Global Economy. seafaring, and the US Navy ?

[fskimospy]

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


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.


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...


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...?


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


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...

I'm sorry but your post is simply incorrect on several levels. The amount of economic control that we exert over the nations of Central and South America is DIRECTLY related to our military dominance of the region. Not only does the threat of having their country annihilated prevent these nations from acting to heavily against US interests, there have been several cases where the US has directly intervened and overthrown governments that misbehaved and threatened our interests. See: Panama, Grenada, The Dominican Republic, and Cuba (well, an attempt there). Our economic agreements would most certainly not be the same without this use of force or the specter of force.

I mean honestly, why do you think the US spends so much on its military? Do you really think we need all this hardware to protect America from invasion? Of course not. We use it to project power and protect our interests. That's exactly the same reason China is building up its navy. They aren't stupid, just throwing money down the drain.

As for how they would go about 'projecting' their power, one of their stated aims of their military buildup is to prevent the independence or recognition of Taiwan. That is projecting power.

About the historical behavior of China, you aren't actually thinking historically. It's funny that you mention the 5,000 odd years of human civilization, because they were a 'nation in chaos' for only a small fraction of it. Other than that China dominated Southeast Asia for several thousand years. Throughout that time they subjugated almost every single one of their neighbors. (except for Japan, thanks kamikaze!) The fact that the current regime is only 50 years old matters about as much as that the age of the current French Republic matters to the current influence they wield. Ie: not at all.

If you happen to think that the Chinese 'thumping their chest' doesn't actually matter, the Japanese and South Koreans would like to talk to you because they disagree. For example:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GE04Dh02.html

As for why China's better trade deals at the expense of the US would be bad... well it would be bad if you live in the United States. Since we're talking about the purpose of the United States Navy, its existence and why that would be bad should be self explanatory.

I'm really not sure where you're getting your information, but it would appear that you vastly overestimate the power of international law and agreements.

 

[blackangst1]

---snipped---

I mean honestly, why do you think the US spends so much on its military? Do you really think we need all this hardware to protect America from invasion? Of course not. We use it to project power and protect our interests.

---snipped---

And why is this so bad?

 

[fskimospy]

And why is this so bad?

Where did I say it was bad?

 

[fskimospy]

For an interesting read on how various powers view the growth of Chinese power:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB59.pdf

I haven't read the whole thing, but I did read the Japan part specifically. (I'm not reading 300-odd pages on this right now) I thought it was a good overview of what China's military expansion means.

 

[Tom]

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.

I could be wrong..so global commerce would be fine without the US Navy.. lets save some money and get rid of it.

 

[fskimospy]

I could be wrong..so global commerce would be fine without the US Navy.. lets save some money and get rid of it.

Two things.

First, the US Navy has three missions. To help the US win wars, to deter aggression, and to facilitate the freedom of movement on the seas. Only one of those 3 missions is directly related to commerce, and even if international commerce were 100% safe the other two missions would still require a navy.

Second, even in that situation it is not dedicated to global commerce, but to US commerce.

 

[blackangst1]

Where did I say it was bad?

Well, based on this

That's exactly the same reason China is building up its navy. They aren't stupid, just throwing money down the drain.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, based on this

The sentence was saying what they were not doing, not what they were doing. They were not acting stupidly by throwing money down the drain. It did not mean that they were not acting stupidly but somehow still wasting money. (I'm not even sure how that would be possible).

While I could have worded my sentence better, I'm still not sure how in the context of a post about how useful military power projection was that someone could take that sentence to mean how I thought money spent on it was money down the drain.