Global Economy. seafaring, and the US Navy ?

[Tom]

Concerning the global economy , seafaring, and it's value to say, China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia,

what value would you say the US Navy adds to the world economy ? How much are other nations spending to ensure intercontinental commerce can exist ?

 

[fskimospy]

Concerning the global economy , seafaring, and it's value to say, China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia,

what value would you say the US Navy adds to the world economy ? How much are other nations spending to ensure intercontinental commerce can exist ?

Hard to say, overall I would guess the answer would be 'not that much' though. There aren't many areas in which military force is required to maintain the flow of trade other than the coast off of Somalia and maybe another spot or two I'm forgetting about. As far as the anti-piracy measures off of Somalia, it's a multinational force that the US Navy is only a part of. (and it's not one of those 'multinational' things where the US provides 99% of the force and other nations ride along, it really is multinational) So in that sense other nations are spending comparable sums to the US to protect intercontinental commerce.

You could always argue that were the US Navy not to be around that piracy and other troubles would increase, and I'm sure there is some merit to that. As far as I can tell however, the US Navy is vastly more valuable in promoting the US' trade interests than those of the global economy.

 

[K1052]

Not a lot.

Our navy mostly safeguards the strategic interests of the US and it's allies. In that role it is pretty much invaluable.

 

[piasabird]

Just give the coast of Africa a wide berth.

You have forgotten so quickly the news of last summer.

 

[Tom]

lol, there's a reason piracy happens there and not everywhere else. That reason is the Navies of the world. They make it unprofitable for large scale piracy.

 

[K1052]

lol, there's a reason piracy happens there and not everywhere else. That reason is the Navies of the world. They make it unprofitable for large scale piracy.

Pirates were often former privateers, a practice which had basically been outlawed by the major powers since the mid 1800s. That combined with advances in propulsion and communications basically did away with the old time pirates.

 

[Tom]

I'm not talking about old time pirates. It would be trivially easy for a well financed criminal organization to hijack modern day tankers and container ships, all they need is a single helicopter for example.

The reason this doesn't happen is they would be monitered and quickly intercepted, principally be the US Navy, or to a lesser extent the British and French.

I guess this deterence is so effective, people are blind to it's existence..

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not talking about old time pirates. It would be trivially easy for a well financed criminal organization to hijack modern day tankers and container ships, all they need is a single helicopter for example.

The reason this doesn't happen is they would be monitered and quickly intercepted, principally be the US Navy, or to a lesser extent the British and French.

I guess this deterence is so effective, people are blind to it's existence..

I have a rock that keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around do you? Do you want to buy it?

Do you realize just how little of the world's shipping lanes are patrolled by the US Navy? As someone who has been in the Navy let me let you in on a secret: pretty damn little.

Such a thing as you are proposing could be done right now, TODAY, if someone wanted to. You asked a question that you apparently already had an answer for, but were upset that the answer you got wasn't the one you wanted.

 

[K1052]

I'm not talking about old time pirates. It would be trivially easy for a well financed criminal organization to hijack modern day tankers and container ships, all they need is a single helicopter for example.

The reason this doesn't happen is they would be monitered and quickly intercepted, principally be the US Navy, or to a lesser extent the British and French.

I guess this deterence is so effective, people are blind to it's existence..

We aren't talking about relatively small sailing vessles loaded with nice portable high value stuff (gold, silver, jewels, spices, etc..). You can't just pull up a supertanker or ore carrier to a random coastline and unload it without having access to a real port that is equipped for the task. Such ports typically reside within countries that like to do business with other countries (some of whom probably own the vessel and cargo).

A lot of modern piracy is basically just hostage taking that happens to take place on the water.

 

[Atreus21]

Concerning the global economy , seafaring, and it's value to say, China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia,

what value would you say the US Navy adds to the world economy ? How much are other nations spending to ensure intercontinental commerce can exist ?

I think we could safely kiss the entirety of South East asia goodbye, to China, if not for the USN.

 

[fskimospy]

I think we could safely kiss the entirety of South East asia goodbye, to China, if not for the USN.

Well if you're saying that the US uses the USN to enforce it's OWN economic interest, then definitely. China would absolutely dominate that region without it as a counterbalance. His question was about the US Navy's facilitation of international trade through its protection of sea lanes, etc.

 

[Tom]

I have a rock that keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around do you? Do you want to buy it?

Do you realize just how little of the world's shipping lanes are patrolled by the US Navy? As someone who has been in the Navy let me let you in on a secret: pretty damn little.

Such a thing as you are proposing could be done right now, TODAY, if someone wanted to. You asked a question that you apparently already had an answer for, but were upset that the answer you got wasn't the one you wanted.

actually I don't know how much patrolling the Navy does, but I'm sure sea lanes are monitored in some fashion and that if a large ship were hijacked the US Navy has the ability to intercept it in time to keep it from becoming a profitable enterprise.

 

[tk149]

Several years ago, before the Somalian pirates got started, I posted that with the fall of the Soviet navy and the reduction in the US navy, piracy would increase.

I'd say that the presence of the US Navy and other nations' navies definitely suppress piracy.

 

[Fenixgoon]

don't think in terms of just piracy.

how about international aid? after the tsumani a few years ago in (indonesia?) the US had a task force group over there within a damn short amount of time doing supply/logistics/rescue, IIRC.

 

[fskimospy]

actually I don't know how much patrolling the Navy does, but I'm sure sea lanes are monitored in some fashion and that if a large ship were hijacked the US Navy has the ability to intercept it in time to keep it from becoming a profitable enterprise.

They don't do much and no, for most of the world we would not be able to intercept that ship. Generally the US has a large coastal presence for the states themselves and a significant presence in Japan, the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean/Red Sea area. Most of the other policing that happens is done by ships going to and from the Med/Persian Gulf.

There are most certainly large areas of the planet where we do almost no monitoring of the sea lanes at all. It's just not a priority.

I think the US Navy does wonderful things for the US' economy and enforcing its interests. As for the rest of the world. I bet you they aren't really that impressed.

 

[Tom]

please give me the name of a international body of water the US Navy or coast guard doesn't monitor ?

 

[fskimospy]

please give me the name of a international body of water the US Navy or coast guard doesn't monitor ?

So now instead of 'patrolling', we're looking at 'monitoring'? What does that mean?

Incidents of piracy are usually handled by the local governments from the area in which it takes place, not the US Navy. This isn't the Barbary Pirates all over again or anything.

 

[Sacrilege]

Funny you should make this quaint topic. The glory days of America sailing the 7 seas may be drawing to a close:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/20/analysts-warn-of-eroding-u-s-power/

A warning to lawmakers of a shift underway in the global balance of power from the West to the East came this week from a rather sober source, Stephen Daggett, a defense policy analyst at the Congressional Research Service.

Maybe in the top 10 no shit articles of the decade?

 

[lupi]

USN in this regard is way overated. I mean, the whole reinstituting an operation command for SA and such just proves it along with the numerous port defense units created over the last couple of years.

 

[FaaR]

Well if you're saying that the US uses the USN to enforce it's OWN economic interest, then definitely. China would absolutely dominate that region without it as a counterbalance.

"Dominate", how?

What exactly would they be doing then, that they aren't doing now already?

Remember, this is international waters we're talking about. Regardless of how gung-ho you or anyone else thinks China would be without the US navy, they have no jurisdiction there. It's not as if they suddenly would interdict ships and extort tolls or anything like that.

Much of this thread has a distinct aroma of self-centered jingoism coming from it. "The US protects the world! Prove it ain't so!" just isn't a valid argument.

 

[fskimospy]

"Dominate", how?

What exactly would they be doing then, that they aren't doing now already?

Remember, this is international waters we're talking about. Regardless of how gung-ho you or anyone else thinks China would be without the US navy, they have no jurisdiction there. It's not as if they suddenly would interdict ships and extort tolls or anything like that.

Much of this thread has a distinct aroma of self-centered jingoism coming from it. "The US protects the world! Prove it ain't so!" just isn't a valid argument.

It really looks like you didn't read this thread very closely. I was arguing that the USN does NOT protect the world, not that it did.

By 'dominate' I didn't mean it in the grade school way that you are referring to, I meant it in the same way that the US dominates Central and South America. We exert a large amount of influence over those countries through a combination of economic and military power. China's ability to exert this influence (that they have historically) in Southeast Asia is in a significant part curtailed due to the US' influence from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and in particular the strong naval presence we have there. It couldn't have less to do with jurisdiction.

EDIT: As to what they would be doing there that they aren't now, without the US' guarantee of Taiwan it's quite likely that China would have occupied the island by now. The countries in that region would most likely cut far more favorable economic deals with China at the expense of the US, and the Chinese would be able to project power over every major industrialized nation in the area.

 

[Tom]

So now instead of 'patrolling', we're looking at 'monitoring'? What does that mean?

Incidents of piracy are usually handled by the local governments from the area in which it takes place, not the US Navy. This isn't the Barbary Pirates all over again or anything.

I'm not talking about piracy as it exists today, I'm talking about the lack of piracy and why that's the case.

monitoring and patrolling, doesn't matter which as long as it's effective. My argument is that large scale piracy doesn't exist because of the US Navy.

So far most of these posts seems to say that isn't the case, that it doesn't exist because piracy is from olden times, there are no bad people anymore who steal stuff.

 

[FaaR]

It really looks like you didn't read this thread very closely. I was arguing that the USN does NOT protect the world, not that it did.

I wasn't referring specifically to you. Maybe I could have pointed that out better.

By 'dominate' I didn't mean it in the grade school way that you are referring to, I meant it in the same way that the US dominates Central and South America. We exert a large amount of influence over those countries through a combination of economic and military power.

Economic, by that you buy a lot of the stuff they produce, and own a lot of their means of production. This does not change, regardless of the level of military influence exerted; Dole bananas for example would be Dole bananas even without any military pressure at all.

China's ability to exert this influence (that they have historically) in Southeast Asia is in a significant part curtailed due to the US' influence

Historically? The current chinese regime is what? Barely 50 years old if that much, and its current status as an economic superpower much less than even that. It's merely the blink of an eye in our 5000ish year-long era of organized civilization. Before then, it was a nation in chaos, and before that it was dominated in every sense of the word by the Japanese during WWII...

So, what historical influence exactly are you referring to...?

Of course, the US' geopolitical military imperialist influence didn't show (to any major degree outside the Americas anyway) until the rise of the cold war, so we're regardless talking about a relatively short timespan here...

without the US' guarantee of Taiwan it's quite likely that China would have occupied the island by now.

Perhaps. And what of it, is the US keeping Taiwan out of China's grasp really a means unto itself, or perhaps merely a means unto an end, IE to poke Beijing in the eye and show who's the current boss...?

The countries in that region would most likely cut far more favorable economic deals with China at the expense of the US

...And that would be bad why? It's also speculation.

and the Chinese would be able to project power over every major industrialized nation in the area.

More speculation. How SPECIFICALLY would they go about 'projecting' this power?

Just sailing around in newly constructed naval vessels doesn't really make any kind of real difference you know.

I'm pretty sure a nation such as Japan or South Korea for example wouldn't really care, regardless how much Beijing thumps its chest. They have very highly developed economies and stable governments. Chinese posturing would not impress them much at all, if any. The world would still continue to buy Samsung and Sony products...

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not talking about piracy as it exists today, I'm talking about the lack of piracy and why that's the case.

monitoring and patrolling, doesn't matter which as long as it's effective. My argument is that large scale piracy doesn't exist because of the US Navy.

So far most of these posts seems to say that isn't the case, that it doesn't exist because piracy is from olden times, there are no bad people anymore who steal stuff.

Okay, so you are making a positive declaration. What evidence can you offer to support your contention that the US navy is the primary cause for the lack of piracy in the world? Keep in mind that anti-piracy efforts were a low priority for the USN until earlier this year, yet I doubt you are referring to only the last 9 months or so when you say 'lack of large scale piracy'.

The posts here aren't saying that there's no large scale piracy anymore because there aren't bad people, we're just telling you that the USN is not the primary cause. (it's far more a case of better local law enforcement along with a lack of failed states along major shipping routes)

Trust me, I spent a long time in the US Navy attached to both carrier battlegroups and as an independent steamer off the coast of Central and South America, near Indonesia, the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf. The total number of days we spent protecting the sea lanes, combating piracy, or even being on station to respond to such problems?

Zero.

 

[FaaR]

I'm not talking about piracy as it exists today, I'm talking about the lack of piracy and why that's the case.

monitoring and patrolling, doesn't matter which as long as it's effective.

Congrats. You have invented a brand new circular argument!
US navy keeps piracy in check.
We're not seeing any piracy, ergo,
US navy's policy of keeping piracy in check is working. Q.E.D.

Well...not really.

My argument is that large scale piracy doesn't exist because of the US Navy.

However, you've brought zero proof to the table to support your supposition. Other than a general lack of Arrr!-Shiver-me-timbers-real-life-pirates that is, and that doesn't really prove anything.