Maybe the U.S.A. should just tax the rest of the world.

[Gob]

You may find this an interesting read Andrew.

No naval actions since 1945 have required combat fleets to protect sea lanes—the very reason navies exist. Instead, light forces have proved most useful, escorting tankers in the Persian Gulf and currently combating pirates off Africa. Meanwhile, only isolated engagements have occurred in odd places at random intervals. In 1967 the Egyptian Navy inaugurated the missile age in war at sea by sinking an Israeli destroyer, but there have been no naval surface-to-surface missile engagements since. In the 1971 Indo-Pakistani clash, the Indians sank a French-built Paki submarine, and one of her sisters torpedoed a British-built Indian destroyer.

More than ten years later off the Falklands, HMS Conqueror torpedoed the 44-year-old cruiser General Belgrano, which had survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as the USS Phoenix (CL-46). It was the second and last time since World War II that a submarine had sunk an enemy ship.

In 1988, U.S. Navy ships and aircraft conducted Operation Praying Mantis, sinking an Iranian frigate, a gunboat, and three speedboats. The captain of the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) termed it "the largest American sea battle since World War II." Though a grandiose description, it was nonetheless accurate—and remains so today.8

Pundits might counter the notion of the post-naval era by noting that amphibious operations have occurred since World War II. But they are rare: the most notable subsequent cross-beach operations were Inchon (United States, 1950), Suez (Anglo-French, 1956), and the Falklands (British, 1982), and none was seriously opposed on the beach. A forced entry such as Tarawa or Iwo Jima has not occurred in 64 years and does not appear likely in the immediate future. Consequently, some critics question the need for the Marine Corps' new expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV). Indeed, the Marines emphasize aerial lift to avoid the fight at the high tide mark, hence the tiltrotor MV-22 Osprey

[Sue U]

Although I cannot find any figures readily, I suspect that much of the shipping that is ostensibly protected by American power is actually shipping to and from the US and/or by US merchants. To the extent "order" is kept on the seas, my guess would be it inures primarily to our benefit here in the States.

[Gob]

Got to make sure your plastic widgets from China get through unmolested Sue.

[Andrew D]

You mean that the USA hasn't gone to war with its allies?

No.

I mean what I say, not what you pretend that I say.

The U.S. makes international shipping unprecedentedly safe for the world, not just for its allies. The U.S. makes international shipping for, e.g., Venezuela, and the U.S. and Venezuela are not exactly buddy-buddy:

U.S.-Venezuelan relations have been tense in recent years, although both nations agreed at the April 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad to seek a relationship based on mutual interest. President Chavez continues to define himself in opposition to the United States, using incendiary rhetoric to insult the U.S. Government and U.S. influence in Latin America. President Chavez ordered the expulsion of the U.S. Ambassador on September 11, 2008 in solidarity with the Bolivian Government's decision to expel the U.S. Ambassador in La Paz. The U.S. Government ordered the reciprocal expulsion of the Venezuelan Ambassador in Washington. Venezuela and the U.S. returned the ambassadors to their posts in June and July 2009, respectively, after an unusual agreement by each country to declare without effect the “persona non grata” designations. On December 20, 2010 the Venezuelan Government revoked agrement for Ambassador-designate Larry Palmer, which had been issued in May, and on December 27, the United States revoked the diplomatic visa of Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez.

I submit that the beneficiaries of that service should help pay for it. What is wrong with that?

Would this be dependent on the other country requesting or desiring US services?

If some country is foolish enough to tell the U.S. that it does not want the U.S. Navy's protection on the high seas, fine; that country can go it alone. That doesn't strike me as a very good idea for many countries, including Australia:

The maritime industry is fundamentally important to the Australian economy. As an island nation, the Australian economy is profoundly dependent upon the oceans. The efficient, cost-effective and safe transport of the nation’s agricultural, mining and manufactured goods to their intended domestic and international destinations and the safe arrival of essential imports via the sea is vital to Australia’s economic and social development. ... The options available to Australia are thus very limited, but might include the negotiation of bilateral ship boarding agreements with major flag states, as the United States has done in the context of combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction under the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of paying for a service on which you depend?

If you are so enamoured of this idea, what are you going to do about it? When does the campaign start?

What is it with you and this line of attack lately? I should be pounding the pavement campaigning for everything that I think is a good idea? Have you invented the 300-hour day?

[Gob]

The U.S. makes international shipping unprecedentedly safe for the world, not just for its allies. The U.S. makes international shipping for, e.g., Venezuela, and the U.S. and Venezuela are not exactly buddy-buddy:

Safe from what? Did you read the article I linked to, there is no threat to sea borne traffic.

If some country is foolish enough to tell the U.S. that it does not want the U.S. Navy's protection on the high seas, fine; that country can go it alone. That doesn't strike me as a very good idea for many countries, including Australia:

It's been seven decades since there was a threat.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of paying for a service on which you depend?

There's your problem right there, show us what you are so kindly protecting us from please? The Iranians? The Afghanis? The Vietnamese? The Japanese?

What is it with you and this line of attack lately? I should be pounding the pavement campaigning for everything that I think is a good idea? Have you invented the 300-hour day?

Well you keep "proposing" things, then one would assume you have some interest in seeing them happen.

[Lord Jim]

Well, the case could certainly be plausibly made that the reason there isn't a significant threat to shipping on the high seas is because the substantial US naval presence deters it...

Muggers don't ply their trade on streets that they know are regularly patrolled by police cruisers...

[Andrew D]

Although I cannot find any figures readily, I suspect that much of the shipping that is ostensibly protected by American power is actually shipping to and from the US and/or by US merchants. To the extent "order" is kept on the seas, my guess would be it inures primarily to our benefit here in the States.

And I do not think that other countries should have to reimburse the U.S. for 100% of the costs which the U.S. incurs in protecting international shipping. But that does not mean that other countries should get a free ride at America's expense.

Got to make sure your plastic widgets from China get through unmolested Sue.

That's rich. Look in your own country's eye, Gob: Australia imports more goods from China than from any other country, and Australia exports more goods to China than to any other country:

Australia's main export destinations, 2010-11 (e):

1 China 26.4%
2 Japan 19.1%
3 Republic of Korea 9.2%
4 India 6.4%
5 Taiwan 3.7%

Australia's main import sources, 2010-11 (e):
1 China 19.2%
2 United States (f) 12.1%
3 Japan 7.8%
4 Singapore 5.3%
5 Germany 4.8%

(Click on Australia under "Economic fact sheets".)

How, exactly, does Australia's dependence on international shipping to and from China inure primarily to the U.S.'s benefit?

[Andrew D]

Well, the case could certainly be plausibly made that the reason there isn't a significant threat to shipping on the high seas is because the substantial US naval presence deters it...

Gee, why didn't I think of that?

[Gob]

Or maybe there isn't a significant threat to shipping on the high seas as there isn't any money or international gain from it?

Who is going to hijack a shipment of iron ore from Australia to China?

After all, what are the dangers? Loss of sea control? To whom? By what naval power or alliance of powers? Interdiction of seaborne commerce? By whom? To what naval power or alliance? Deterrence? Against whom? What naval power or alliance?

Barrett Tillman (born 1948) is an American author who specializes in naval and aviation topics in addition to fiction and technical writing.

[Gob]

I understand why you wish to keep the seas free for traffic..

The US trade deficit widened in December to its biggest gap since June.
Figures from the Commerce Department showed that the overall deficit rose by 3.7% to $48.8bn (£31bn), up from a $47.06bn figure for the month earlier.

Imports rose 1.3% to a record $227.56bn, boosted by demand for foreign cars and machinery.

US exports grew slightly, by 0.7%, helped by the weak dollar, with records set for petrol, services and advance technology goods.

The widening of the trade gap was bigger than had been expected.

The economically important deficit with China for the year jumped to a record high $295.5bn

[Andrew D]

The U.S. makes international shipping unprecedentedly safe for the world, not just for its allies. The U.S. makes international shipping for, e.g., Venezuela, and the U.S. and Venezuela are not exactly buddy-buddy:

Safe from what? Did you read the article I linked to, there is no threat to sea borne traffic.

Well, that's one person's opinion. How about a different opinion:

The Importance of Protecting Australia’s Sea Lanes: A Military Perspective

Australia was a latecomer to the maritime community, relying largely on a forward defence strategy with support from major allies until the early 1960s. Just prior to the Vietnam War, Australia at last began to develop a maritime defence strategy that was consonant with the geopolitical realities of a nation girt by sea. Given the reliance of our national economy on the export of commodities such as coal, and the import of crude oil, Australia is beholden to the navy to protect our vital interests. This holds true even short of an armed conflict between nation-states.

And guess whose navy is doing the protecting? Certainly not Australia's little navy, with its number of ships sandwiched between Israel and South Africa -- not exactly big players on the world naval scene.

But, hey, if Australia thinks that it does not need the U.S.'s naval power, Australia is free to go it alone.

The Somalis will surely be overjoyed.

[Gob]

From your link Andrew;

•US military predominance is not guaranteed in the coming century and over-reliance on the US security umbrella is something to avoid as a policy.

So yes, it is a good idea for Australia to not rely on the US. Thanks for that.

You really shouldn't rely on the Somali's to give you your hard ons for war mongering Andrew;

The military response to pirate attacks has brought about a rare show of unity by countries that are either openly hostile to each other, or at least wary of cooperation, military or otherwise. Currently there are three international naval task forces in the region, with numerous national vessels and task forces entering and leaving the region, engaging in counter-piracy operations for various lengths of time. The three international task forces which comprise the bulk of counter-piracy operations are Combined Task Force 150 (Countries presently contributing to CTF-150 include Canada, Denmark, France, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Other nations who have participated include Australia, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Thailand and Turkey), Combined Task Force 151 (CTF 151 has previously been commanded by members of the United States Navy, the Republic of Korea Navy, the Republic of Singapore Navy, the Turkish Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy.) and the EU naval task force operating under Operation Atalanta. All counter-piracy operations are coordinated through a monthly planning conference called Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE). Originally having representatives only from NATO, the EU, and the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) HQ in Bahrain, it now regularly attracts representatives from over 20 countries.

So surely this multinational shared and cooperative method is better manintained than the US going it alone and taxing other countries?

[Andrew D]

So yes, it is a good idea for Australia to not rely on the US.

Then don't.

Just recently, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the most important oil shipping lane on the planet. But the U.S. sent the USS Abraham Lincoln (and its associated vessels) into the Persian Gulf. (That was just weeks ago.)

And what happened? Iran did not close the Strait of Hormuz. And it backed away from its previous threat.

Who else's navy could have done that?

Do you like having heat in winter?

[Gob]

[
Just recently, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the most important oil shipping lane on the planet. But the U.S. sent the USS Abraham Lincoln (and its associated vessels) into the Persian Gulf. (That was just weeks ago.)

And what happened? Iran did not close the Strait of Hormuz. And it backed away from its previous threat.

Who else's navy could have done that?

Do you like having heat in winter?

As far as I can see the threat to close it remains, can you show us how the US has stopped this threat?

However British or French or German or Russian, or other navy could have intervened, not to mention Israli intervention.

I never thought you'd be an isolationist Andrew, surely the answer to all of the situations you have outlined is international cooperation, through the like of NATO?

[Andrew D]

NATO?

The organization which is funded overwhelmingly by the U.S.?

The organization for which the U.S. pays almost 3/4? The organization for which all 26 other members combined pay only a bit over 1/4? The organization which, without the U.S., would be a blip?

Yeah, other countries love "international cooperation," as long as they have to pay nothing more than a pittance. But when it comes time to foot the bill, then it's a different story.

[Gob]

So maybe then you are right, US should stop bankrupting itself with its enormous military spending, and concentrate on home defence and counter terrorism at home spending.

Blaming other countries for your own defense spending is a bit silly.

[Andrew D]

Yes, the U.S. should greatly reduce its so-called "defense" spending. As I wrote in December:

The last time I checked, military procurement programs were running almost $300 billion over budget.

That's not even taking into account whether we ever needed the programs in the first place.

Many of which, of course, we don't.

Military procurement programs are a tiny bit of reality encased in layer upon layer upon layer of bullshit.

What we call the "Department of Defense" would, if reality mattered, be called the "Department of Corporate Enrichment".

If we were to slash its budget by half -- assuming that we were to choose the correct half, which the legions of leeches who survive on it would do their best to assure that we did not -- our ability to defend ourselves would be reduced by exactly zero.

Does anyone really believe that in order to "defend" ourselves, we need to spend about as much as the entire rest of the world on military stuff?

The bloat, waste, and corruption in risibly misnamed "defense" spending make entitlement spending look like a model of scrupulosity.

That does not, however, change the fact that the U.S. spends a huge amount of money making international shipping astoundingly safe for all nations, even nations with whom the U.S.'s relations are, as people in diplomatic circles like to put it, "strained". I can readily understand why other countries are not eager to shoulder their proportional shares of that burden. But something's being comprehensible does not make it right.

The costs should be fairly allocated among the beneficiaries. And the U.S. should take steps to bring about that result.

[Gob]

That does not, however, change the fact that the U.S. spends a huge amount of money making international shipping astoundingly safe for all nations, even nations with whom the U.S.'s relations are, as people in diplomatic circles like to put it, "strained".

Your evidence of this munificence on the US's part?

[Gob]

Last month, Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, commander of the Iranian navy, claimed that closing the Strait would be "easy," adding: "As Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water."

But USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered carrier capable of embarking 90 aircraft, passed through this channel and entered the Gulf without incident yesterday. HMS Argyll, a Type 23 frigate from the Royal Navy, was one of the escort vessels making up the carrier battle-group. A guided missile cruiser and two destroyers from the US Navy completed the flotilla, along with one warship from the French navy. A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed that "HMS Argyll and a French vessel joined a US carrier group transiting through the Strait of Hormuz to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law."

The spokesman added that Britain maintains a "constant presence in the region as part of our enduring contribution to Gulf security". Royal Navy warships have been patrolling the region continuously since 1980.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ormuz.html

International cooperation. You can't beat it.

[Andrew D]

Iran saw a U.S. carrier strike group -- "the most powerful, mobile and flexible aggregation of military capability in the 21st Century" -- coming and backed down:

A U.S. aircraft carrier sailed through the Strait of Hormuz and into the Gulf without incident on Sunday, a day after Iran backed away from an earlier threat to take action if an American carrier returned to the strategic waterway.

* * *

Iran threatened to close the strait, the world's most important oil shipping gateway, while the United States warned such a move would require a response by Washington, which routinely patrols international sea lanes to ensure they remain open.

Iran appeared to ease away from its earlier warnings ....

The presence of a British frigate and a French frigate was a nice symbolic gesture -- and exactly that: a symbolic gesture. The 800-pound gorilla was the supercarrier.

The bottom line is that "big deck super-carriers rule the seas", and that means that the U.S. rules the seas. Everyone else is just along for the ride. And the ride should no longer be free.