US to deploy 60% of navy fleet to Pacific to counter China
-
Leon Panetta: US to deploy 60% of navy fleet to Pacific
The US is planning to move the majority of its warships to the Asia-Pacific region by 2020, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has revealed.
He said that by 2020 about 60% of the US fleet would be deployed there, in the clearest indication yet of the new US strategy in Asia.
Mr Panetta told a regional security meeting in Singapore that the shift was not aiming to contain Chinese power.
Beijing has indicated it is unhappy with the US boosting its presence.
Last November, President Barack Obama announced that the Asia-Pacific region was a "top priority" of US security policy.
His comments were seen as a challenge to China, which is striving to be the main regional power.
"By 2020, the navy will reposture its forces from today's roughly 50-50% split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about a 60-40 split between those oceans," Mr Panetta told the annual Shangri-La Dialogue conference.
"That will include six aircraft carriers in this region, a majority of our cruisers, destroyers, combat ships and submarines."
Mr Panetta said the US would aim to increase the number and size of the training exercises it conducts alongside its allies in the region.
He said US budget problems and cut-backs would not stop the changes, adding that the US defence department had money in a five-year budget plan to achieve its goals.
"It will take years for these concepts, and many of the investments we are making, to be fully realised," he said.
"But make no mistake, in a steady, deliberate and sustainable way, the United States military is rebalancing and brings enhanced capabilities to this vital region."
China has long-running territorial disputes with allies of the US, including the Philippines, over island groupings in the South China Sea. In recent years it has grown more assertive on the issue.
An increased US presence in the region is likely to embolden those countries and irritate Beijing.
Mr Panetta played down any possible tensions and said he was looking forward to visiting China later this year.
"Some view the increased emphasis by the United States on the Asia-Pacific region as some kind of challenge to China," he said.
"I reject that view entirely. Our effort to renew and intensify our involvement in Asia is fully compatible with the development and growth of China. Indeed, increased US involvement in this region will benefit China as it advances our shared security and prosperity for the future."
In January, Chinese state media also said an increased US presence in the region could boost stability and prosperity.
But it warned the US against "flexing its muscles" and said any US militarism could create ill will and "endanger peace".
Mr Panetta is currently on a nine-day tour of Asia which will include visits to Vietnam and India.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18305750
-
U.S. to improve strategic trust with China while "rebalancing" towards Asia Pacific: Panetta
SINGAPORE, June 2 (Xinhua) -- The United States will try to improve the strategic trust with China by strengthening military- to-military exchanges, while shifting some of its warships to the Pacific over the coming years, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Saturday.
Outlining details of the U.S. plan for its "rebalancing" act towards Asia Pacific in a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Panetta said the United States recognizes the importance of the relationship between the United States and China, not only between the militaries but also in diplomacy and the economic development.
"We are not naive about this relationship, and neither is China. We both understand the differences we have. We both understand the conflicts we have. But we also both understand that there really is no other alternative for both of us but to engage and to improve our communications and to improve our military-to-military relationships," he told defense ministers, senior defense officials and scholars at the multilateral forum.
Panetta said it is natural for the two countries to have ups and downs in the relations between their militaries. The United States is clear-eyed about the challenges but there will also be opportunities from closer relationship. The two countries have common challenges in areas like fighting piracy, too.
"I am personally committed to building a healthy, stable, reliable and continuous military-to-military relationship with China," he said.
Panetta said he might be visiting China later in the summer, and that he was hoping for visits by some of the U.S. military commanders to China to help improve the communication in regard to what the United States is doing in the Pacific.
Panetta outlined some of the details of the U.S. "rebalancing" plan in the speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, saying that U.S. military presence in the Pacific will also increase.
The number and sizes of the military exercises in the Pacific involving the United States will also increase, he said.
"By 2020, the Navy will re-posture its forces from today's roughly 50-50 percent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about a 60-40 split between those oceans. That will include six aircraft carriers, a majority of our cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships, and submarines," Panetta said.
The defense chief said the United States will make efforts to strengthen its partnerships with its allies and partner countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and New Zealand.
Despite fiscal pressures, the United States is designing a strategy to maintain the strongest military in the world, which will be smaller, leaner but agile and more advanced technologically, he said. It will replace some of its older Navy ships with over 40 far more advanced ships over the next five years.
Panetta also urged restraint in the South China Sea disputes, saying that the United States is against provocation and that the disputes should be resolved through diplomatic efforts.
The Shangri-La Dialogue, or the 11th Asia Security Summit, is a multilateral forum organized by the London-based think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies. The participants also engage in diplomacy and exchange their views on issues and developments in regional security.
Panetta left Washington on Wednesday for a tour in the region that also includes stops in Vietnam and India.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-06/02/c_131627009.htm
-
War coming?
-
flexes muscles and prepares for war.
-
i want to buy a ticket...a curise to international water while hiding from war.
-
Originally posted by Summer hill:
i want to buy a ticket...a curise to international water while hiding from war.
In case you haven't noticed, this will be a war at sea. A war with no battles and no monuments.
-
Actually, this is a con news article. Why? Because the US Navy is already 50% in the Pacific, their +10% is not really a transfer, it's just adding the new LCSs to the area. Which is a auto given, what "litoral" area is there in the Atlantic side of the US continent that isn't already US owned? Brazil? Argentina? And of course the Falklands (British). Put the LCS there for fuck? Only really big difference is probably a carrier, to guard the new Marine base in Australia. Not really news.
-
It's a transfer in the sense that going forward new ships will serve in the Pacific and old ships across the board will be retired. Btw the budget for replacement is not high enough to meet target and the frigates' replacement is not clear yet, LCS ASW mission module is still buggy.
-
Of course DF is not happy. Maybe he should go to Orchard and pick a fight with the sailors / marines.
-
Originally posted by alize:
It's a transfer in the sense that going forward new ships will serve in the Pacific and old ships across the board will be retired. Btw the budget for replacement is not high enough to meet target and the frigates' replacement is not clear yet, LCS ASW mission module is still buggy.
LCS relies on the MH-60 for its ASW capability. Its the ASW escort module that's buggy.http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/LCS-trifold-brochure.pdf
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
LCS relies on the MH-60 for its ASW capability. Its the ASW escort module that's buggy.http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/LCS-trifold-brochure.pdf
That's already a big part of the ASW capability. For one the MH-60 doesn't have a VDS, for another the LCS itself is needed to tie in with other assets.
-
Chinese, Mexican presidents meet on bilateral ties
2012-06-18 06:20
Chinese President Hu Jintao meets with his Mexican counterpart Felipe Calderon in Los Cabos on June 17, 2012. [Photo/Xinhua]
Noting that it was the third time he visited Mexico, Hu thanked Calderon and the Mexican government for their careful preparations and considerate arrangements for the G20 summit and expressed the readiness to work with the Mexican side to push for positive results of the summit.
Hu said the world economy maintains a general trend of recovery but still with uncertainty and instability. China hopes the G20 members continue to uphold the spirit of cooperation and "in the same boat" to work for growth, stability and employment.
He also called on the G20 members to jointly inject impetus to recovery and growth of the world economy.
For his part, Calderon said Mexico attaches importance to China's propositions and role in the G20. He wished to cooperate with China to ensure that the G20 summit will make progress on promoting strong, sustainable and balanced economic growth and advancing reform of the international financial system.
Calderon also expressed his readiness to work with China to safeguard the interests of developing countries and emerging economies.
Hu said since Calderon became president, he has led the Mexican government and people to actively address challenges posed by globalization and the international financial crisis.
He expressed his gladness and appreciation of the remarkable achievements made by Mexico in social and economic development over the years.
Calderon said the Chinese president's attendance at the G20 summit is very significant because China has an increasingly important status on the global stage.
Hu's visit will contribute greatly to boosting and deepening the Mexico-China relations, he added.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and Mexico. Hu said links between the two countries have entered a new stage of mature, steady and extensive growth.
The two countries established a strategic partnership in 2003. During Calderon's visit to China in 2008, the two countries reached a series of consensus and decided to set up a strategic dialogue mechanism, Hu said.
The mechanism of permanent binational commission has become more mature and complete over the years, and played an important role in guiding the friendly cooperation in various areas between the two sides, he said.
The two countries have already developed two joint action plans through the mechanism, Hu said, adding that the fifth meeting of the cooperation commission held in China this year had achieved major results.
Hu said China has already become the second largest trade partner of Mexico, while Mexico is the second largest trade partner of China in Latin America and also has the most frequent cultural exchanges with China.
The two sides have maintained sound communication and cooperation on major regional and international issues, Hu said.
Hu pointed out that under the current international situation of complex changes, deepening strategic cooperation between China and Mexico is of great significance. China is ready to work with Mexico to advance bilateral cooperation in a long-term, healthy and stable way.
At the meeting, Hu also put forward a four-point proposal on advancing China-Mexico ties.
Firstly, Hu said, the two countries should plan for the future of bilateral links from a strategic height and with a long-term view. The two sides should use all forms of political mechanism to enhance mutual trust and support each other on issues of their core interests and major concern.
Secondly, the two sides should tap the potential and expand the channels of cooperation on the basis of their own specific development strategy by increasing reciprocal investment and stepping up cooperation in the areas of science, technology, agriculture, infrastructure development and tourism, he said, calling on both sides to promote bilateral trade in a healthy and balanced way.
Thirdly, the two sides should strengthen cultural and educational cooperation and advance friendly exchanges between their political parties, legislatures, local governments, media and non-government organizations in a bid to enhance mutual understanding.
Fourthly, the two sides should strengthen coordination within the multilateral frameworks of the UN, G20 and APEC. The two countries should cooperate closely on major international issues, safeguard the common interests of developing countries and join effort to build a harmonious world.
Calderon said Mexico and China, both as developing countries, should cooperate closely and advance bilateral links on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefits. Leaders of the two countries have also maintained frequent contact and the permanent binational commission has promoted trade and economic cooperation.
Referring to the upcoming summit, Hu said in an interview with leading Mexican newspaper Reforma that the G20 members have to sustain and strengthen the "hard-won" momentum of economic recovery.
"The world economy is now on the path of recovery and the prospect of economic growth is improving to some extent," Hu said, warning that such recovery is still facing unpredictability.
"In the current world economic environment, the G20 members should work together in difficult times and pursue win-win cooperation," he said.
"In Los Cabos, I look forward to exploring with leaders of other G20 members ways to promote world economic stability, recovery and growth."
After a visit to Denmark, Hu arrived in Los Cabos on Saturday to attend the seventh summit of the G20 which will be held on Monday and Tuesday.
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-06/18/content_15507923.htm
-
China's Wen wants China-LatAm trade forumhttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g24OOYryBRe6Tdp9cd2u1Z5HpfXQ?docId=CNG.d3102693c6a7245984356b443160e963.5a1
-
The US military deployment in the Pacific is justified. The rapid growing of the People Republic of China naval fleet and military presence need to be counter check and balance with US military presence in the Pacific region. China is a big threat to countries in this region and the pacific region. It somehow reminded me of Imperial Japan secret conquest of the South East Asia and Pacific region before the surprise attacked of The Japanese Imperial Navy and Air Force on the US Pacific fleet on Pearl Harbour during WW2.
-
Originally posted by zulkifli mahmood:
The US military deployment in the Pacific is justified. The rapid growing of the People Republic of China naval fleet and military presence need to be counter check and balance with US military presence in the Pacific region. China is a big threat to countries in this region and the pacific region. It somehow reminded me of Imperial Japan secret conquest of the South East Asia and Pacific region before the surprise attacked of The Japanese Imperial Navy and Air Force on the US Pacific fleet on Pearl Harbour during WW2.
Imperial Japan's conquest of Asia was never a surprise, the attack on Pearl Harbour was a miscalculation on the part of Japan which pulled the american into the war, before that the yangkee were happily signing peace treaty with the Jap while the imperial army invaded China and Korea!!
The american never need your justification to deploy in asia or anywhere, and is never for your interest.
China a big threat to countries in the region, or a big threat to the US?
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Imperial Japan's conquest of Asia was never a surprise, the attack on Pearl Harbour was a miscalculation on the part of Japan which pulled the american into the war, before that the yangkee were happily signing peace treaty with the Jap while the imperial army invaded China and Korea!!
The american never need your justification to deploy in asia or anywhere, and is never for your interest.
China a big threat to countries in the region, or a big threat to the US?
whatever they do they do it because of their own interest. only fools believe they give a damn about the security of china's neighbours. -
How many of you would prefer a Chinese or Russian battlegroup to call here home?
-
Hi Buddies,
Sorry for the late reply....was very busy during the weekdays
sgdiehard wrote:
"Imperial Japan's conquest of Asia was never a surprise, the attack on Pearl Harbour was a miscalculation on the part of Japan which pulled the american into the war, before that the yangkee were happily signing peace treaty with the Jap while the imperial army invaded China and Korea!!"
I concur with you on that part of a miscalculation by the Imperial Japan. They desperately needed the oil resources for their war with China and Korea. The US and their allies were going to enforce embargo of oil supplies on Imperial Japan unless the Japanese cease their war campaign in China, Korea and also Indochina. The Japanese saw that they were unable to continue their conquest and they knew too sooner or later they would need to fight the Americans and its allies.
sgdiehard wrote:
"The american never need your justification to deploy in asia or anywhere, and is never for your interest."
If you are the world number 1 in trades, you need to protect and secure your economics interest.
sgdiehard wrote:
"China a big threat to countries in the region, or a big threat to the US?"
It seems the second cold war era is ongoing now. This time its between China and US. China is a big threat to countries within this region militarily. Should China change its stance on its deplomatic and political arena with countries within this region there is going to be a great mayhem. I'm just wondering whether many world leaders realized that the foreign investments they sow in China actually helps to make China military more powerful. Let me create a scenario for you.
Should North Korea invade South Korea, China may get involve this time since China is a strong ally to North Korea. China will invade Taiwan. South Korea and Taiwan are strong allies to the US. The US and its allies will get involve in the war too. And the best I can see here, North Korea would possibly launch a surprise nuclear attacks with its nuclear long range missiles on the US strategic military bases within this region and the pacific region to cripple US military supremacy. That is quite a stage to start WW3.
The Chinese race population of the world would be divided here. Who are they going to support. China or the US and its allies? If this happens, what is Singapore diplomatic and political stance on this issue?
-
Mahmood wrote:
"They desperately needed the oild resources for their war with China and Korea...." No, it wasn't the oil their needed, at that time, there were no oil discovered yet in South East Asia. Resources were part of the reasons for their conquest and it was rubber that they were after, for making tires for vehicles. The reason for the conquest was colonization, chase out the europeans, make everybody speak japanese.
You are interpreting history with today's scenario.
"If you are the world number 1 in trades, you need to protect and secure your economics interest." That is true, the american interest. You american??
"China is a big threat to countries within this region militarily. Should China change its stance on its deplomatic and political arena with countries within this region there is going to be a great mayhem." You have not explained why China is a big threat to countries within this region militarily. Big countries have big military and small countries got small military, is big always a threat to small? If the american change its stance the world is a big mayhem.
"Should North Korea invade South Korea, China may get involve this time since China is a strong ally to North Korea. China will invade Taiwan. South Korea and Taiwan are strong allies to the US. The US and its allies will get involve in the war too." There is a possibility that North Korea will invade South Korea, there is little, if not no possibility that China would get itself involved in a war for Norty Korea. China WILL invade Taiwan? hahaha...tell me why.
"The Chinese race population of the world would be divided here. Who are they going to support. China or the US and its allies? If this happens, what is Singapore diplomatic and political stance on this issue?" why should a war between China and amrican become a racial war? We in Singapore don't fight racial war, so no issue.
"I'm just wondering whether many world leaders realized that the foreign investments they sow in China actually helps to make China military more powerful." do you realize that everytime you buy something that is Made In China, you are actually helping to make China military more powerful?
-
I don't see how South China Sea claim is non-threatening. Or how it is justified. If China is going to arm up over the issue and cruise the islands with carriers and LPDs, South East Asia should either arm themselves or ask the US for help.
As for Taiwan, if USA stopped protecting Taiwan, Taiwan would simply look elsewhere to fill its defence needs. USA has so much more to lose than it has to gain by protecting Taiwan, it would rather not do so. Even arms sales of an average of $10 billion a decade are not worth antagonising China, so it declines major requests.
If China stopped threatening Taiwan, no such defence needs would exist, and China and Taiwan would be even greater trading partners than they are today. Taiwan would be trading less with USA than with China. It would have no reason to buy US arms.
-
Originally posted by alize:
I don't see how South China Sea claim is non-threatening. Or how it is justified. If China is going to arm up over the issue and cruise the islands with carriers and LPDs, South East Asia should either arm themselves or ask the US for help.
As for Taiwan, if USA stopped protecting Taiwan, Taiwan would simply look elsewhere to fill its defence needs. USA has so much more to lose than it has to gain by protecting Taiwan, it would rather not do so. Even arms sales of an average of $10 billion a decade are not worth antagonising China, so it declines major requests.
If China stopped threatening Taiwan, no such defence needs would exist, and China and Taiwan would be even greater trading partners than they are today. Taiwan would be trading less with USA than with China. It would have no reason to buy US arms.
Territorial disputes occur when more than one countries lay claim to sovereignty over the territories. When malaysia and singapore both laid claim on Pedra Branca or pulau batu puteh, and Singapore bought squadrans of F16, missiles corvettes, I don't think Malaysia took Singapore as threat. Japan, Taiwan, china and even HK are disputing the sovereignty over Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands, they don't look at each other as if they are ready to go to war anytime. Why is China a threat to the some countries just because both are after the same thing, or place?
Ask any Taiwanese if they feel threatened by China, and the answer goes back to the unification and independence of Taiwan. Both sides know very well what they should do and should not do, and this should not be used to paint China black.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Territorial disputes occur when more than one countries lay claim to sovereignty over the territories. When malaysia and singapore both laid claim on Pedra Branca or pulau batu puteh, and Singapore bought squadrans of F16, missiles corvettes, I don't think Malaysia took Singapore as threat. Japan, Taiwan, china and even HK are disputing the sovereignty over Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands, they don't look at each other as if they are ready to go to war anytime. Why is China a threat to the some countries just because both are after the same thing, or place?
Ask any Taiwanese if they feel threatened by China, and the answer goes back to the unification and independence of Taiwan. Both sides know very well what they should do and should not do, and this should not be used to paint China black.
There are two differences:
China's claim is less reasonable. The Chinese claim is to draw a U-shaped line into the South China Sea, claim every island within it, draw 12 miles of territorial waters and 200 miles of EEZ around each and claim them too. Most of these islands are further from China than any claimant country. Is this similar to what Singapore and Malaysia did?
There is also the threat of force. Singapore and Malaysia continued to patrol their own islands. We never started chasing each other's ships and planes away or letting commercial ships go into each other's territory. In fact there was never a military build up on the islands. China has done both.
If your beef is against the US, I would be most happy for the US to leave, if every country that has a more reasonable claim can afford an arsenal of Brahmos or carrier-killing missiles of the type that China is buying.
-
What does this look like to you?
-
Originally posted by alize:
There are two differences:
China's claim is less reasonable. The Chinese claim is to draw a U-shaped line into the South China Sea, claim every island within it, draw 12 miles of territorial waters and 200 miles of EEZ around each and claim them too. Most of these islands are further from China than any claimant country. Is this similar to what Singapore and Malaysia did?
There is also the threat of force. Singapore and Malaysia continued to patrol their own islands. We never started chasing each other's ships and planes away or letting commercial ships go into each other's territory. In fact there was never a military build up on the islands. China has done both.
If your beef is against the US, I would be most happy for the US to leave, if every country that has a more reasonable claim can afford an arsenal of Brahmos or carrier-killing missiles of the type that China is buying.
My question is whether considering China a threat will lead to a solution to the dispute, should the issues of North Korea and the cross straits relationship between China and Taiwan be put into the same consideration? My answer is NO.
Discussions should continue with agreements such as the UN's 1982 convention and the Asean code of conduct in dealing with China in 2002 should continue, to come up with new ideas for resolving the dispute.
I won't be happy if the US were to leave Asia completely, that would means something goes wrong with the heads of those in the whitehouse, but that doesn't mean that we will have war immediately within the region when the US leave.
-
Originally posted by alize:
There are two differences:
China's claim is less reasonable. The Chinese claim is to draw a U-shaped line into the South China Sea, claim every island within it, draw 12 miles of territorial waters and 200 miles of EEZ around each and claim them too. Most of these islands are further from China than any claimant country. Is this similar to what Singapore and Malaysia did?
There is also the threat of force. Singapore and Malaysia continued to patrol their own islands. We never started chasing each other's ships and planes away or letting commercial ships go into each other's territory. In fact there was never a military build up on the islands. China has done both.
If your beef is against the US, I would be most happy for the US to leave, if every country that has a more reasonable claim can afford an arsenal of Brahmos or carrier-killing missiles of the type that China is buying.
everybody's claim has some basis, but obviously there is no basis that is accepted by all, who is to say whose claim is more reasonable? China and Vietnam both based their claim on history which is something Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei don't have, but they have their basis.
If an arm conflict, whether it is with your own strength or that of your bouncer, can force others to accept your point, then it will be a matter of time when China would have to use force, which they would be prepared to do, sacrificing a few hundreds warships, in exchange for the sinking of One US aircraft carrier. You think the US would be prepared to sacrifice the same. If the US were to risk a nuclear war, which country would be prepared to take the first hit? the Philippines, may be....
China would not want a war at its door step, the US has been fighting war far far away, from its own territory. History tells us very clearly.
