Are the US Navy Carrier Fleets Obsolete?

Why would we get into a fight over that area unless we were doing it alongside Vietnam, the Philippines, or any of the other countries that actually have a dog in the fight? Since we would be fighting alongside allies in the region, we could use their bases.

 

In any major war in East Asia, at least one of those countries I mentioned would be a co-belligerent. Probably multiple ones.

 

Possibly. Quite possibly. But not certainly. Or they might be reluctant in the rising tensions before a major war to allow us access to prepare for the conflict putting us at a distinct disadvantage when the balloon goes up.

 

And the nations most likely involved in that instance is Vietnam and the Philippines. 2 nations we have not had bases in or basing rights for decades.

Taiwan is a long way from there, and not directly involved. So why would they involve themselves? Especially for a nation that disavowed their being an independent nation 40 years ago?

 

One thing that is missed is the reactions various nations would have, not only locally but internationally.

One of the key things is neutrality. Depending on the belligerents, this may be a crucial factor, or not matter a single bit. And the reactions of those fighting may range from ignoring those nations, to pressuring them to allow their forces in or through, all the way to outright invasion and occupation.

If anything, I would expect most nations in the region not directly involved to stay out of it. And for several good reasons.

For one, they have a lot to gain no matter who wins. If China wins, there will likely be long-term economic ramifications as the US will almost certainly embargo Chinese goods for decades.

If the US wins, there will also likely be a Chinese embargo, and likely considerable damage to their infrastructure.

So if you are a Singapore, you stay out of it and hopefully gain a chunk of the former US-China trade that is now going to be looking for a new place to build their factories.

Of all the Eastern Asia nations affected by the rise of Chinese dominance, India is actually one of the least impacted. They still have considerable trade with the Commonwealth, and their large English speaking population has led them to be a force in things like programming and telephone call centers. Both industries that employ a lot of people, and do not require a large infrastructure investment.

But expect many nations from Burma and the Philippines to Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan to try and regain much of their former industrial power that was lost when manufacturing started it's large move to China.

 

^ This.

And, if and when a major war starts, neutrality claims aren't going to mean squat as far as Red China is concerned, so it's moot beyond the initial prep phase anyway. Red China doesn't even care about that now, so that is an exercise in self-delusion on the part of Taiwan and the rest, just as it was re Japan in the '20's and '30's..

 

And our allies in that would of course block us from using their naval bases. I mean the US has no ability to use naval bases it did not build itself.

 

So the US could go to war with China over Taiwan or the South China Sea islands or over disputed Japanese islands or any of the other hotspots in the region but not have Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, or Japan involved? That doesn't make any sense.

Any conceivable conflict with China would be because we came in on the side of an ally in one of the hotspots in the region.

 

No, in that conflict we'd have the Philippines, and possibly Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia, as allies. We wouldn't need Singapore or Taiwan to be involved.

 

Doubtful, since the only nation we have bases in in that area of the world is Japan. I really can't see Japan declining us from using our own bases. The only other nations in that area we regularly use bases are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, and I can't see them denying us their use either.

Unless the conflict directly involved Taiwan, I would most definitely expect Taiwan to sit it out. It is not like we are allies with them, or even recognize them as a country or anything.

Vietnam is not an ally of ours, and if there was a conflict they could easily be participants while not allies. Remember, the islands in question are claimed by 2 or 3 nations.

And why would a bunch of South China Sea nations get involved in a conflict that far North? Nothing involved in it for them, they are not laying claim to that area.

 

Japan recently denied America use of it's bases to conduct military operations against North Korea, as did South Korea.

Saudi denied the use of it's bases vs Iraq.
Turkey and Germany denied the use of their bases vs Syria.

And so on.

It's quite normal for this to happen.
Navy provides much more flexibility than dependency on foreign alliances.

 

What bases in Saudi Arabia? The US started pulling out forces from Saudi Arabia in the late 1990's after it was realized they were no longer safe there. They started building the new CAOC in Qatar in 2001, and when it was finished in 2003 the remaining forces and equipment was relocated to Qatar.

In other words, the bases had already been or were in the process of being closed. The missions were run primarily from their new base at Al Udeid AFB, in Qatar.

And got a reference to validate the first claim? Because I am seeing nothing like that.

 

I have to concur, what American military bases in Saudi Arabia ?

When my son FA-18 squadron was deployed to the Middle East to kill Obama's "JV Team" they operated from an air base in Qatar.

 

@Mushroom
The closed bases in Saudi you just mentioned perhaps?
The ones they would have liked to have used in the 1990's Gulf Wars.
Hence why they rebased to Quatar. They didn't go to all the effort for a laugh.

Korea and Japan have mutual defence pacts with America.
Hence all the crap about NK missiles being fired at Guam and Japan. It is an attempt to trigger those pacts.

South Korea is politically 50/50. When Trump went all aggressive, the other party got elected, THAAD deployment got shelved and so on.
Japan has the same problem. It's a pacifist society. It has no intention of pre-emptive strikes. Both countries have made that explicitly clear. And have refused the use of their bases to make such attacks.
Just as China and Russia made explicitly clear they would intervene in North Korea's side if anyone did.

No one in America wants to talk about any of that however. War makes for a better story and obviously America is angling all those countries to behave differently to their stated positions.


The stories I seek unfortunately are buried under a spew of google links to war mongering. I don''t have the time to validate for you. Feel free to dismiss this out of hand.

It is in the nature of war that when it comes right down to it, many of your allies won't be. Allegiances change. Bluffs get called. Paper tigers blow away in the wind.

 

They rebased to Qatar for several reasons. The most important is that Qatar wanted them there, badly.

The Qatari Air Force has a grand total of 15 fighters. Yet they spent over $1 billion building a gigantic new air base just outside of Doha. And in 2001 the US had already made arrangements to move it's CAOC from Saudi Arabia to Qatar. It is the hub base for all operations being conducted in that area of the world (including Afghanistan).

They were using bases in SA during the Gulf War, but that was very much in the interest of SA, and it was never intended to be a permanent arrangement. For one, Qatar is much easier to defend, the base is literally out in the middle of nowhere (as opposed to SA, where the military was having to use hotels out in town because there was not enough billeting on base for them).

There is a reason why we generally call Al Udeid the "Field of Dreams" base. After seeing how quickly Kuwait had been crushed, Qatar did not want to be in the same situation.

Oh, BTW, the "bases" the US used in SA were not "closed", and they were never "US Bases". The majority of personnel were at King Khalid Military City (KKMC), which was built in the 1970's as their largest military base, and the headquarters of their military. And as the name suggests, the only purpose for this base is to support their military.

That is where the majority of PATRIOT launchers were situated in 1990-1991. They have since been replaced by PATRIOT batteries owned and operated by the AS Army. But when the US left in 2003, they simply left the part they were occupying, the entire base is still owned by the SA Army.

The same with the KKMC Air Base.

There is also King Abdulaziz Air Base. The last time the US used it was 1994, as a staging area for A-10s while repairs were being made to Al Jaber in Kuwait.

Then you have Prince Sultan Air Base. That was the home of the CAOC (Coalition Air Operations Center) from the Gulf War, and remained in operation. But the plans to shut that down and move it started in 1996, after the Khobar Towers bombing that year. 20 US servicemembers were killed, and almost 500 injured. And there had been a car bombing the year prior also, so the US was already actively looking for a new place to operate out of.

Qatar was also ideal, because it allowed them to consolidate all of their forces in a single location. That is remote, away from any civilian communities, and easy to defend. It is close enough that it can support Doha in the event of an attack, but not so close that any attacks on the base would cause civilian casualties.

Oh, BTW, I have actually been stationed there. The CAOC of 2003 has since been replaced by a massive bunker complex in the last decade. And there are also extensive underground bunkers for aircraft. AUAB is a much better facility than we ever had in SA.

In other words, you have no reference to that claim. And I do not dismiss it out of hand, I tried to look myself to find any such statements from South Korea or Japan, which is why I asked for references.

I dismiss them because I could find no validation, and apparently you can not either.

 

I read them at the time they made them.
So I've validated to my own satisfaction. I've passed the information on and respect you for being open minded enough to give it consideration. I have nothing to prove here however.

Face saving excuses for rebasing are just that.

Saudi base use probably got refused in the invasion of Iraq.
Saudi has a presentation problem with being leader of the muslim world and America's stooge. Infidels in the holy land and all that.
It wasn't an easy alliance. Alliances rarely are. Coalitions are notoriously prone to division.

And yes, Quatar wants it more. Hence the choice of using them.
One day they won't. Things change.

If we think of politics in our own countries, we can see that factional control over parliament decides foreign policy and that it changes regularly. This is to be expected in all our allies countries too.

Other examples of changing alliances might be Turkey. Is Incirlik being used over Syria,I'm thinking not.

When you go into a war, all those you think or hope are your allies won't be.
That's just how it is.

Half of Taiwan wants to reunify with China, which faction is in ascendence, changes.
Same with South Korea.

Same with Japan.

The only people you can count on are your own, and even they will change sides. Vote for peace one day and war the next.

So aircraft carriers give you airstrips independently of others.
You don't have to ask a regime hostile to your intentions in South Korea for permission to strike NK for example.
They would simple say no, as they have always done.

And then your gunboat diplomacy with NK would fail.
It gives you a capacity to act independently in your own best interests.

 

Yet you can not provide any kind of proof to anybody else.

Must be nice to be so accepting that any random posting that you can not provide again is all you need to feed your beliefs.

And come on now, ascendance? South Korea wants to reunify with North Korea?

Yea, only if North Korea reunifies with South Korea. With the reports of starvation coming out of North Korea, mass poverty, and executions of Government Officials with flame throwers and anti-aircraft weapons, I doubt more than a minority of South Korea wants to come under control of the North Korean government.

his what I love about your bland, almost nonsensical statements. They really are delusional, and contain just enough reality to not be entirely false. But they are more inaccurate than accurate.

 

South Korea is a democracy mate. A two party system.
One party is hawkish on NK, the other dovish.
One buys into your vision, one does not.

Are you surprised?
Is politics in your country so utterly united? Of course it isn't.
All countries are polemic in nature like this


In the UK half of us are pro EU, half anti. Half pro American, half anti. And so on.

Half of France wanted to fight Hitler, the other half invited him in. It's the nature of these things.
How could half of Europe have welcomed Nazi invasion, and yet they did. It happened.

This is the norm. Expect it.

In Gulf War 1 America had a big coalition behind it, by Gulf War 2 it was gone.
If your purposes are allied, you will have allies.

The destruction of Seoul is not an acceptable risk for South Koreans. They have no self interest in attacking North Korea.
A price not worth paying. The Japs aren't willing to lose their cities to beat Kim either.
How can they ally with America in this goal?

America wants to destroy the Kim regime before it can destroy American cities in retaliation to their attacks.
Korea and Japan can't ally with that. Because NK can retaliate against their cities already.
If you are willing to sacrifice your allies capital city, you will lose your ally.
Plain and simple.

So if you do choose to pre-emptively strike NK, you will be doing so without your regional defensive allies. Obviously.

Aircraft carriers give you better options to act independently in your own best interests.

I think your mistake is perhaps to assume that what is best for America is best for the world. And in that you will find much disagreement.