Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Dave Carter ·
Jun 3, 2010 at 8:47am
While waiting for my trailer to be loaded with 45,000 lbs of cotton seed, I saw in the news this morning is that the US is considering dispatching the USS George Washington to the waters where North Korea recently torpedoed a South Korean vessel. This a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, some 24 stories tall -- a mammoth ship and, in my view, a healthy show of force. Some questions for the very capable brains in the Ricochet universe:
1. Do you think we should and will move forward with the deployment?
2. What will the likely reaction from the North be?
3. How does the deployment open or curtail our options the region?
4. What kind of signal does this send to enemies and friends in other regions?
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
1. I'm kind of surprised we don't have a carrier group in that vicinity already--wait, no, I'm not. But if such orders have been cut, they're clearly overdue.
2. Limited to yappin', at least as far as the carrier group itself is concerned. The only thing serious action the Norks could take against a US carrier is try and hit it with a nuke, and even they aren't that nuts. Then again, they probably ARE nuts enough to try something like grabbing a soldier or an errant helicopter/small patrol boat, and see if they can use the resulting captives as hostages.
3. That depends on the will (or lack therof) to use force, and the Norks calculations regarding same. See #1.
4. See #3. Under normal circumstances it'd be a show of determination. Under these circumstances, your (and Kim's) guess is as good as mine.
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Isn't the GW already doing work ups in preparation for summer deployment? I hope they go scare some sense into NK. My husband served aboard good ole CVN 73 from 2003 - 2005. It's an amazing vessel.
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
I'll take a stab at Q4, Dave. What kind of signal does it send to enemies and friends in other regions to send the USS George Washington into the Norks' front yard? I'm not sure it signals much more than that North Korea is still a big problem in our eyes, one that merits a stern illustration of American displeasure.
I'm not much for the politics of symbolism, neither foreign nor domestic. We should try to stay true in our signaling to the psychologist's description of a symbol -- it is what it represents. A huge nuclear-powered aircraft carrier floating outside NoKo speaks for itself. It's good for that to be good enough.
I'm all in favor of showing strength at the right place and time. But the dictates of realkeeping hold that we shouldn't try to do it on the cheap by trying to project real power in one part of the world to places where, like it or not, it becomes more virtual. Send a carrier or don't; worry less about sending a message.
Edited on Jun 3, 2010 at 5:42pmMay '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
CNN is reporting that no such deployment is planned. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/06/03/south.korea.us/index.html
(In fairness, the story also notes that military sources are still expecting deployment orders.)
Dave, say goodbye to the last of the F-15's at Tyndall for me. I worked on that base for years, and still can't quite imagine the place without any Eagles.
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
James, I absolutely agree. I'm much more concerned with what happens after the aircraft carrier arrives on station than with the symbolism, but I was curious about it just the same. In 1994, we were seriously threatening UN sanctions over the North's nuclear ambitions, and the North (then under Kim Il Sung's rule) seriously said that sanctions would be considered an act of war. I can personally attest to the fact that things were a bit tense as I was stationed there at the time and had plenty of practice getting acquainted with my chem gear. If you recall, Jimmy Carter got into the act and North Korea got nukes, demonstrating that the former President still had that midas touch. The larger point I'm driving at is that when Carter intervened, our bluff wasn't really called. If we send the carrier this time around, I would expect more belligerent threats from the North, and those threats may or may not be idle. One can never tell with North Korea. The question is, does Obama have the spine for this?
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Will Collier: CNN is reporting that no such deployment is planned. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!
(In fairness, the story also notes that military sources are still expecting deployment orders.)
Dave, say goodbye to the last of the F-15's at Tyndall for me. I worked on that base for years, and still can't quite imagine the place without any Eagles. · Jun 3 at 5:17pm
Will, the departure of the F-15's from Tyndall is a tough development for the community, as it is accompanied by a reduction in personnel. We seem to be shedding aircraft before the replacements are on line and ready to go, which doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. Of course, some of the F-15's were old enough to vote when I retired, and I'm sure they're old enough now to legally get a DWI. Still, it would be nice to phase in one weapons system as you phase out another.
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Do we sell many aircraft that we retire? Or are most of them dismantled or shipped to museums? I'm sure Israel would appreciate them about now.
A cousin of mine just finished basic training, USAF. He'll be working with the B-2s at Whiteman soon. His graduation from boot camp was less pleasant than the one you described earlier, haha -- as cold a morning as San Antonio ever sees.
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Somewhat related to Q2: In the latest podcast of Radio Derb, John Derbyshire spoke about the latest Nork behavior as part of power struggle between factions jockeying for the eventual succession to Kim Jong Il. I'd not read about that aspect before. Here's an AP dispatch about it: http://bit.ly/bBXZWq Kim Jong Un may be trying to impress and solidify a base within the Communist Party leadership. That may lead to continued erratic behavior as mounting internal troubles bubble to the surface.
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
The whole bit, though, about age of an aircraft is quite deceiving. The B-52 fleet, sure, originated in the '50's- but about all that is the same now is part of the skin, the shape, and the name. Navigation systems, avionics, engines, you name it, have all been upgraded more than once. The airframe isn't stealthy (who really needs it at those altitudes when not flying over advanced AD systems), but aerodynamics really haven't changed since we discovered fluid flows/wind tunnel modeling. I hate to see the workhorse, high capacity F-15 bite the dust, because you can incrementally upgrade a good airframe virtually forever.
None of this has anything to do with David's question, of course. Just blowing off steam after reading the Weekly Standard article on Obama's "strategic plan" for DoD. I don't think that any of this stuff means anything unless/until the ROK gets serious. So far, they haven't been.
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
I agree with James -- there's something not only pointless, but dangerously pointless, in sending an aircraft carrier into the Yellow Sea when everyone knows you're not going to use it, for anything, at any time, ever.
The foreign policy of George Bush had a lot of flaws, but what was most refreshing about it was that he didn't go in for symbolism. You can't symbolically intimidate anyone. You can't symbolically push back on North Korean aggression. You can look weak and silly, though.
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Since complete agreement can very quickly become--oh, let's just say uninteresting--I feel wonderfully reassured to have come upon a comment by Rob that strikes me as badly mistaken.
But can the North Koreans really be so sure the present commander-in-chief wouldn't use it? Obama strikes me as he strikes you, Rob, which is to say, as feckless. But not entirely so. He did, after all, increase our troops in Afghanistan by some 30,000, and he has authorized the use of predator drones to launch lethal attacks at a rate some four times higher (as best I can tell) than the rate at which they launched lethal attacks under George W. Bush.
Barack Obama is capable of deploying military force to deadly effect. If it does indeed sail, then that carrier will keep the North Koreans...guessing.
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
All carriers are escorted by submarines and assorted other vessels, so the George Washington won't be going by itself.
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Peter, you are absolutely right. During the Bush administration, carriers were deployed in exactly this same manner -- as shows of force and to keep our options open vis-a-vis Syria/Iran, China/Taiwan, and even Korea. What is wrong with this deployment?
There are plenty of things that Obama is doing wrong for us to be attacking him for doing things right.
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Or that carrier will provide a nice big target for North Korea's next torpedo. I doubt it, but it's possible. An egotistic dictator who perceives himself as living his last days or losing power might choose to go out with a bang. He might try to solidify his place in history with an awe-inspiring, and abominable, last order.
It's good to make our presence known, but intimidation can backfire when an enemy is interested in something more than ongoing control. Dictators ain't all the same.
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
The North Koreans, guessing? In the past decade, they've managed to buy (and sell) missile technology, test a series of weapons, agree to inspections, deny those inspections, demand aid, receive aid, agree to stop enriching uranium, begin enriching uranium, they've sunk a South Korean ship killing 46, met with Jimmy Carter, agreed to multi-party talks, refused multi-party talks, begun counterfeiting US currency, and totally flummox at least three US presidents.
Exactly who is keeping who guessing?
Let's face it: the North Koreans aren't scared of us. And if they're not in the least bit restrained by 28,500 US troops across the DMZ, why would they deign to notice an aircraft carrier? Obama's use of predator drones in Afghanistan sort of argues my point: he prefers small, out-of-sight actions. Assassination attempts, really.
Honestly, now: North Korea is China's problem. No one there wants 23 million emaciated North Koreans streaming across the border. And it's South Korea's problem. No one there wants 23 million emaciated North Koreans streaming across the border.
That's Kim Jong Il's most brilliant line of defense: the interested parties will do anything, pay anything, accept anything to delay the inevitable messy, bloody collapse of the Hermit Kingdom.
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
That should be "who is keeping whom guessing."
I win.
May '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
I assume no one would be interested in taking over the country? Perhaps some European country, say Greece, would be interested in taking over and utilizing cheap labor to support the 14 month annual pension checks? No?
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
Peter, you have chastened I with your correction.
Jun '10
Re: Aircraft Carrier Deployment
It's hard to come up with rational answers such an unstable situation. If we do deploy the carrier group it's meaning will be unclear to everyone but the those in D.C. I'd say the reaction from the North is impossible to predict; I've never noticed the leadership in the North being particularly burdened with any form of sanity I could discern. I think there is no question the availability of a carrier group in the region greatly expands our options and capabilities. As for signals, it's been my experience the signal we send and the signal others receive are sometimes vastly divergent. I think things are going to get interesting.