4 ms·

Let's pretend that there's a global conflict and US is both against "United Asia" and "European Empire" - what would be a need for such a fleet? If we're talki

Let's pretend that there's a global conflict and US is both against "United Asia" and "European Empire" - what would be a need for such a fleet? If we're talking about US/European allies vs China - then European allies have the ships and capacity to build more. You have to give a concrete example where US would need to have a merchant fleet, where allies aren't willing to provide.

neither_color 4y ago
Central and South America exist too and in your scenario South America would be the only way to get certain resources.
ElevenLathe 4y ago
It's harder to bully/manage foreign shipyards than it is domestic ones. Even better if they're on the eastern seaboard within easy drive of D.C.
yamtaddle 4y ago
A more likely scenario is that we'd be supporting allies in those theaters, not fighting united continent-blocs. Either way, you can't fight across an ocean without lots and lots of cargo ships. > If we're talking about US/European allies vs China - then European allies have the ships and capacity to build more. Not necessarily enough capacity if you're losing tens of ships a month, and there's no guarantee those would remain intact, or that we'd even be on the same side. It's easy to assume stable, decent-enough, friendly governments will continue to be that way indefinitely, but they may not (for other actors, it's very much worth worrying whether the US will remain so, for instance) > You have to give a concrete example where US would need to have a merchant fleet, where allies aren't willing to provide. We literally have a real world example, which is far more valuable than made-up scenarios, that was arguably won primarily by US industrial capacity and the ships to direct that output to the right places, and it's still (barely, admittedly) within living memory. Among the most famous machines of that war is a class of merchant ship, for very good reason. Unless we suppose that modern great-powers wars will be over so fast that shipping wouldn't have time to play a major role, or we think that anti-shipping weapons would be so effective and have such wide reach that no amount of shipping & protection could keep a meaningful proportion of a shipping fleet afloat for any useful length of time even if we started with a significant upper-hand overall—and I sure wouldn't want to bet on either of those things—it seems like that'd still be highly relevant in any major conflict in, at least, the near- to mid-term future.
- JAlexoid 4y ago
  > We literally have a real world example I'm not a mind reader - what is it?
toast0 4y ago
If the US is fighting with (or just in!) Asia and Europe, they still want to trade with Australia, Africa, and South America. And, they likely need to get a lot of materiel to the theater. In the last World War, the US built a ton of cargo ships (about 6,000) to replace ships that were sunk and to increase shipment capacity in general. Allies weren't able to build ships fast enough. I'd imagine that capacity will be needed in the next world war, too. Having existing shipyards helps get production ramping sooner. Certainly, ware has changed a lot in 80 years, but all out war is still going to need a lot of shipping, and cargo ships carrying war materiel are going to be fair game for sinking, and need to be replaced (as well as escorted). Industrial capacity and availability of fuel will continue to be necessary but not sufficient for success on the battlefield.

neither_color 4y ago

Central and South America exist too and in your scenario South America would be the only way to get certain resources.

ElevenLathe 4y ago

It's harder to bully/manage foreign shipyards than it is domestic ones. Even better if they're on the eastern seaboard within easy drive of D.C.

yamtaddle 4y ago

A more likely scenario is that we'd be supporting allies in those theaters, not fighting united continent-blocs. Either way, you can't fight across an ocean without lots and lots of cargo ships. > If we're talking about US/European allies vs China - then European allies have the ships and capacity to build more. Not necessarily enough capacity if you're losing tens of ships a month, and there's no guarantee those would remain intact, or that we'd even be on the same side. It's easy to assume stable, decent-enough, friendly governments will continue to be that way indefinitely, but they may not (for other actors, it's very much worth worrying whether the US will remain so, for instance) > You have to give a concrete example where US would need to have a merchant fleet, where allies aren't willing to provide. We literally have a real world example, which is far more valuable than made-up scenarios, that was arguably won primarily by US industrial capacity and the ships to direct that output to the right places, and it's still (barely, admittedly) within living memory. Among the most famous machines of that war is a class of merchant ship, for very good reason. Unless we suppose that modern great-powers wars will be over so fast that shipping wouldn't have time to play a major role, or we think that anti-shipping weapons would be so effective and have such wide reach that no amount of shipping & protection could keep a meaningful proportion of a shipping fleet afloat for any useful length of time even if we started with a significant upper-hand overall—and I sure wouldn't want to bet on either of those things—it seems like that'd still be highly relevant in any major conflict in, at least, the near- to mid-term future.

JAlexoid 4y ago
> We literally have a real world example I'm not a mind reader - what is it?

toast0 4y ago

If the US is fighting with (or just in!) Asia and Europe, they still want to trade with Australia, Africa, and South America. And, they likely need to get a lot of materiel to the theater. In the last World War, the US built a ton of cargo ships (about 6,000) to replace ships that were sunk and to increase shipment capacity in general. Allies weren't able to build ships fast enough. I'd imagine that capacity will be needed in the next world war, too. Having existing shipyards helps get production ramping sooner. Certainly, ware has changed a lot in 80 years, but all out war is still going to need a lot of shipping, and cargo ships carrying war materiel are going to be fair game for sinking, and need to be replaced (as well as escorted). Industrial capacity and availability of fuel will continue to be necessary but not sufficient for success on the battlefield.