6 ms·

> Now that the cold war is over, does it make sense to have alliances in Asia that require large force projection? Yes, even more now that China is likely to

> Now that the cold war is over, does it make sense to have alliances in Asia that require large force projection? Yes, even more now that China is likely to become a 'peer' threat. It's really the U.S.'s only use for a high-end Navy. Also, I agree that War is Boring is sensationalized and ignorant in general. It's heartening to see others have noticed.

gozur88 10y ago
>Yes, even more now that China is likely to become a 'peer' threat. Eh... why? In 1950, with the Soviets bankrolling rebel groups and invasions all over the world you could make the argument countries needed alliances to counterbalance the threat. But today... is it really unreasonable to expect wealthy countries like Japan and Korea to see to their own defense? While I agree at some point China is likely to be just as strong, militarily, as the US, I don't see a compelling US interest in using warships to defend, say, Japan's claim to groups of uninhabited islands in the middle of the South China Sea. To paraphrase Pournelle, I'm happy to be a friend of freedom everywhere, but a guarantor only of my own.
- georgeecollins 10y ago
  The problem is that if you don't guarantee the freedom of Taiwan and, more importantly, Japan, those countries may decide that the safer thing to do is to switch sides rather than fight alone. Then you are not facing a peer threat, you are facing a coalition that can plausibly threaten to cut off your naval access in the Western Pacific.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Switch to what side? If we're not at war with China, what does it even mean for Taiwan to "switch sides"? More fundamentally, if we don't have declared interests in the South China Sea area, why would we even consider going to war with China. Let them deal with the Norks. In terms of access to the Western Pacific, all the sorts of threats faced by a US fleet would be faced by a Chinese fleet attempting to operate outside the range of Chinese land-based aircraft. The least useful role for carriers is anti-surface warfare, and if the goal is just to keep the sea lanes open we don't need them. A dozen modern submarines could play hell with any country's ability to maintain trading routes.
    - georgeecollins 10y ago
      That is a bit naive. You may think countries don't "switch sides" but take a look at Europe after 1989. East Germany joined West Germany and look what happened to Russian influence over Poland and the Baltic States. If Japan and Taiwan allowed China to base its navy or air force on their territory, the US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii. If China chose to threaten Vietnam, South Korea, Australia.. there would not be much we could do about it.
      - avar 10y ago
        > [...] US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii. You forgot about Guam, a US Naval/Air base 6000 km west of Hawaii: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Guam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Guam
      - gozur88 10y ago
        >If Japan and Taiwan allowed China to base its navy or air force on their territory, the US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii. Yes, and...? If they're happy with China guaranteeing their security, then I don't see the big problem. As to the other countries... how is this my problem? Did we help Vietnam the last time China invaded in 1979? Is first-world island nation Australia incapable of defending itself?
        studentrob 10y ago
        China doesn't guarantee the US' safety by itself. The US also provides that.
        hackuser 10y ago
        > If they're happy with China guaranteeing their security, then I don't see the big problem China does not guarantee their security or offer to, and they wouldn't be happy with it. In contrast, the U.S. has treaties to defend them, on which they heavily rely and which have maintained peace in the region for over 50 years.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > While I agree at some point China is likely to be just as strong, militarily, as the US, I don't see a compelling US interest in using warships to defend, say, Japan's claim to groups of uninhabited islands in the middle of the South China Sea. I think we both know that we are re-enacting the classic debate between isolationists and those who want to be more engaged. I think your questions are important - the U.S. shouldn't follow these policies out of inertia - but I think there are very good answers: * Japan and S. Korea can't protect themselves against China. They can today, but not in 10-20 years, and geopolitics moves very slowly: What happens now determines the outcomes in 10 years and 100 years. As one example, what happened way back in the 1940s and 50s determines those future outcomes: That's why the U.S. now has bases in S. Korea, Japan, and all the Pacific islands. 19th century events may figure even larger: The U.S. became a Pacific power, and China's encounters with the West resulted in a semi-independent city in China's south (Hong Kong), in much of China's current distrust of the West, in the rise of Communism in China, allowed Japan and Korea to become major independent powers (instead of weak tributary states to China), resulted in Russia having more southern Pacific ports, etc. etc. * It's widely believed that if the U.S. doesn't guarantee security in the western Pacific, chaos and war will break out. The nations there don't trust each other at all, but they (sufficiently) trust the U.S. and they trust U.S. power to maintain order. If they become concerned they are trapped in an anarchic environment with enemies, with their existence at stake and no means of restoring order, they will arm up and attack before they are attacked, etc. Not only would that cost millions upon millions of lives and trillions of dollars, but in the heart of the world's biggest and fastest-growing economic region it would create a world-wide economic calamity. * Finally, it costs much less to influence events abroad than to live in a Chinese-dominated world. If China belligerence isn't stopped there, it could easily spread further, and then rolling it back would be almost impossible. In addition, Americans and the West are accustomed to living in a world where they write the rules and establish the norms - so accustomed, many Americans don't even realize it. Living in a world led or dominated by a Communist dictatorship would be a very unhappy experience. > To paraphrase Pournelle, I'm happy to be a friend of freedom everywhere, but a guarantor only of my own. Personally, I don't like this statement at all. Everyone believes in freedom for themselves; IMHO, the word hardly means anything in that context. Freedom, to be meaningful, almost necessarily means freedom for others. (And I'd add that if everyone else had that attitude then nobody would have freedom. The U.S. wouldn't be able to make it on its own; if it doesn't help others, then nobody will help it.)

gozur88 10y ago

>Yes, even more now that China is likely to become a 'peer' threat. Eh... why? In 1950, with the Soviets bankrolling rebel groups and invasions all over the world you could make the argument countries needed alliances to counterbalance the threat. But today... is it really unreasonable to expect wealthy countries like Japan and Korea to see to their own defense? While I agree at some point China is likely to be just as strong, militarily, as the US, I don't see a compelling US interest in using warships to defend, say, Japan's claim to groups of uninhabited islands in the middle of the South China Sea. To paraphrase Pournelle, I'm happy to be a friend of freedom everywhere, but a guarantor only of my own.

georgeecollins 10y ago
The problem is that if you don't guarantee the freedom of Taiwan and, more importantly, Japan, those countries may decide that the safer thing to do is to switch sides rather than fight alone. Then you are not facing a peer threat, you are facing a coalition that can plausibly threaten to cut off your naval access in the Western Pacific.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Switch to what side? If we're not at war with China, what does it even mean for Taiwan to "switch sides"? More fundamentally, if we don't have declared interests in the South China Sea area, why would we even consider going to war with China. Let them deal with the Norks. In terms of access to the Western Pacific, all the sorts of threats faced by a US fleet would be faced by a Chinese fleet attempting to operate outside the range of Chinese land-based aircraft. The least useful role for carriers is anti-surface warfare, and if the goal is just to keep the sea lanes open we don't need them. A dozen modern submarines could play hell with any country's ability to maintain trading routes.
  - georgeecollins 10y ago
    That is a bit naive. You may think countries don't "switch sides" but take a look at Europe after 1989. East Germany joined West Germany and look what happened to Russian influence over Poland and the Baltic States. If Japan and Taiwan allowed China to base its navy or air force on their territory, the US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii. If China chose to threaten Vietnam, South Korea, Australia.. there would not be much we could do about it.
    - avar 10y ago
      > [...] US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii. You forgot about Guam, a US Naval/Air base 6000 km west of Hawaii: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Guam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Guam
    - gozur88 10y ago
      >If Japan and Taiwan allowed China to base its navy or air force on their territory, the US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii. Yes, and...? If they're happy with China guaranteeing their security, then I don't see the big problem. As to the other countries... how is this my problem? Did we help Vietnam the last time China invaded in 1979? Is first-world island nation Australia incapable of defending itself?
      - studentrob 10y ago
        China doesn't guarantee the US' safety by itself. The US also provides that.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > If they're happy with China guaranteeing their security, then I don't see the big problem China does not guarantee their security or offer to, and they wouldn't be happy with it. In contrast, the U.S. has treaties to defend them, on which they heavily rely and which have maintained peace in the region for over 50 years.
hackuser 10y ago
> While I agree at some point China is likely to be just as strong, militarily, as the US, I don't see a compelling US interest in using warships to defend, say, Japan's claim to groups of uninhabited islands in the middle of the South China Sea. I think we both know that we are re-enacting the classic debate between isolationists and those who want to be more engaged. I think your questions are important - the U.S. shouldn't follow these policies out of inertia - but I think there are very good answers: * Japan and S. Korea can't protect themselves against China. They can today, but not in 10-20 years, and geopolitics moves very slowly: What happens now determines the outcomes in 10 years and 100 years. As one example, what happened way back in the 1940s and 50s determines those future outcomes: That's why the U.S. now has bases in S. Korea, Japan, and all the Pacific islands. 19th century events may figure even larger: The U.S. became a Pacific power, and China's encounters with the West resulted in a semi-independent city in China's south (Hong Kong), in much of China's current distrust of the West, in the rise of Communism in China, allowed Japan and Korea to become major independent powers (instead of weak tributary states to China), resulted in Russia having more southern Pacific ports, etc. etc. * It's widely believed that if the U.S. doesn't guarantee security in the western Pacific, chaos and war will break out. The nations there don't trust each other at all, but they (sufficiently) trust the U.S. and they trust U.S. power to maintain order. If they become concerned they are trapped in an anarchic environment with enemies, with their existence at stake and no means of restoring order, they will arm up and attack before they are attacked, etc. Not only would that cost millions upon millions of lives and trillions of dollars, but in the heart of the world's biggest and fastest-growing economic region it would create a world-wide economic calamity. * Finally, it costs much less to influence events abroad than to live in a Chinese-dominated world. If China belligerence isn't stopped there, it could easily spread further, and then rolling it back would be almost impossible. In addition, Americans and the West are accustomed to living in a world where they write the rules and establish the norms - so accustomed, many Americans don't even realize it. Living in a world led or dominated by a Communist dictatorship would be a very unhappy experience. > To paraphrase Pournelle, I'm happy to be a friend of freedom everywhere, but a guarantor only of my own. Personally, I don't like this statement at all. Everyone believes in freedom for themselves; IMHO, the word hardly means anything in that context. Freedom, to be meaningful, almost necessarily means freedom for others. (And I'd add that if everyone else had that attitude then nobody would have freedom. The U.S. wouldn't be able to make it on its own; if it doesn't help others, then nobody will help it.)