1
1
0
Very good article and read. The only drawback is that some areas of discussion are Not the South Pacific -and are instead South East Asia. For those who ever worked in the South Pacific.. that difference is pretty big. In the South Pacific - you have a small USAR force in American Samoa - and that could be a game changer if PACOM used them and resourced them to impact the surrounding areas in conjunction with Australia and New Zealand. GFB!
Protecting the South Pacific
Posted from thestrategybridge.org
Foreign Policy
China
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
perhaps the author should look BACK to WWII when the Pacific was split between MacArthur and Nimitz.
reality is that it's just like the late Roman Empire. too big, scattered, and (in some cases) isolated to be handled alone.
reality is that it's just like the late Roman Empire. too big, scattered, and (in some cases) isolated to be handled alone.
(1)
(0)
LTC Eric Udouj
We divided up our view of the Pacific a long while back -- and that was before WW1...
(0)
(0)
Sgt Wayne Wood
LTC Eric Udouj - true, to a limited extent. but the big deuce made us actually fight across those distances. the Spanish-American war ceded us the Philippines, Guam and maybe a few other places across the Pacific (i'm too lazy to check... coffee hasn't kicked in) but to actually fight a dynamic, on-going conflict across the entire theater was something unique (in our experience) to WWII.
playing tag with the Russians during the not-war required a logistical train and preparation but not actual war fighting.
Vietnam and Korea were localized hotspots that required us to traverse the pacific for logistical purposes, but mainly we used forward-based 'depots' in closer friendly (or occupied) territory.
China's ambitions may be global, but for now her capabilities are only local, or regional at best (worst).
this creating and occupying territory that didn't exist as such when the treaties & laws were made speaks to long-term planning. i think we can properly assume that their strategy is equally long term. the 'islands' can't be sunk, and any attempt to remove or otherwise change their status would constitute an act of war.
so, legally are they territory, or vessels? would attacking them be an invasion, or piracy?
i wouldn't play chess with the Chinese, they have executed a perfect fork.
playing tag with the Russians during the not-war required a logistical train and preparation but not actual war fighting.
Vietnam and Korea were localized hotspots that required us to traverse the pacific for logistical purposes, but mainly we used forward-based 'depots' in closer friendly (or occupied) territory.
China's ambitions may be global, but for now her capabilities are only local, or regional at best (worst).
this creating and occupying territory that didn't exist as such when the treaties & laws were made speaks to long-term planning. i think we can properly assume that their strategy is equally long term. the 'islands' can't be sunk, and any attempt to remove or otherwise change their status would constitute an act of war.
so, legally are they territory, or vessels? would attacking them be an invasion, or piracy?
i wouldn't play chess with the Chinese, they have executed a perfect fork.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google