3 ms·

This proves that world-wide sea supremacy by the US is now de facto gone, if there really was such a concept to begin with. I wonder when will political forces

This proves that world-wide sea supremacy by the US is now de facto gone, if there really was such a concept to begin with. I wonder when will political forces inside of the US proper start questioning the opportunity costs of maintaining 11 aircraft carriers given current events, probably not until the next big-ish war proves their futility for good.

thehappypm 3y ago
Navies have always been crucial for traditional wars. That’s not going to change so long as war with China or Russia is still (a distant) possibility.
- paganel 3y ago
  They haven't been crucial vs. Germany during WW2, which arguably was where all the big powers were concentrated on. And I'd say that even during for WW1, the naval battles didn't have that much of an effect on how the war ended, in fact after the Battle of Jutland (summer of 1916) both the British and the German navies were de facto fleets in being. Later edit: I could make a point, and a very valid one, for the strategic importance of subs (the WW2 Japanese merchant fleet was mostly sunk by US subs, for example), but unfortunately for the US subs fleet people are not thinking about them first and foremost when the US Navy is mentioned. Of course, all this talk ignores the nuclear thing, this discussion is entirely made while focusing on the conventional way of waging war. If nuclear were to be a real option then all prior assumptions about the next big war would dramatically change.
  - thehappypm 3y ago
    Navies were certainly crucial in the European theater of WW2. Britain was supplied by sea, and that was only possible with navies and merchant marines protecting the shipping lanes and hunting U-boats. It might not have been as dramatic as the Pacific theater with their big battles at sea, but the resilience of the Allied navies to keeping those shipping lanes limping along allowed them to eventually win the war. War is hugely about logistics. Probably the most notable naval moment in the European war (D-Day) was also only possible because the German navies couldn't dominate the channel. If the Germans had dominated the channel, D-Day would have been impossible. So, a lack of naval strength there was a critical factor for the Axis losing.
    - paganel 3y ago
      The most notable moment on the European front took place somewhere on the Eastern Front (choose your pick between Moscow December 1941, Stalingrad ‘42-‘43, Kursk in July of ‘43, Operation Bragaton the following summer), in fact it was on the Eastern Front where the Germans lost 80% of their men and hence where they were defeated for good. For comparison, the Omaha beach operation only had beteeen 2000 and 5000 losses for the US, which, while tragic for the people involved, is dwarfed by almost any big serious battle that had taken place further East.
- tehjoker 3y ago
  there is no point to a war with russia or china, it's just imperialism
dragonwriter 3y ago
> This proves that world-wide sea supremacy by the US is now de facto gone No, the fact that a player can cause problems for a while before the US responds does not show that, and if you think it does, you never understood what the idea of that supremacy was about. Now, if the US proves unable or unwilling to respond in a way which restores confidence in navigation in the region, that would show what you claim.
- paganel 3y ago
  The Houthis started attacking ships in the Red Sea in the middle of November of last year [1]. The US failing to neutralise that threat for close to two months, in one of busiest and most sensitive places on Earth when to comes to sea traffic (only the Malacca Strait comes close to Bab-el-Mandeb in terms of importance), for sure does not mean that they're still waiting "for a while". [1] https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-774066 https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-774066
- remarkEon 3y ago
  >or unwilling We're well past that point. This administration is clearly signalling that they are prioritizing the avoidance of an escalating regional war, and an aerial bombardment of Yemen would be an escalation against the Iran proxy. That's a legitimate policy position to be debated (I think it's the wrong position). But it seems pretty clear from both public statements and OSINT on movement of military hardware (or lack thereof) that they are unwilling to respond in a way that restores confidence in navigation in the region.
bsder 3y ago
You also have to consider whether the US cares. Most of the shipping through the Suez is going from China to the EU. Is the US going to cry very much if China has problems exporting to the EU such that the EU turns to importing US products?
- falserum 3y ago
  Not in the know, but would seem plausible that some of ships have itinerary China->Eu->Us->Eu (i.e. ship being late to EU will make it also late to US )

thehappypm 3y ago

Navies have always been crucial for traditional wars. That’s not going to change so long as war with China or Russia is still (a distant) possibility.

paganel 3y ago
They haven't been crucial vs. Germany during WW2, which arguably was where all the big powers were concentrated on. And I'd say that even during for WW1, the naval battles didn't have that much of an effect on how the war ended, in fact after the Battle of Jutland (summer of 1916) both the British and the German navies were de facto fleets in being. Later edit: I could make a point, and a very valid one, for the strategic importance of subs (the WW2 Japanese merchant fleet was mostly sunk by US subs, for example), but unfortunately for the US subs fleet people are not thinking about them first and foremost when the US Navy is mentioned. Of course, all this talk ignores the nuclear thing, this discussion is entirely made while focusing on the conventional way of waging war. If nuclear were to be a real option then all prior assumptions about the next big war would dramatically change.
- thehappypm 3y ago
  Navies were certainly crucial in the European theater of WW2. Britain was supplied by sea, and that was only possible with navies and merchant marines protecting the shipping lanes and hunting U-boats. It might not have been as dramatic as the Pacific theater with their big battles at sea, but the resilience of the Allied navies to keeping those shipping lanes limping along allowed them to eventually win the war. War is hugely about logistics. Probably the most notable naval moment in the European war (D-Day) was also only possible because the German navies couldn't dominate the channel. If the Germans had dominated the channel, D-Day would have been impossible. So, a lack of naval strength there was a critical factor for the Axis losing.
  - paganel 3y ago
    The most notable moment on the European front took place somewhere on the Eastern Front (choose your pick between Moscow December 1941, Stalingrad ‘42-‘43, Kursk in July of ‘43, Operation Bragaton the following summer), in fact it was on the Eastern Front where the Germans lost 80% of their men and hence where they were defeated for good. For comparison, the Omaha beach operation only had beteeen 2000 and 5000 losses for the US, which, while tragic for the people involved, is dwarfed by almost any big serious battle that had taken place further East.
tehjoker 3y ago
there is no point to a war with russia or china, it's just imperialism

dragonwriter 3y ago

> This proves that world-wide sea supremacy by the US is now de facto gone No, the fact that a player can cause problems for a while before the US responds does not show that, and if you think it does, you never understood what the idea of that supremacy was about. Now, if the US proves unable or unwilling to respond in a way which restores confidence in navigation in the region, that would show what you claim.

paganel 3y ago
The Houthis started attacking ships in the Red Sea in the middle of November of last year [1]. The US failing to neutralise that threat for close to two months, in one of busiest and most sensitive places on Earth when to comes to sea traffic (only the Malacca Strait comes close to Bab-el-Mandeb in terms of importance), for sure does not mean that they're still waiting "for a while". [1] https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-774066 https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-774066
remarkEon 3y ago
>or unwilling We're well past that point. This administration is clearly signalling that they are prioritizing the avoidance of an escalating regional war, and an aerial bombardment of Yemen would be an escalation against the Iran proxy. That's a legitimate policy position to be debated (I think it's the wrong position). But it seems pretty clear from both public statements and OSINT on movement of military hardware (or lack thereof) that they are unwilling to respond in a way that restores confidence in navigation in the region.

bsder 3y ago

You also have to consider whether the US cares. Most of the shipping through the Suez is going from China to the EU. Is the US going to cry very much if China has problems exporting to the EU such that the EU turns to importing US products?

falserum 3y ago
Not in the know, but would seem plausible that some of ships have itinerary China->Eu->Us->Eu (i.e. ship being late to EU will make it also late to US )