CDR Sal, changing perspective can really change how you view a problem. Using Australia's point of view is VERY useful when examining a very complex problem. "Law of the Sea", like the fiction of "International Law" only applies when there is an enforcement mechanism. Jailing Bosnian war criminals required NATO military force. Without it, "international law" was mere words on paper. "Law of the sea" and international commerce was largely enforced by the U.S. navy (mostly in benign fashion, as you note). The PLAN version of this will be less benign, and coercive. We know this (see Hong Kong, Taiwan), as do the nations in the region. The correlation of visible forces is not encouraging, and Australia since 2010ish has been watching this with concern as their government, like ours, changes polarity and perceived threat axis directions (China? Friend? Enemy?) regularly via elections. We are currently engaged in an effort to turn and avoid an iceberg. Three years from now, an election could turn us right back towards said iceberg. And a lot of the current Department of War, the Congress, and Military Industrial Complex "primes" would be delighted to do so. We need time to dig ourselves out of a hole. Personally, don't think we can "win" a fight in the Pacific. Imposed cost is now our strategy, with the threat of strategic response behind the curtain.
In 1987, the US Navy numbered 594 ships. Today, the number is less than half that. The inescapable truth is that the US Navy has shrunk dramatically over the past 40 years. On the other hand, the force requirements have not changed — the Navy is still required to maintain a minimum level of force presence. Over the past few decades, we have seen Navy leadership parse how they will do the same (sometimes more) with less. But in the end, this has been gobbledygook. The most recent example is CNO's recent editorial -- full of nothingness. Recall, also, CNO Clark's "brilliant" idea to redesign Carrier Battle Groups into smaller Carrier Strike Groups. I saw at first hand how this was a visual sleight of hand.
We dropped the ball in the 1990s. Successive SecNavs and CNOs have seemingly been unable to do anything about reversing the trend. And now I see that in the "381 ship Navy" that over 130 unmanned craft will be counted in the bottom line. I think the jury's out on the real impact unmanned vessels will have in a knock-down, drag 'em out naval fight. Maybe they will provide the critical mass, or maybe not.
I really hope that we don't have a Beatty "something is wrong with our bloody ships today" moment in the future.
Australia is a Chinese mineral colony. They are too busy importing Islamists and disarming their population while policing hate speech. Another anglosphere country committing suicide, good riddance.
Well, they might took a few lessons from Chinese how to dealt with domestic Islamists; last time when Chinese Party decided that arabic styles on Chinese mosques decorations are "hostile cultural influence" and ordered them to be replaced with more middle-asian one, the mullah's praised the Party wisdom and in record time got rid of everything remotely-Arabic. No protests, no knifings, no shootings - just peace and order. After what happened a few days ago, Australian should probably considered their role models very carefully...
Turns out that when you discard force structure and industrial capacity on the assumption that all your threats have vanished, it's not so easy to reacquire them once a new threat emerges. Most amazing of all is that we've been talking about the emergence of China as a "peer competitor" for decades now, and we're still not really doing anything very serious to address it. Tweaking the program of record and making various organizational changes within the Services - none of this is even remotely sufficient. Are we hoping China will just magically collapse and go away like the USSR? Good luck with that.
Well, for most of 1990s, 2000s and 2010s American elites expected just that - that China would magically collapse because "surely peoples who would live better would demand more democracy!"
Not sure Chinese order could be described as fascist. They are neither ultra-nationalistic (well, Asian nations generally more nationalistic as European by definition, due to more divergent cultural heritage), nor especially traditionalistic, nor leaning too hard toward militarism and corporativism. Fascism is really... a poorly defined term, that was made even more unclear by political radicals calling "FASCISM!!!" everything they didn't like.
It would likely be more correct to say, that at current stage of technological development, long-term predictability of Chinese political system and general preferrence of control over liberty works better. They are able to maintain coherence in pursuing long-term goals - that Western-type democracies demonstrate inability to achieve.
And, in China too. It was the adoption of free market economics by Jiang Zemin which allowed China to become an economic juggernaut. Xi has cracked down on the American-friendly, free market favoring leaders in the party, purging them from his administration.
Or, if the threats haven't vanished then at least you have a friendly cousin with a big stick. The Royal Navy ruled the waves across the globe from the Seven Years War until WW2. By the end of WW2, the U.S. Navy was massive, battle tested, and a amiable, if difficult, cousin that stood supreme. The UK and RN could turned inward because the USN was there to "pick up the slack." The U.S. has nowhere to turn and must either step up to the challenge or cede the oceans to the PLAN. In great power competition there is no defendable middle ground for half measures.
The Royal Navy basically lost its status after World War I already - when it become obvious that British war-torn economy could not meet the challenge of arm race against USA or even Japan anymore. Britain managed to stabilize the situation by Washington Treaty naval limitation system (exploiting American desire to avoid excessive spending and Japanese reluctance to openly challenge USA at this point), which gave them about 20 more years of relative naval power - but by 1939 it became obvious, that Britain lacked industrial potential to use those 20 years.
Space is the preeminent theater of the next war to determine global dominance. Whoever controls the vast space of satellite communications will control the ships of the oceans. China has already tested anti satellite technology by shooting down its own weather satellite. China has its own space station and taikonauts conducting unknown experiments. They plan to land on the lunar surface and build permanent bases.
Space is Space Force mission. It's not an ocean. It's a separate medium, which have nothing to do with air or water. Just because traditionally spacecrafts are sometimes called "spaceships" does not make then naval vessels; if anything, they are more comparable with artillery projectiles.
We have a “Piracy” situation unfolding that does involve our United States Navy and Coast Guard.
My “Specialty” is Maritime Law.
Venezuelan Oil Tankers flying Flags of other Nations, to confuse anyone asking, “Whose ship is that?”. POTUS claiming USA owns all the oil on those ships!
Perhaps our United States Navy is taking a good, long second look.
1. Morale!
Yes, our Naval Officers and Enlisted “Morale”. Did you watch our beautiful Navy Band’s Christmas Special!
My goodness, a Naval Commander conducted! Morale is so important to maintaining discipline during these confusing times.
2. Our Legal Beagles are sorting out the Maritime “Law”! This will take months!
3. Australia and America suffered three murderous events around 14 December, leaving me quite shocked!
4. Yesterday at Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church, I spoke to my friend Tim, who I’ve known since 1997!
Tim brought me and my seven (7) day old baby to Father Kosmas Karavellas for a blessing on Mother’s Day 1998. Tim was speaking openly and honestly with me yesterday fearing for our young military personnel. I’ll keep reading your post and the comments. Thank you for yesterday’s Pearl Harbor video and today’s thoughts to consider. I’m almost finished sewing the hem on my Robe-Set. Colors are Pink, Aqua and Yellow. It’s been hanging on the stand for about three (3) years waiting patiently for my needle and thread. Our temperature on the water here is a cold 32 degrees F!
The Robe-Set has a hood and belt, it’s long to protect my legs from biting winds. I watch this Chesapeake Bay as ordered by DOD in 1991.
I’ve sent two separate emails to The Chesapeake Bay Foundation yesterday and today. Awaiting their reply. Please encourage our readers to keep eyes on our waterways. Thank you! Respectfully, Nurse Jane
Without meaning to be snarky at all, I was pleased to see those Navy MU's (Musicians) entertaining in uniform. Aside from the wonderful display of talent, I was most pleased to see them devoid of any warfare pin above the ribbons like most of the disparate Navy Officer and Enlisted occupational groups have nowadays. I served on the 7th Fleet flag ship during the Vietnam War. We had a band of MU's aboard. We referred to them as "Combat Musicians" because while we wore dungarees, they wore OD fatigues. Why? Because they'd occasionally get helo-ed ashore to entertain the troops. God Bless them.
We'll know it's over when the MU's and Chaplain Corps start sporting some spangle over their ribbons. Meanwhile, they hold the line.
What they are not doing, and none of the numerous other western world countries around the world are not doing, is anything to defend themselves. Otehr than counting in us to do it for them.
If those of us who are America First, America Only get any say, the rest of the world will be on its own to sink or swim.
Don't look for any change in trajectory. Governance within the Anglosphere in general has become both fractious and somnolent as progressive politicians turn entirely inwards only seeking more power for their particular party by catering to the most extreme of their base constituency. From importing future voters to funding state handouts while ignoring the corruption they are handing China the world on a silver plate.
As noted by Sal and affirmed by others, Pax Sinica will not be so nearly benign as the Pax Americana. Nor even as benign as the previous regimes of colonial powers, I would think.
To that I add:
It will only be a Pax Sinica if those who will fall under its hegemony simply roll over and accede to the new boss. That could happen, but all would ultimately benefit more from the status quo. To keep status quo though, it seems unavoidable that there will be Bellum Sinica, perhaps even growing to Bellum Universum III.
You misunderstood the Chinese average political logic quite a bit. They don't care much about formal demonstration of their hegemony. They are interested in factual control over things - political, cultural and economical influence so deep, that other nations would look at China as role model. It's more in line with their traditional view of empire; not a direct colonial control, but a great sphere of loyal satellites, tied tightly with China and generally happy with their position.
That's not a deliberate effort; merely the Chinese buisness seeing money to be made from American inability to control their own addictions. Free market, you know. For the 300% profit, there is no crime which capital won't commit, even under threat of gallow (c)
The deleterious effect of demand withers without supply. You say "the Chinese business seeing money to be made" yet "That's not a deliberate effort. Dud lain, Dilandu. ☺
Short form: No. Our political class and the electorate is sea-blind.
Long form: Absolutely not. And it does not help that for the last 60 years, the Army has held the upper hand inside the Pentagon. An advantage that they have used to block any rebalancing of the resource allocation to cope with the post-Cold War world - to say nothing of the Pacific-centric future.
What we need is another Lehmann, a service secretary ready to make the case for the sea services, both within the government and to the general public.
We need another $22 billion destroyer with no ammo! And another fleet of giant unarmed speedboats dependent on contractor support! Where we get the money?
Japan's intent for the Battle of the Coral Sea was to capture Port Moresby, New Guinea, and Tulagi in the Solomon Islands, which would secure their southern flank, cut U.S.-Australian supply lines, and extend their defensive perimeter, isolating Australia and allowing air bases to threaten northern Australia and islands like New Caledonia. The U.S. intercepted this plan, leading to the first naval battle where ships never sighted each other, fought entirely by carrier aircraft, resulting in a strategic Allied victory as Japan failed to take Port Moresby.
VEN should not load their crude oil on to unflagged tankers, or those on the EU or OFAC sanctioned list, until after the payment clears the bank. The list is easily accessible here: https://tankertrackers.com/report/sanctioned
Its so easy even the Houthis could figure it out if they were so inclined.
CDR Sal, just read the Pax Sinica article, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Depressingly, echoes what I told my boss around 2010. Food for thought (and likely heartburn): Given the past deliberate lack of reliability of the U.S. as an ally and the now correlation of forces reality in the Pacific, let's talk nuclear proliferation. I'd take bets that both Japan and Korea could acquire nuclear capability VERY quickly...if they haven't secretly already. It's not just Iran that has seen the "strange new respect" and treatment given to N.Korea. Both nations have the technical expertise and capability, and realistically have to ask "why not, we're the only ones we can really depend upon to stick up for US."
"Naval balance does not necessarily mean parity" sounds like an excuse: "We don't need to be #1 as long as we're a close #2."
It's everywhere evident that a close #2 is not good enough. Being #1 might not bring about a tyrannical diktat of how things should be, but it does force the setting of priorities more in alignment of #1's agenda. 2nd fiddle is support; not leadership. Are we willing to allow China to set the maritime agenda for the world? And if China achieves that, why would they stop at just naval power?
Those who care know what we are giving away. It is wearying continually admiring the problem. The house is on fire, and the entire town knows it. The USN needs a strategy and a force design. Platforms should follow doctrine not the other way around. Someone tell me what the Navy is supposed to be doing, exactly, then tell me what we need to get that done. You can argue about whether the USMC strategic direction is correct and the force design that accompanies it, but at least they have one. The Navy continues to get high on its own supply while the PLAN outpaces it. Figure it out, Navy!
Part of an overall trend by the United States toward socialism. My expectations are that sometime in the future the PRC will announce a blockade of Taiwan until Taiwan "agrees" to peaceful unification. That will quickly have economic consequences both for us and them. Will we, could we, would we act to resist? President Trump maybe, a democrat socialist, certainly not.
Interestingly, last time I was in Australia I asked several people if they felt closer to and more aligned with Asia or the United States. All stated they considered themselves more aligned with Asia.
Socialism? You think this is socialism? A Trump-class “battleship”, which benefits no one except HII and will MAYBE be in the water in 8 years is “Socialism”? Jesus Christ.
CDR Sal, changing perspective can really change how you view a problem. Using Australia's point of view is VERY useful when examining a very complex problem. "Law of the Sea", like the fiction of "International Law" only applies when there is an enforcement mechanism. Jailing Bosnian war criminals required NATO military force. Without it, "international law" was mere words on paper. "Law of the sea" and international commerce was largely enforced by the U.S. navy (mostly in benign fashion, as you note). The PLAN version of this will be less benign, and coercive. We know this (see Hong Kong, Taiwan), as do the nations in the region. The correlation of visible forces is not encouraging, and Australia since 2010ish has been watching this with concern as their government, like ours, changes polarity and perceived threat axis directions (China? Friend? Enemy?) regularly via elections. We are currently engaged in an effort to turn and avoid an iceberg. Three years from now, an election could turn us right back towards said iceberg. And a lot of the current Department of War, the Congress, and Military Industrial Complex "primes" would be delighted to do so. We need time to dig ourselves out of a hole. Personally, don't think we can "win" a fight in the Pacific. Imposed cost is now our strategy, with the threat of strategic response behind the curtain.
In 1987, the US Navy numbered 594 ships. Today, the number is less than half that. The inescapable truth is that the US Navy has shrunk dramatically over the past 40 years. On the other hand, the force requirements have not changed — the Navy is still required to maintain a minimum level of force presence. Over the past few decades, we have seen Navy leadership parse how they will do the same (sometimes more) with less. But in the end, this has been gobbledygook. The most recent example is CNO's recent editorial -- full of nothingness. Recall, also, CNO Clark's "brilliant" idea to redesign Carrier Battle Groups into smaller Carrier Strike Groups. I saw at first hand how this was a visual sleight of hand.
We dropped the ball in the 1990s. Successive SecNavs and CNOs have seemingly been unable to do anything about reversing the trend. And now I see that in the "381 ship Navy" that over 130 unmanned craft will be counted in the bottom line. I think the jury's out on the real impact unmanned vessels will have in a knock-down, drag 'em out naval fight. Maybe they will provide the critical mass, or maybe not.
I really hope that we don't have a Beatty "something is wrong with our bloody ships today" moment in the future.
Australia is a Chinese mineral colony. They are too busy importing Islamists and disarming their population while policing hate speech. Another anglosphere country committing suicide, good riddance.
Yuri: Beat me too it.
Crown Colony par excellence
The US is but a few election cycles behind. A few whiffs of that aroma are already present.
Hah, the future US Civil War 2.0 is people between people wanting either the Indians or Chinese to rule, like Canada's will be.
Well, they might took a few lessons from Chinese how to dealt with domestic Islamists; last time when Chinese Party decided that arabic styles on Chinese mosques decorations are "hostile cultural influence" and ordered them to be replaced with more middle-asian one, the mullah's praised the Party wisdom and in record time got rid of everything remotely-Arabic. No protests, no knifings, no shootings - just peace and order. After what happened a few days ago, Australian should probably considered their role models very carefully...
Specifically, a Chinese coal colony.
Sorry Yuri. Some of us are still trying.
Turns out that when you discard force structure and industrial capacity on the assumption that all your threats have vanished, it's not so easy to reacquire them once a new threat emerges. Most amazing of all is that we've been talking about the emergence of China as a "peer competitor" for decades now, and we're still not really doing anything very serious to address it. Tweaking the program of record and making various organizational changes within the Services - none of this is even remotely sufficient. Are we hoping China will just magically collapse and go away like the USSR? Good luck with that.
Well, for most of 1990s, 2000s and 2010s American elites expected just that - that China would magically collapse because "surely peoples who would live better would demand more democracy!"
It turns out that Chinese fascism is a lot better then US & Euro socialism at producing a booming economy and military.
Not sure Chinese order could be described as fascist. They are neither ultra-nationalistic (well, Asian nations generally more nationalistic as European by definition, due to more divergent cultural heritage), nor especially traditionalistic, nor leaning too hard toward militarism and corporativism. Fascism is really... a poorly defined term, that was made even more unclear by political radicals calling "FASCISM!!!" everything they didn't like.
It would likely be more correct to say, that at current stage of technological development, long-term predictability of Chinese political system and general preferrence of control over liberty works better. They are able to maintain coherence in pursuing long-term goals - that Western-type democracies demonstrate inability to achieve.
Pretty sure capitalism had something to do with it. At least in the US.
And, in China too. It was the adoption of free market economics by Jiang Zemin which allowed China to become an economic juggernaut. Xi has cracked down on the American-friendly, free market favoring leaders in the party, purging them from his administration.
You are making a mistake bundling together "American-friendly" and "free market favoring". They aren't connected now as they were during Cold War.
Or, if the threats haven't vanished then at least you have a friendly cousin with a big stick. The Royal Navy ruled the waves across the globe from the Seven Years War until WW2. By the end of WW2, the U.S. Navy was massive, battle tested, and a amiable, if difficult, cousin that stood supreme. The UK and RN could turned inward because the USN was there to "pick up the slack." The U.S. has nowhere to turn and must either step up to the challenge or cede the oceans to the PLAN. In great power competition there is no defendable middle ground for half measures.
The Royal Navy basically lost its status after World War I already - when it become obvious that British war-torn economy could not meet the challenge of arm race against USA or even Japan anymore. Britain managed to stabilize the situation by Washington Treaty naval limitation system (exploiting American desire to avoid excessive spending and Japanese reluctance to openly challenge USA at this point), which gave them about 20 more years of relative naval power - but by 1939 it became obvious, that Britain lacked industrial potential to use those 20 years.
And yet the USN only exceeded the RN's tonnage in early 44...
Space is the preeminent theater of the next war to determine global dominance. Whoever controls the vast space of satellite communications will control the ships of the oceans. China has already tested anti satellite technology by shooting down its own weather satellite. China has its own space station and taikonauts conducting unknown experiments. They plan to land on the lunar surface and build permanent bases.
Space is a Navy mission.
Space is Space Force mission. It's not an ocean. It's a separate medium, which have nothing to do with air or water. Just because traditionally spacecrafts are sometimes called "spaceships" does not make then naval vessels; if anything, they are more comparable with artillery projectiles.
lol no.
Good Morning CDR Salamander!
We have a “Piracy” situation unfolding that does involve our United States Navy and Coast Guard.
My “Specialty” is Maritime Law.
Venezuelan Oil Tankers flying Flags of other Nations, to confuse anyone asking, “Whose ship is that?”. POTUS claiming USA owns all the oil on those ships!
Perhaps our United States Navy is taking a good, long second look.
1. Morale!
Yes, our Naval Officers and Enlisted “Morale”. Did you watch our beautiful Navy Band’s Christmas Special!
My goodness, a Naval Commander conducted! Morale is so important to maintaining discipline during these confusing times.
2. Our Legal Beagles are sorting out the Maritime “Law”! This will take months!
3. Australia and America suffered three murderous events around 14 December, leaving me quite shocked!
4. Yesterday at Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church, I spoke to my friend Tim, who I’ve known since 1997!
Tim brought me and my seven (7) day old baby to Father Kosmas Karavellas for a blessing on Mother’s Day 1998. Tim was speaking openly and honestly with me yesterday fearing for our young military personnel. I’ll keep reading your post and the comments. Thank you for yesterday’s Pearl Harbor video and today’s thoughts to consider. I’m almost finished sewing the hem on my Robe-Set. Colors are Pink, Aqua and Yellow. It’s been hanging on the stand for about three (3) years waiting patiently for my needle and thread. Our temperature on the water here is a cold 32 degrees F!
The Robe-Set has a hood and belt, it’s long to protect my legs from biting winds. I watch this Chesapeake Bay as ordered by DOD in 1991.
I’ve sent two separate emails to The Chesapeake Bay Foundation yesterday and today. Awaiting their reply. Please encourage our readers to keep eyes on our waterways. Thank you! Respectfully, Nurse Jane
The Holiday concert was excellent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU-VZ4iyX4s
Without meaning to be snarky at all, I was pleased to see those Navy MU's (Musicians) entertaining in uniform. Aside from the wonderful display of talent, I was most pleased to see them devoid of any warfare pin above the ribbons like most of the disparate Navy Officer and Enlisted occupational groups have nowadays. I served on the 7th Fleet flag ship during the Vietnam War. We had a band of MU's aboard. We referred to them as "Combat Musicians" because while we wore dungarees, they wore OD fatigues. Why? Because they'd occasionally get helo-ed ashore to entertain the troops. God Bless them.
We'll know it's over when the MU's and Chaplain Corps start sporting some spangle over their ribbons. Meanwhile, they hold the line.
Well said.
However, Australia and Western Europe have to clean up their act with respect to the Jihadists.
What happened at Bondi Beach was made possible through anti-Semitism and the appeasement of barbarians.
I wouldn't waste the life of a seaman recruit on defending Australia (or the UK) if Labour turns their nation into a HAMAS platform.
Perhaps the aussies should build a navy rather than spending all their efforts on disarming their citizens.
What aren’t they building aside from whatever the actual sub plan ends up being?
What they are not doing, and none of the numerous other western world countries around the world are not doing, is anything to defend themselves. Otehr than counting in us to do it for them.
If those of us who are America First, America Only get any say, the rest of the world will be on its own to sink or swim.
Things we aren’t building:
1. Enough DDG (aegis “frigates”)
2. ASW “frigates” with more than 32 mk41 cells on a hull bigger than the DDGs
3. OPV with a gun bigger than 25mm or any missiles or a hangar for a real helo
4. Enough ships so that RAN has fewer admirals than ships
5. Missile armed minor warships
6. Carriers
7. Carrier aviation
8. Long range aviation that isn’t an airliner airframe
Don't look for any change in trajectory. Governance within the Anglosphere in general has become both fractious and somnolent as progressive politicians turn entirely inwards only seeking more power for their particular party by catering to the most extreme of their base constituency. From importing future voters to funding state handouts while ignoring the corruption they are handing China the world on a silver plate.
As noted by Sal and affirmed by others, Pax Sinica will not be so nearly benign as the Pax Americana. Nor even as benign as the previous regimes of colonial powers, I would think.
To that I add:
It will only be a Pax Sinica if those who will fall under its hegemony simply roll over and accede to the new boss. That could happen, but all would ultimately benefit more from the status quo. To keep status quo though, it seems unavoidable that there will be Bellum Sinica, perhaps even growing to Bellum Universum III.
You misunderstood the Chinese average political logic quite a bit. They don't care much about formal demonstration of their hegemony. They are interested in factual control over things - political, cultural and economical influence so deep, that other nations would look at China as role model. It's more in line with their traditional view of empire; not a direct colonial control, but a great sphere of loyal satellites, tied tightly with China and generally happy with their position.
...like addicting American peasants to Fentanyl?
That's not a deliberate effort; merely the Chinese buisness seeing money to be made from American inability to control their own addictions. Free market, you know. For the 300% profit, there is no crime which capital won't commit, even under threat of gallow (c)
The deleterious effect of demand withers without supply. You say "the Chinese business seeing money to be made" yet "That's not a deliberate effort. Dud lain, Dilandu. ☺
How do you become addicted without suppliers? So the Chinese are wrong when they blame the round-eyes for the Opium wars?
Thus far their peace has only accomplished an utter end of freedom of navigation. I see no peace whatsoever.
Short form: No. Our political class and the electorate is sea-blind.
Long form: Absolutely not. And it does not help that for the last 60 years, the Army has held the upper hand inside the Pentagon. An advantage that they have used to block any rebalancing of the resource allocation to cope with the post-Cold War world - to say nothing of the Pacific-centric future.
What we need is another Lehmann, a service secretary ready to make the case for the sea services, both within the government and to the general public.
Perhaps, but how is that possible with the detailed history of the USN's war in the Pacific?
We need another $22 billion destroyer with no ammo! And another fleet of giant unarmed speedboats dependent on contractor support! Where we get the money?
We need something. That can be here faster than an nsc frigate.
Navy needs to turn this DoW announcement into the opportunity to be its own cabinet level dept again.
Australia had a ringside seat and a good memory
Japan's intent for the Battle of the Coral Sea was to capture Port Moresby, New Guinea, and Tulagi in the Solomon Islands, which would secure their southern flank, cut U.S.-Australian supply lines, and extend their defensive perimeter, isolating Australia and allowing air bases to threaten northern Australia and islands like New Caledonia. The U.S. intercepted this plan, leading to the first naval battle where ships never sighted each other, fought entirely by carrier aircraft, resulting in a strategic Allied victory as Japan failed to take Port Moresby.
True enough, but Japan is more important than Australia when it comes to containing the Chicoms.
That phenomenon is referred to as The Long Arc of History
"Unlike Pax Americana, which upheld freedom of navigation as a universal norm, "
Venezuela likes to have a few words about it...
VEN should not load their crude oil on to unflagged tankers, or those on the EU or OFAC sanctioned list, until after the payment clears the bank. The list is easily accessible here: https://tankertrackers.com/report/sanctioned
Its so easy even the Houthis could figure it out if they were so inclined.
CDR Sal, just read the Pax Sinica article, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Depressingly, echoes what I told my boss around 2010. Food for thought (and likely heartburn): Given the past deliberate lack of reliability of the U.S. as an ally and the now correlation of forces reality in the Pacific, let's talk nuclear proliferation. I'd take bets that both Japan and Korea could acquire nuclear capability VERY quickly...if they haven't secretly already. It's not just Iran that has seen the "strange new respect" and treatment given to N.Korea. Both nations have the technical expertise and capability, and realistically have to ask "why not, we're the only ones we can really depend upon to stick up for US."
"Naval balance does not necessarily mean parity" sounds like an excuse: "We don't need to be #1 as long as we're a close #2."
It's everywhere evident that a close #2 is not good enough. Being #1 might not bring about a tyrannical diktat of how things should be, but it does force the setting of priorities more in alignment of #1's agenda. 2nd fiddle is support; not leadership. Are we willing to allow China to set the maritime agenda for the world? And if China achieves that, why would they stop at just naval power?
Those who care know what we are giving away. It is wearying continually admiring the problem. The house is on fire, and the entire town knows it. The USN needs a strategy and a force design. Platforms should follow doctrine not the other way around. Someone tell me what the Navy is supposed to be doing, exactly, then tell me what we need to get that done. You can argue about whether the USMC strategic direction is correct and the force design that accompanies it, but at least they have one. The Navy continues to get high on its own supply while the PLAN outpaces it. Figure it out, Navy!
Part of an overall trend by the United States toward socialism. My expectations are that sometime in the future the PRC will announce a blockade of Taiwan until Taiwan "agrees" to peaceful unification. That will quickly have economic consequences both for us and them. Will we, could we, would we act to resist? President Trump maybe, a democrat socialist, certainly not.
Interestingly, last time I was in Australia I asked several people if they felt closer to and more aligned with Asia or the United States. All stated they considered themselves more aligned with Asia.
Socialism? You think this is socialism? A Trump-class “battleship”, which benefits no one except HII and will MAYBE be in the water in 8 years is “Socialism”? Jesus Christ.