US Navy considering escort missions for the Philippines against China

[Jwheel86]

reuters.com

WWW.REUTERS.COM

 

Quote

U.S. ships could escort Philippine vessels on resupply missions in the South China Sea, a top admiral said on Tuesday, describing what he called an "an entirely reasonable option" that required consultation between the treaty allies, however.

The remarks, which are likely to annoy China, were made by Samuel Paparo, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, after a series of maritime and air confrontations between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea in the past week.

 

 

[Dodger]

Escort missions can be the worst, hope the AI is good because if not your escort just runs off to the enemy and gets themselves killed and you gotta start over. 

[CayceG]

26 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

reuters.com

WWW.REUTERS.COM

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Independence Class LCS was built for this! This is perfect! 

 

I am an Indy stan and I am not afraid to say it.

[Uaarkson]

Yes! More accelerationism!

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The PLA Navy will more than likely not risk a confrontation should this operation reach the execution stage.

[Jwheel86]

3 hours ago, CayceG said:

 

 

 

The Independence Class LCS was built for this! This is perfect! 

 

I am an Indy stan and I am not afraid to say it.

 

The Philippines can tow them around!

[69los]

5 hours ago, Dodger said:

Escort missions can be the worst, hope the AI is good because if not your escort just runs off to the enemy and gets themselves killed and you gotta start over. 

 

Fucking Natalya!

[Spork3245]

“Yo, China, Phil-ip-on deez nutz!” -US Navy, probably (USMC, definitely)

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

10 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The PLA Navy will more than likely not risk a confrontation should this operation reach the execution stage.

And I highly doubt China believes an escalatory international incident in the South China Sea is worth it.  Too small fry, too foolhardy.  They’ll only push as far there as they know everyone else will let them.

 

The only thing that makes them irrational enough to risk starting WW3 is Taiwan and a prospective ‘Glorious War of Reunification’.

[Xbob42]

6 hours ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

And I highly doubt China believes an escalatory international incident in the South China Sea is worth it.  Too small fry, too foolhardy.  They’ll only push as far there as they know everyone else will let them.

 

The only thing that makes them irrational enough to risk starting WW3 is Taiwan and a prospective ‘Glorious War of Reunification’.

What's with these big nations over there drooling over reabsorbing some small, ultimately meaningless piece of them? Russia with Ukraine, China with Taiwan. Can you imagine if Alabama broke off and we obsessed about it for the next 30-80 years?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Xbob42 said:

What's with these big nations over there drooling over reabsorbing some small, ultimately meaningless piece of them? Russia with Ukraine, China with Taiwan. Can you imagine if Alabama broke off and we obsessed about it for the next 30-80 years?

 

Yes, I can easily imagine the United States doing that, nor should it even be remotely surprising.

 

This cannot be viewed in isolation.  The loss of even a small, relatively insignificant piece of territory can signal the weakness of the central government -- whether real or perceived -- and act as a potential catalyst for larger, more important (economically/politically/militarily) units within the state to look for the exits.

 

The loss of Alabama isn't too far removed from somewhere like Texas or California charting their own course.

[Xbob42]

You say that, but reality as I see it is that in time people would largely forgot/not care, and fruitlessly chasing after that lost bit of territory for decades and being wildly unsuccessful, living in a constant state of denial, not allowing people to acknowledge it, etc., not only makes you look infinitely weaker, but far less stable, as you're willing to put your people in danger in chasing after it.

 

China and Russia just constantly keep this loss of territory in everyone's minds and it looks so much weaker than just moving on.

[CayceG]

5 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Yes, I can easily imagine the United States doing that, nor should it even be remotely surprising.

 

This cannot be viewed in isolation.  The loss of even a small, relatively insignificant piece of territory can signal the weakness of the central government -- whether real or perceived -- and act as a potential catalyst for larger, more important (economically/politically/militarily) units within the state to look for the exits.

 

The loss of Alabama isn't too far removed from somewhere like Texas or California charting their own course.

 

 

That, plus, the loss of Ukraine/Taiwan are indeed the consequence of a "weakness" of the central government. In Russia's case, a refusal to exercise power to maintain control. In China's case, the inability to oust Chiang Kai Shek once he fled.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

21 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Yes, I can easily imagine the United States doing that, nor should it even be remotely surprising.

 

This cannot be viewed in isolation.  The loss of even a small, relatively insignificant piece of territory can signal the weakness of the central government -- whether real or perceived -- and act as a potential catalyst for larger, more important (economically/politically/militarily) units within the state to look for the exits.

 

The loss of Alabama isn't too far removed from somewhere like Texas or California charting their own course.

I’m reading through “Battle Cry of Freedom” right now and what stands out to me at this point in the history as told through this excellent book (around winter 62-63) is how much european powers underestimated the resolve of Lincoln to keep the union together even in the face of a brutal campaign and no big union wins (thanks for nothing on the field McClellen, you egotistical prick!)

 

so there’s a lesson to be learned here, that you shouldn’t underestimate how much a country is willing to reclaim real or perceived territory that is lost

[Xbob42]

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I’m reading through “Battle Cry of Freedom” right now and what stands out to me at this point in the history as told through this excellent book (around winter 62-63) is how much european powers underestimated the resolve of Lincoln to keep the union together even in the face of a brutal campaign and no big union wins (thanks for nothing on the field McClellen, you egotistical prick!)

 

so there’s a lesson to be learned here, that you shouldn’t underestimate how much a country is willing to reclaim real or perceived territory that is lost

God, imagine how much better off we'd be if we'd have just let the South go.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

God, imagine how much better off we'd be if we'd have just let the South go.

 

No, that really wouldn't have been the case

 

The South would have become a proxy/puppet state for the European colonial powers who would've used it as a base to undermine the North.

[Xbob42]

4 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

No, that really wouldn't have been the case

 

The South would have become a proxy/puppet state for the European colonial powers who would've used it as a base to undermine the North.

Unlike now, where it's an albatross slowly choking the entire nation to the possible benefit of (waves vaguely at Russia and China) hostile foreign powers!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Unlike now, where it's an albatross slowly choking the entire nation to the vague benefit of (waves vaguely at Russia and China) hostile foreign powers!

 

That albatross exsists in vast swathes of your own state, not just the "South".

[Xbob42]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

That albatross exsists in vast swathes of your own state, not just the "South".

It does, and it must be purged!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

God, imagine how much better off we'd be if we'd have just let the South go.

Millions and millions more would have continued being enslaved and treated as less than cattle because for all of the “states rights” revisionist bullshit there was one thing that confederate states could never do: free their slaves. 
 

The better question is asking how much better off we would be if Andrew Johnson didn’t kill the reconstruction baby in the crib

[Xbob42]

8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Millions and millions more would have continued being enslaved and treated as less than cattle because for all of the “states rights” revisionist bullshit there was one thing that confederate states could never do: free their slaves. 

I mean post-war! They could've been our own little vassal state!