Home » Air » Air-Sea Battle and Our Buildup in the Pacific

Air-Sea Battle and Our Buildup in the Pacific

by John Reed on June 4, 2012

It’s begun. A couple of years ago we began hearing quiet discussions on how, as part of the Air-Sea Battle concept, the United States might look to disperse its air forces (lowercase af, not USAF) stationed at its handful of major bases in the western Pacific in the event of a major conflict with China. Doing so would make it more difficult for China to wipe out entire squadrons sitting on the ground with surprise attacks from its long range ballistic missiles (think the DF-21D carrier killers but designed to hit ground targets instead of ships).

A key component of this plan is the refurbishment of long-abandoned World War II airfields scattered across the Pacific. These fields would serve as pretty bare bones facilities that American aircraft could disperse to if a conflict seemed imminent (similar to the way Strategic Air Command’s Cold War dispersal base concept worked).

It looks like the Marine Corps has begun practicing how to put such a plan into action. Last month, Marines refurbished the 8,000-foot “Baker” runway at the abandoned — and historic — North Field air base on the island of Tinian, and installed aircraft carrier-like arresting gear on the runway of the island’s lightly-used West Field. Naturally, this was followed up by Marine Corps F/A-18D Hornets from nearby Guam performing arrested landings on West Field, as shown in the picture above.

The exercise, called Geiger Fury ’12, was designed to put the theory of operating from bare bones Pacific bases into practice.  Or, as one of the official Marine Corps press release on the events says, “the purpose of Exercise Geiger Fury is to execute and assess combined expeditionary operations in the Pacific.” You’re welcome for the translation.

Keep in mind that North Field at Tinian — with its four parallel runways, Able, Baker, Charlie and Dog — was one of the most important U.S. airfields in the Pacific during World War II. It’s the base where the B-29s Enola Gay and Bocks Car took off from to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, effectively ending the war.

Click through the jump to watch videos of F/A-18s landing at night on West Field and the Marines rebuilding parts of North Field and setting up a Forward Operating Base.

Share |

{ 115 comments… read them below or add one }

Mastro June 4, 2012 at 12:33 pm

Good idea- will never work- the brass likes mega-bases-resorts with nice golf courses.

Even if they refurbished some of the old bases- the planes- and all those officers and support staff- would stay at the mega bases.

The Cactus air force was a long time ago-

Reply

Guest A June 4, 2012 at 2:45 pm

Hmmm, you must be thinking of a particular branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. The ones in the branch conducting this exercise, however, usually don't have the luxury of being anywhere near "mega bases", whatever those are…

Reply

Mastro June 4, 2012 at 4:02 pm

If Pendleton ain't a Megabase- I don't know what is-

Reply

blight_ June 4, 2012 at 5:41 pm

Pendleton is a megabase due to its training purpose and the co-mingling of preservation lands and the reduced pressure of civilian sprawl due to the presence of nearby San Onofre.

That said, it's not like Edwards AFB, Nellis, China Lake and Fort Hood don't occupy large tracts of land. That said, megabases tend to earn their pejoratives when built overseas…but overseas you get stuff like the Edelweiss resort in Switzerland.

Reply

TrustButVerify June 6, 2012 at 6:49 am

Edelweiss is in Germany, not Switzerland. The Swiss aren't known for their eagerness to host US/NATO bases.
Mind you, if it can't support itself as a NAF facility it really needs to be closed.

Guest A June 6, 2012 at 3:07 pm

I'm not sure I'd call any Marine base a resort though, at least when compared to the other services pieces of real-estate.

Reply

Vaporhead June 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm

I'm sure the Chinese are THRILLED!!!!! I'm sure the Chinese already planned for something like this, and installed hidden viruses in all the knock off military hardware they have sold us. One press of a key will effectively halt our advances.

Reply

andronicus4 June 5, 2012 at 6:02 am

I can just imagine some American Raptor pilot falling out of the sky with flashbacks of a Chinese saleseman.

Reply

Vaporhead June 5, 2012 at 11:24 am

Dang, what's with all the negative ratings? Bunch of tight a$$es.

Reply

Boldar June 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm

Roger that, watch chapter one of Foxtrot Sierra for the results – coming to a theater near you. Such an event happens when a dysfunctional Congress raises tax levels so high, defense contractors have to go outside the country to make our hardware – what a nightmare. We could put a lot of people to work if the idiots in the capital pulled their collective heads out of their butts.

Reply

Charles June 4, 2012 at 12:52 pm

It's a start, but simply dispersing to refurbished runways also makes our logistics problem that much more difficult. Unless the necessary stocks of munitions and fuel are also prepositioned at those austere fields and stored in a survivable mode, we haven't really made the Chinese task that much more difficult. After all, the GPS position of any and all airfields is precisely known, and the Chinese can retarget their hundreds of long-range missiles in hours. Either we harden airfields as well as disperse, or we keep moving in a shell game to introduce uncertainty into Chinese targeting. Roving carrier battle groups can play this game with considerable success, but land-based air will always be vulnerable to an enemy with long-range weapons unless those weapons are taken out early on……..

Reply

brad July 18, 2012 at 11:33 am

excellent review Charles

Reply

Raraavis June 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm

In what scenario is China firing Ballistic Missiles at US bases that doesn't go Nuclear.

We are still going to have the capacity to penetrate and destroy targets inside mainland China even if it is only with sub-launched cruise missiles and our handful of B2's. We can sink their Navy if the deploy it any distance from the shore. Both sides will be destroying each others Satellites. If they launch a Ballistic missile at Japan, or Hawaii, or Guam, or the mainland of the US how severe will our response be? Are the Chinese going to let the US bomb targets in Beijing with Stealth Bombers without a Nuclear response?

Let's borrow another 16 trillion and spend it on defense preparation for a suicidal war that will never happen.

Reply

ltfunk June 4, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Its the dream where we arent humiliated by Afghan farmers over and over.

The Pacific pivot is all about getting out of the middle east, nobody in Asia seriously thinks the US can challenge the Chinese economic onslaught.

Reply

Josh June 4, 2012 at 10:20 pm

Yes because our men and women overseas are just humiliated by the defeated al queda network and the beaten down taliban. I hate People like you who seem to expect some conventional victory out of such a difficult task. We sure as **** are doing a lot better than the soviets did.

Reply

ltfunk June 5, 2012 at 2:46 pm

We need to get back to having a professional military. This whole make work camp for Americas incompetents and losers is ridiculous and unsustainable.

Reminds me of the young homeless vetern sign a saw recently – "afghanistan and iraq vet, will capitulate for food"

Reply

Josh June 4, 2012 at 10:20 pm

Yes because our men and women overseas are just humiliated by the defeated al queda network and the beaten down taliban. People like you who seem to expect some conventional victory out of such a difficult task. We sure as heck are doing a lot better than the soviets did.

Reply

Nicky June 4, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Why not, it would be a good idea to have these dispersed bases back up and running again. Have those old World War 2 bases that we have brought back up and kept in austere condition with capability to full operation within 24 hours. We can reuse Midway Island, Tinian island and wake island. If the US Navy, or Marines are not using them, then the US Coast Guard can use them as forward operating bases for their cutters and patrol boats.

Reply

Devil Dog IV June 5, 2012 at 8:56 am

Might want to take another look at Wake. It's not that large.

Reply

Nicky June 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Wake island can be used as a staging port for Coast Guard Cutters, Patrol boats or even the so called LCS.

Reply

blight_ June 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Would be strange to stage a Littoral Combat Ship out of a blue water port, then send it the rest of the way across the pacific to fight green and brown water.

Reply

Nicky June 5, 2012 at 6:47 pm

Wake island, Midway Island and Tinian Island can staging bases or dispersal bases for the US Military. Even the US Coast Guard can use them as forward operating bases or staging bases for their patrol boats, cutters. Even the NSC and LCS can call those islands FOB's or staging bases. If I were the US Military, I would reuse Wake island, Midway Island and Tinian Island as dispersal and staging bases that will kept up in austere conditions with capability of being upgraded to full use in 72 hours, if need be.

blight_ June 5, 2012 at 10:05 am

Generally, we'll only be reusing bomber bases that were long enough to deploy B-29's.

Unless we improvise some sort of ground-mounted catapult; and elect to only deploy catapult ready craft, like the Hornets and JSF-C…which would make some Pacific islands a Navy/Marines gig, not an Air Force one.

Reply

orly? June 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm

"which would make some Pacific islands a Navy/Marines gig, not an Air Force one." -blight_

Some say you speak heresy and say they are not needed.

Reply

blight_ June 5, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Well, the other alternative is turning them into drone runways. Drones are lighter-perhaps they need less runway to take off?

And while the Navy has ground-mounted catapults for testing, I don't know if they would attempt to use then en masse in Pacific island bases. Tern Island could be a useful forward base outside of Pearl…

Reply

Guest A June 5, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Dude, this comments section is longer that Wake Island right now…

Reply

Guest A June 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm

*than*

Reply

DGR June 4, 2012 at 1:20 pm

Remember that this isnt only about China. Action is heating up all across the Pacific rim. China is just hot on the news so its gets the credit for the policy shift.

Reply

billw917 June 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm

The word is dispersal, not disbursal.

Reply

Terry June 7, 2012 at 12:25 am

…a sigh of relief is heard from the bursar's office….

Reply

Charles June 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm

Anyone who saw or served at a full-up NATO airbase knows what a huge infrastructure investment is required to sufficiently harden a base so that it can "survive to operate" in the face of a massive missile attack like the Warsaw Pact intended to open hostilities with. It's not just serviceable runways and taxiways, it's hardened and dispersed aircraft shelters, hardened command, crew and technician bunkers, buried and dispersed fuel, supplies and comms, robust terminal air defense, air base recovery resources, secure LOCs for resupply, etc, etc, etc. And even if we do all that, the airbase has to be located within range of the enemy to be worth the investment. In the Pacific, land-based fighters would have to be based almost on China's doorstep if we intended to strike targets inside China instead of merely defending a distant perimeter. It's a tough problem…..

Reply

blight_ June 4, 2012 at 5:43 pm

You begin to see the appeal of more SSGN's when you realize the firepower you can drop on an enemy versus the investment in infrastructure and manpower with missiles is better than the one with airpower. Stealth helps, but the range issue is deathly important when we're talking about long range strategic campaigns in the Pacific Ocean.

Reply

Black Owl June 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm

The Navy and Marines are smart about this. The historical irony here is rich. US Marines and US Navy pilots operating off of pacific islands facing off against a powerful empire of Asian origin. As a history major I can only ask, "Why is mankind unable to stop history from repeating itself?" I sincerely hope we never go to war with China. The cost on both sides would be extremely high.

Reply

Andrew June 4, 2012 at 4:39 pm

That is not irony.

Reply

Black Owl June 4, 2012 at 5:45 pm

You don't find it ironic that the bases we left for scrap start becoming important again for the same reasons against one of the nations that was an ally to us during WWII?

Reply

blight_ June 4, 2012 at 5:32 pm

War. War never changes.

Reply

ltfunk June 4, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Our military has become much like hollywood – Epic battles on a grand scale with numerous nostalgic references where our hero fights outnumbered and wins with a riddiculous strategy all lead by massive PR – but when to take a look it's just a bunch of actors playing to a green screen and looking rather silly.

Reply

STemplar June 5, 2012 at 2:22 am

I bet milk curdles when you walk into the room. You're the troll trolls talk about.

Reply

Lance June 4, 2012 at 4:01 pm

Good idea I hope we can get back Iwo Jima for a airbase since it doesn't have a civilian population to anger. Bases in the Philippines and Singapore will be great too.

Reply

Nadnerbus June 5, 2012 at 1:25 am

Have to ask the Japanese though, it belongs to them now. We've giving up most of our facilities there if I am not mistaken.

Reply

blight_ June 5, 2012 at 10:14 am

We could simply trade an air base in Japan for Iwo Jima. I believe the civilian government would agree, if only to get American servicemen out of their hair, and out of sight, out of mind.

Reply

Billy June 4, 2012 at 4:12 pm

How about we just don’t go to war or just nuke the F*** out of each other so we don’t have to deal with each other anymore.

Reply

Technoweapon June 4, 2012 at 4:32 pm

Not a bad idea. Kind of like stationary carriers. The US is pretty good about operating off of islands, too. Diego Garcia would make a fine example.

Always good to have multiple back up plans and have the ability to adapt. At least if the impossible happens and we lose a carrier our aircraft will have a secondary location to fall back on.

Reply

blight_ June 4, 2012 at 5:35 pm

Depends. Will they be within range of said aircraft? And if they're close enough for aircraft presumably without fully topped off tanks, who's to say that the enemy that destroyed your carrier cannot follow up against your airstrip?

Reply

ABC123 June 4, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Better safe than sorry just hope we never get in a conflict with china

Reply

Steve B June 4, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Great idea with some serious logistical complications. There are 7 or so airfields and/or potential airfields (including former WWII strips) scattered across the Mariana's, including 4 on Guam, 1 on Rota, 2 on Tinian and 1 on Saipan. They are all 1800 miles, one-way from the Straits of Taiwan and 3600+ from Hawaii. While all of these fields have potential for operations of fighters, bombers, tankers and intelligence aircaft, they are still pretty far from the most likely combat zones, namely Taiwan and/or any support we decide to offer The Philippines or Vietnam. So tanker support is going to be a huge issue in any operations and with all these facilities vulnerable to missile attack, I'm not seeing the value. 3-4 carriers, with associated anti-sub and anti-ballistic missile defense, stuff we already have an investment in, is a better tactical solution.

Reply

blight_ June 5, 2012 at 10:26 am

Yup. Those islands were picked for a war against Japan with strategic bombers. Fighters don't have the legs for offense.

Reply

Jim37F June 5, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Apples and Oranges. Those islands were on the front lines of WWII and were occupied by the Japanese Empire so when we took them, they were still in range of the enemy.

On the other hand, if war were to break out with China, well they're a lot further away than the Japanese were.

Reply

tiger June 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm

Still a nice place to have a tanker & more important P8 ASW planes. Subs should be our worry, not Chinese airpower.

Reply

Mastro June 8, 2012 at 9:49 am

Agreed- although stashing some F18's there might not be a terrible idea- its still a lot closer than Hawaii.

Would they still need tankers ? Sure- but this might be a good place to base a few.

Mastro June 8, 2012 at 9:53 am

"I'm not seeing the value. 3-4 carriers, with associated anti-sub and anti-ballistic missile defense, stuff we already have an investment in, is a better tactical solution."

Better recheck your math- 4 carriers with support is costing billions and billions of dollars-

Paving a field in Tinian and building a few hangers- worst case maybe a $ billion-

Operating costs are a lot lower as well.

Plus- you can't sink it.

Reply

blight_ June 8, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Don't need to sink it: If you can submunition the hell out of a runway, it isn't usable. Or a cruise missile with Durandal capability if you can't get aircraft to drop a bomb on the runway?

Reply

Kooch June 4, 2012 at 6:45 pm

I'm still baffled at how ICBMs can be used as a sucker punch weapon without the nation thats being attacked assuming they are nukes and countering likewise. A quick phone call saying "hey we're at war but they aren't nukes so don't respond with nukes?"

Reply

TrustButVerify June 6, 2012 at 7:04 am

I would say that you have a valid point so long as we're talking about a salvo which looks like a counter-force strike. If they're just landing within the Pacific AOR, for instance, the US nuclear forces are available for immediate response; it's not a question of "use the nukes or lose them." If Guam sprouts mushroom clouds, the US can still nuke back. Maybe that's enough deterrent in and of itself. (Maybe.)

Reply

Mastro June 8, 2012 at 9:29 am

I think if an ICBM is launched at Guam- the pres will wait and see- not go all War Games over losing potentially losing Hagatna (yes- I looked THAT up)

But- ICBM's at the continental US better have nukes- you'd be really dumb (or a bit too clever) to launch TNT missiles at DC.

Reply

tiger June 6, 2012 at 3:28 pm

The USAF had the same idea to use ICBM's with Conventional warheads not long ago.

Reply

blight_ June 8, 2012 at 12:02 pm

Which got shot down, one because Russian DSP-style programs might assume they were nuclear, and two because Americans are evil. However, DF-21 is perfectly okay…or at least people know that the PRC is deaf to complaints of a nuclear nature. Or people don't know the PRC has a nuclear weapons program?

Reply

Open Mike June 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm

The status quo in the Pacific and Indian Oceans has changed, so must our planning. Dispersed basing options due to increased over-the-horizon threats makes sense for our own force protection or projection capabilities. Depending on the degree nations in the area were to see the PRC as a possible threat they would perceive degrees of need to offset the balance of power. The benefit to US effort, from potential combinations of support with a triangle of larger nations such as India-Australia-Japan, is enormous. Additional strategic development with Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea, and nations north of Iran would frame a network that significantly lifts the vulnerability to major US surface assets in the PRC area denial range fan. Japan may have to review its constitution, as did Germany following WWII, to assume more responsibility for defense beyond its islands to double or more the existing range limitation to employ forces. The US should consider its own interests but must do with friends we have long helped but who now are able to contribute much more to their own defense.

Reply

Jeff Ferguson June 4, 2012 at 10:55 pm

More than one person above has asked the salient question: if China launched a major attack on US Forces…why would we not respond with a nuclear salvo? I am prepared to go one better. Why not establish, as a clear US National Policy, that such an major attack by China (or any other nation) on US military assets would provoke an immediate nuclear response. This IS Strategic Deterrence. Yes, during the Cold War there was a sub collision here, another incident there…. but no primary assault on US assets in Europe or Asia. Why? Nuclear Deterrence. This is distasteful for many, but it worked for four decades. Tense yes, crazy yes… worked for four decades and kept Europe, the US, and Russia out of major war… yes. If a single US aircraft carrier were to be his by a Chinese ICBM… letting them know now, in advance, unequivocally, that the response would be a strategic launch of US Mintueman III's, would chill that out pretty quickly.

These dispersal bases must be for brushfire wars in SE Asia… not a major regional attack by China.

Reply

LanceKant June 5, 2012 at 12:51 am

Remember that China has a higher chance of attacking American allies rather than US forces directly. Dispersal bases allow for quick response and assistance to our allies.

Also, nuclear deterrence is already in place on both sides. China has a good number of nukes and even though the US has around ten times more ICBMs than the PRC, it's enough to deter any nuclear attack from both sides.

You're stating that if, say, the USSR hypothetically hit a carrier with an non-nuclear ICBM in the Cold War, the best response would be to hit back on civilian populations with a nuclear ICBM and hope they don't hit our civilian centers in kind? That kinda undermines the whole purpose of strategic deterrence.

Reply

orly? June 5, 2012 at 8:59 am

Exactly.

Once someone breaks MAD, we all go MAD.

Reply

tiger June 6, 2012 at 3:33 pm

Hell we have not even responded to North Korean atttacks with more than angry letters. Sinking a ship & killing sailors was more than enough to start the Spanish American war. Sorry, but I have my doubts about the Potus giving a repsonse.

Reply

Guest June 7, 2012 at 8:43 pm

I think that Tripwire Strategy went out in the sixties.

Reply

jamesb June 4, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Flexxing

Reply

Rob June 4, 2012 at 11:36 pm

I am all for the buildup. Russia and China are preparing for a war scenario with us and have been for years. Both countries persist on being our adversary instead of our allie.

It's so complex to really simulate an Asian Pacific battle because so much depends on who helps who. If Russia and Japan stay out. If India is drawn to take sides. Will Taiwan defend knowing Chinese nukes can wipe out the island. So many variables… Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia.. Iran…. Isreal.

Then NATO, which is based on an attack on one is an attack on all… so pretty much any scenario I figure would just bring on a WWIII and mutually assured destruction & severe environmental impacts…With only poor isolated countries left to deal with the mess of it.

Reply

LanceKant June 5, 2012 at 12:55 am

Too much Clancy reading boy.

Note: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines are automatic US allies in the case of direct Chinese aggression. Russia may look like they're cuddling up with China, but they're just as suspicious of each other.

Reply

Rob June 5, 2012 at 1:18 am

Nah, I have known many Chinese thanks to gaming & they have said in past 10 years something has changed & their military is just constantly preparing for a possible battle with USA. Russia will back them in any conflict as before. They do not prepare to war us. They expect either Koreas or an escalated dispute in the south seas to force them into conflict with us.

Much has to do with deep hate between China and Japan leftover from WWII and the fact that Taiwan and the south Asian countries have enclosed their sea resources

Remember, NK started war in 1950. and China helped them against us until the end. Same would be if started today.

Reply

LanceKant June 6, 2012 at 9:20 am

Dude, Chinese gamers are not the most informed when it comes to the country's long term plans.

China will not help North Korea in a present day war. In the case of a war that North Korea cannot win (basically any case), they'd likely invade North Korea itself to take what they can rather than let us take the whole thing.

Reply

Antonius Bauwens June 5, 2012 at 7:48 am

We need bases in Africa to help some countries like other countries we had our share of mineralsgold,daimonds,all sorts of "ore" everything now its most gone we just leave them in oil wasted blubber to clean up them selfs.

Reply

orly? June 5, 2012 at 8:55 am

Gee, this sounds oddly familiar.

Mass CRUISE missile attacks stockpiled from their giant bunkers targetting STATIONARY, VULNERABLE TARGETS. All LAND bases, potentially making ALL US forces in the region (and potentially Taiwan) impotent after the initial attack unless we have extensive AA and CAP.

Would a mobile NAVAL presence be a wonderful idea?

Where's majr0d? I think I've mentioned this before, I want to check with him.

Reply

Big-Rick June 5, 2012 at 4:47 pm

your right orly, we'd have to put several Aegis ships around each base for protection

there's no land AA system in the inventory that would work

Reply

majr0d June 6, 2012 at 1:47 am

Big-Rick, You might want to google the 49th Missile Defense Battalion (Ground-Based Missile Defense) at Fort Greely, Alaska. They've got 30 interceptors as of last year. BTW have you heard of Patriot or THAAD?

Reply

orly? June 15, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Everytime I hear about ships vs. ASM's, I keep hearing the word "saturation."

Requesting:

1. PAC-3 success rate against cruise missiles

2. PAC-3 deployment time from last NK missile launch

3. The amount of launchers needed to properly defend against thousands of cruise missiles

The advantage goes to the attacker, right?

Reply

majr0d June 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Doubt you are going to get classified performance data anywhere unless you're in Chinese intel. Do you have the success rate of Aegis against cruise missiles?

PAC-3s are in Korea and deploying more would take less time than steaming there.

Who has thousands of cruise missiles?

No force by itself is the solution which is the fallacy of ASB.

majr0d June 6, 2012 at 1:22 am

Sounds like you are talking about the Marines. Cool. When do they land and sieze Hong Kong?

Oh and Happy D-Day anniversary :)

Reply

orly? June 15, 2012 at 1:12 pm

Not much reasoning in landing in HK.

Should such a war do occur though, HK would be interesting.

HK really isn't "China" and much of the populace identifies with that. Combine that with a bunch of ex-pats residing there, and it becomes a party.

Reply

duuude June 5, 2012 at 9:29 am

If USA fights China, the only winners will be India, Russia and Japan.

They will laugh long, and they will laugh hard if Chimerica is stupid enough to commit suicide.

Reply

blight_ June 5, 2012 at 10:29 am

We would also need seabasing in quiet lagoons, just as the navy did in Uluthi and other atolls in WW2. Nobody talks about them, but they were pivotal for warfighting for other reasons. That said, we're still stymied by the need for standoff range with fighter aircraft unable to meet it.

Reply

WarPony June 5, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Problem is, China already has the US surrounded: port in Long Beach (thanks Klinkton), dock in NY, deep water port in Bahamas, Panama Canal and bases at either end & widening project underway, airfields in S .America, ports in Mexico. ( I kow – allegedly "private shipping co.s" – HA).
Klinkton's watch and high-tech missile lathes get shipped, fake fire and two hard drives disappear from Los Alamos. Outsourced our chips and strategic minerals requirements to the commies. Enemy within, enemy out.
That's what happens when the political process is broken and foreign countries can buy our commander in chef.

Reply

WarPony June 5, 2012 at 2:51 pm

Forgot to mention those mysterious missile launches within US waters (Cali and Gulf of Mexico) about the time we started pressuring them into currency "fair-trade."

Reply

ltfunk June 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Since we are Americans when we have lemons we kid ourselves that the future is in lemonade franchises.

If we were really back in the pacific we would be building up major bases across the region. But the reality is that the pacific isnt that keen to see us back. We cant get bases anywhere strategic, and we havent got the cash for a build up. While our "allies" talk openly about containing the American threat to thier economic expansion.

So we pretend we will "dominate" from far flung bases that we cant afford to properly equip with teh short range junk we buy for Lockmart.

The reality is that we could just move everybody back to the CONUS and pretend we had a "pacific strategy". It would be about as effective and cost alot less.

Reply

WarPony June 5, 2012 at 4:10 pm

DeanMJackson wrote: (on Reuters – us-russia-china-east, etc.)
In fact, the Sino/Soviet split was a strategic ruse as revealed by KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, and the ’69 border skirmishes manufactured to encourage the blief that World Communism was fractured.
Golitsyn’s incredible predictive capability also saw a reunited Russia and China forming a single clenched fist against America. In fact, between 1965-1973, China assisted Vietnam with at least 500,000 PLA troops during the Vietnam War, which the media kept quite, proving that the Sino/Soviet split was a ruse.
Now you know why Russia’s foreign policy mirrors China’s and why, inexplicably, Russia would be worried about NATO’s missile shield.
With the Communist Red Star still being placed on new Russian Naval vessels and military aircraft, and USSR electorates of the 15 republics that made up the USSR inexplicably electing Soviet era Communist Party members for national leaders (including every President of Russia since the fake collapse of the USSR in 1991), the Communists are still in power in the not-so-former USSR.

Reply

WarPony June 5, 2012 at 4:11 pm

So, you see, as they practice war games together, the "news" put of the "City of London" . . .(AP/Reuters) is hogwash.

Reply

Dean M. Jackson August 19, 2012 at 1:32 am

WarPony, I was running a Google search for Russian naval ships (I wanted a picture of the Communist Red Star on the bow of a Russian naval vessel) and I found your quote of me from 10 weeks ago! It's nice to be quoted, especially on such an important subject.

As for Golitsyn, KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn is still under Federal protective custody, proving (1) that the collapse of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) that all Soviet-era defectors that followed Golitsyn were double agents.

One can read Golitsyn's first book, "New Lies for Old", at Internet Archive.

Reply

AJM June 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm

7011 Expeditionary Air Field tailhookers!

Reply

Aaron Evans June 5, 2012 at 11:53 pm

could we just lunch tomohwaks from our subs and destroy there missil bases

Reply

Tribulationtime June 6, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Many Many Many years ago, One man crowded of weird ideas, post something to "shortened" runaways instead to stay fighting to build VSTOL planes (as F35B). How wise man, How forerunner. How usual banned.

Reply

tiger June 6, 2012 at 3:35 pm

Overall I think Cyber war is more of a threat than missile & bullets. A jet or CVN can not stop a Cyber attack/

Reply

Johnny Ranger June 6, 2012 at 10:42 pm

You people have AWFUL spelling and grammar skills ;-)

Reply

Emory Salberg Sr June 9, 2012 at 6:30 pm

I work with the Chinese on a daily basis at work. They may be large, but that are terribly uncoordinated. They may have the hardware, but never the coordniation to have coordinated military strikes. One of my friends in China told me they didnt even have enough bullets for everybody to train with in basic training live fire, so some of them just faked it and simulated firing rounds. Lol. Now, that being said, I think the Chinese are gullable enough to think they could win and could start something, however the threat to US (USA) from China is not their military, but when they call in their loans and we can't pay. That sceniao is much more likely. If that happened, our economy would collapse, we would need to call back the military, leaving all of SE Asia unprotected for China to move in. At that time, our issues would not be with fighting China, but rather fighting each other for food and fuel in our bankrupt homeland.

Reply

ed alfonso June 16, 2012 at 1:09 am

We are doing the right move by preparing the airfileds in Tinian…. its a US territory so no need to worry about sovereignty… I've landed in Wake Island on the way to former Clark AB several times in early '70's and its also a great place strategically. It may cost big bucks to upgrade these places to accommodate todays military, but so is paying huge rental fees to another country.

Reply

guest June 4, 2012 at 1:43 pm

SEATO perhaps?

Reply

EJ257 June 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm

“countries around China should make some kind of Asian NATO”

You mean like SEATO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization

Reply

Nenad June 4, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Well SEATO didn't function properly, so something all new and functional. Alliance that would actually react, say when China sent ships around some disputed islands, all members would sent few ships each, planes and some kind of economical sanctions. That would be far more effective than just military force. And adding some US forces would be a winning combination.

Reply

blight_ June 4, 2012 at 5:39 pm

SEATO has its problems, namely that it's easier for land-locked continental countries to cross train and base tanks, planes and troops in West Germany facing east than for disparate, scattered, often much lower population countries across the Pacific Rim to focus on hotspots as they arise. The lack of imminent threat up until now certainly helps.

For the European nations, the Warsaw Pact could roll shock divisions across Fulda before breakfast. For SEATO, the threat is an anemic PLAAN or Soviet Navy…unless you're South Korea. In which case, South Korea is digging in to defend itself, not to bail out others.

Reply

orly? June 5, 2012 at 9:03 am

No kidding, a few ships?

I am curious on what would happen with the absence of US forces?

Reply

Roib June 5, 2012 at 1:31 am

Eastern tactic against the United States will simply be this…

Push come to shove they will wait until our President and Vice are in DC, along with much of our congress and simply launc nukes from subs all over DC and Florida.

Why florida? To show us, and the world they can hit our farpoint from Asia. The suprise attack would take out our commanders in chief, house and senate. My vision of it tells me it leaves us paralyzed as our military will not be able to pinpoint if it was China or Russia that initiated the attack. Thus unable to take action back.

You can call me crazy but I saw in a dream and I had dreams about 9/11, years before it happened. Noone believed me then either.

Reply

blight_ June 5, 2012 at 10:13 am

I don't think the PRC will cry so much over Hong Kong as they would other cities. Blasting Fujian and Guangzhou and letting the ROC move across would probably worry them more. Unless the ROC and the PRC decide to reconcile, which complicates things.

Reply

orly? June 5, 2012 at 8:57 am

Also if they attack conventionally, and use several thousand cruise missiles instead, we would have to do the same.

We would have to honor MAD correct?

Reply

TrustButVerify June 6, 2012 at 7:22 am

To restate a point I made a few threads ago, if someone fires a ballistic missile at US assets in the Pacific, we can sit back and wait to see what the payload was before we start sending EAMs. "Launch on warning" makes sense (to me) in a counterforce scenario and not in a theatre scenario, but I'm not a policy maker.

Reply

orly? June 5, 2012 at 9:05 am

Correct.

Worst case, South Korea will be shelled/contained/pinned down.

It'll be like Bataan with a longer siege/artillery fire.

Reply

ltfunk June 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Yea thats one of my favorites too, and they we see Clinton every six months on her knees in China begging that they please dont stop buying treasuries, please please just give us another six months, and it all sort of evaporates.

Reply

Big-Rick June 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm

are your serious Roib about the 9/11 thing or are you joking us?

at to your other scenario, a strike taking out DC wouldn't paralyze the military simple because the major commands would still be in place scattered around the world

Reply

Aaron Evans June 6, 2012 at 12:02 am

we still have the cog planes were they would transfer power to a groupe of people in the event that congress and the execitive branches are gone. they have bunkers hidned around washington were this group will go to.

Reply

tiger June 6, 2012 at 3:22 pm

Let's throw in the Aeutians in the mix as Well. Lot's Little bits of America guarding the entrance to the Arctic Sea. In flying range of North Korea, The Russian Pacific fleet and China if need be.

Reply

Guest A June 7, 2012 at 11:01 am

True that, but if by oceanfront property you mean swamp and marsh land then yes, the Corps has corned the market there lol!

Reply

blight_ June 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm

Okinawa is so inhospitable.

Reply

Guest A June 7, 2012 at 3:27 pm

I can't really speak of that place from a lot of personal experience, I was only there for a day and a half. The stories I've heard from Marines that spent time there were usually not that encouraging for me to want to go. I guess you could call the whole island a "mega-base" if you want with all of the bases and camps there.

Reply

UAVgeek June 12, 2012 at 2:32 pm

They don't like it there because they are rightfully treated as an army of occupation. Rape, and alcohol-related incidents against the local populace are common despite the propaganda the Corps would have you believe.

Reply

orly? June 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm

1. Meant PAC-3 in Japan for the majority of US forces, SK can easily be sieged if Japan gets neutralized.

2. "Who has thousands of cruise missiles?" Google: chinese missile tunnel Georgetown.

Ancient or not, a siege works pretty well.

Reply

majr0d June 19, 2012 at 5:31 pm

Japan has PAC 3 also.

Chinese missile tunnel? Yeah, so what? The story has nothing to do with the number of cruise missiles the Chinese have. (It's about the ability to hidie their nuke missiles)

What's your point or do you just pull random non-related buzz words together to try and sound intelligent?

Reply

orly? June 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm

1. Last I heard, it takes time to deploy properly, a reason why they seem to put it on the news when Japan plans to deploy them.
2. You really think its all nukes or cruise missiles?
3. Which would you rather have the tunnels full of?

Reply

majr0d June 19, 2012 at 5:48 pm

You know that Japan has it's own Patriot batteries right? It becomes news when WE deploy because the Norks are acting up.

Anyone ever tell you that tunnels let you move from point A to B unseen? Might be good for a nuke retaliation capability?

What evidence do you have that these miles of tunnels are full of cruise missiles? Do we have a stockpile in the NYC subway or the tunnels at NORAD?

Again, "what's your point or do you just pull random non-related buzz words together to try and sound intelligent?"

Reply

orly? June 19, 2012 at 6:01 pm

1. From the headlines I tend to see, its JAPANESE officials saying THEY will deploy PAC-3. I DOUBT they are deployed indefinitely.

2. As I said once before, we keep thinking OPTIMALS. Anticipate WORST CASE.

3. Read one or two articles from that google search I've asked you to look at.

If you think studying the Chinese Second Artillery Corps, satellite photos, and internet traffic for 3 yrs isn't enough, I don't know what is.

Reply

majr0d June 19, 2012 at 6:30 pm

What headlines? Never have seen the Japanese say they would deploy troops to S. Korea. Not going to happen. They still remember WWII. You're making stuiff up.

You reference the articles. Not going to waste my time doing your homework. There's zero evidence that the Chinese have THOUSANDS of cruise missiles.

You're whole case relies on complete speculation. Sounds like we never landed on the moon.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: