View Poll Results: What are these joint exercises meant to be?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • These military exercises are meant as a show of force for the DPRK (No. Koreans)

    1 9.09%
  • These military exercises are meant as a show of force for the PRC

    3 27.27%
  • These military exercises are meant to bolster the confidence of US allies in the region

    0 0%
  • These military exercises are meant to impress neighbouring countries

    0 0%
  • These military exercises are routine training games which will take place in international waters

    1 9.09%
  • These exercises are an opportunity for the US Navy to map submarine channels in the Yellow Sea

    0 0%
  • All of the above

    6 54.55%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Like Tree8Likes

U.S.-So Korean military exercises in Yellow Sea

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    565

    Question U.S.-So Korean military exercises in Yellow Sea

    The "proposed series of USD/ROK combined military exercises, including new naval and air exercises in both the Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea", as the US pentagon describes them, are slated to begin soon.

    Its been confirmed that the exercises will include the American aircraft carrier U.S.S. George Washington, a 100,000-ton supercarrier which has a combat radius of 600 kilometers (and which has approx. 80 aircraft with a combat radius up to 1,000 km). It is also expected that nuclear submarines and 4 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers will be included in the war games.

    This could be perceived as a direct security threat to China's heartland and the Bohai Rim Economic Circle.

    How do you feel about this joint military exercise?


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ex Sai Kunger Sunny Qld for now
    Posts
    8,318

    Personally, I see it as an insulting display of the misuse of fossil fuels.

    Millions of litres of fossil fuel will be wasted for this grand standing, display. While we are all told to be more eco friendly, while the Americans consume 25% of the worlds natural resources all by themselves.

    It does nothing but irritate me, and I am sure that i am not the only one that sees the US military as one of the most wasteful of fossil fuel, in the name of international encirclement/bullying of other nations.

    Time to piss off out of Asia and stop being an uninvited guest, that refuses to leave, me thinks.

    Slotter likes this.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Siu Sai Wan
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyhook:
    Personally, I see it as an insulting display of the misuse of fossil fuels.

    Millions of litres of fossil fuel will be wasted for this grand standing, display. While we are all told to be more eco friendly, while the Americans consume 25% of the worlds natural resources all by themselves.
    I agree with you to a point. The aircraft carriers and subs are nuclear powered, so the only oil that they are using for these are for their planes and helicopters on board.

    Of course then there are the (not insignificant number of) support ships (cruisers, destroyers, etc) that are not nuclear powered.

    Nuclear navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    List of current ships of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ex Sai Kunger Sunny Qld for now
    Posts
    8,318

    Ahhh to a point...

    Lets see... A US aircraft carrier based on a typical routine year, uses 8500 tons of aviation fuel every 12 days....

    I imagine they will use more during military exercises.....

    Imagine if it were an older non nuclear powered carrier, with its 4 million gallon total fuel procurement, required..


  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back in California (finally!).
    Posts
    2,079

    Skyhook - wasteful of fossil fuel, in the name of international encirclement/bullying of other nations.

    Time to piss off out of Asia and stop being an uninvited guest, that refuses to leave, me thinks.



    You have a new avatar. I almost didn't recognize you. But, the Xinhua-speak is pretty loud and clear.

    Whether you agree or not, the US is actually 'invited' - by the Koreans, the Japanese, the Filipinos, the ROKs on Taiwan, the Singaporeans, the Malaysians, etc., etc. - even the Vietnamese are trying to get the US to base at Canh Ram Bay.

    So - whether or not their being here is a good idea, "univited" they certainly are not.

    It is China, by behaving more aggressively and erratically and becoming more of a regional bully, while doing nothing to restrain the psychopaths of the DPRK, that is pushing these countries into the arms of Uncle Sam.

    Last edited by Freetrader; 21-07-2010 at 01:18 PM.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905

    There's no doubt that some countries like to see US vessels and in some cases even military bases to provide for a balance of power in the region and counter China and NK. As the american soldiers are big spenders and easy to fleece, they also provide some economic benefits to the region.

    It's very disingenuous to make it sound like the US is doing any favors though. The US in part created a power vacuum when they forced Japan to write article 9 into its constitution. It was necessary at the time but it's grossly out of date now.

    The US has no desire to leave the region and lose influence. When confronted with the possibility of losing its base in Japan, did some serious arm twisting that partly led to Hatayama's resignation.

    Just like garbage dumps or prisons, they are needed but not everyone wants them in their backyards even if it'll create jobs.

    Football16 likes this.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back in California (finally!).
    Posts
    2,079
    Quote Originally Posted by gilleshk:
    It's very disingenuous to make it sound like the US is doing any favors though. The US in part created a power vacuum when they forced Japan to write article 9 into its constitution. It was necessary at the time but it's grossly out of date now.

    Interesting point but it begs the question: would East Asia be better off if the US kept out of the region? That is certainly arguable. As long as there are two superpowers involved, things are a lot more stable, arm's races have (so far) been kept in check, and the regional economies are all better for it.

    The US has no desire to leave the region and lose influence.

    I'm not so sure about that. What sort of 'influence' exactly does the US want in the region?

    When confronted with the possibility of losing its base in Japan, did some serious arm twisting that partly led to Hatayama's resignation.

    This speaks to the previous question: the US is committed to defending Japan and Korea in any case. Is it more practical to do so from Japan and Korea, or from Guam? If there was arm twisting involved, I'm sure it really revolved around this question: how seriously is an aggressor going to take a threat that is 2,000 miles away, and how much security can that force provide?

    Just like garbage dumps or prisons, they are needed but not everyone wants them in their backyards even if it'll create jobs.

    Fair enough
    Comments above.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905

    At this point, it's unthinkable for the US to be completely removed from East Asia.

    There needs to be something to counterbalance China's power and influence and there's only one country capable of that at the moment. However it would be helpful to have Japan remove article 9 from its constitution.

    As to US influence... first american business interest in Asia are far and wide and second, a loss of influence from the US would mean a gain from China which is arguably the US greatest threat in years to come. Would you let your biggest adversary gain in power? Why did the US waste so much in Vietnam? It's certainly not because of its limitless resources nor was it out of the goodness of heart.

    It's a game of poker between a handful of players, the rest of the countries are just cards...


  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,043

    I just voted all of the above but I'd have left out show of force to the Chinese as a prime reason. I think the main reason was to show the North they are serious. Americans need to punish countries and this is the best they can do here.

    Freetrader provides the most typical American thinking on issues like this and his views would be very mainstream American thought.

    Americans will never be able to see things through the eyes of even a major trading partner like China. It is their make up. They have a better chance of seeing things through others eyes if they are just like them - Caucasians - even the Russians. When it comes to the Chinese they are lost as to how best to work with them and how they should let China take the lead on North Korea as it is clearly more of a direct threat to China if there is a war there.

    As I am sure even President Obama is finding out, it is very difficult even for him to change foreign policy significantly or he risks being completely isolated from the real sources of power in the USA and would ruin any chance for re-election. The Constitution of the USA gives very limited power to any branch of government and has been described as being set up to ensure that no one can do anything.

    Unlike a Parliamentary system where a change in government can lead to significant changes in policy unless a minority Parliament is elected, the President of the United States does not command his own Party members as these guys in the House and the Senate are really quite independent of party and Parliamentary party discipline.

    If Obama were to say no to these exercises as he wants to keep the Chinese onside with him, the military commanders and their allies in high places would freak out. He cannot afford to alienate them although if the guy he fired is any indication - they hate him anyways.

    Much like Obama had to say yes to this ill-fated push in Afghanistan. He can't say no and unless he had a majority in the House and Senate he would be unlikely to risk it.

    For me, the less confrontation with a major trading partner over these issues the better.

    I'd like the USA to re-think how to work in this region and how to work best with China and India for their own future economic good and also to reduce tensions overall.

    Last edited by Football16; 21-07-2010 at 02:20 PM.
    Dreadnought likes this.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyhook:
    Ahhh to a point...

    Lets see... A US aircraft carrier based on a typical routine year, uses 8500 tons of aviation fuel every 12 days....

    I imagine they will use more during military exercises.....

    Imagine if it were an older non nuclear powered carrier, with its 4 million gallon total fuel procurement, required..
    And..... How much does Cathay use ever day? In fact lets just ban all air travel, bring back sailing ships, ban electricity from anything from sun and wind. Open sewers and a medieval lifestyle .............. can't wait.

    NOT.

    Some people REALLY have to get a grip of life's realities.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast