USMC Food for Thought

kinnem

Moderator
10-Year Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
15,981
From Asia Times which, keep in mind, operates out of Hong Kong; so this is China's convenient "view". However, they may have a bit of a point. Thoughts?

 
Not sure if this will show my age (IF things have truly changed) but when I was assigned to a MEU and that was often. A region was never left uncovered. We would not head home until the next MEU was en route / in place. While there is truth in this article it reads like propaganda as the op kind of eluded to. I also question if this was a conscious decision to not respond verses a lack of ability to respond.

Also uncertain how the burned/destroyed LHD affected this process. I’m sure it makes a difference to be down a gator freighter.
 
Last edited:
ISsNiIlPPSJJoint VyFrom Asia Times which, keep in, mind, operates out of Hong Kong; so this issC China's convenient "view". However, they may have

a bit of a point. Thoughts? TSA

I'm not in the Navy but I've participated in Joint Exercises as a cell planner in
USPACFLT, Makalapa, JBPHH. During the daily briefs, humanitarian missions were negotiated based on fuel availability for aircraft/ships and competing combat missions. Unless it's designated Joint Civil
Military Operation Task Force, then humanitarian missions are given high priority.
 
Sudan is an interesting part pf the world. For trivia, it's worth checking which Navy fleet "technically" owns the responsibility for that water space.....it isn't what most people might think.

As for USMC mission sets, NEO (Non-combatant Evacuation Operations) is not one of the primary reasons we keep a MEU afloat. They can certainly do it, and everyone thinks the amphibious ships have a ton of space, but when Marines embark, there isn't a lot of room. Just ask any Marine who ever deployed in an ARG of they thought there was a lot of extra space.

As an oh by the way, handling a NEO assumes there is some level of cooperation from host nation. I don't think things were stable enough in Sudan to coordinate a sea-born rescue.

I think these issues are grabbing headlines because there is a food fight on Capitol Hill as to whether or not to invest in more amphibious ships. Everyone wants to say yes but noone wants to give the Navy extra money to cover the total cost. And that is more than just buying a ship.....it means paying for extra sailors, the cost of fuel, the cost of maintenance, etc. Marines love to ask for more amphibs because the total cost to their service bottom line is zero. And the Navy needs to replace an aging trident submarine fleet which is a major level of our nuclear deterrent. No extra money being doled out for that either.

So, is China building an impressive Navy? They certainly are. Is anyone in Washington seriously supporting building up the Navy's surface fleet? A big NO.....we just want more SEAL's, pointy nosed planes, and funding yoga apps on mobile phones.

Now I will shift to decaf........stepping off the soap box. 😐
 
Khartoum is 350 miles inland. And the vast majority of population centers in Sudan are that far or further. Is that reach reasonable given a MEU's capabilities?

Always lots of stump speeches to get more resources.

The idea of having 30 "littoral infiltrator ships" (my name) that drop off forces on various islands doesn't quite sit right with me. The requirement is a 15-knot top speed. I'm not Navy or Marine, but this seems to be pretty risky as such ships can only cover 360 miles in 24 hours and that does not include loading or unloading.

Correction, 414 miles. I forgot to convert from knots which I'm not sure knots are even real.
 
From Asia Times which, keep in mind, operates out of Hong Kong; so this is China's convenient "view". However, they may have a bit of a point. Thoughts?


The author of this article, Grant Newsham, has made a second career out of whipping up fear over the China-threat.

But are we making more out of a Chinese threat than there is? China, unlike some other countries, hasn't invaded anyone since its month-long adventure into Vietnam some 45 years ago. China's neighbors are almost all allied with the US. Even North Korea, China's "ally", doesn't seem too afraid of or friendly towards China. China is not a self-contained empire like the Soviet Union was.

China's rise as a great power has been based on capitalism (state-run) & trade (if uneven) with the very countries which would oppose it in the event of war. It stinks that Western & east Asian countries have become more reliant on trade with China (and this needs to be reversed) but China is just as reliant on that global trade.

China is building a large army, navy & air force. So what? Even Taiwan - the country which should fear China more than anyone - isn't too upset, i.e their defense budget makes Lithuania's look robust. China is buliding more nuclear weapons, but I'm more worried about a country like Pakistan with nukes than China, which is a reasonable & responsible world actor. The won't be nuking anyone anytime soon. Even North Korea having a nuclear weapons program, once viewed as unacceptable, is becomoing easier to live with. If Iran got nuclear weapons would that be much different? Probably not. It would be used for cheap political sound-bites in the US, but that's it.

Is China ready to surrender its economic progress of a war to reunite with Taiwan? Maybe, but the meat grinder that is the Russo-Ukrainian War may give them some cause to question the certainty of a quick conquest of that runaway province. It Russia couldn't take Kiev & Kharkov, both just a few miles of flat land over the Russian border, is it likely that China could launch a successful amphibious invasion (not really accomplished by anyone since the US at Okinawa in 1945) to take Taiwan?
 
The author of this article, Grant Newsham, has made a second career out of whipping up fear over the China-threat.

But are we making more out of a Chinese threat than there is? China, unlike some other countries, hasn't invaded anyone since its month-long adventure into Vietnam some 45 years ago. China's neighbors are almost all allied with the US. Even North Korea, China's "ally", doesn't seem too afraid of or friendly towards China. China is not a self-contained empire like the Soviet Union was.

China's rise as a great power has been based on capitalism (state-run) & trade (if uneven) with the very countries which would oppose it in the event of war. It stinks that Western & east Asian countries have become more reliant on trade with China (and this needs to be reversed) but China is just as reliant on that global trade. I'm much happier with a trade war with China than a shooting one.

China is building a large army, navy & air force. So what? Even Taiwan - the country which should fear China more than anyone - isn't too upset, i.e their defense budget makes Lithuania's look robust. China is buliding more nuclear weapons, but I'm more worried about a country like Pakistan with nukes than China, which is a reasonable & responsible world actor. The won't be nuking anyone anytime soon. Even North Korea having a nuclear weapons program, once viewed as unacceptable, is becomoing easier to live with. If Iran got nuclear weapons would that be much different? Probably not. It would be used for cheap political sound-bites in the US, but that's it.

Is China ready to surrender its economic progress of a war to reunite with Taiwan? Maybe, but the meat grinder that is the Russo-Ukrainian War may give them some cause to question the certainty of a quick conquest of that runaway province. It Russia couldn't take Kiev & Kharkov, both just a few miles of flat land over the Russian border, is it likely that China could launch a successful amphibious invasion (not really accomplished by anyone since the US at Okinawa in 1945) to take Taiwan?
 
The author of this article, Grant Newsham, has made a second career out of whipping up fear over the China-threat.

But are we making more out of a Chinese threat than there is? China, unlike some other countries, hasn't invaded anyone since its month-long adventure into Vietnam some 45 years ago. China's neighbors are almost all allied with the US. Even North Korea, China's "ally", doesn't seem too afraid of or friendly towards China. China is not a self-contained empire like the Soviet Union was.

China's rise as a great power has been based on capitalism (state-run) & trade (if uneven) with the very countries which would oppose it in the event of war. It stinks that Western & east Asian countries have become more reliant on trade with China (and this needs to be reversed) but China is just as reliant on that global trade.

China is building a large army, navy & air force. So what? Even Taiwan - the country which should fear China more than anyone - isn't too upset, i.e their defense budget makes Lithuania's look robust. China is buliding more nuclear weapons, but I'm more worried about a country like Pakistan with nukes than China, which is a reasonable & responsible world actor. The won't be nuking anyone anytime soon. Even North Korea having a nuclear weapons program, once viewed as unacceptable, is becomoing easier to live with. If Iran got nuclear weapons would that be much different? Probably not. It would be used for cheap political sound-bites in the US, but that's it.

Is China ready to surrender its economic progress of a war to reunite with Taiwan? Maybe, but the meat grinder that is the Russo-Ukrainian War may give them some cause to question the certainty of a quick conquest of that runaway province. It Russia couldn't take Kiev & Kharkov, both just a few miles of flat land over the Russian border, is it likely that China could launch a successful amphibious invasion (not really accomplished by anyone since the US at Okinawa in 1945) to take Taiwan?

Reply to myself:

I forgot Inchon in Korea 1950. But the North Korean Army in September 1950 was tottering on the verge of total collapse. Easy mistake.
 
Back
Top