Aircraft Carriers - What is their future?

[Dill]

(07-20-2017, 12:21 PM)Benton Wrote: I realize they have an impact. On the other hand, we have a trade deficit with many of the countries where we have several bases, including allies like Germany and Japan, two of our largest deficits. We're spending a lot of money to, in part, make sure they can afford to sell us stuff more cheaply. That's insane. And I realize part of the agreements with those two countries in particular goes back to arrangements made after WWII.... but that's kind of the point. That was nearly 3/4ers of a century ago. They aren't the same; our approach doesn't need to be, either. And they're also just two examples of places where we have bases and deficits.

The problem is maintaining peace time buffer zones is bankrupting us well before war time. The equipment we have needs updated. We need more troops. Contracting some allows that to happen. Like pruning a bush — you trim off the limbs so they are stronger when you need them. 

I don't think it's our job to prevent conflicts. We should not be in the ME right now. I prefer our approach in Africa. There's countries in conflict and in great need of help, so we send in people who teach them how to handle their own situation. We provide them with information, give them the keys to dealing with atrocities and work with groups to provide relief to the victims. That's largely how we operated in the ME, too, until Bush I decided to go ***** deep to protect oil wells and an ally agreement. 

Part II

1. Trade deficits come and go. We are not spending money so the Germans and Japanese can sell us cheaper products. It is up to our industry to compete with theirs. We are spending money to maintain an international peace favorable to our interests, which is the foundation of commerce, cultural exchange, and similar good things.

Yes, present agreements with many nations go back to WWII. Those arrangements--including economic ones like the IMF and World Bank, were created to avoid the conditions which would lead to another world conflagration.  From their success, we should not conclude that they are outdated, but that they are working and we need to keep them working.  If you are the mayor of a large city with a high crime area, and you manage to tame that area with police/community initiative of some sort. You probably wouldn't, after a few years, assume the problem will stay gone if you defund the initiative and pull out the police/community workers.

And something is the same since WWII and before--wherever there is an international power vacuum, conflict appears with the potential to expand when larger powers compete for influence. Right now, the Pacific Rim is unstable. China wants control of the South China Sea, preventing Vietnam and the Philippines from fishing there, and attempting control air space over the area. If that goes uncontested, China will eventually have all the "buffers" there and set the terms of any US trade in that region. How will that affect our trade deficit with PR countries like Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and S Korea?

2. I agree that limbs can be trimmed. But that also hurt us under Rummy. So how we trim is important as well. Privatization as pushed by Rummy was often driven by corporate rather than national interest, sending hundreds of billions of dollars down various rat holes in Iraq and Afghanistan. ( E.g., hiring civilians to guard military bases is pretty silly, and turns out not to be cheap after all.)  The same logic applied to bases abroad, without some overall strategic sense of their value, abandoning them will end up costing us FAR MORE than we save.

These are points we should take into consideration while assessing the value of Aircraft Carriers.  It is a mistake to view them either as moveable bases or substitutes for land bases--at least in most cases.  Remember with bases come all manner of trade agreements and right-of-ways for air space and sea lanes that don't come with aircraft carriers. With bases come supplies "in place" and staging grounds as well, and with safety from missile strikes that ships don't have.

3. It is our job to prevent conflicts, if we want to maintain our current standard of development and don't want a world war. It is our job because 1) at the moment, no one else can do it. And 2) if someone else could take the job, it would necessarily be with less favorable terms for the US. 

Think of China's development over the last three decades; then imagine where it might be in three more decades, possibly with Russia and/or India as a junior partner. Considerations like this ought to be factored into strategic vision, not just today's trade deficit with this or that country.

PS thanks for helping me formulate my argument a little better.  Still needs work of course . . .