This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Should America Fight For The Spratlys?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Fred Reed via AntiWar.com,

It appears that Washington, ever a seething cauldron of bright ideas, is looking for a shooting war with China, or perhaps trying to make the Chinese kowtow and back down, the pretext being some rocks in the Pacific in which the United States cannot possibly have a vital national interest. Or, really, any interest. And if the Chinese do not back down?

Years back I went aboard the USS Vincennes, CG-49, a Tico class Aegis boat, then the leading edge of naval technology. It was a magnificent ship, fast, powered by a pair of airliner turbines, and carrying the SPY-1 phased-array radar, very high-tech for its time. The CIC was dark and air-conditioned, glowing with huge screens – impressive for then – displaying all manner of information on targets in the air. Below were Standard missiles, then on a sort of chain drive but in later ships using the Vertical Launch System. It was, as they say in Laredo, Muy Star Wars. (The Vincennes was the ship that later shot down the Iranian airliner.)

The Vincennes. The boxy thing up front is the radar. It is not hardened.

The Vincennes. The boxy thing up front is the radar. It is not hardened.

Being something of a technophile, I took all of this in with admiration, but I thought – what if it gets hit? As a kid in my preteens I had read about the battleships of WWII, the Carolinas but in particular the Iowa class, fast, brutal ships with sixteen-inch belt armor and turrets that an asteroid would bounce off of. The assumption was that ships were going to get hit. They were built to survive and continue fighting.

By contrast, the Vincennes was thin-skinned, hulled with aluminum instead of steel, and the radar, crucial to combat, looked perilously fragile. A single hit with anything serious, or perhaps even a cal .50, but certainly by anything resembling a GAU-8, and she would be hors de combat until refitted.

One hit.

The Iowa, BB-61. I went aboard her at Norfolk at the Navy’s invitation. It altered my appreciation of guns. I came away thinking that if you can’t crawl into it, it isn’t really a gun. And solid: There is a reason why no battleship was sunk after Pearl Harbor.

The Iowa, BB-61. I went aboard her at Norfolk at the Navy’s invitation. It altered my appreciation of guns. I came away thinking that if you can’t crawl into it, it isn’t really a gun. And solid: There is a reason why no battleship was sunk after Pearl Harbor.

I also knew well that the Navy played Red Team-Blue Team war games in which our own submarines – then chiefly 688s – tried to “sink” the surface fleet. The idea was that if the sub could get into firing position, it would send up a green flare. The subs were then running if memory serves the Mk 48 ADCAP torpedo, a wicked wire-guided thing with a long range. Sailors told me that invariably the subs “sank” the surface force.

When I mentioned this at CHINFO, the Navy’s PR operation in the Pentagon, flacks told me that the potential bad guys only had piddling diesel-electric subs, far inferior to our nukey boats, and couldn’t get near the fleet in open seas. Yes, no, maybe, and then. It sounded like happy talk to me. In WWII, diesel-electrics certainly got in range of surface ships, perhaps the most famous example being when Archer Fish sank Shinano.

I do not know a great deal about the Chinese Navy, having been out of that loop for years. I do know that the Chinese are smart, and that they have optimized their forces specifically to take out carrier battle groups near their territory. They do not try to match the US ship-for-ship in the kind of war America wants to fight. They would lose fast, and they know it. The key is to swarm the fleet with cruise missiles arriving all at once, accompanied perhaps by large numbers of aircraft. Would this work? I don’t know, but that is certainly the way I would bet.

DF-21D anti-ship (read: anti-carrier) missile. This is not the place for detail, but China has anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to kill carriers, and is working on others, hypersonic glide vehicles, that are not real interceptible. I do not know how well they work. If I were a carrier, I would make a point of not finding out.

DF-21D anti-ship (read: anti-carrier) missile. This is not the place for detail, but China has anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to kill carriers, and is working on others, hypersonic glide vehicles, that are not real interceptible. I do not know how well they work. If I were a carrier, I would make a point of not finding out.

The Navy has not been in a war for seventy years. It has sat off various shores and launched aircraft, but the fleet has not been engaged. Over decades of inaction, complacency sets in. Unfortunately, wars regularly turn out to be otherwise than expected. Further, the American military’s standard approach to a war is to underestimate the enemy (there is probably a manual on this).

Yet further, great emotional and financial capital resides in a carrier-battle group, one of the most impressive achievements of the human race. (I mean this: the technology, organization, and competence involved in, say, night flight ops are…”astonishing” is too feeble a word.)

This assures reluctance to question the fleet’s effectiveness in the face of changing conditions. Such as high-Mach, stealthed, maneuvering, sea-skimming cruise missiles. Or terminally guided anti-ship ballistic missiles. America is accustomed to fighting enemies who can’t fight back. This may not include the Chinese.

There is also the fact that the American military simply doesn’t matter, which reduces concern with whether it can fight and who it can fight. It doesn’t defend the US, since there is nothing to defend it against. (What country has the remotest possibility of invading America?) So the military is used for what are essentially hobbyist wars, keeping Israel happy, providing markets for the arms companies, and for social engineering: we have girl crews who would be a disaster at damage control, but we assume that there will never be any damage to control.

Uh…yeah. The evidence is that these ships are fragile:

The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni missile was fired accidentally. A huge fire ensued, bombs cooked off, 134 men were killed, and the ship was devastated, out of service for a very long time. One five-inch missile. Something to think about.

The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni missile was fired accidentally. A huge fire ensued, bombs cooked off, 134 men were killed, and the ship was devastated, out of service for a very long time. One five-inch missile. Something to think about.

USS Stark, 1987. Hit by two Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage.

USS Stark, 1987. Hit by two Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage.

What would happen if in a shooting war the Chinese crippled the American fleet? Washington is rampant with large egos, especially that of John McCain, the senator from PTSD. If it were discovered that China could disable the Navy, many other countries might conclude that they could do it too. They most certainly would think of this. Washington could not accept the discovery: Fear of the carriers is a large element in Washington’s intimidation of the world. To save face, the US would be tempted to go nuclear, or seriously bomb China proper, with unforeseeable results.

The Air Force and Navy could hurt China badly by conventional means, yes, for example by cutting off oil from the Mideast, or destroying the Three Gorges dam. For a variety of reasons this would be playing with fire. The economic results of any of these bright ideas would be godawful.

USS Cole, 2000. Blown up by suicide guys in a small boat.

USS Cole, 2000. Blown up by suicide guys in a small boat.

Washington seems not to realize that it wields far less military power than it thinks it does, and that the power it does wield is ever less useful than before. As a land power, it is very weak, being unable to defeat Russia, China, or peasants armed with rifles and RPGs. Air power has regularly proved indecisive.

If Washington somehow won a naval war with China, so what? It would provide the satisfactions of vanity, but China’s danger to the US imperium lies in increasing economic power and commercial expansion through Asia, where it holds the high cards: it is there, Washington isn’t. Grrr-bowwow-woofery in the far Pacific, even if successful, is not going to stop China’s commercial expansion, and a defeat would end the credibility of the Navy forever.

As I say, Washington is full of bright ideas.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 19:56 | 6735685 knukles
knukles's picture

Inside Evey Spratley Islander is an American Trying to Get Out

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:02 | 6735699 Stainless Steel Rat
Stainless Steel Rat's picture

Never forget the indignities we suffered in our American homeland of the Gulf of Tonkin.  Located just outside of Los Angeles.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:11 | 6735716 y3maxx
y3maxx's picture

The USSAfighting for its life now to save  American Dollar as World currency fiat.....Needs to pick fight witj Russia & China...then war/nukem both to kingdom come....easy peasy or USSA

Sarc off

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:17 | 6735725 kliguy38
kliguy38's picture

We have to protect our right to print freely

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:24 | 6735747 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

It's about freedom of navigation of the seas. You let this shit get started you will never see an end to it. Only the US Navy with a little help from select allies, on a good day in some limited locations, stands between shit like this and the current situation of free passage for anyone flying any flag.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:53 | 6735811 Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

Fred Reed makes a good point. I call for the immediate activation of all four Iowa class Battleships. Get them fitted out with rail guns and X-Ray Lasers. For gawds sake DO NOT install that piece of shit AEGIS system on them.  Please start with the New Jersey and get her the hell out of fucking Camden. 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 21:23 | 6735894 BlindMonkey
BlindMonkey's picture

Seeing that beast is the ONLY reason to go to Camden.  

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 23:28 | 6736123 Nexus789
Nexus789's picture

The opposition would use a nuclear tipped missile or torpedo. 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 21:30 | 6735903 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Freedom of the seas has been the responsibilty of the major exporter throughout history.The US is no longer that,
rather this is about freedom of ship interdictiction by
Uncle Scam, the exact opposite of freedom of the seas.
Believe what you want, you generally do, especially when
you're wrong,which is almost always.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:55 | 6736303 scrappy
scrappy's picture

Freedom of sealanes and freedom of navigation is in the interest of all. Plus, just look at the map or globe.

I am not  excusing our incursions to others...

Even in a deflationary environment, trade must go on.

China's "Island hopping" seems to have a wiff of desperation to  it.

Internal problems worse than is said?

That is why it is in all of our best interest to do this change ourselves.

Ourselves, our way, not any Oligarch's  ( very small ) group vision.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:13 | 6735720 Laowei Gweilo
Laowei Gweilo's picture

USA is just sabre rattling, and made it full well known to the Chinese before. They likely even agreed to it because it's a net-win for both: China reinforces its boogeyman, USA reinforces its allies' boogeyman.

 

The crony capitalists in USA and China are in it together and they're not going to allow a few ever dwindling war mongers to get in the way to making a buck.

 

this is written by someone that has a very poor understanding of China and some how believes they're even remotely analogous to Russia (which in China's place would already make this article far fetched)

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 23:21 | 6736106 DisasterCapitalist
DisasterCapitalist's picture

US learned the wrong lessons from Gulf of Tonkin/Vietnam War...1) burn down all the trees 2) terrorize villagers 3) back your 3% Christian elite against a 97% Buddhist population 4) drafts are too much trouble  5) Control all media. 

The current mantra I hear: "Just one more battle and we wouldda wooped 'em!". "The media lost the war, not the 'Merican troops!" "Bet those damn commies are sorry they won now!" (Actually the entire coastal area from Da Nang to HCMC is under HUGE development. Lots of smart, hard-working people in Vietnam). If the US had won in Vietnam, it would now be another shithole like the Philippines.   The TRUTH of Vietnam was that the Vietnamese are quite happy to trade with and work with anybody..they just don't want to be occupied and subjugated by anyone. Vietnam was a war about Nationism, NOT Communism. 50 years later and America STILL does not understand Vietnam or the Vietnamese people.

 

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 16:08 | 6737627 Icelandicsaga.....
Icelandicsaga...............................................'s picture

A  married to Vietnamese girl from Vinh Long/Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam is surprising ...especially urban areas. Countryside more provincial but kindly.  Y dad was Vietnam era pilot having done 2 tours. He went with me when I married in traditional ceremony. My wifes father fought on South V. Side, spent some time in a camp. Vietnam is very entrpeneurial. Visit Bitexco Tower for the high finance side, but the real business is going on by the ordinary people. I love the Vietnamese...my father gave a toast at our wedding, with 350 guests from local village most had not seen an American since the war. Since he was the eldest he sat at head of table ..ate and drank first. The people could not have been nicer, in town or country. Even the war museum in the city does not stress ""evil" Americans but rather the brutallity and heart break of war for both sides. Who won in Vietnam....it was not the north...in the case of Nam, I would say the fierce devotion to country and family won. My dad's toast that day...may we forgive each other, and may our shared experience of war and the passing of time, keep our peace with each other. I would consider Vietnam ...among the good guys. They kicked the Chinese out in 79, and they have not been back. Vietnames hate China lots more then they hate us.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 23:54 | 6736165 IronForge
IronForge's picture

"Never forget the indignities we suffered in our American homeland of the Gulf of Tonkin.  Located just outside of Los Angeles."

 

Ironically, LA & Orange Counties are where the bulk of the "Roman Catholic Failed State Controlled" South Vietnamese Refugees ended up. 

My Late Father served in the Aux Fleet (retired from Active Duty then); and participated in moving them over.

Even more ironic, is that one of the stalking Cultists in my Garfena Neighborhood is a Son of an  alleged Helo Pilot who flew Refugees to the US Fleet.

Ingrates? Mebbe.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 22:36 | 6736044 9D382a4-114dk19
9D382a4-114dk19's picture

The US and other nations need to continue diligently conducting freedom of navigation deployments, not just here but elsewhere.  

The Chinese build-up of partially submerged areas doesn't magically transform them into Chinese sovereign territory. Everyone understands this except Zero Hedgers and the Chinese.  :-)

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 03:53 | 6736430 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

the irony - US insists everybody else obey the international law of the sea based on the UN Law of the Sea Convention which the US itself has not ratified and most likely won't ever.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 07:06 | 6736541 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Indeed, maybe if Uncle Scam was constrained and respected any laws, others

would not feel the need of DEFENSIVE bases like the Sratley.

Not like they are going to sail them to the west coast, so by definition they

are defensive assets.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 07:38 | 6736561 PT
PT's picture

Why not?  Was anyone else using that space?  Was it inside someone else's boundary? ( I don't know.)

How shallow was that area?  Was it deep enough for ships before the Chinese started developing it?  - I assume they looked for the shallowest waters.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 15:50 | 6737586 epicurious
epicurious's picture

Those islands are in the territorial limits of the Phillipines.  They have treaties with the USA for their protection since we gave them their soveriegnty and left our bases after takingthem from Spain during the Spanish American war.   Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 07:43 | 6736567 squid
squid's picture

While that may/might be true.....so what?

How are you going to enforce that?

 

You going to get the Belgian Navy to join the grand coalition against the Chinese? How about the Dutch, yah, they'll come on in. Get the German Navy to participate, sure....

 

The Chinese see history different than you and I.

They KNOW why they are their asses handed to them in the Opium wars with the British.

They understand it was all about money on the British side and all about corruption on the Chinese side.

They understand that the put down of the boxer rebellion was direct foreign interference of Chinese affairs.  

 

They say the Spratlies are theirs.

I might not agree, but am I going to start a war over it?

 

I'm more interested to see that the Vietnamese do. They HAT/LOATH the chinese....and they have a dog in this fight.

 

Lets just wait and see.

 

it not America's fight.....mind you, neither is Syria.

 

Squid

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 10:40 | 6736812 darkpool2
darkpool2's picture

Vietnam will do nothing. Yes, they are deeply offended but they COMPLETELY understand they are the small underdog. Aside from some minor nipping of heels, and barking, they will reach an accomodation.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 19:56 | 6735689 10mm
10mm's picture

No such thing as America.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 06:12 | 6736508 Keyser
Keyser's picture

There is a corporation named UNITED STATES of AMERICA, CORP, duly registered in the City of London... wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean? 

 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:00 | 6735694 ToSoft4Truth
ToSoft4Truth's picture

Yes, we, well, “we” being defined as the 18-24 year old crowd should fight them now.  LOL
 

  The Chinese are long-term thinkers so we must destroy them before they complete the plan. 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 07:40 | 6736565 PT
PT's picture

Good thing we gave them all our manufacturing plants and technology before we started insulting them.  Especially good that we closed down all our own manufacturing before hurling abuse at them.  Oh, wait ... -

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:05 | 6735704 fleur de lis
fleur de lis's picture

The psychopaths in DC would never have the luxury of instigating global fights for nothing were it not for the fact that they have so much money to burn. Literally.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:18 | 6735732 Salah
Salah's picture

ALL US financial markets are 1 sunk carrier away from oblivion

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:21 | 6735738 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

True that. So is the dollar

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:09 | 6735713 Tinky
Tinky's picture

Sprats? My father used to love to eat sprats, and always with a raw onion.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 22:06 | 6735976 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Sprats? Good Oh!  I used to eat them on the good old P & O Ferry Aberdeen to Lerwick. Breakfast fare was hearty in those days. I expect Sprats don't exist anymore. The North Sea is nearly dead and so the Kattegat and Baltic.  I do remember breakfast buffet on the Ferry, so much food, piled high, eat as much as you like! Damn! The world was better 30 years ago.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:02 | 6736261 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

One of my ex-Bosses lived "out there", so I too have caught that ferry on a few occasions.

They did a very fine scrambled egg / bacon / sausage / hash browns / mushrooms / beans / chips (yes, you DID read that right . . .) "Breakfast" for the pricely sum of 5 Pounds.

Did you try their curries? Vindaloo-standard beef (one portion was enough to feed a typical Indian village) for about 7 pounds (which included coffee, and a number of rather large poppadums).

As you say, "the World (especially the FOOD / Quantity / Quality thereof) WAS a lot better 30 years ago" . . . . . . .

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 04:53 | 6736467 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

What about eggs, Spam, Spam & Spam?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 05:57 | 6736493 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Black pudding.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 06:14 | 6736509 Keyser
Keyser's picture

Now you've gone and done it, the man with the funny walk will be along directly... 

 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:16 | 6735715 Aquarius
Aquarius's picture

I, as well as others, many, used to peacefully fish in this area; it was beautiful (and peaceful).

Now the scum has arrived intent to destroy; message: Foxtrot Yankee Washington.

________>  and this is for your horse.

 

Ho hum

http://verbewarp.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/its-not-economy-stupid-its-econ...

cultist and "true-believer" wankers, all.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:48 | 6735799 o r c k
o r c k's picture

I would visit the Spratleys every day after school and catch Bass and Bream. I'd take them to the logging camp and the guys would fry them up. That was so long ago it just don't seem real.  Does it.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:16 | 6735723 two hoots
two hoots's picture

Ship happens!

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:29 | 6735726 HenryHall
HenryHall's picture

China is not going to sink a US Navy ship. No chance. Won't happen.

They might let a US Navy ship foul its propellers in a fishing trawl net or something like that, at most.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:19 | 6735733 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

 

The Air Force and Navy could hurt China badly by conventional means, yes, for example by cutting off oil from the Mideast, or destroying the Three Gorges dam. For a variety of reasons this would be playing with fire. The economic results of any of these bright ideas would be godawful.

Not to mention invite a nuclear response.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 06:15 | 6736511 Keyser
Keyser's picture

You mean like the explosion in Tianjin? 

 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:27 | 6735737 Dr. Bonzo
Dr. Bonzo's picture

Like Fred's stuff, mostly solid analysis. Agree the US is always fighting yesterday's wars, fraud waste abuse, the MIC, reducing the military to social experimentation, to a hammer every problem looks like a nail, who gives a flying fuck about the Spratleys blah blah blah.

You had a good write-up. Why ruin it with nonsense? Nuking China? Bombing the Three Gorges Dam? Urgh... speculative overreach Fred.

And while I agree with most of your analysis, all the same problems apply to the Chinese in spades. They've only been copying every modern military on the planet for the last 20 years. Whatever conceptual problems exist in US naval warfare, the Chinese copied those too. Or haven't you noticed their massive copy-paste exercise going on?

All Chinese foreign assets aren't actual "assets;" China may be pursuing pure mercantilism, but it can't outright claim any colonies it controls with impunity just yet.

In everybody's little fairy-tale China-US dust-up the US would pretty much be going it alone while all of Asia hides behind their computer screens watching Korean soaps? Hardly. The Vietnamese, Phillipines, Taiwanese, Japanese and Koreans are all embroiled with China over territories and exploitation rights of fisheries. While the inclination for most Asian countries is to pursue negotiations with the Chinese to settle these matters, Chinese actual friends in the region are far and few between.

Then there's the small matter of the 200,000+ Chinese "exchange" students in the US; the massive foreign investment the Chinese are making in the US etc.

In sum, any hypothetical dustup between the current world heavy weight and the aspiring contender will go ugly early for all involved.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 04:02 | 6736433 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

You are slightly wrong

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 14:50 | 6737448 goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

 

Nuking China? Bombing the Three Gorges Dam? Urgh... speculative overreach Fred.

Almost agree. True, in a sane world the US would never take such actions, yet not one of those "leaders" in the Potomac are sane (....the Senator from PTSD, my favorite line). You would truly need to believe that the next President (not our current ladies pants wearing pansy) would not be a true psychopath. Problem, there are no sane men (or women) running.

All Chinese foreign assets aren't actual "assets;" China may be pursuing pure mercantilism, but it can't outright claim any colonies it controls with impunity just yet.

As you and I would define them, perhaps not, but the Chinese have not shown a propensity to control any of their economic partners with violence. They have, for a few years now, taken the approach of using money not bombs.

In everybody's little fairy-tale China-US dust-up the US would pretty much be going it alone while all of Asia hides behind their computer screens watching Korean soaps? Hardly. The Vietnamese, Phillipines, Taiwanese, Japanese and Koreans are all embroiled with China over territories and exploitation rights of fisheries. While the inclination for most Asian countries is to pursue negotiations with the Chinese to settle these matters, Chinese actual friends in the region are far and few between.

 

How many aircraft carriers will the Vietnamese contribute? How many long range bombers will the Philippines deploy? Specially in support of the US and against their Chinese neighbors?

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:34 | 6735743 fleur de lis
fleur de lis's picture

The psychopaths in DC would never have the luxury of instigating global fights for nothing were it not for the fact that they have so much money to burn. Literally. Because it's not like we have better things to do with our own money.

The DC psychopaths must have billions of our hard earned money squirreled away for black ops stunts to torment foreign populations. Billions are spent on tuning entire settled societies upside down in violent upheaval with no regard for the carnage that follows. Billions are spent on massive population transfers as seen with the Syrian catastrophe all in an effort to unseat one man. All this done with our hard earned money without our consent and indeed against our will.

This cannot continue without the eventual danger of the targets turning on us singly or together. There is no reason we should pay the price or take the fall. If the Ruskies, Chicoms, or whomever come looking for perps we should hand them over and be rid of them. We can all live better without them.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:59 | 6735828 o r c k
o r c k's picture

I'll bet they don't ask first.

And we thought we were safe from a vengeful foe. Safe from being complicit in vast crimes against humanity like the madness in Syria, and the Cosmic embarrassment of Iraq, etc  Being the good guys and all. We sure be.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:23 | 6735745 debtor of last ...
debtor of last resort's picture

Should 'America' fight for Obamacare?

Should 'America' fight' for GDP boosters?

Should 'America' fight for Islam?

Should 'America' fight for tight oil?

Should 'America' fight for the second amandment?

Should 'America' fight for freedom?

Should 'America' fight for whatever the FUCK?

FUCK YOU, Krugman, NSA, Putin, Merkel, Horseface, OrangeIMFmotherf*cking faced cunt' n perpetial lian' facefucks

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:31 | 6735763 Aquarius
Aquarius's picture

For what it is worth:

 

American should wake the F*ck Up.

 

Ho hum

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:43 | 6735790 debtor of last ...
debtor of last resort's picture

The rest of the world too.

Whooooooo hum

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:24 | 6735746 stant
stant's picture

Yeah sure us 20 something's are all in for mixing it up with the rooskies and china , ESP for DC. Gov

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:26 | 6735750 Tejano
Tejano's picture

"America is accustomed to fighting enemies who can’t fight back." ...the bully throwing his weight around the schoolyard while the real tough guys look on from the other side of the fence. Kinetic warfare may have had its day. Cyber warfare, trade and currency wars, psychological warfare, control of key resources, and, above all, demographics will determine who rules the roost in the coming century. The kinetic fireworks, destructive and costly though they may be, will be no more than the grand finale.

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 03:19 | 6736379 scrappy
scrappy's picture

Jej I like your comment but disagree on the demographic analysis in favor of supposed "growth" of the economy, we have way over shot, mal-invested and are facing less, not more economic activity.

This economic MACRO exceeds demographic increases especially if everyone is broke.

DEFLATION

What a mess. Proppping up "prices" of stocks etc will only "work" so long.

There are other Real Trends as well.

http://www.oftwominds.com/ARBW-sample2.pdf

The solution? Way different than what we do today.

 

 

 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:31 | 6735761 The Last Bubble
The Last Bubble's picture
"Should America Fight For The Spratlys?"

Fcuk yeah ! Forget ISIS or Putin, Fcuk China.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:32 | 6735764 JamaicaJim
JamaicaJim's picture

Excellent piece Fred. +1,000

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:34 | 6735766 Consuelo
Consuelo's picture

 

 

"The Air Force and Navy could hurt China badly by conventional means, yes, for example by cutting off oil from the Mideast, or destroying the Three Gorges dam."

 

????

There is just a teensy-weensy bit of leap between those two offensive actions, no...?

 

Cutting off oil from the mideast could mean any number of responses.   Destroying the Three Gorges dam...?    Let's just say if you live on the West Coast, it won't be picking up the kids from school and heading out to fast food...

 

 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:48 | 6735800 Neochrome
Neochrome's picture

Saying that casually. What would happen to US with couple H-bombs in San Andrea's fault and a couple in Yellowstone super-volcano? Yeah, let's keep it casual...

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:47 | 6735795 smacker
smacker's picture

The Spratlys have nothing to do with American national interest but everything to do with American imperial interest.

Therein lies the growing potential for a military clash with China. If Washington continues with its belligerent attitude to prove the point that it is the uni-polar global superpower who can go anywhere it likes, the clash will happen sooner rather than later. Both sides will suffer heavy losses before sanity emerges.

If China backs down to avoid conflict, it could take revenge in another way: dump its stock of US Treasuries and cause serious damage to the US economy in other ways by bringing forward the time when the USD is no longer the GRC.

We are likely witnessing the painful death of yet another empire. Current Washington foreign policy is hastening the final nail in its own coffin but as usual, the power elites cannot see that.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:48 | 6735802 MEFOBILLS
MEFOBILLS's picture

Convene a tribunal of world leaders.  On the agenda is 12 mile limit.  

If a country decides to build a string of island with intent of changing navigation routes and being a hegemon, that language can easily be codified.

Immediately pulling out your guns over minor issues shows just how much of an ape humankind is.  Their fear responses, the amygdala goes into overdrive, conjuring up all kinds of false spectres.

This is why mob rule is no good.  Equally bad is rule by a hidden money powered deep state that over-reacts with slight provocations.  

Where are the clear heads that are willing to re-write the rulebook to account for China island building, or even Japanese island building for that matter.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:48 | 6735803 Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes's picture

1)  Yeah, those DF-21's sure could be trouble, same with Russian Sunburn Missiles 

 

2)  The oil under the Spratley's is silly.  The future of oil is poor and getting worse.

 

3) The USN can fall back past the first island chain and operate from the lee side.

 

4) Underestimate China at your own risk

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 23:18 | 6736105 Anonymous User
Anonymous User's picture

Fishing on a larger area that belongs to you ONLY is what is at stake for the ~ 2bil souls China. Not oil.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 20:50 | 6735806 CHoward
CHoward's picture

Go ahead U.S. and fuck with China on this issue.  The hubris and arrogance of Washington will come back to haunt this country for decades. 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 21:02 | 6735835 TheFutureIsThePast
TheFutureIsThePast's picture

America can fight for whatever it wants - as long as it's bankers and politicians doing the fighting.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 21:29 | 6735901 highwaytoserfdom
highwaytoserfdom's picture

airforce, Navy Maginot Line.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s4sKAMgYsU         

 

Sweet Caroline 

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 21:58 | 6735952 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Sailors told me that invariably the subs “sank” the surface force.

Yes, this has been true since the early 60's. Thats why Nuclear Attack Subs operate as long range ASW screen for Carrier Forces. This has helped a lot in preventing enemy subs from approaching. But, only to a limited degree. Ocean water is much more than it seems. temperature differences abound with depth and currents. Sound in water is reflected or deflected by temp erature gradiants.

Long and short in, a Sub measures these temperature differences constantly, and can hide with ease in and under layers. Fresher and saltier water also creates reflection or defelction layers. again, the Sub records these constantly. Leaving plenty of hiding places.

This all makes a Sub able to evade other subs and appoach the surface task forces. Exercises repeatedly prove this. And when US Subs exercise, they attempt to mimic what we know about Chinese or Russian capabilites. Our sub does not assume American capabilites and use them to the full, they try to minimc the supposed enemy. But with Russian submarines this often can't be done, due to the large operational technical differences.

It is an axiom in the Submarine fleet and in the Anti Submarine Warfare schools that Subs sink Carriers. Thats just how it is!

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 02:00 | 6736335 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

If the six submarines that Germany just sold to Israel at bargain basement prices, didn't know that, now they do.

Maybe Israel will name a park for you in Jerusalem.  :o/

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 03:27 | 6736406 scrappy
scrappy's picture

Great, Go sink em. There is what, 10 carriers in the rest of the world?.'

 

Do you have cool supersonic torpedeos and missles?

 

If not, get to work sailor!

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 04:39 | 6736462 Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

China's sub fleet is mostly defensive in nature, designed to attack an invading carrier group. To project power beyond their territorial waters, China will have to develop better domestically produced nuclear subs and more of them than they have demonstrated so far. Russia has supplied them with 12 Kilo class subs but is nervous about selling them any more. This is either a lack of commitment to becoming a global naval power or the inability to provide working hardware to make such grand ambitions possible.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 06:07 | 6736503 Zwelgje
Zwelgje's picture

"Russia has supplied them with 12 Kilo class subs but is nervous about selling them any more."

Production has started in China and Russia of the even more advanced LADA class submarine, heck the Chinese even got the blue prints. Relations between Russia and China are super good.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 06:24 | 6736519 Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

Build quality will be the issue for China making their versions of the LADA. Also, relations between the bear and dragon are pragmatic. They aren't friends or allies but can agree the US needs to be taken down a few pegs.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 21:58 | 6735954 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

Never ever under estimate the capacity on either side to screw this up.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 22:07 | 6735977 will ling
will ling's picture

one last war comin' up. only siberian inhabitants will want the leftover planet.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 22:12 | 6735984 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Every military trains to fight the last war. The United States Navy actually has a Navy built to confront the Imperial Japanese Navy with it large Carrier Forces, and to combat submarines of the Kriegsmarine German Navy in the Atlantic. Sadly, that was a long time ago. But the USA has the ships and tactics to wage World War II. And that ain't no bullshit neither!

In the era of the super sonic sea skimming  evasive anti ship missile, and modern electronic warfare jamming of radars, the USA would face a horrible fate if it allowed itself to get to near to the wrong enemy.

Phase Array radars are a wonder of electronics, but also vulnerable to being jammed. Notice the Russian aircraft putting into Syria were NOT detected by any NATO radars. Even NATO admits this. Russia simply cloaked the entire movement and shuts down electronics in Syrian airspace at will.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 23:35 | 6736136 Nexus789
Nexus789's picture

I thought the most interesting sentence in the article was...."The boxy thing up front is the radar. It is not hardened". The Russians and Chinese developed EMP weapons decades ago.  EMP plus jamming technologies would make short work of US ‘network centric warfare’.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:30 | 6736299 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

This is one of the reasons for all those wargames / computer simulations - all militaries try to "second-guess" how an engagement will work out.

The problem is there are so many variables (many completely outside our control) that even running the same simulation numerous times can generate very different outcomes, which is why the training of those on the "Front Line" is so very important.

It is also one thing to be fighting a "pretend" war, with set rules of engagement, and entirely another thing when this time it's for real, and maybe the only way to stay alive is to "cheat", or think outside the training manual . . . . .

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 04:55 | 6736469 Ralph Spoilsport
Ralph Spoilsport's picture

Jack, one factor to remember in all this is that China doesn't have the ability to stop US attack subs from hunting down and killing their submariines. China has poor capabilities when it comes to communicating with subs at sea compared to the US so their flexibility is hampered. It doesn't matter how many subs they have when our subs can pick theirs off with impunity. As far as China's ASW capabilities, they are catching up but US subs are the most difficult ASW target in the world right now.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 07:35 | 6736559 squid
squid's picture

That is all very true and relevant in th eopen ocean, not so much so when China has land based air cover right there.

 

The South China sea is KRAP for submarine operations, it very shallow. You'll be able to see the American subs from planes....then pick them off with active sonar bouys.....

 

The Chinese also have military colleges that look at this stuff.

 

Squid

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 08:09 | 6736588 gonetogalt
gonetogalt's picture

My understanding is that the Russians have a satelite system that uses a proton system. Supposedly they can see every sub in every ocean irrespective of depth.

(The US suposedly uses a proton based communication system).

And we sure as hell can't see subs, remember the shakedown cruise of the Russian sub in the Gulf of Mexico during the oil spill?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 17:18 | 6737783 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

US asw skills are quiet average. Many think they've some superiority but they don't. 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 17:13 | 6737766 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

You're misinformed Spoilsport.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 22:22 | 6736013 BlussMann
BlussMann's picture

Was the USS Vincennes in he Suez the other day ?

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 22:25 | 6736018 Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes's picture

The chinese won't rush to war, they will be willing to bump shoulders

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 22:27 | 6736021 laomei
laomei's picture

China seems to have not gotten the message, ballistic missiles are by default treated as nuclear.  go ahead, launch one at a carrier, it'll be the end of china in a hurry.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:24 | 6736287 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

Nuclear is nuclear. Thermobaric (or whatever warhead tech the Chinese DF21 uses) is NOT nuclear.

If the USA decides to "retaliate" for the loss of ONE Carrier (which was lost during an act of provocation) via the "nuclear option", then China may well plan to do the same. Whilst they do not have the number of warheads the US has, they have more than sufficient to completely (and permanently) destroy the "American" way of life, and so stop any war in its tracks (no civilian infrastructure = no capacity to fight).

I work with many Chinese Physicians. All have very well-connected family backgrounds (which is why they are Physicians . . . .), and a lot of those "connections" are military.  Every SINGLE ONE of them will in one way or the other confirm this mindset.

"Let America try to destroy us. We WILL destroy them first". Very much a national hardline mindset, and an attitude that the US intelligentsia would do well to at least consider before starting WW3.

Then there is this .  .  http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/05/22/china-russia-is-a-match-made-in-heaven-and-thats-scary/ 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 04:16 | 6736448 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

They wont be firing shots unless US attack first.

 

Empire and its caravan barks.

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 22:49 | 6736069 Decimus Lunius ...
Decimus Lunius Luvenalis's picture

I hear they have rich oil and natural gas deposits and great fishing to boot.  So, yes.  

Step 1: orchestrate coup against current leadership (the area is uninhabited so this should be easy) then have elections.

Step 2: pledge to protect the democratically elected new leader (it'll be a nation of one which is the person we marooned there).

Step 3: give billions in aid for arms sales and arm this person with multi-billion dollar weapons systems to defend against Chinese agression.

Step 4: send in oil and natural gas companies.  

Step 5: don't know. Another coup?

Sat, 10/31/2015 - 23:01 | 6736086 RMolineaux
RMolineaux's picture

The author, very politely, does not mention that the devastating fire on the USS Forrestal in 1967 was caused by non other than now senator John McCain.  He was being smart-ass, starting up the engine on his plane using a "wet start," in which excess fuel is discharged on the deck prior to ignition. 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:45 | 6736322 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

NO SHIT

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 10:25 | 6736776 pupdog1
pupdog1's picture

The author, very politely, also does not mention that now senator John McCain came in almost dead-last in his Naval Academy class of over 800 graduates.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 12:09 | 6736197 Teh Finn
Teh Finn's picture

The American navy should be used only for American interests.  Every other nation on earth can protect their own damn shipping, shipping lanes, and ports.

And they can't.  Which is the point.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 17:22 | 6737791 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

the irony - US insists everybody else obey the international law of the sea based on the UN Law of the Sea Convention which the US itself has not ratified and most likely won't ever.if Uncle Scam was constrained and respected any laws, otherswould not feel the need of DEFENSIVE bases like the Sratley.

Not like they are going to sail them to the west coast, so by definition theyare defensive assets.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 00:48 | 6736249 damicol
damicol's picture

Has everyone forgotten about Pearl Harbor.

And what caused it in the first place.

The real reason that is and not the fucking lying corrupted fucking bollocks put out in history books.

The blockade of the Japanese Fleet and its shipping routes was done by the US precisely to force Japan into the war.

They knew Japan which was not involved in any way at that time in WWII would be brought to its knees without food and energy imports.

So they blockaded it.

Does anyone seriously think the Chinese do not know that, and will take whatever precautions to prevent the fuck wits like Nuland demanding a blockade of the South China Sea and thus preventing virtually all trade from China.

Does anyone seriously think that fucking full weight cunts like Mccain are not already plotting it. as part of the fucking war they plan to have with China.

Does anyone get it that all the machinations from the cocksuckers in the state dept, whether Russia ME or anywhere else is about encircling China to prevent them overtaking the US as world superpower.

 

 

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:06 | 6736264 dag
dag's picture

The "winner"  in WW III will be the country that can rebuild the fastest.

Remember: Germany and Japan "lost" WW II.

 

Could Russia rebuild faster than the US?

Could China rebuild faster than the US?

Could the US rebuild faster than Russia and China?

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:30 | 6736274 Joe A
Joe A's picture

"but China’s danger to the US imperium lies in increasing economic power and commercial expansion through Asia"

And controlling the sea lanes is part of that. Duh.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 03:37 | 6736416 Chairman
Chairman's picture

I welcome China's build up in the Spratleys for shipping safety, would you prefer Jihadists or Somalians in the Spratleys?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 03:37 | 6736417 Chairman
Chairman's picture

I welcome China's build up in the Spratleys for shipping safety, would you prefer Jihadists or Somalians in the Spratleys?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:36 | 6736306 Grandad Grumps
Grandad Grumps's picture

I am thinking that mothballing all militaries would be a good start at combatting climate change and pollution.

The US people have no quarrel with the Chinese people. The US government has no quarrel with the Chinese government and yet somewhere there is a motivation for apparent conflict. I wonder why. Is it to help the governments control the people?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:49 | 6736324 kappal_toba_dhu...
kappal_toba_dhurr_ne_thook's picture

I have read some lame brain articles on Zero Hedge before but this qualifies ZH for handicapped parking!  

 

OF COURSE USA should fight China about these islands.  China's goal is to control South East Asia.  South East Asia is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing areas of the world, with ample people and RESOURCES.  THAT is China's goal.  If they control South East Asia, they will be one step closer to controlling the rest of the planet.  Their next targets will be deeper into the Pacific and eventually include Hawaii (which they have already made indirect claims to).

 

So YES, the Spratly Islands and all other territory in the Sea of South East Asia (AKA South China Sea) is valuable.  For heaven's sake, learn to think more strategically.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 15:02 | 6737473 goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

Ok sailor, which carrier group will you be sailing with?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 17:23 | 6737793 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

Indira Gandhi Moniker? Congress apologist?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 01:59 | 6736333 biggestbrothero...
biggestbrotherofthemall@yahoo.com's picture

USA USA USA USA USA

 

Should go in an bomb the fck out of these stupid islands while we can.

Wait 10 years before reasserting ourselves? ?

 

A stitch in time saves nine.

 

Bomb the FK out of these islands, the CHinese wont retaliate cos they too vulnerable.

 

Then slap tarrifs on teh fKERS and up trade with vietnam where its cheaper and they

have a healthy respect for our bombers.

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 02:11 | 6736345 TAALR Swift
TAALR Swift's picture

Maybe the US should take on China, India and Pakistan at the same time.

What could go wrong?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 04:19 | 6736451 Jorgen
Jorgen's picture

Here is Pat Buchanan's take on the subject:

Should We Fight for the Spratlys?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 06:20 | 6736516 Why.Not.
Why.Not.'s picture

These islands are a distraction. China is very busy forming significant military and economic ties with every country in SE Asia that will talk to them. By the time the US wakes up, China will have created a passel of vassals. It won't have to do anything crude like invade. It is being invited in by struggling third rate countries who see China as the answer to their woes. Thailand, for example - a long-time US ally in the region - is buying Chinese submarines, high-speed rail systems other goodies and engaging in joint military exercises with China. It already repends on Chinese tourism to grow that important sector of the economy. This activity doesn't make interesting headlines in the West, but it is widespread and effective. In addition, the most openly receptive to Chinese overtures are the militaristic totalitarian states (Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam). But that's a story for another day. Think dominoes, again. 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 07:57 | 6736577 kingvaclav
kingvaclav's picture

Spratleys are far more important to US interests than Zio conflict in the Middle East:

http://winteractionables.com/?p=26594

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 08:20 | 6736597 Getting Old Sucks
Getting Old Sucks's picture

So exactly where will the U.S.A. get all the shit they get from China?

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 09:25 | 6736686 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

The same place we got it Before. We made our own. But we don't even have to do that for there are many countries ready to pick up the chink slack.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 08:32 | 6736612 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

Alfred T. Mahan laid this out in the 19th century with his book The Influence of Sea Power.  The bottom line is whoever controls the oceans controls the world.  http://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Thayer-Mahan

 

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 08:34 | 6736616 OutaTime43
OutaTime43's picture

Hopefully, we're not still listening to those foreign government paid "scholars" at Brookings and AED. Have they registered as foreign agents as required by the FARA act yet?

http://www.fara.gov/

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 09:22 | 6736683 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

The question is does CHINA want to start a war over international waters. The ball is now in Their court.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 17:25 | 6737802 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

US insists everybody else obey the international law of the sea based on the UN Law of the Sea Convention which the US itself has not ratified and most likely won't ever.Get your facts straight hypocrite.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 09:44 | 6736710 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Gunboat diplomacy; fall back to Rule Britannia's legacy; now becoming an option that the US cannot pay for but cannot afford to admit is becoming unaffordable;  as its the end of its unilateralist empire.

When a hard  place meets a rock; or as they said : when Charybdis points to Scylla.

Obama the Potus who reluctantly went a bridge too far.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 09:48 | 6736716 silverer
silverer's picture

As has been said, quantity has a quality all its own.  Firing 50 dummies at a time accompanied by three live ones for however long it takes will do the job.  Sooner or later, one or more will get through.  That's just how it is.  The US planners anything but brilliant.  Their strategy for everything is enriching crony friends while neglecting to focus on how to make stuff really work.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 10:42 | 6736770 PrimalScream
PrimalScream's picture

ZH - let's repeat the matra.  Because it is true.

India does not own the Indian Ocean.  Mexico does not own the Gulf of Mexico.  And China does not own the South China Sea - that'a for darn sure.  Those are all international waters, with important lanes for ocean trade.

 Free access is guaranteed to everybody.

The people who should be guaranteeing this access are the UN, because this is really a global issue. But the UN can't even see straight enough to p*ss in its own pants.  You cannot allow countries to start building artificial islands and man made reefs - and then let them argue that is natural land.  Pretty soon every country will install barges with gravel, and claim vast pieces of the ocean floor.  That is ridiculous.

The USA has options - but it needs to get its act in gear and get the FULL mariime support of countries like Japan, Philippines and Vietnam.  A multi-national flotilla is a political force that China cannot easily ignore.  And if countries like Japan, Philippines and Vietnam are not willing to do this ... then they deserve to lose the sea lane access anyway.  But the Asian partners must act TOGETHER!

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 10:58 | 6736861 dxj
dxj's picture

Despite the usual propaganda from the U.S. (and every other sovereign) I think in this case, it truly is a case of "freedom of navigation". It's not about protecting America from attack, it's about protecting a world order in which the sea lanes of commerce are kept open and ensured to remain so by the U.S. Navy (as long as everyone plays nice nice). Every ship in the world moves under the eyes of U.S. satellites in space and its movement is guaranteed - or denied - at the will of the U.S. Navy. China's little military base popping up in the middle of a major trading lane is a provocative challenge to that world order. Thus again, the U.S. plays world cop.

We can debate about whether or not the U.S. is using it's super-power status badly, meddling too much in too many things, is becoming less benevolent and more of a super-menace or not, whether or not regional powers sharing the duties of keeping order would be better or not ... but debating whether the Navy is invulnerable is pretty meaningless; it misses the broad strokes altogether. Everything devolves to the old mercantilism model once sovereigns take control of commerce lanes and denies access to them. This puts us back to the era prior to the world wars in which regional powers controlled sea lanes for their exclusive economic purposes and expansion of power.

 

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 17:26 | 6737805 Max Steel
Max Steel's picture

Lol nope dsj you know nothing perhaps US insists everybody else obey the international law of the sea based on the UN Law of the Sea Convention which the US itself has not ratified and most likely won't ever.

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 13:00 | 6737192 giggler321
giggler321's picture

exceptionalism never ceases to amaze me

Sun, 11/01/2015 - 14:44 | 6737437 Caleb Abell
Caleb Abell's picture

The article includes a nice photo collection of all the US ships that have been attacked by America's true enemies.

But for some reason, it accidentally omitted any pictures of the USS Liberty, and the bodies of its murdered seaman, floating in the water.  A mere oversight, I'm sure.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!