The Perils of Island Warfare

[mota bhai 2,675]

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.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, no, not everyone is asking that question.

[GandD 5,966]

This article assumes china has the capability to project sea or air superiority over the US and Japan. Which of course they don't.

[mota bhai 2,675]

This article assumes china has the capability to project sea or air superiority over the US and Japan. Which of course they don't.

Does it? That's not how I read it. I read it as assuming the Chinese can be cut off by the US-Japan alliance and isolated on those islands.

[GandD 5,966]

Does it? That's not how I read it. I read it as assuming the Chinese can be cut off by the US-Japan alliance and isolated on those islands.

I guess that's true too. This is a strategy to be employed more so if you you want to gain the upper hand I would think. Surrounding them and allowing the infection to whither would, IMHO, make us look less powerful. Me thinks the level of belligerence that would lead to an actual land invasion should be met with shock and awe, as it were.

[mota bhai 2,675]

I guess that's true too. This is a strategy to be employed more so if you you want to gain the upper hand I would think. Surrounding them and allowing the infection to whither would, IMHO, make us look less powerful. Me thinks the level of belligerence that would lead to an actual land invasion should be met with shock and awe, as it were.

History only remembers the outcome. I wouldn't worry too much about what Hannity says.

[Hotter Otter 1,211]

You demoralize the troops on the islands by taking out their airforce and sinking any warships around the island leaving them feeling isolated and adrift. Then when morale is low and their guard is down you send marines in. Worked for the UK in the Falklands.

[GandD 5,966]

History only remembers the outcome. I wouldn't worry too much about what Hannity says.

History also has a memory for most lopsided a$$ kickings. Maybe I'm just sick of hearing how powerful China is when their military is a huge POS.

[luckytxn 2,264]

This is Japans problem anyway. The U.S. just needs to sell them any arms they want maybe a few nukes.

[GandD 5,966]

This is Japans problem anyway. The U.S. just needs to sell them any arms they want maybe a few nukes.

No, part of their "disarming" was that we would protect them. Do you really want Japan building up their military or even worse a nuke? That's the misconception with our presence throughout the world. We DO act as the world's military and this is a good thing for us in many many ways. Our military protection is offered to nations at the cost of compliance with our rule. You don't want everyone else building up their armies as it will lead to more worldwide militaries and eventually more war. The peace we're currently in is a direct result of Western military dominance. Do you really want everyone handling their own protection? That really means everyone has to build their own nukes and armies for protection. You'd be increasing the chances for world war dramatically.

[mota bhai 2,675]

No, part of their "disarming" was that we would protect them. Do you really want Japan building up their military or even worse a nuke? That's the misconception with our presence throughout the world. We DO act as the world's military and this is a good thing for us in many many ways. Our military protection is offered to nations at the cost of compliance with our rule. You don't want everyone else building up their armies as it will lead to more worldwide militaries and eventually more war. The peace we're currently in is a direct result of Western military dominance. Do you really want everyone handling their own protection? That really means everyone has to build their own nukes and armies for protection. You'd be increasing the chances for world war dramatically.

Exactly.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

No, part of their "disarming" was that we would protect them. Do you really want Japan building up their military or even worse a nuke? That's the misconception with our presence throughout the world. We DO act as the world's military and this is a good thing for us in many many ways. Our military protection is offered to nations at the cost of compliance with our rule. You don't want everyone else building up their armies as it will lead to more worldwide militaries and eventually more war. The peace we're currently in is a direct result of Western military dominance. Do you really want everyone handling their own protection? That really means everyone has to build their own nukes and armies for protection. You'd be increasing the chances for world war dramatically.

In a truly Democratic world, each nation would be responsible for it's own defense. Those that couldn't defend themselves would be conquered. Whoever conquers the strongest and most strategic areas wins. And then continues until they totally dominate and control the world. The US needs to take over China and Russia ASAP. Then head into the Middle East and take control over the oil. I have it all figured out.

[Sousuke 1,214]

No, part of their "disarming" was that we would protect them. Do you really want Japan building up their military or even worse a nuke? That's the misconception with our presence throughout the world. We DO act as the world's military and this is a good thing for us in many many ways. Our military protection is offered to nations at the cost of compliance with our rule. You don't want everyone else building up their armies as it will lead to more worldwide militaries and eventually more war. The peace we're currently in is a direct result of Western military dominance. Do you really want everyone handling their own protection? That really means everyone has to build their own nukes and armies for protection. You'd be increasing the chances for world war dramatically.

Right. Basically Japan cannot legally start a war here. If China attacks, only then may Japan declare War with our full support.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Right. Basically Japan cannot legally start a war here. If China attacks, only then may Japan declare War with our full support.

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.

[luckytxn 2,264]

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.

No, part of their "disarming" was that we would protect them. Do you really want Japan building up their military or even worse a nuke? That's the misconception with our presence throughout the world. We DO act as the world's military and this is a good thing for us in many many ways. Our military protection is offered to nations at the cost of compliance with our rule. You don't want everyone else building up their armies as it will lead to more worldwide militaries and eventually more war. The peace we're currently in is a direct result of Western military dominance. Do you really want everyone handling their own protection? That really means everyone has to build their own nukes and armies for protection. You'd be increasing the chances for world war dramatically.

Ya think?

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.