The Perils of Island Warfare

[Darnell 8,478]

The question on everyone’s lips is, how should Japan and America respond if China’s People’s Liberation Army seizes one or more of the Senkaku Islands? A flip answer: rather than rush in, they should read their Thucydides. Why? Because alongside all his insights into the nature of war and diplomacy, the wise old Athenian delves into the rigors and perils of island warfare. One lesson: taking an island isn’t the same as holding it. A successful landing force can find itself stranded and isolated if the opponent commands the sea and sky around the island — severing ties between the occupiers and their parent force.

A latter-day, aquatic counterpart to medieval siege warfare ensues. And any student of history knows that foodstuffs, fresh water in particular, are crucial for any castle garrison determined to ride out a siege. It’s hard to fight on an empty stomach. The doughtiest warriors are enfeebled without sustenance, ammunition, and spare parts. A contingent thus weakened finds it tough to resist enemy assault from the sea. Ultimately, perhaps, it can be starved out without bloody strife.

The vaunted Spartan infantry found that out the hard way. An Athenian expeditionary force landed at Pylos, scant miles from Sparta, and erected a fort to make trouble for the Spartans in their own backyard. After recalling the army from campaign, the Spartan leadership sent it to invest and reduce the fort. Among the Spartan countermoves was landing a contingent on the nearby island of Sphacteria to help seal off the Athenians from naval support.

The Spartan navy was unable to maintain command of the waters around Sphacteria ... The assailants on Sphacteria soon found themselves assailed by Athenian amphibious forces. Light Athenian infantrymen refused the Spartans the stand-up fight at which they excelled — think Leonidas in 300 — and instead pelted them with missile weapons from afar. Ultimately the unthinkable transpired. Spartans surrendered to philosophers and boy-lovers.

Therein lies wisdom for the U.S.-Japan alliance. The common assumption is that the allies would dispatch forces to retrieve the Senkakus. And indeed they should. But not forthwith. Seizing an island is costly and wearisome. Why not stand off, repel PLA air and sea forces, and let the Chinese garrison wither? Take it from yet another New Englander, President Calvin Coolidge, who liked to urge Americans: don’t just do something; stand there! Quite so. Maritime supremacy grants commanders the leisure to wait out island defenders. Let’s make good use of such advantages.

So once China invades, are you positing that China will also set up a fort erection on one of the main japanese islands, also?

if so, sweet !

[GandD 5,966]

Yes I do. They need to rearm big time if they want to keep their islands. If not good bye. There is no reason for us to spend a fortune for their sakes just because they don't want to spend the money.

But we're spending the money to protect OUR stakes more than theirs. We want to have complete control over the most important shipping routes on the planet. Making sure the planet goes in the direction we want benefits us.

[mota bhai 2,675]

But we're spending the money to protect OUR stakes more than theirs. We want to have complete control over the most important shipping routes on the planet. Making sure the planet goes in the direction we want benefits us.

I agree, but here's a counterpoint for your consideration. The US taxpayer spends all this money to maintain the US position as World Police. Who benefits? The US taxpayer? Or a smaller cabal of elites?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Never said to dismantle the Navy. We don't need to protect Japan forever. If they want to ensure their continued survival then rearm. No reason for us to keep spending a fortune to keep bases and a nucluar umbrella to ensure they can spend their fortune on competing unfairly against us. They made a decision to have a constitution that forbade arming themselves for protection. They can now live with that decision. We are broke and need to come home and spend this fortune on what the people have been voting for and that is Socialist programs. We can't do both.

Either that or we need to start taxing ourselves to start paying our bills. Iwant the people that want these programs to open their paychecks and see what it really costs.

But we're spending the money to protect OUR stakes more than theirs. We want to have complete control over the most important shipping routes on the planet. Making sure the planet goes in the direction we want benefits us.

Edited May 16, 2014 by luckytxn

[GandD 5,966]

I agree, but here's a counterpoint for your consideration. The US taxpayer spends all this money to maintain the US position as World Police. Who benefits? The US taxpayer? Or a smaller cabal of elites?

I would saw both but clearly not proportionally. Probably not even for what the average person pays in taxes.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I knew you would get it.

I agree, but here's a counterpoint for your consideration. The US taxpayer spends all this money to maintain the US position as World Police. Who benefits? The US taxpayer? Or a smaller cabal of elites?

[GandD 5,966]

Never said to dismantle the Navy. We don't need to protect Japan forever. If they want to ensure their continued survival then rearm. No reason for us to keep spending a fortune to keep bases and a nucluar umbrella to ensure they can spend their fortune on competing unfairly against us. They made a decision to have a constitution that forbade arming themselves for protection. They can now live with that decision. e are broke and need to come home and spend this fortune on what the people have been voting for and that is Socialist programs. We can't do both.

The USA can maintain all of it with a balanced budget. We did in the 90s. Why would you want more foreign armies in the world. Now we stand unopposed in the world, why would you not want that. And I don't know that japan "chose" anything.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The U.S. got that balanced budget from the "peace dividend" from the collapse of the Soviet Union. All of a sudden we didn't have massive expenditures of protecting Europe any more. I went over for exercises in Germany they are very expensive. The closing of all the bases in the U.S. represented a huge savings. We still spend too much for this perpetual war we have been having. We have troops still worldwide. Bring them home and let the people in them countries decide what protection they want and pay for it. Why should we? The people here have been voting for Socialist programs as we all know and that is what we get these programs are hugely expensive. So now we have to spend two fortunes. Stop spending so much or we need taxes.

The USA can maintain all of it with a balanced budget. We did in the 90s. Why would you want more foreign armies in the world. Now we stand unopposed in the world, why would you not want that. And I don't know that japan "chose" anything.

Edited May 16, 2014 by luckytxn

[GandD 5,966]

The U.S. got that balanced budget from the "peace dividend" from the collapse of the Soviet Union. All of a sudden we didn't have massive expenditures of protecting Europe any more. I went over for exercises in Germany they are very expensive. The closing of all the bases in the U.S. represented a huge savings. We still spend too much for this perpetual war we have been having. We have troops still worldwide. Bring them home and let the people in them countries decide what protection they want and pay for it. Why should we? The people here have been voting for Socialist programs as we all know and that is what we get these programs are hugely expensive. So now we have to spend two fortunes. Stop spending so much or we need taxes.

I don't think we disagree on the need for a balanced budget. I still maintain this can be done without discontinuing protection of our allies worldwide. The real problem with the deficit IMO is the loss of manufacturing jobs, a minimum wage that hasn't followed inflation since the 70s, and the consolidation of wealth to a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans largely due to shady business practices. Sure they pay a lot in taxes but i'd venture that they have effectively decreased the tax pool by consolidating more wealth to the hands of those with the means and know how to avoid paying taxes in their entirety on said wealth.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I think it is the military-industrial complex along with corrupt politicians that ensure we keep spending at a high level to enrich a few. It also brings a lot of power to whoever controls this. Would Japan still be an ally of ours if we pull our troops and Navy back? Doubt it. They love us because we spend a fortune to protect them. They also love us because when they want some useless islands they know we have their back. They are wealthy now and can now assume their own protection. We want Socialist programs here now and that costs money.

The loss of manufactoring jobs is that overseas is cheaper to produce the same there than here. As our costs go up and theirs stay low this will continue to be the case. You raise that minimuk wage and the costs go up more and then more jobs go away. if something costs me more at our business then we have to raise prices which is hard to do because our customers will just go down the street to our competitors or we find that something cheaper or do without. What shady business practices are you talking about? Trying to pay less taxes and thus increase profits? How about instead of that thinking that maybe they can pay more in wage or benefits to workers. I cant hire more people or pay more if the taxes are being raised. As a business owner I have to walk a fine line.

That minimum wage increase is all fine and good but if people want to work for that then so what? The inflation would be even higher if you raise the wages because then the prices need to rise. It is a cycle that is hard to judge.

The Feds raising the wage levels would mae more parity but in the south where the cost of living is better is actually now harmed because you just made our attractiveness for businesses lessened and now California and the Northeast can now compete with us.

I don't think we disagree on the need for a balanced budget. I still maintain this can be done without discontinuing protection of our allies worldwide. The real problem with the deficit IMO is the loss of manufacturing jobs, a minimum wage that hasn't followed inflation since the 70s, and the consolidation of wealth to a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans largely due to shady business practices. Sure they pay a lot in taxes but i'd venture that they have effectively decreased the tax pool by consolidating more wealth to the hands of those with the means and know how to avoid paying taxes in their entirety on said wealth.

Edited May 16, 2014 by luckytxn

[Avery Cates 1,141]

I am a little shocked that Japan is still comfortable with those kinds of constraints. It's almost like they're a protectorate of the United States and not a soveriegn state.

As long as Japan can keep making tentacle porn, I don't think they care about much else.

[Sousuke 1,214]

As long as Japan can keep making tentacle porn, I don't think they care about much else.

Amen.