South China Sea thoughts?

The constraints on Japanese military operations in SE Asia, Burma, & the Pacific were mainly logistical. They never ran out of men, but they did run out of the ability to arm, supply, & reinforce them, the ability to train enough pilots, to make enough aircraft (or maintain the quality of those they were already making), to make good losses of ships, etc.

The Japanese armies in China were self-sufficient as far as possible. They largely lived off the land they'd conquered, & fought a mainly infantry war. They also recruited locals to fight for them, & from the beginning of 1943 had a puppet Chinese government to help them do it.

They had guns, a few tanks, etc., but neither most of the men nor their weapons could have got to the theatres of action in Burma, India, New Guinea, the Marianas, etc. Their aircraft & pilots might have been able to make a contribution to those other campaigns, but they'd have been difficult to deploy or keep supplied.

swerve said:

They had guns, a few tanks, etc., but neither most of the men nor their weapons could have got to the theatres of action in Burma, India, New Guinea, the Marianas, etc.

Click to expand...

And to think that prior to WW2 being declared; some Japanese officers actually advocated a strike against the Soviet Union rather than in the Pacific and South East Asia. Granted the Soviet army in 1942 wasn't the same as the one in the 1944/1943 period but when one takes into account the type of equipment and units the Japanese army had; on paper the Soviet army would have a major a edge over the Japanese army.

STURM said:

And to think that prior to WW2 being declared; some Japanese officers actually advocated a strike against the Soviet Union rather than in the Pacific and South East Asia. Granted the Soviet army in 1942 wasn't the same as the one in the 1944/1943 period but when one takes into account the type of equipment and units the Japanese army had; on paper the Soviet army would have a major a edge over the Japanese army.

Click to expand...

Richard Sorge was busily keeping the Soviet Mil Int informed of Japanese intentions

the Sovs were able to release 18 divisions, 1700 heavy tanks, and over 1,500 fighters and bombers from their Far Eastern Command in Siberia to the Western Front as a reinforcing buffer against the Germans

The Japanese would have struggled against an intact FEC

swerve said:

The constraints on Japanese military operations in SE Asia, Burma, & the Pacific were mainly logistical. They never ran out of men, but they did run out of the ability to arm, supply, & reinforce them, the ability to train enough pilots, to make enough aircraft (or maintain the quality of those they were already making), to make good losses of ships, etc.

The Japanese armies in China were self-sufficient as far as possible. They largely lived off the land they'd conquered, & fought a mainly infantry war. They also recruited locals to fight for them, & from the beginning of 1943 had a puppet Chinese government to help them do it.

They had guns, a few tanks, etc., but neither most of the men nor their weapons could have got to the theatres of action in Burma, India, New Guinea, the Marianas, etc. Their aircraft & pilots might have been able to make a contribution to those other campaigns, but they'd have been difficult to deploy or keep supplied.

Click to expand...

They never effectively used their sub force either; unlike how the Kriegsmarine, USN or RN sub forces were. If the IJN had used its subs in a more offensive role, interdicting shipping between the west coast of the US, Hawaii and Australia / NZ, they could have made a significant difference. That, along with the lack of logistics and the failure to take and hold New Guinea was Japans downfall.

In ''Shattered Sword : The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway [Parshall and Tully] the authors point out that none of the countries or territories the Japanese conquered had any heavy industry to speak of. This in the long run became a major problem as most vital supplies/spares had to be sourced and transported from Japan. By late 1944 the Japanese found themselves in the position of having to defend areas they couldn't possibly hold for long in the face of American superiority in the sea and air. The Philippines had to be held as it controlled access to the Dutch East Indies and the Dutch East Indies had to be held because it contained oil that Japan desperately needed.

Back to SCS

Indonesia explores possibility of obtaining US aid to finance base in South China Sea | IHS Jane's 360

Related to this, the Ministry of Defence also talking in local media to redirect much of funding in building 'defence' infrastructure in border area..whether it's land or naval based facilities.

Well it's not first time, this administrations keep chancing their short term focus. However, current President to be fair already said that he wants to improved border securities, at the early time he come to the office.

Getting funding frm US to finance defence infrastuctur build, further closing the current Administration agenda with US Agenda.

US have agenda that coincide with Indonesian border securities:
1. Helping Indonesia to improved border patrol and survailance capabilities to tackle potential 'terorism' infiltration frm coming and going out Indonesian teritory.
2. In the same time cooperating with largest nation in SEA for border security also provide access to some of the most importance water ways in the region.

STURM said:

In ''Shattered Sword : The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway [Parshall and Tully] the authors point out that none of the countries or territories the Japanese conquered had any heavy industry to speak of. This in the long run became a major problem as most vital supplies/spares had to be sourced and transported from Japan. By late 1944 the Japanese found themselves in the position of having to defend areas they couldn't possibly hold for long in the face of American superiority in the sea and air. The Philippines had to be held as it controlled access to the Dutch East Indies and the Dutch East Indies had to be held because it contained oil that Japan desperately needed.

Click to expand...

Yes, they had to get raw materials from the conquered territories to Japan, & weapons, ammunition, spares from Japan to where the fighting was. Doable (though tough) to start with, but it got harder. The US sub campaign against Japanese merchant shipping was very effective.

Pindah ke Natuna, Latihan Puncak TNI AU Akan Disaksikan Presiden

Sorry in Indonesian, frm Angkasa Magazine on line..Indonesian Air Force has moved this year large exercise (Angkasa Yudha) frm previous schedulled venue at Bangka Belitung (Tanjung Pandan AB..Bangka Belitung is islands province near Sumatra at middle of Java Sea)..to Ranai AB at Natuna (at SCS door step).

No explanation why TNI-AU moved this year excercise to Natuna asside statement that the movement come frm Military Highest Command. The exercise will involved 80 aircraft with 48 of them are combat capable aircraft.

For TNI-AU standard, the scale of exercise already involved nearly half of their capabilities, but more importantly to show that they can operate in one theather on that scale.

All this SCS commotion so far seems put one neutral (but large for SEA standard), continue to increase its allert. How far that Indonesia going to build up due to SCS as one of main factor, remain to be seen...

The US is making a statement of increased resolve this morning. Of interest in the article is the claim to 'sharpen our military edge' and it specifically mentions 'surprises'. Could this be perfected laser technology perhaps? The article also mentions beefed up cyber warfare, EW and space technologies.

Overall I'm pleased to see the US take a firm stance on this issue and I eagerly await what all of this might actually mean in practice.

Defense Secy: US to 'sharpen our edge' in Asia - CNNPolitics.com

We can only hope that conflicts in places such as the Middle East or Europe does not distract the U.S. from its 'pivot' to the Asia Pacific. Ash Carter spoke of a strong US military presence in the region being of "fundamental strategic importance to our country." The problem is that a strong US military presence in the Middle East and Europe is also of "fundamental strategic importance'' and the U.S. military can't maintain the same level of focus and commitment everywhere. There's the issue with Russia in Europe; with China in South East Asia and East Asia; concerns over a possible flare up between India and Pakistan; matters in Afghanistan still unresolved, the Syrian mess and off course North Korea.

STURM said:

We can only hope that conflicts in places such as the Middle East or Europe does not distract the U.S. from its 'pivot' to the Asia Pacific. Ash Carter spoke of a strong US military presence in the region being of "fundamental strategic importance to our country." The problem is that a strong US military presence in the Middle East and Europe is also of "fundamental strategic importance'' and the U.S. military can't maintain the same level of focus and commitment everywhere. There's the issue with Russia in Europe; with China in South East Asia and East Asia; concerns over a possible flare up between India and Pakistan; matters in Afghanistan still unresolved, the Syrian mess and off course North Korea.

Click to expand...

Yes I suspect that the Pentagon has given the matter some very heavy consideration. What makes you think that the India Pakistan tensions are of crucial importance to the US? Is India really a strong ally of the US?

I did conjecture that the two main areas of concern namely Eastern Europe and the SCS could well be China and Russia working together to tie up US attention. Does anyone else feel this is possible? Don't forget to add the Straits of Hormuz into the mix.

The Indian sub continent is an area of prime importance for the U.S. and the last thing the U.S. and the world for that matter, needs is an Indian/Pakistani war. A war between both those countries could also lead to China getting involved. It is not in China's interests to see Pakistan come out of the losing end. Then there is also the nuclear issue; Pakistan and Indian have nukes.

The only possible danger regarding the Straits of Hormuz is U.S. allies like Saudi dong something to make Iran retaliate. Whether we like it or not; Iran is a regional power and has common interests with the U.S. The Saudis and other countries are not happy seeing U.S./Iran ties on the mend. We saw how Saudi was willing to cooperate with Israel [a country it has no official ties with] when Obama chose not to hit Iran but rely on diplomacy.

STURM said:

The Indian sub continent is an area of prime importance for the U.S. and the last thing the U.S. and the world for that matter, needs is an Indian/Pakistani war. A war between both those countries could also lead to China getting involved. It is not in China's interests to see Pakistan come out of the losing end. Then there is also the nuclear issue; Pakistan and Indian have nukes.

Click to expand...

India and Pakistan have both joined the SCO. One of the stated goals of the SCO is reducing state-on-state military tensions, and they use the Russo-Chinese example of de-escalating tensions in the Far East as a model. It remains to be seen how well this works, but this is certainly an excellent opportunity for the SCO to show that it can accomplish something that to this point was only hoped for.

Singapore is currently latest in line for the ire of the PRC - Blow-by-blow account of the China-Singapore spat over Global Times’ South China Sea report | South China Morning Post It's unusual for a diplomat to accuse an 'official' media outlet of outright fabrication, personally, I think there should be more of it. I hope the Global Times editors follow on the 'paper cat' line with a 'paper lion' wrt Singapore. I was also hoping OPSSG would have something to share.

gazzzwp said:

Yes I suspect that the Pentagon has given the matter some very heavy consideration. What makes you think that the India Pakistan tensions are of crucial importance to the US? Is India really a strong ally of the US?

I did conjecture that the two main areas of concern namely Eastern Europe and the SCS could well be China and Russia working together to tie up US attention. Does anyone else feel this is possible? Don't forget to add the Straits of Hormuz into the mix.

Click to expand...

I believe there's no Doubt that Russia and China are working together against the US. Would make complete sense for them. They are economically, militarily and politically.

Ranger25 said:

I believe there's no Doubt that Russia and China are working together against the US. Would make complete sense for them. They are economically, militarily and politically.

Click to expand...

Russia and China may see some benefits in cooperating (or at least verbally supporting each other in the ME, Eastern Europe, and the SCS) but a Pakaistan-India dispute would be problematic as India is Russia's partner in several ventures as is Pakistan with China. It could be a conflict that they and the West may not want to get involved with whatsoever.

Ranger25 said:

I believe there's no Doubt that Russia and China are working together against the US.

Click to expand...

Maybe ''working together against'' is a bit too strong a term; more like working together in areas of common interests maybe, against what they perceive are certain U.S. policies that are detrimental to the interests of Russia and China. About 10 years ago or maybe it was during the Kosovo air campaign; I remember reading an announcement by both countries that they were teaming up to contest U.S. global hegemony which they said was destabilising the world. When it's all said and done Russia and China also have some level of distrust against each other; it's just that at the moment, it benefits them to have a common stand on certain issues.

John Fedup said:

It could be a conflict that they and the West may not want to get involved with whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Of course. It doesn't involve a country with a degraded military like Libya and Iraq but 2 professional armed forces with nukes and China lurking in the background.

cdxbow said:

Singapore is currently latest in line for the ire of the PRC - Blow-by-blow account of the China-Singapore spat over Global Times’ South China Sea report | South China Morning Post It's unusual for a diplomat to accuse an 'official' media outlet of outright fabrication, personally, I think there should be more of it. I hope the Global Times editors follow on the 'paper cat' line with a 'paper lion' wrt Singapore. I was also hoping OPSSG would have something to share.

Click to expand...

In a nutshell, Singapore does not want to take China's side on SCS matters (Singapore doesn't take sides actually, whether US or China. We don't play a double game) - and this is the punitive response from the Chinese side. It's tough being the ASEAN co-ordinator with China, ya know...

bdique said:

(Singapore doesn't take sides actually, whether US or China. We don't play a double game)

Click to expand...

Because Singapore isn't a party to the Spratlys dispute. If Singapore had claims in the area and it faced Chinese ships regularly intruding into its waters; it would have to act differently; like the other countries who have a tough balancing act to perform. Singapore indeed presents itself as neutral but like other countries it is worried and is reassured by the U.S. presence in the region. At the same time it has to tread carefully with China.

It's interesting to see how the Philippines goes about managing its relations with China. Dutarte has made it clear that he intends to have a new era of relations with China and will cease joint patrols with the USN in the South China Sea. This will be music to China's ears and its policy has always been to drag countries in the region away from the U.S. From a Chinese perspective, certain countries in the region have only been acting the way they have because of the U.S. in the background urging them on.

STURM said:

Because Singapore isn't a party to the Spratlys dispute. If Singapore had claims in the area and it faced Chinese ships regularly intruding into its waters; it would have to act differently; like the other countries who have a tough balancing act to perform. Singapore indeed presents itself as neutral but like other countries it is worried and is reassured by the U.S. presence in the region. At the same time it has to tread carefully with China.

Click to expand...

While you are right that Singapore is not a claimant, there are pretty key things here that are at stake for Singapore. Firstly, the need to uphold the rules-based international order - if large countries conducted their international relations by 'might is right', 'law of the jungle' etc etc, then the world would be a terrible place for small countries. It would also delegitimise the existence of ASEAN.

Clearly this is not in Singapore's interest, hence Singapore cannot/will not be in agreement with China regarding the SCS, even though in other cases China merrily abides by the rules-based international order i.e. UN, UNCLOS (excluding SCS) etc.

The second for Singapore is the fact that freedom of navigation in the SCS is at stake. Maritime trade pretty much powers Singapore's economy since her early days. Should the 9-dash line be enforced, it would result in a lot of economic uncertainty. A large portion of the SCS would become China's territorial sea, potentially enforceable through military force. I think we can all see where this could possibly lead to.

STURM said:

It's interesting to see how the Philippines goes about managing its relations with China. Dutarte has made it clear that he intends to have a new era of relations with China and will cease joint patrols with the USN in the South China Sea. This will be music to China's ears and its policy has always been to drag countries in the region away from the U.S. From a Chinese perspective, certain countries in the region have only been acting the way they have because of the U.S. in the background urging them on.

Click to expand...

Interesting is putting it very nicely. From my perspective, Duterte is practically caving in (kowtowing?) to the Chinese. His choice of Ramos as representative to China to help negotiate talks is poor, IMO. From what I read, Ramos' didn't exactly have a strong response to China's sudden appearance of Chinese 'bunkers-on-stilts' in the Spratlys during his tenure. Granted, he was hamstrung by a government less focused on the military and a subsequent financial crisis, but nothing changes the fact that the Chinese still have a presence there till today.

Also, I might be thinking too much, but such an action by the Philippines might validate China's approach of bilaterally engaging ASEAN nations instead of engaging ASEAN as a whole on the SCS. Already, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Brunei are more or less in step with China on the SCS for various reasons. Now, I am speculating here, but perhaps China's latest tirade against Singapore could have been borne from a renewed sense of confidence that if the Philippines could have their tail twisted...why not SG?