Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron Bower who wrote (9661)	5/30/2000 2:19:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 9980

Will it be regarded as a 'guarantor of peace' or threatening to the stability of the region? In my opinion, I certainly don't see it as a destabilizing force. In fact, I think an increase US presence will substantially offset the fears being generated by an 8000 pound gorilla like China, as well as the uncertainty as to whether in Japan's future potentially lurks the possibility of renewed militarism (certainly far in the future). Either way, the only way the US can increase its presence is through the use of its blue water naval assets and air power. That article makes some key points about how the US is re-approaching its allies/partners in the region with a different attitude towards obtaining basing and docking rights, as well as a change in the Status of Forces agreements we negotiate with them. Also, there is a big discussion going on now with regard to how the Army will restructure its forces to be more deployable to regional hot spots without losing the ability to fight a large formation land battle. As the US switches emphasis to Asia, we'll see more importance placed upon Marine and Naval capability which, as any historian will tell you, carried the main brunt of fighting Japan. (Btw, a trivia question.... which service branch carried out the most amphibious operations during WWII, the Marines or the US Army?) Regards, Ron

To: Ron Bower who wrote (9661)	5/30/2000 10:13:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 9980

What do you think 'Asia's' response will be to increased US military presence? Will it be regarded as a 'guarantor of peace' or threatening to the stability of the region? I suppose that some at the extremes will view it as one or the other, most somewhere in between. Ultimately this will be decided by the manner in which the US decides to implement the decision to project more power into Asia. It will have to be largely naval: there are few permanent bases in the area, and little prospect for adding new ones or expanding the existing ones. The emphasis on cooperating with local forces is a possibility, but it will make it difficult to actually use force without the approval of other nations in the region. This in turn will require a degree of multilateralism that many in the US may find hard to accomodate. We shall see.

To: Ron Bower who wrote (9661)	5/31/2000 12:34:00 AM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

What do you think 'Asia's' response will be to increased US military presence? Will it be regarded as a 'guarantor of peace' or threatening to the stability of the region? Ron, your question sure opens the door to a lot of discussion. For example, which Asia? The one with the PRC, the Vietnamese and North Korea? Or the Asia of Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and the PI? Like one of our former State Governors once said, "...this opens a whole box of Pandoras." <g> The PRC figures that it bought and paid for at least one "Get Out of Jail Free" card from this administration, and if the 7th Fleet goes steaming through the Straits it will not be taken kindly, MFN (oops, I mean PNTR) vote or not. But, they are still a fledgling power insofar as having the ability to project that power. Still, like an adolecent flexing new muscles, there will be a strong desire to exercise their hegemony. For years, they watched the Soviets bluster and threaten to get what they wanted, usually successfully, and now that they have a few ICBMs, they figure the game will probably still work. There are enough hand-wringers around in the US to make it a pretty good gamble. If the PRC can call in its chits and keep the 7th Fleet away while winning the Senate PNTR vote, they win. If they can manufacture a situation that permits them to "defend themselves" against a real or imaginary threat from the fleet, they win, regardless of how effective their "self defense" might be. From strictly a domestic consumption point of view, they win by blustering whether anybody does anything or not. IMO, the only way they can actually lose anything is by actually mounting forces to invade or punish Taiwan and being defeated in that attempt. So long as they can strut and act like the 'Cock of the Walk,' they can't lose because there will not be a direct line in the sand drawn (short of actual military action). What really inspired me to write this post, though, is the notion that it is the US that will stabilize or destabilize Asia. Seems to me that the PRC and N. Korea are taking the actions that have that effect, not America. Whatever happens, we will be responding (or not responding) to the aggressive actions of the communist states in Asia in an effort to maintain a status quo, not to upset some existing Balance of Power. Sorta like some of the news reports out of Miami during the 'Elian Crisis;' some reporters were saying the the presence of the riot cops in the streets provoked the rioters into throwing bottles and rocks. Or, that firearms cause violence. The backwards thinking that produces such comments completely baffles me. It is like saying that malaria produces mosquetoes. So, I'm going to put Pandora back in her box. :-) jim