Canal ports. The current nebbishes in the White House have done nothing and will do nothing.
Mr. Blinken is not without talent. It is not easy to get 51 former intelligence officials to sign a document they know to be a complete lie in order to affect the outcome of an election. Mr. Blinken is just weak when it comes to handling our nation's foreign affairs.
Only someone as brilliant as Blinken could undo Nixon and Kissinger's greatest accomplishment of separating Russian and China. Now they are working together against us. I doubt Iran would be causing us so many problems without tacit approval from their big brothers in Moscow and Beijing. I can't wait too see how Blinken will deal with upcoming crises throughout the world. He can't handle pirates in the Red Sea. What will he do about the Strait of Malacca? Send cargo ships around Australia?
I like V.P. Spiro Agnew's "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" better. The word "nabob" has been around centuries before Agnew uttered it in 1970. I think Pete is accurate about "Nebbish" but it is negative in connotation. And even though Spiro's "Nabob" implied negativism, it is kinder & gentler and goes in as a less painful jab or jibe. Kill 'em with kindness....kind of a codicil to the Golden Rule, Captain Mongo, Sir.
Roger that. As I recall (yes I am that old) Agnew was referring to the press---and rightly so. Nebbish in my lexicon means weak and ineffectual. Nevertheless--thanks for the reminder about the golden rule!
Yup. Winken, Blinken and nod. To be fair, Kirby is nothing but a mouthpiece, as he was in the Navy. His credibility does exceed that of mop head---whose number is zero.
That's not an answer. Firing the folks who implement national policy is not an answer to the question, what should our national policy be? Cuba chose a form of government of which we do not approve. Should we invade? Or, should we observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.
As for the second option, religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.
Judging from the number of Cubans coming to the US (illegally) it is rather difficult to tell how many Cubans "Want" the current government as opposed to not having any choice. It is, after all, a Communist dictatorship. Having said that, applying sufficient economic sanctions--and actually enforcing them (a weakness of the nebbish regime we have) might actually work. Of course that would mean accepting consequences, instead of actions like weakening sanctions on Venezuela so as to keep domestic gas prices from rising .Too much to hope for I fear.
Sanctions have not worked for thirty years. We didn't collapse the Soviet Union with sanctions, we crushed them with trade. Open Cuba. Let them see how much better the free enterprise system is than a planned economy.
The American salesman is a far better weapon against communism than the American soldier.
Cubans don’t want the communist government. Ask any Miami Cuban. The Cuban people are existing under a tin pot dictator. It’s our greatest shame allowing that to exist.
Having been born and raised in Miami, with Cuban neighbors and school mates--you are absolutely right. We had a good shot in 1962, but JFK lost his nerve.
I look at the map from the Chinese view and see something different. The sea is one thing, but there is a long border and almost unlimited resources in Siberia. It leaves a Chinese flank wide open. Mongolia provides a buffer in the middle but there is nothing between me (China) and the riches of Siberia.
If I was Xi I would wonder if I should worry about a rogue state of the PRC ( Taiwan in his view) or take advantage of a once in a millennium opportunity where Russia has no military might to secure Siberia. The only thing that Russia has is their Nuclear weapons and Xi looks like he just sent the message to his people make sure his response and deterrent to those is operating at 100%.
Unfortunately for China, it needs metric buttloads of imported petroleum, which it tends to buy either from Russia or from the Middle East. If China attacks Russia, Putin turns off that spigot.
That leaves only one viable source of imports, which is very vulnerable to any rival maritime power with a blue water navy that can put warships astride the sea lanes (Malacca, Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, Sri Lanka, etc.) to choke off tanker traffic to China.
That is the point, If they are pissed, what are they going to do? With their Army in Ukraine and most of their equipment, especially modern equipment in pieces on the battlefield they have a small problem. If they threaten to go nuclear, the Chinese will say "right back at you bud. When was the last time you did an inspection of your missiles? We just finished one that a SAC IG team would be proud of, fired the people in charge and have fixed the problems. And you?"
I wonder if any scenario could happen between November and January when the US might be very distracted?
I might have a long time ago but I don't remember. It just seems to be a once in a forever opportunity .
On the oil front, I think with a few phone calls they could replace Russian oil with Middle East oil for the period they needed it. Don't think Russia would or China allow the oil from the Middle East to be interdicted. PRC navy is big enough to stop that unless the US or Indians intervene (which I think everybody would sit back and watch).
Whoever tries to crimp the sea lanes to deny petroleum to China will definitely get a harsh response. But the question is: what kind?
Can China reach out and reopen the Straits of Malacca ... and keep the sea lanes open? How about the Strait of Hormuz or the Bab-el-Mandeb? That requires a very competent blue water navy, or a bunch of very very accurate long range missiles, or both.
Question: Who would actually be on Russias side as opposed to remaining neutral? Many countries may whine but I doubt any country with any capability would actively participate.
I think that China would have little problem controlling the Russian navy in that part of the world. Their Navy is gets better every day. I believe the West would complain but would actively keep the sea lanes open helping China as a consequence.
From what I understand, most of China's Navy is a coastal defense force. It is not likely that China would be able to force open Malacca or any other strait.
For those who see the Jones Act purely through an economic lens, then I recommend taking in this little factoid...
Will straight up say, you are wearing severely limiting blinders.
As it is, we no longer maintain active control over our own logistics.
Looking at operations even east of the Third Island Chain, without direct US control of its own pitifully small list of ship bottoms, we may as well fold the cards at the start of the game.
Two Maersk US flagged ships carrying US military cargoes were attacked in the Red Sea in the last 24 hours
"The Maersk Detroit and Maersk Chesapeake are operated by Maersk Line, Limited (MLL), Maersk’s US-flag subsidiary. Both ships are enrolled in the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Maritime Security Program and Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) with the U.S government."
And Dutch owned Maersk is now suspending its US flagged ships ***carrying US Military cargoes*** from transiting the Red Sea.
"On Wednesday, A.P. Moller-Maersk said that two of its U.S.-flag ships had detected nearby explosions while transiting Bab el-Mandeb, and had turned back from the strait on the U.S. Navy's instructions. The company says its U.S. ships will now also suspend Red Sea operations. "
The Jones Act has always been underpinned by the calculus that the cost of protection from foreign competition for a small domestic Jones Act fleet has been justified by the benefit that Jones Act fleet provides to national security in times of national emergency or war. The problem is that the "cost" has skyrocketed since the 1970s (it now costs 4-5 times more to build an oceangoing 1000+ ton vessel in the United States than it does in Korea, Europe, Japan or China). Even if we reinstituted the cost differential subsidies from the 1936 Merchant Marine Act, that would still make vessel construction in the US cost-prohibitive. The time for a major war, requiring a huge number of US-flag ships, is quickly approaching. We don't have time to build them, even with massive subsidies and investments. We need to rebuild the US-flag, US-owned merchant fleet. The only way to do that is by allowing the purchase from allied shipyards (Japan, Korea, Europe).
While we have the legal ability to do so, I don't know that it would be wise policy.
The British did this during the Napoleonic War and it led to the War of 1812. This would also be a poison pill because it would lead to two things: (1) foreign vessels would no longer service American ports for regular trade; and (2) foreign fleets would no longer voluntarily charter their vessels to us.
If we were wise we would never have let our merchant fleet go to hell to the point where we would even consider upsetting Denmark by seizing Maersk vessels. They were so upset when Trump talked about buying Greenland.
No argument here. This has been the case for more than 150 years. We build it up in times for war or national emergency, then sell it off to private interests, then decades go by and it declines, then the next war comes and we do it all over again. This happened in WWI, WWII, a lesser degree in Korea and Vietnam, and then not really at all in the First Gulf War.
We are currently in a situation very similar to where we were in 1914. The difference between now and then is that in 1914 we still had the industrial base, capacity, and ability to build a fleet. We currently don't have that. Many of our formerly great shipyards in strategic locations are condos and waterfront retail.
The Algoma Transport is Canadian, built in Canada in 1979. The newer Algoma ships (with no equivalent Jones Act in place...) is now getting their ships built in China.
So we allow for purchase from allies with preference for Europe because Korean and Japanese yards will be directly threatened in a war with China.
Even with major subsidies in the 1970s, the United States was still only building about 5% of the world's tonnage (15-25 new ships each year). With the current fiscal environment, we will not see subsidies like the 1970s absent a major war. And by then, it will be too late.
The Chinese built almost 1800 large oceangoing ships in 2022. The Koreans - 734, the Japanese - 587, and the Europeans - 319. The United States built...5.
They are US-flag, but I can't access the data on who actually owns Maersk Detroit. Its operated by a Maersk subsidiary, which is a US corporation.
If I had to guess based on the publicly available data, the US could legally requisition the Maersk Detroit in the event of a national emergency. That is the ultimate goal for a US-flag merchant fleet - to have a fleet of US-flag merchant vessels that the President can requisition with little difficulty during times of emergency and war.
EDIT: According to CNN Maersk Detroit is also US owned. This makes me more confident in my analysis above that the President could quickly and legally requisition Maersk Detroit if needed. That it was built in Europe doesn't matter.
What "has" happened, is that Maersk (regardless of any theoretical authority the US subsidiary may have) has dictated the movement of US military cargoes.
They are still producing more than the United States. We don't need to rely on them exclusively, but we can at least start using them to replenish our merchant fleets.
40 years between the Paul R. Tregurtha (ore/coal) and the Mark W. Barker (salt). Also, the ice breakers being used on the Great Lakes are getting up there in age.
The Baker is is not solely dedicated to salt as a cargo. Most "boatnerds" were actually surprised that was how se was employed in her first season, as its usually older vessels that carry salt (and mostly Canadian ships, as the salt comes from the largest salt mine in the world in Goderich Canada).
Digression, but always have to point out how these Laker crews are consummate shiphandlers.
This vid of the first 1000 footer Stewart J Cort (sorry M Thompson, cant help but say it that way...) maneuvering into the Fincantieri yard at Sturgeon Bay for winter layup, is entertaining...
If you're ever in the Door County, go to the Maritime Museum in Sturgeon Bay. The tower, overlooking the shipyard, is worth your time. And the pizza place across the road has the sign from SUPSHIP.
As I recall the salt from a mine under the lake is what made it possible to get the funding necessary to build the ship. Yes, it can carry other things as well.
There are Lakers in service that were built for World War II. The 1000' designs were all built in the 1970s, and caused a degree of over capacity on the Lakes. Why build more ships when there's no demand, and existing ones, with good maintenance, can see century long service lives?
The two to three month layup period each year (when the locks close) helps for conducting planned maintenance, plus lower wear and tear from the elements. The barge St. Marys Challenger was built as a powered steamship in 1906, and sailed in the powdered cement trade until 2013. She was known to be operating last summer.
This is the way reality maps show, US looks or did look across the north pole as does Russia, Australia looks up across the pacific or down from the south, China looks north as well.
Concur in detail with this SITREP. Also that it is past time the US acted formally to join the legal regime - while there is still at least some hope of its survival if we do join it.
What I find really annoying is that containerization is largely an American concept and supertankers are largely an American/Greek concept. How did we lose shipbuilding to Asia? Other countries had plans. We had free trade.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
If I'm the PRC strategist I'm not worried much. Some guys in sandles in Yemen are making my rival a laughingstock. The "rules based order" where we make the rules (and break them when Genocide Joe has lucid moments) has less and less viability now either...
Whatever WE may think of China's goals/designs, it is critically important to understand them.
We cannot be so easy to dismiss them. Note: I'm not saying validate them, but we have to understand that if you look at that map and see yourself as red, then we (US) and allies represent an existential threat, especially with Chinese mindset.
I'd had a sense of this, but never actually seen that representation.
Amazing how effective it can be to turn a map on it's side.
Fascinating perspective...and thanks for the link to the article...this reminds me a bit of the old maps from Soviet Military Power that showed the Soviet perspective that they were surrounded by US allies as well. It does give an interesting perspective of how the PLAN could be bottled up and why the PRC would be concerned about that.
"UNCLOS" stumped me, so I googled it. It gave me a flashback to 1977-1979 when I was attending night classes at Chaminade University in Hawaii trying to earn a degree while on 3 years of neutral duty at FTG Pearl Harbor. 15 semester hours every 10 weeks...my "favorite" professor was a PoliSci PhD who had done his Doctorate under Herbert Marcuse at UCSD. Both were commies. I took his courses because I was pragmatic. Easy "A's"...no paper, just one 3 page handwritten essay to hand in at every class on anything you wanted and class discussion. I spelled Amerika with a "K" and feed him a convincing party line. So. In regard to the Law of the Sea. My commie professor used to joke about his time working toward his PhD. He and other graduate students did piecework for some bigwig doing research for the undersea mining aspect of UNCLOS. They crunched data back in that time using brain powder aided by a Texas Instrument calculator...mind-numbing work, he said. They'd recreationally use "smoke" and "drink" to relieve the tedium. He said that much of the grunt work that went into UNCLOS (as it was later called) was done by students like him and his friends and that it was drek...the data was faked when the crunch came to complete their piecework to hand it in to collect a paycheck. Take it for what it is worth, but I have always thought of that when I heard "Law of the Sea" (now called UNCLOS) mentioned.
As an aside, one time the PhD was preaching his Marxism at a night class at Kaneohe MCAS. A Marine Major in mufti stood up and laid into him like he was a recalcitrant Pvt. It wasn't pretty, but it put smiles on faces, most of us were Enlisted guys. The prof toned it down after once having been flame-sprayed by a Marine. Me? I was there to join discussions as required and to read other textbooks and work on other coursework for 2 hours, twice a week for 10 weeks. Rinse & repeat. Pragmatic...got an AGS, BGS, BA and almost an MA in 39 months. It was the only opportunity in 26 years of naval service to go to college.
Much later when I was given a division to run that included EW"A School and the CTT ELINT Course, it included a Marine Gunny and Staff Sergeant. When I lost my EWCS leading Chief with no replacement, I found that my senior E-7 was Gunny Davis. Put the Gunny in charge of EW"A" School. The troops were horrified. I was fortunate to serve with Marines many times. I like them. Gunny Davis and that Major most of all.
When I was working towards my political science degree, I found that the leftist professors could be counted on for an easy A. The competition in class was mostly the liberals, and they are more emotional than intellectual, and as long as your essay told the professor what he wanted to read, easy A.
That professor was smart, articulate, a gifted speaker and while he preached the Marxist gospel at times, mostly he steered class discussions. There weren't many in the classes who shared his views but that never daunted him much until that Marine Major laid in to him. Night classes in Hawaii consisted mostly of Enlisted Servicemen from E-5 to E-7 (Navy, Marine, Army, USAF the occasional Coastie and dependent spouses. J.O.'s were mostly Army. Sometimes a Warrant and maybe an O-4/O-5. Talking shop with members of other Services on breaks was an education, too. Many of the Enlisted wanted a degree to help with promotion or had aspirations for OCS. I actually went to OCS, a 4 day debacle that began on my 33rd birthday in June of 1981 as an E-8. Long story short, I hadn't been yelled at since I promoted to E-5 at 19 and ran a CIC that had no RD1 or RDC. Knew OCS was just boot camp redux but got mighty triggered when some Upperclassman middie with 9 weeks in told me I'd never hack it in the Fleet. Me on day 4 with no collar devices but sporting my ESWS pin and twice a Division Officer as a Chief. But, yeah, he was right about not hacking it, at least not in OCS. I disenrolled before I choked someone. The blisters on my heels from quick-marching everywhere in the ill-fitting new issue shoes, the angry red rash on my inner thighs and nether part of my buttocks, the salt stain and BO reek of my 4 day old wilted wash khakis helped in my decision. May God bless the institution and all her graduates. They did their job and weeded me out. Took the consolation prize of becoming a CWO & LDO w/ a SWO pin. Back to the professor. He looked like a malnourished 50 year old hippie, chain-smoked, was a functioning alcoholic, uncombed long hair, shaving stubble on his face, wore ratty trousers, a Hawaiian shirt and flip flops, drove a 15 year old car and his only employment was teaching night class. His classes were always packed because of the easy A's. As Andrew Dice Clay once said, "Little Boy Blue. He needed the mon-nay. OH-H-H!" Am certain he knew we students were in on the grift. But I can say that the discussions were lively and I learned a lot in his courses. I came away from them a better American...better in the late 70's definition of "better American". I'd bet his liver or lungs gave out before he ever collected Social Security or Medicare. At that time in college I had 2 kids in diapers, wife worked 2 jobs. I rode ships 8 hours a day or taught classes. Monday-Thursday evenings and Saturday mornings...4 hour blocks of college classes plus travel time. That time in his poli-sci classes was a real bonus for catching up, on what was for me, more serious classwork.
Had another professor there who was easy A's because I was really in to what he was teaching, military and Asian history. Fascinating guy, a disabled Infantry Captain who had been shot up and crippled by the VC. Took many of his courses. We became good friends. ~160 s/h and 44 q/h in about 4 years with 2 breaks for PCS and training. Never again. I don't cope well with sleep deprivation.
"International law"...a framework of agreements with no central enforcement mechanism, touted when it aligns with a particular party(s) interests, and ignored when it doesn't. Human behavior 101: Activities that generate reward for the actor, punish others without punishment for the actor, will continue and likely increase. Present day piracy and China's activities in the nine dash region are generating rewards for the actors with little actual punishment other than "international law of the sea" rulings and occasional isolated military responses. QED: Such activities will continue and likely increase until enough injured actors band together and pushback meaningfully in the nine dash region and hang a few pirates. Current trends argue against holding one's breath until either behavior modification occurs.
"Such activities will continue and likely increase until enough injured actors band together and pushback "
Are we talking about China or the Constitutional and humanitarian (as well as existential) crisis at our southern border?
Yes.
Time to show the Chinese they don't have the Mandate of Heaven.
Huge tariffs on their products would be a nice start.
That would require:
- a robust conventional Navy and Air Force.
- a robust and credible nuclear weapon policy with zero ambiguity as to how we will respond.
- a credible and modern nuclear deterrent force.
- credible executive branch and military leadership.
We lack all of these things and that makes it likely China will calculate that China will take what it wants and wins.
Putting my toe in the water (pun intended), I get it. Every nation, like every individual, sees the world from its perspective, the obvious view of the natural man. And applying Gideon’s First Law of Sociology on a grand scale, no nation sees themselves as the bad guy. (We will set aside the seemingly eternal self-flagellation of the American Left for sake of discussion.). The question is what then does the natural man do with this train of thought? If constrained only by force, and without a belief in absolute truths and a higher power, but with an abundance of historical international abuse and its resulting prickliness, we get aggression and war. In this manner, PRC equals Russia.
The United States and everyone in the first island chain and beyond (looking at you, Australia) sees PRC as a bully - because they are *acting* like a bully. Aggression, in itself, needs no further analysis. Effective responses do. Successive White House occupants, State Department denizens, and DoD have all failed to hold the line. The time to have stopped PRC build up of minor coral reefs clearly in the EEZ of their neighbors was the day they showed up with construction equipment. We fumbled the ball. Period. The question is what to do now. One option, only one of many possible, is to treat the re-supply of those armed outposts the way the PRC have responded to the re-supply of the Philippine outpost on Second Thomas Shoal. That would be very hard to do for any number of reasons. What we *can* do is be part of the Philippine Coast Guard’s efforts at Second Thomas Reef, and everywhere else PRC is trying to make inroads.
In other words, China sees the Pacific the way we see the Caribbean. How would we feel if Communists controlled or tried ot take over Cuba, Nicaraugua, Grenada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, etc. ? We might send humanitarian and military aid. We might bribe officials. We might encourage coups or rebellions. We might even invade with our own troops.
I have news: Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are already controlled by Communists. The Chinese own much of the Panama Canal ports. The current nebbishes in the White House have done nothing and will do nothing.
I think "nebbishes" may be too kind a word to describe the people in the WH. Lets hope they are all gone this time next year.
Agreed. I was quoting what I am sure the Israelis privately call our "National Security" team .
Mr. Blinken is not without talent. It is not easy to get 51 former intelligence officials to sign a document they know to be a complete lie in order to affect the outcome of an election. Mr. Blinken is just weak when it comes to handling our nation's foreign affairs.
Only someone as brilliant as Blinken could undo Nixon and Kissinger's greatest accomplishment of separating Russian and China. Now they are working together against us. I doubt Iran would be causing us so many problems without tacit approval from their big brothers in Moscow and Beijing. I can't wait too see how Blinken will deal with upcoming crises throughout the world. He can't handle pirates in the Red Sea. What will he do about the Strait of Malacca? Send cargo ships around Australia?
You have to think big, Pete. Electric high speed rail across Antarctica.
I like V.P. Spiro Agnew's "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" better. The word "nabob" has been around centuries before Agnew uttered it in 1970. I think Pete is accurate about "Nebbish" but it is negative in connotation. And even though Spiro's "Nabob" implied negativism, it is kinder & gentler and goes in as a less painful jab or jibe. Kill 'em with kindness....kind of a codicil to the Golden Rule, Captain Mongo, Sir.
Roger that. As I recall (yes I am that old) Agnew was referring to the press---and rightly so. Nebbish in my lexicon means weak and ineffectual. Nevertheless--thanks for the reminder about the golden rule!
What would you suggest we do? Invade? Send our boys to die to keep Cubans from having the government they apparently want? Boycott them?
I'd fire Blinken and Sullivan for a start. Kirby, too.
Yup. Winken, Blinken and nod. To be fair, Kirby is nothing but a mouthpiece, as he was in the Navy. His credibility does exceed that of mop head---whose number is zero.
Kirby is a very poor speaker, but he does have nice suits.
Listened to Kirby on FOX with Martha McCallum on border issues. He kept telling me it was raining, but I'm no fool. He was Pi55ing on my shoe.
Agree. I’d be embarrassed if that idiot ever owned paper on me and signed a FITREP.
That's not an answer. Firing the folks who implement national policy is not an answer to the question, what should our national policy be? Cuba chose a form of government of which we do not approve. Should we invade? Or, should we observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.
As for the second option, religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.
I said it was a start.
The time to invade Cuba was in early 1961.
Woodrow Wilson could not have said it better.
Judging from the number of Cubans coming to the US (illegally) it is rather difficult to tell how many Cubans "Want" the current government as opposed to not having any choice. It is, after all, a Communist dictatorship. Having said that, applying sufficient economic sanctions--and actually enforcing them (a weakness of the nebbish regime we have) might actually work. Of course that would mean accepting consequences, instead of actions like weakening sanctions on Venezuela so as to keep domestic gas prices from rising .Too much to hope for I fear.
Sanctions have not worked for thirty years. We didn't collapse the Soviet Union with sanctions, we crushed them with trade. Open Cuba. Let them see how much better the free enterprise system is than a planned economy.
The American salesman is a far better weapon against communism than the American soldier.
70 years is more like it.
I do believe a certain Barack Hussain Obama tried just that.
China has yet to be crushed with trade.
Cubans don’t want the communist government. Ask any Miami Cuban. The Cuban people are existing under a tin pot dictator. It’s our greatest shame allowing that to exist.
Having been born and raised in Miami, with Cuban neighbors and school mates--you are absolutely right. We had a good shot in 1962, but JFK lost his nerve.
Did he have much nerve in the first place?
No.
There is a base in Gitmo from the Spanish wars, and it is still there today after the cold war ended.
My CARG was center around defending Gitmo. From communist Cuban's and RU troops.
We won’t defend a border with Mexico. What makes the Chinese think we will defend the first or second. Island chains?
I look at the map from the Chinese view and see something different. The sea is one thing, but there is a long border and almost unlimited resources in Siberia. It leaves a Chinese flank wide open. Mongolia provides a buffer in the middle but there is nothing between me (China) and the riches of Siberia.
If I was Xi I would wonder if I should worry about a rogue state of the PRC ( Taiwan in his view) or take advantage of a once in a millennium opportunity where Russia has no military might to secure Siberia. The only thing that Russia has is their Nuclear weapons and Xi looks like he just sent the message to his people make sure his response and deterrent to those is operating at 100%.
But I could be wrong.
Unfortunately for China, it needs metric buttloads of imported petroleum, which it tends to buy either from Russia or from the Middle East. If China attacks Russia, Putin turns off that spigot.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Priyanka-Desouza/publication/319332873/figure/fig10/AS:532729697247254@1504024065830/Russia-China-Oil-Pipelines.png
That leaves only one viable source of imports, which is very vulnerable to any rival maritime power with a blue water navy that can put warships astride the sea lanes (Malacca, Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, Sri Lanka, etc.) to choke off tanker traffic to China.
https://zeihan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-transport-risk-01.jpg
https://zeihan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2020-top-oil-exporterss-01.jpg
Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
True, but couldn't they capture the oil itself?
Which fields?
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/malyshev2/images/f2abig.png
hard to tell from the maps (yours and Don's first link) but it looked like reserves in vicinity of Atasu maybe.
Dunno if invading Kazakhstan to seize its oil is worth the risk to China.
https://www.ramdanisk.com/uploads/6/0/0/9/60098087/l-kazakhstans-oil-and-gas-fields_orig.jpg
I suspect Russia would be a bit pissed.
Good point, but in the whole fanciful scenario, doesn't it start with a resource grab in Russia anyway?
That is the point, If they are pissed, what are they going to do? With their Army in Ukraine and most of their equipment, especially modern equipment in pieces on the battlefield they have a small problem. If they threaten to go nuclear, the Chinese will say "right back at you bud. When was the last time you did an inspection of your missiles? We just finished one that a SAC IG team would be proud of, fired the people in charge and have fixed the problems. And you?"
I wonder if any scenario could happen between November and January when the US might be very distracted?
China pulled off a coup in Myanmar to open LNG and POL pipelines into China.
I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder. That are, plus their bases in Sri Lanka and Djibouti certainly make sense together.
https://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Chinese-presence-in-IOR1.jpg
I doubt they will accomplish much from those bases. The terminal in Burma would also be fairly easy to take out.
They are building redundancy into their BRI.
Have you been reading Tom Clancy again? I know that was the plot of one novel (The Bear and the Dragon probably) but it's been a few years:)
I might have a long time ago but I don't remember. It just seems to be a once in a forever opportunity .
On the oil front, I think with a few phone calls they could replace Russian oil with Middle East oil for the period they needed it. Don't think Russia would or China allow the oil from the Middle East to be interdicted. PRC navy is big enough to stop that unless the US or Indians intervene (which I think everybody would sit back and watch).
Whoever tries to crimp the sea lanes to deny petroleum to China will definitely get a harsh response. But the question is: what kind?
Can China reach out and reopen the Straits of Malacca ... and keep the sea lanes open? How about the Strait of Hormuz or the Bab-el-Mandeb? That requires a very competent blue water navy, or a bunch of very very accurate long range missiles, or both.
https://i0.wp.com/missilethreat.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ChinaMissiles_Map_2020-scaled.jpg?ssl=1
Question: Who would actually be on Russias side as opposed to remaining neutral? Many countries may whine but I doubt any country with any capability would actively participate.
I think that China would have little problem controlling the Russian navy in that part of the world. Their Navy is gets better every day. I believe the West would complain but would actively keep the sea lanes open helping China as a consequence.
From what I understand, most of China's Navy is a coastal defense force. It is not likely that China would be able to force open Malacca or any other strait.
I'd quibble with the chart, I think Taiwan should be included in the First Island Chain.
They are the anchor
For those who see the Jones Act purely through an economic lens, then I recommend taking in this little factoid...
Will straight up say, you are wearing severely limiting blinders.
As it is, we no longer maintain active control over our own logistics.
Looking at operations even east of the Third Island Chain, without direct US control of its own pitifully small list of ship bottoms, we may as well fold the cards at the start of the game.
Two Maersk US flagged ships carrying US military cargoes were attacked in the Red Sea in the last 24 hours
https://gcaptain.com/two-us-flag-maersk-ships-safe-after-houthi-attack/
"The Maersk Detroit and Maersk Chesapeake are operated by Maersk Line, Limited (MLL), Maersk’s US-flag subsidiary. Both ships are enrolled in the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Maritime Security Program and Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) with the U.S government."
And Dutch owned Maersk is now suspending its US flagged ships ***carrying US Military cargoes*** from transiting the Red Sea.
https://maritime-executive.com/article/maersk-reports-attack-near-two-u-s-flag-ships-off-yemen
"On Wednesday, A.P. Moller-Maersk said that two of its U.S.-flag ships had detected nearby explosions while transiting Bab el-Mandeb, and had turned back from the strait on the U.S. Navy's instructions. The company says its U.S. ships will now also suspend Red Sea operations. "
not a good look for our NS Team (aka the Adults are back in charge) and their much publicized ability to build international partnerships'
The Jones Act has always been underpinned by the calculus that the cost of protection from foreign competition for a small domestic Jones Act fleet has been justified by the benefit that Jones Act fleet provides to national security in times of national emergency or war. The problem is that the "cost" has skyrocketed since the 1970s (it now costs 4-5 times more to build an oceangoing 1000+ ton vessel in the United States than it does in Korea, Europe, Japan or China). Even if we reinstituted the cost differential subsidies from the 1936 Merchant Marine Act, that would still make vessel construction in the US cost-prohibitive. The time for a major war, requiring a huge number of US-flag ships, is quickly approaching. We don't have time to build them, even with massive subsidies and investments. We need to rebuild the US-flag, US-owned merchant fleet. The only way to do that is by allowing the purchase from allied shipyards (Japan, Korea, Europe).
In the event of a major war we will just seize foreign vessles and telll the crews that they now work for Uncle Saam.
While we have the legal ability to do so, I don't know that it would be wise policy.
The British did this during the Napoleonic War and it led to the War of 1812. This would also be a poison pill because it would lead to two things: (1) foreign vessels would no longer service American ports for regular trade; and (2) foreign fleets would no longer voluntarily charter their vessels to us.
If we were wise we would never have let our merchant fleet go to hell to the point where we would even consider upsetting Denmark by seizing Maersk vessels. They were so upset when Trump talked about buying Greenland.
Our nation has negelcted the merchant navy for decades.
No argument here. This has been the case for more than 150 years. We build it up in times for war or national emergency, then sell it off to private interests, then decades go by and it declines, then the next war comes and we do it all over again. This happened in WWI, WWII, a lesser degree in Korea and Vietnam, and then not really at all in the First Gulf War.
We are currently in a situation very similar to where we were in 1914. The difference between now and then is that in 1914 we still had the industrial base, capacity, and ability to build a fleet. We currently don't have that. Many of our formerly great shipyards in strategic locations are condos and waterfront retail.
The skipper of FF1054 in Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" said the state of our Merchant Fleet was like calling gang rape a minor social deviation.
When you stop building ships you also lose the entire supply chain back to iron and coal mines.
Ships are getting built, but in too limited numbers...
http://www.interlake-steamship.com/our-fleet/mark-w-barker/
From my perspective here on the Lakes, the "supply chain" for coal, taconite, and limestone to the bulk of the US steel mills is actually healthy...
And -ironically enough- gets done by ship...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AsP0CMUT5g
Interestingly, the Lee Tregurtha was a USN AO during WWII, and modified into a "Laker" post war...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chiwawa
The Algoma Transport is Canadian, built in Canada in 1979. The newer Algoma ships (with no equivalent Jones Act in place...) is now getting their ships built in China.
What could go wrong with that?
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/algoma-central-corp-new-ship-on-its-way-to-canada-from-china
So we allow for purchase from allies with preference for Europe because Korean and Japanese yards will be directly threatened in a war with China.
Even with major subsidies in the 1970s, the United States was still only building about 5% of the world's tonnage (15-25 new ships each year). With the current fiscal environment, we will not see subsidies like the 1970s absent a major war. And by then, it will be too late.
The Chinese built almost 1800 large oceangoing ships in 2022. The Koreans - 734, the Japanese - 587, and the Europeans - 319. The United States built...5.
"So we allow for purchase from allies with preference for Europe because Korean and Japanese yards will be directly threatened in a war with China."
Pretty sure Maersk retains ownership of the Maersk Detroit and Maersk Chesapeake.
They are US-flag, but I can't access the data on who actually owns Maersk Detroit. Its operated by a Maersk subsidiary, which is a US corporation.
If I had to guess based on the publicly available data, the US could legally requisition the Maersk Detroit in the event of a national emergency. That is the ultimate goal for a US-flag merchant fleet - to have a fleet of US-flag merchant vessels that the President can requisition with little difficulty during times of emergency and war.
EDIT: According to CNN Maersk Detroit is also US owned. This makes me more confident in my analysis above that the President could quickly and legally requisition Maersk Detroit if needed. That it was built in Europe doesn't matter.
What "could" happen in one thing...
What "has" happened, is that Maersk (regardless of any theoretical authority the US subsidiary may have) has dictated the movement of US military cargoes.
That is -the- bottom line today.
European shipyards are on life support. The de-industrialization of Europe is an actual reality. We can’t rely on European shipbuilding.
They are still producing more than the United States. We don't need to rely on them exclusively, but we can at least start using them to replenish our merchant fleets.
40 years between the Paul R. Tregurtha (ore/coal) and the Mark W. Barker (salt). Also, the ice breakers being used on the Great Lakes are getting up there in age.
Why I call the list of US ships "pitiful"...
The Baker is is not solely dedicated to salt as a cargo. Most "boatnerds" were actually surprised that was how se was employed in her first season, as its usually older vessels that carry salt (and mostly Canadian ships, as the salt comes from the largest salt mine in the world in Goderich Canada).
https://www.compassminerals.com/who-we-are/locations/goderich-ontario/
Digression, but always have to point out how these Laker crews are consummate shiphandlers.
This vid of the first 1000 footer Stewart J Cort (sorry M Thompson, cant help but say it that way...) maneuvering into the Fincantieri yard at Sturgeon Bay for winter layup, is entertaining...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2EaG2jK-jA
And the 1000 ft Indiana Harbor standing into Two Harbors - unassisted- with a right brisk quartering tailwind to crosswind to load taconite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC5554ziHuc
That is some fine ship handling.
If you're ever in the Door County, go to the Maritime Museum in Sturgeon Bay. The tower, overlooking the shipyard, is worth your time. And the pizza place across the road has the sign from SUPSHIP.
As I recall the salt from a mine under the lake is what made it possible to get the funding necessary to build the ship. Yes, it can carry other things as well.
There are Lakers in service that were built for World War II. The 1000' designs were all built in the 1970s, and caused a degree of over capacity on the Lakes. Why build more ships when there's no demand, and existing ones, with good maintenance, can see century long service lives?
100 year old ships? That makes me nervous. Sounds like another Edmund Fitzgerald waiting to happen.
You're not as or more concerned about 80 year old (and counting) B-52s?
The two to three month layup period each year (when the locks close) helps for conducting planned maintenance, plus lower wear and tear from the elements. The barge St. Marys Challenger was built as a powered steamship in 1906, and sailed in the powdered cement trade until 2013. She was known to be operating last summer.
I had not heard that but, yes, Cargill ponied up with Interlake to build the Barker. Now I see why she hauled salt in her first season in service!
https://professionalmariner.com/article/2023-ship-of-the-year-mark-w-barker/
Maersk is Danish owned.
You're right...My bad.
Interesting history behind the Shipping powerhouse:
https://www.maersk.com/about/our-history/the-founding-family
No problem. We all make mistakes.
This is the way reality maps show, US looks or did look across the north pole as does Russia, Australia looks up across the pacific or down from the south, China looks north as well.
Concur in detail with this SITREP. Also that it is past time the US acted formally to join the legal regime - while there is still at least some hope of its survival if we do join it.
What I find really annoying is that containerization is largely an American concept and supertankers are largely an American/Greek concept. How did we lose shipbuilding to Asia? Other countries had plans. We had free trade.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
Adam Smith believed that shipping was an exception to free trade given that Britain was an island.
One reason the US should have a strong Navy and Merchant Marine.
Ships built and sailed by Union labor.
Nice refresher on the impact of how a 3D perspective orients oneself & how your perspective can be altered via pan, tilt, and rotate.
If I'm the PRC strategist I'm not worried much. Some guys in sandles in Yemen are making my rival a laughingstock. The "rules based order" where we make the rules (and break them when Genocide Joe has lucid moments) has less and less viability now either...
Excellent optic of how China views the pacific. Inverse this to see how they view the rest of the world west…. It’s not hard. We are in China’s way.
Excellent primer.
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/deterrence-taiwan-and-the-strategic-realities-of-the-21st-century/
Excellent post, Sal.
Whatever WE may think of China's goals/designs, it is critically important to understand them.
We cannot be so easy to dismiss them. Note: I'm not saying validate them, but we have to understand that if you look at that map and see yourself as red, then we (US) and allies represent an existential threat, especially with Chinese mindset.
I'd had a sense of this, but never actually seen that representation.
Amazing how effective it can be to turn a map on it's side.
Fascinating perspective...and thanks for the link to the article...this reminds me a bit of the old maps from Soviet Military Power that showed the Soviet perspective that they were surrounded by US allies as well. It does give an interesting perspective of how the PLAN could be bottled up and why the PRC would be concerned about that.
"UNCLOS" stumped me, so I googled it. It gave me a flashback to 1977-1979 when I was attending night classes at Chaminade University in Hawaii trying to earn a degree while on 3 years of neutral duty at FTG Pearl Harbor. 15 semester hours every 10 weeks...my "favorite" professor was a PoliSci PhD who had done his Doctorate under Herbert Marcuse at UCSD. Both were commies. I took his courses because I was pragmatic. Easy "A's"...no paper, just one 3 page handwritten essay to hand in at every class on anything you wanted and class discussion. I spelled Amerika with a "K" and feed him a convincing party line. So. In regard to the Law of the Sea. My commie professor used to joke about his time working toward his PhD. He and other graduate students did piecework for some bigwig doing research for the undersea mining aspect of UNCLOS. They crunched data back in that time using brain powder aided by a Texas Instrument calculator...mind-numbing work, he said. They'd recreationally use "smoke" and "drink" to relieve the tedium. He said that much of the grunt work that went into UNCLOS (as it was later called) was done by students like him and his friends and that it was drek...the data was faked when the crunch came to complete their piecework to hand it in to collect a paycheck. Take it for what it is worth, but I have always thought of that when I heard "Law of the Sea" (now called UNCLOS) mentioned.
As an aside, one time the PhD was preaching his Marxism at a night class at Kaneohe MCAS. A Marine Major in mufti stood up and laid into him like he was a recalcitrant Pvt. It wasn't pretty, but it put smiles on faces, most of us were Enlisted guys. The prof toned it down after once having been flame-sprayed by a Marine. Me? I was there to join discussions as required and to read other textbooks and work on other coursework for 2 hours, twice a week for 10 weeks. Rinse & repeat. Pragmatic...got an AGS, BGS, BA and almost an MA in 39 months. It was the only opportunity in 26 years of naval service to go to college.
Much later when I was given a division to run that included EW"A School and the CTT ELINT Course, it included a Marine Gunny and Staff Sergeant. When I lost my EWCS leading Chief with no replacement, I found that my senior E-7 was Gunny Davis. Put the Gunny in charge of EW"A" School. The troops were horrified. I was fortunate to serve with Marines many times. I like them. Gunny Davis and that Major most of all.
When I was working towards my political science degree, I found that the leftist professors could be counted on for an easy A. The competition in class was mostly the liberals, and they are more emotional than intellectual, and as long as your essay told the professor what he wanted to read, easy A.
That professor was smart, articulate, a gifted speaker and while he preached the Marxist gospel at times, mostly he steered class discussions. There weren't many in the classes who shared his views but that never daunted him much until that Marine Major laid in to him. Night classes in Hawaii consisted mostly of Enlisted Servicemen from E-5 to E-7 (Navy, Marine, Army, USAF the occasional Coastie and dependent spouses. J.O.'s were mostly Army. Sometimes a Warrant and maybe an O-4/O-5. Talking shop with members of other Services on breaks was an education, too. Many of the Enlisted wanted a degree to help with promotion or had aspirations for OCS. I actually went to OCS, a 4 day debacle that began on my 33rd birthday in June of 1981 as an E-8. Long story short, I hadn't been yelled at since I promoted to E-5 at 19 and ran a CIC that had no RD1 or RDC. Knew OCS was just boot camp redux but got mighty triggered when some Upperclassman middie with 9 weeks in told me I'd never hack it in the Fleet. Me on day 4 with no collar devices but sporting my ESWS pin and twice a Division Officer as a Chief. But, yeah, he was right about not hacking it, at least not in OCS. I disenrolled before I choked someone. The blisters on my heels from quick-marching everywhere in the ill-fitting new issue shoes, the angry red rash on my inner thighs and nether part of my buttocks, the salt stain and BO reek of my 4 day old wilted wash khakis helped in my decision. May God bless the institution and all her graduates. They did their job and weeded me out. Took the consolation prize of becoming a CWO & LDO w/ a SWO pin. Back to the professor. He looked like a malnourished 50 year old hippie, chain-smoked, was a functioning alcoholic, uncombed long hair, shaving stubble on his face, wore ratty trousers, a Hawaiian shirt and flip flops, drove a 15 year old car and his only employment was teaching night class. His classes were always packed because of the easy A's. As Andrew Dice Clay once said, "Little Boy Blue. He needed the mon-nay. OH-H-H!" Am certain he knew we students were in on the grift. But I can say that the discussions were lively and I learned a lot in his courses. I came away from them a better American...better in the late 70's definition of "better American". I'd bet his liver or lungs gave out before he ever collected Social Security or Medicare. At that time in college I had 2 kids in diapers, wife worked 2 jobs. I rode ships 8 hours a day or taught classes. Monday-Thursday evenings and Saturday mornings...4 hour blocks of college classes plus travel time. That time in his poli-sci classes was a real bonus for catching up, on what was for me, more serious classwork.
Had another professor there who was easy A's because I was really in to what he was teaching, military and Asian history. Fascinating guy, a disabled Infantry Captain who had been shot up and crippled by the VC. Took many of his courses. We became good friends. ~160 s/h and 44 q/h in about 4 years with 2 breaks for PCS and training. Never again. I don't cope well with sleep deprivation.