Stagflation? - No, We're Actually Moving BACKWARDS!

[Crackpot]

It's flat out immoral and unethical to not help out a vessel in distress. Now we could shrink our navy to such a point we couldn't effectively patrol the seas on our own and perhaps other countries would step up to fill the gap. However the rest of the country doesn't see that as a safe bet.

[Andrew D]

I agree, Crackpot, that it is immoral not to help -- assuming that one is in a position to give the help -- people who are in distress in the ocean. But that moral obligation does not extend to (inanimate) cargo.

U.S. ships, like all other ships, must, if they can, help people. But when it comes to saving a million foreign-shipped tchotchkes, that moral obligation does not exist.

[Crackpot]

Yeah because all that cargo is just floating out there on it's own.

[Andrew D]

No. Because it is perfectly possible to rescue the people without rescuing the cargo.

[Crackpot]

Just how is that in our interests?

[Crackpot]

How does letting piracy become a profitable venture work for us? How does more piracy help our security? Do you honestly not see just how stupid of an idea this is?

[Gob]

For what feels like the billionth time:

If other nations would rather do without U.S. naval protection than pay a modest fee for it, FINE. I am advocating a modest fee ONLY for nations which CHOOSE to be protected by the U.S. Navy.

Not a worry, we'll see who signs up then shall we?

If other nations believe that they, alone or in combination, can protect their shipping lanes without U.S. help, great. Have at it.

Anywhere between 20% and 40% of the world's traded oil comes through the Strait of Hormuz. The next time that Iran threatens shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, maybe China, India, Japan, and South Korea -- the largest consumers of oil shipped through the Strait -- will be able to stand down the Iranian missile threat.

I'm sure they will.

And we can't forget Australia, a net energy importer which gets about 1/6 of its oil via the Strait of Hormuz. Maybe Australia can hook up with China, India, Japan, South Korea, and who knows who else to protect vital oil shipments through the Strait.

Well if we don't have the USA to aid us, then we'll have to won't we.

If so, dandy. After all, the point of a user fee is to reimburse the U.S. for the money it expends protecting other nations' shipping. If the U.S. no longer spends money protecting other nations' shipping, then that's the end of that.

Maybe you are right. Maybe "the worlds navies could agree a protection treaty," and they would be able to protect their oil shipments from disruption -- anything from blockage to destruction -- by Iran or any of the other non-Western-friendly nations in the region.

Oh, wait. Protect their oil shipments with what?

Their overwhelming naval power? All told, Australia, China, Indian, Japan, and South Korea possess a whopping two -- count them, two -- aircraft carriers. And the only two countries that have even one aircraft carrier are China and India.

We are talking about an attack by Iran are we not? One tiny, malnourished, hopeless, country against the worlds largest populations such as India and China, not to mention the Commonwealth forces, and probably those of the EU too?

I think you over estimate their threat somewhat.

Australia, Japan, and South Korea want to leave the protection of their vital oil imports to China and India? OK, go right ahead.

And what happens when Australian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and South Korean shipping is threatened on the high seas nowhere near the Strait of Hormuz? Oh, crap, both of our aircraft carriers are in the Middle East.

A Navy is more than just aircraft carriers you know.

If that's what other countries want, that's what other countries can have. Good luck with that.

You sound more like a tea party republican each day

[Crackpot]

He's always had a libritarian bent though he used to steer far clear of the "eccentricities" of the group.

[Lord Jim]

My my my....

[Sean]

Who are we being protected from Andrew?

Duh!

[rubato]

Piracy off Somalia, more recently off of Nigeria and as a chronic problem in the Sunda Straight proves that some external force is necessary to ensure security. But as long as it is limited to these or other small areas like these a smaller naval force than ours would serve. The French* have done a lot to stop piracy off Somalia and shown the willingness and ability to use force effectively, for the best example. So perhaps no one needs the US's much greater capability to secure the seas?

On the other hand, without the US to provide most of the effective force, the leadership and organization, would anyone have been able to cope with Saddam's annexation of Kuwait? And by extension the aggression of a lot of other tier-two countries?


yrs,
rubato

*They have taken the lead often in the past few years and have done a lot to relieve our burden.

[Andrew D]

How does letting piracy become a profitable venture work for us? How does more piracy help our security? Do you honestly not see just how stupid of an idea this is?

If other nations are, as Gob contends, capable of protecting themselves against threats -- of which piracy ranks rather low -- then piracy will not "become a [more] profitable venture," and there will not be "more piracy".

If other nations are not capable of protecting themselves against threats, then they will have two options: They can leave themselves exposed to those threats, or they can purchase such protection for a modest fee.

[Crackpot]

What you are missing is that all pirates will have to do is target vessels operating outside of areas being patrolled by their home navy.

[Crackpot]

Including our own

[Andrew D]

It's always nice to see agreement, Gob. We agree that if other countries decide not to accept the U.S.'s protection, then they should not have to pay for that protection. Fine with me. Can I say that (for the umpty-zillionth time) any more clearly? Fine. If countries want to go it alone or with each other, fine. FINE.

Not a worry, we'll see who signs up then shall we?

* * *

I'm sure they will.

* * *

Well if we don't have the USA to aid us, then we'll have to won't we.

So, yet again, we agree on a point which I have already espoused: Those nations which choose not to avail themselves of the U.S.'s protection have no reason to pay for what they are not getting, and the U.S. has no basis for charging them for what the U.S. is not providing.

We are talking about an attack by Iran are we not? One tiny, malnourished, hopeless, country against the worlds largest populations such as India and China, not to mention the Commonwealth forces, and probably those of the EU too?

I think you over estimate their threat somewhat.

Or perhaps you underestimate it.

According to open-source order of battle data, as well as relevant analogies from military history and GIS maps, Iran does possess significant littoral warfare capabilities, including mines, antiship cruise missiles, and land-based air defense. If Iran were able to properly link these capabilities, it could halt or impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz for a month or more.

Nasr cruise missile, which can destroy vessels of up to 3,000 tons, can be launched from both inland bases and offshore military vessels ....

Iranian land-based anti-ship missiles would present a clear danger to both naval and merchant vessels operating close to shore and in the narrow sea lanes of the Strait.

Among other things, how do countries with zero -- 0 -- aircraft carriers propose to defend their Strait-of-Hormuz shipping against land-based missiles?

And how do they propose all their other shipping while their navies, such as they are, are occupied defending their shipping in the Strait of Hormuz?

Of course a navy is "more than just aircraft carriers". How do Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, etc. propose to defend their shipping Strait of Hormuz, in the face of Iran's land-based missiles, mines, etc., without aircraft carriers?

If other nations believe that they can protect their shipping in the Strait of Hormuz while also protecting their other shipping all over the globe, great. I just don't think that they can.

I could be wrong. But if you are so sure that you are right, why not give it a try?

[Gob]

So, yet again, we agree on a point which I have already espoused: Those nations which choose not to avail themselves of the U.S.'s protection have no reason to pay for what they are not getting, and the U.S. has no basis for charging them for what the U.S. is not providing.

Missing the important point; "should the USA ever become an isolationist nation."

Among other things, how do countries with zero -- 0 -- aircraft carriers propose to defend their Strait-of-Hormuz shipping against land-based missiles?

And how do they propose all their other shipping while their navies, such as they are, are occupied defending their shipping in the Strait of Hormuz?

Of course a navy is "more than just aircraft carriers". How do Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, etc. propose to defend their shipping Strait of Hormuz, in the face of Iran's land-based missiles, mines, etc., without aircraft carriers?

Again, in your "novel" way of looking at things you are assuming that each nation will act individually should;
a) The USA adopt your "very interesting" ideas.
b) Iran be so mad as to try to rule the Hormuz.
c) A total breakdown in UN/Nato/ANZUK/The EU and all other international alliances happen suimultaneously.

If other nations believe that they can protect their shipping in the Strait of Hormuz while also protecting their other shipping all over the globe, great. I just don't think that they can.

I could be wrong. But if you are so sure that you are right, why not give it a try?

Because;
a) No one would see any advantage in that.
b) I'm not in charge.
c) We're not all as mad as you are.

[Andrew D]

I have not proposed that the U.S. "become an isolationist nation."

Iran has threatened and continues to threaten to stop shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The UN has no forces of its own. NATO is a mutual defense organization. ANZUK and the EU are welcome to protect their members' shipping with all the forces they possess. I have never suggested otherwise.

Again ... you are assuming that ... [t]he USA [will] adopt your "very interesting" ideas.

And you are complacently assuming that we will not.

Slumber on, those of you who have become so accustomed to the U.S.'s largesse that you believe that you are entitled to it.

Slumber on.

[Big RR]

Largesse? I would think in the vast majority of situations, the US intervenes to protect its own far-flung business interests, and not of any largesse.

[Gob]

I have not proposed that the U.S. "become an isolationist nation."

Are you not suggesting that the US withdraw from the international efforts to keep, ( for instance) the straights of Hormuz free?

In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.

The multi-national naval force in the Gulf includes three US Nimitz class carrier groups, each of which has more aircraft than the entire complement of the Iranian air force.

The carriers are supported by at least 12 battleships, including ballistic missile cruisers, frigates, destroyers and assault ships carrying thousand of US Marines and special forces.

The British component consists of four British minesweepers and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay, a logistics vessel. HMS Diamond, a brand-new £1billion Type 45 destroyer, one of the most powerful ships in the British fleet, will also be operating in the region.

At the same time as the Western manoeuvres in the Gulf, the British Response Task Forces Group — which includes the carrier HMS Illustrious, equipped with Apache attack helicopters, along with the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle - will be conducting a naval exercise in the eastern Mediterranean. The task force could easily be diverted to the Gulf region via the Suez Canal within a week of being ordered to do so.

Again ... you are assuming that ... [t]he USA [will] adopt your "very interesting" ideas.

And you are complacently assuming that we will not.

Slumber on, those of you who have become so accustomed to the U.S.'s largesse that you believe that you are entitled to it.

Slumber on.

We're not slumbering Andrew, we're participating and cooperating, as we have done since WWI.

The only threat to this would be the ascendency of Mad President Andrew the VII.

[rubato]

"...

We're not slumbering Andrew, we're participating and cooperating, as we have done since WWI.

... "

Actually, you have parasitized US defense spending for 80 years. You contribute very little.



yrs,
rubato