Showing posts with label South Korea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Korea. Show all posts

Hawaii tests nuclear attack sirens

SUBHEAD: The state closest to Kim Jong Un’s missiles is preparing for what was once unthinkable.

By Jon Letman on 1 December 2017 for the Daily Beast -
(https://www.thedailybeast.com/hawaii-just-heard-what-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-would-sound-like)


Image above: Graphic of nuclear bomb explosion and siren wave form over the seal of the State of Hawaii. From original article.

The wail of an air raid siren cut through the humid December air for the first time in decades to warn of an imminent nuclear attack. Holiday shoppers at a palm tree-lined outdoor mall on the Hawaiian island of Kauai showed little reaction though. Others around the state reported not hearing the siren at all.

One resident, Adrian Diaz, a bank employee on his lunch break outside a Starbucks, was following local media and expected the siren. “It’s not going to be on the soundtrack of anybody’s album, but I think it’s definitely a good alarm to have.”

On Dec. 1, Hawaii’s Emergency Management Agency (HI-EMA) initiated a new monthly test of a siren that would sound in the event of a nuclear attack warning people to “Get Inside. Stay Inside. Stay Tuned.”

In a public presentation on Oahu, HI-EMA administrator Vern Miyagi said that with only 12-15 minutes advance notice in case of a North Korean missile launch against the islands, his agency has a responsibility to inform the public how to prepare and what to expect.

Hawaii already has 384 warning sirens statewide and is increasing the count to nearly 500. A steady tone siren to warn of natural disasters is already tested monthly, but Miyagi said, “For 2017, of course, we’ll have something for nuclear attack.”

Stressing such an event is “very unlikely,” Miyagi explained how planning models indicate a nuclear strike could target Honolulu’s international airport, harbor, or Hickam Airforce Base near Pearl Harbor.

Models project a nuclear strike would produce severe damage to critical infrastructure and buildings and a loss of emergency services, communications and utilities with up to 120,000 trauma and burn victims and close to 18,000 fatalities.

The state says it must also consider the possibility of neighbor islands like Maui or Kauai being hit intentionally or by accident.

Some critics believe officials are downplaying potential impacts but Miyagi insists, “We’re not holding anything back. We’re not making anything prettier. This is what we anticipate will happen. We want to make sure the public understands. It’s not a good thing.”

David Santoro, director and senior fellow of nuclear policy at the Pacific Forum/Center for Strategic and International Studies in Honolulu, isn’t opposed to Hawaii’s nuclear preparedness efforts but says people shouldn’t get too worried.

“North Korea isn’t an immediate threat and the U.S. has been ‘threatened’ by other nuclear-armed states for a long time,” Santoro wrote in an email. “Still, it’s good for Hawaii residents to be aware of the problem and prepare in the event of an incident.”

Residents are advised to stock two weeks’ worth of food, water, and medicine for natural hazards like tsunami and hurricanes but also in case of a nuclear attack, which could cut off supplies brought in by air and sea.

If U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) detected a Hawaii-bound missile, it would immediately notify HI-EMA, which is located in an underground tunnel inside Honolulu’s Diamond Head crater.

The agency would activate the statewide siren warning the public to shelter in place, ideally in the center of a sturdy concrete building that could hopefully withstand the searing flash and blast wave of an explosion.

Hawaii’s Cold War-era fallout shelters, long disused, are no longer viable and there are no plans to evacuate residents or tourists from one island to another.

Although military installations are assumed to be targets Miyagi said, “We’re very fortunate that we have PACOM right inside Honolulu... as soon as they determine that it is inbound or it is a threat to Hawaii, they will notify us via a secure telephone.”

Hawaii’s Department of Education spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said Hawaii’s public schools have been coordinating with HI-EMA but have no special drills planned for a missile attack.

“We work with HI-EMA on nuclear preparedness planning, practices and emergency procedures. Schools were provided the HI-EMA information regarding Ballistic Missile Preparedness and sheltering in place guidance,” Dela Cruz said by email.

Hawaii Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa said, “I don’t think any major U.S. city or state is adequately prepared for what has been, until more recent times, an unthinkable event.”

In written responses, Hanabusa and Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono both voiced support for sanctions and criticized President Trump’s use of Twitter to taunt the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un while failing to adequately pursue serious diplomacy.

“In fact,” Hirono said, “[Trump] has undermined his own Secretary of State on the importance of diplomatic talks, and has failed to make important nominations such as an ambassador to South Korea and an Assistant Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific Affairs.”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said Trump needs to understand Kim Jong Un is developing North Korea’s nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against U.S.-led regime change. The toppling of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, and Trump’s repeated threats to abandon the Iran nuclear deal tells North Korea that the U.S. can’t be trusted, Gabbard said.

“We must end our regime change policies and wars, and seriously pursue diplomatic negotiations with North Korea, without preconditions, to de-escalate and ultimately denuclearize North Korea,” Gabbard said in a written statement.

Hawaii is one of the few places in the U.S. to take concrete steps in preparation for a possible North Korean nuclear attack. Others include Ventura County (PDF), north of Los Angeles, and Guam, which Kim Jong Un threatened to strike in August.

Guam’s Homeland Security and the Office of Civil Defense are increasing the territory’s all hazards alert warning system and issued “imminent missile threat” guidelines (PDF), but, like Hawaii, has no designated fallout shelters and would have less than 15-20 minutes’ warning to “shelter in place.”

Some Hawaii residents are looking beyond sirens and shelters, urging local leaders to take a more active role in pursuing diplomacy with North Korea.

Koohan Paik, an Asia-Pacific policy analyst on Hawaii Island, introduced a resolution calling for the U.S. “to seek a peaceful diplomatic solution to reduce tensions in the Korean peninsula.”

The Hawaii County Council passed the resolution with an 8-0 vote.

Paik, whose own father was born in what is now North Korea said,
“A peace resolution sets a tone of aloha, while nuclear attack drills normalize fear and conflict. We need to visualize diplomacy, not a nuclear attack.”
On Oahu, Christine Ahn, international coordinator with Women Cross the DMZ, says she would rather see greater investment in supporting diplomacy than a “fear mongering campaign.”

“A wise move,” Ahn said, “would be to call for halting the war drills scheduled for the winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea. That would be a game changer and would signal to the North Koreans that we are ready to talk.”

University of Chicago history professor Bruce Cumings, a Korean history authority, believes “North Korea is not going to hit Hawaii because that would lead to the U.S. obliterating the regime.” In an email Cumings said,
“If public educators would focus on our historic responsibility for the North Korea problem—including utterly demolishing the country via air campaigns during the Korean war—we might get somewhere.”
In South Korea, where the risk of war is greatest, attack drills have been met with little sense of urgency in a nation that has grown accustomed to decades of fiery threats.

Meanwhile, this week North Korea broke its 74-day pause when it fired a Hwasong-15 ICBM toward Japan where missiles fired earlier this year led Japanese officials to sound their own warning sirens.

With talk of nuclear war rattling nerves from Honolulu to Hokkaido, instability on the Korean Peninsula does benefit one group: weapons manufacturers like Lockheed-Martin which view Asia as a “growth area” and where, less than a month ago, President Trump bragged about how much military hardware the U.S. would sell to “bring security to the region.”

The attack never came, of course. It was a drill, the first in decades.



Image above: Video of siren warning as it was heard at near Starbucks at the Kukui Grove Mall in Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii. From original article (https://youtu.be/P1i95FD5-NM).


.

Korea in Conflict

SUBHEAD: "From Colonization to Militarization" a free lecture December 7th at 6-8pm at KCC.

By Kip Goodwin for Island Breath on 29 November 2017 - 
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2017/11/korea-in-conflict.html)


Image above: Representatives of North and South Korea meeting in Demilitarized Zone in 2015 peace talks. From (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34039187).

WHAT:
 "From Colonization to Militarization: Korea in Context: Past and Present".  A free lecture with powerpoint presented by KCC History Professor Mark Ombrello and Kauai journalist Jon Letman.   Followed by snacks, refreshments, and a lively discussion.

WHERE:
Kauai Community College
One-Stop Center (the first building on the right when you drive into the Puhi campus
3-1901 Kaumualii Highway
Lihue, Hawaii 96766
808-245-8225

WHEN:
 Thursday, 7 December 2017, 6pm - 8pm

SPONSOR:
Kauai Alliance for Peace and Justice, and KCC History and Philosophy Club
For more information, email ombrello@kauai.edu or call 808-245-8328

Dr. Ombrello will provide a brief overview of modern (20th century) history of colonialism in Korea from the overthrow of the kingdom by Japan in 1910 to World War ll.

Mr. Letman will speak on current affairs with focus on the highly militarized state of the two Koreas. At a time of heightened tension with the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula, speakers will also examine Kauai's role in the militarization of South Korea and northeast Asia.

.

South Korea's stubborn peace effort

SUBHEAD: Peace movement refusing to give up is taking the long view of its campaign. 

By Jon Letman on 4 August 2017 for Truth Out -
(http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41486-taking-the-long-view-why-south-korea-s-peace-movement-refuses-to-give-up)


Image above: Jeong Young-hee is a Korean tangerine farmer in Gangjeong village on Jeju island. Like many residents, she strongly opposes the newly built South Korean naval base just two miles from her farm. Photo by Jon Letman. From original article.

In August, 1945, as Japan smoldered in the ruins of war, the question of what would become of the Korean peninsula after 35 years of Japanese occupation and a Soviet army advancing southward spurred the hasty selection of an artificial division along the 38th parallel drawn by two American officials as a border between US and Soviet "zones of occupation."

That line, never intended to be permanent, hardened like stubborn mud before the newly liberated Korea ever had the chance to form an independent, unified and democratic nation. Today 38°N still marks a potentially catastrophic flashpoint between North and South Korea.

The DMZ -- demilitarized zone -- despite its name, is one of the most militarized places on the planet. This hyper-militarization, in fact, extends south across the peninsula and today, 64 years after an armistice halted (but never formally ended) the Korean war, South Korea remains peppered with scores of US military installations -- at least 80 by the Pentagon's own count.

US bases, and the 28,500 US troops and joint military exercises they support, are not only opposed by North Korea; many South Koreans see them as a problematic construct that perpetuates the likelihood of war.

Despite frequent media coverage of North Korea's highly choreographed military parades, increasing missile launches, and Kim Jong-un's threats to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire," far less attention is paid to South Korea's tireless, well-organized peace movement opposed to militarism on both sides of the DMZ.

South Korean civil groups and NGOs like People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions are skilled at forming coalitions with peace activists and religious groups opposed to a military buildup, which they see as increasing tensions with the North and militarization across Northeast Asia.

Your Old Farm Is Our New Base


Image above: Candle light protests have been held outside the Seongju County office nightly since the deployment of the THAAD antimissile defense system was announced in July 2016. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

With the bulk of US bases concentrated in and around Seoul and within range of North Korean artillery, the US is in the middle of a major realignment of its forces as it consolidates bases, moving tens of thousands of troops, their families and civilian contractors to US Army Garrison Humphreys in the city of Pyeongtaek, 40 miles south of Seoul.

In 2002, when the US announced its plan to triple Humphreys in size, Pyeongtaek residents living around the base organized fierce protests that raged for five years.

Thousands of police were deployed, citizens were arrested and villages were demolished. In the end, however, the base's walls were pushed outward, and Camp Humphreys grew from just over 1,000 acres to more than 3,400 acres, making it the US's largest overseas military base in the world.

Now in the final years of construction, US Army Garrison Humphreys is equipped to serve as the new headquarters for the Eighth US Army and US Forces Korea command center.


Image above: A representative of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions holds an anti-THAAD banner at a demonstration in Soseong-ri, Seongju County, South Korea. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

The Humphreys expansion is slated for completion by 2020 and will eventually be home to up to 46,000 military and civilian personnel living and working behind razor wire-topped walls and gates.

The $10.7 billion expansion, the US's largest-ever peacetime military construction project, is being paid for overwhelmingly (around 90 percent) by the South Korean government. In 2016, Gen. Vincent Brooks (now head of US Forces Korea) publicly stated that it's cheaper to station US troops in South Korea than in the United States.

The Humphreys expansion does have supporters in the community, and many businesses have come to depend on the US military's presence.

Pyeongtaek's city government, unable to refuse the influx of thousands of US forces, has done its best to promote Humphreys' expansion as an opportunity to court non-military business and infrastructure investment and push for internationalization through increased cultural exchanges with military personnel and their families.

Still, many residents view the base as an unwelcome intrusion on Korean sovereignty and a source of crime, pollution and noise from military aircraft like F-16s, A-10 Thunderbolts, Chinook and Apache helicopters.


Image above: Demonstrators march toward the former golf course in Seongju County where the controversial THAAD antimissile defense system is being deployed by the US. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

Since 2002, Kang Song-won of the Pyeongtaek Peace Center has been working closely with residents from communities affected by Humphreys, particularly those who were forcibly relocated from the villages of Daechu-ri and Dodu-ri. Kang works with volunteers to monitor military incidents and accidents around the base.

Beyond the noise and inherent danger, he told Truthout the most harmful impact of Humphreys' expansion has been the deep divisions sown in the community between base supporters and opponents.

Giving up, however, is not an option. "Even though we lost the fight against the US military, I think it is still necessary to keep fighting ... against the problems of the US military base," Kang said.

Island of Peace, Tides of War


Image above: US Army Garrison Humphreys is a helicopter base in what will soon be the the United States' largest overseas military base. Just beyond the fence are small farming villages. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

An hour's flight south of Seoul is sub-tropical Jeju island. Home to nine UNESCO Global Geoparks and a World Heritage site, the volcanic island is renowned for its natural beauty and biodiversity both on land and sea. Jeju has also been heavily developed for tourism. On the south coast, in Gangjeong village, is the site of a new Korean naval base.

Muddying its primary purpose, the base is sometimes called the Jeju Multipurpose Port Complex and is touted as having a (future) dual civilian-military function, but for now it's strictly a Korean naval base and headquarters for the South Korean Navy's Mobile Task Force Flotilla-7, which includes Aegis warfare destroyers, KDX III helicopter destroyers and a submarine force command.

Like the expansion of Camp Humphreys, the 2007 announcement of the Jeju naval base sparked widespread outcry from residents opposed to the militarization of what was dubbed "Island of Peace" in recognition of Jeju's horrific April 3 massacre (1947-54).

In that massacre, as many as 30,000 island residents were killed by Korean forces over a seven-year period beginning in 1947 during the US military administration that occupied the southern part of the Korean peninsula immediately after the August 1945 defeat of Japan.

As in Pyeongtaek, Jeju base protesters clashed with the police for years. Base opponents, including the former mayor, were arrested and heavily fined but in the end, the base was built.


Image above: Many of the residents protesting against the deployment of the THAAD antimissile defense system are elderly farmers who don't want their remote mountain village to be militarized. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

Tangerine farmers Jeong Young-hee and her husband Kang Sung-won have been growing Jeju's famous citrus varieties for 30 years in greenhouses less than two miles from the base. Young-hee and Sung-won are concerned about the environmental impact of the base, especially the effects on the sea -- including soft corals, sea urchins, abalone and other marine life -- and the destruction of what was a sacred lava rock coastal field called Gureombi.

Construction on the base is not yet complete. Young-hee and Sung-won worry that as it grows, if a future exclusion zone (a zone that would restrict new construction) is declared, it would surround their farm, almost certainly driving down land values.

Peeling one of her sweet hallabong oranges, Young-hee explains how the base has caused a rift between friends and family members. The base has also divided many citrus farmers and Jeju's famous Haenyeo free divers. "Our relationship was destroyed," says Young-hee, who joined her male counterparts in shaving her head as a gesture of protest against the base.


Image above: Retired Catholic priest Father Mun Jeong-hyeon holds a daily mass along along a roadside site that doubles as a protest against the Jeju naval base in Gangjeong village, Jeju island. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

In the early days of the struggle, when base opponents pointed fingers at the US accusing it of pressuring South Korea (also known as the Republic of Korea), South Korean officials denied that the base would permanently host US warships.

This year, in March and June, US warships made their first visits to the Jeju base with short, inconspicuous port calls similar to what was recommended in a 2013 US Army War College strategy research project. Last January, US Pacific Command's Adm. Harry Harris suggested the possibility of deploying the US's newest, most lethal stealth destroyer, the USS Zumwalt to Jeju waters.

The Jeju navy base became operational in February 2016. Resistance continues daily, with activists gathering each morning in front of the entry gate to perform one hundred bows as a nonviolent, meditative protest.

Nearby, in a roadside tent chapel, retired Catholic priest Father Mun Jeong-hyeon leads a daily mass, before joining protesters who gather with flags and banners playing raucous music outside the base.

The mood of the protesters is defiant and the message is serious: they want a shift away from militarization of the Korean peninsula and northeast Asia.

This week (July 30-August 5), for the eighth year since 2008, apeace march is underway, in which activists are walking from the Jeju naval base around the island to raise awareness of the continuing struggle and to call for peace.

In Defense of Who?


Image above: Guards look out from behind a razor wire fence surrounded the new South Korean naval base on Jeju island, South Korea. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

South Korea's latest struggle against militarization began in July 2016 in rural, traditionally conservative Seongju County 135 miles south of Seoul.

Residents of Seongju and neighboring Gimcheon were caught off guard when the central government, under deposed President Park Geun-hye, offered Seongju to the US as a location for the US antimissile defense Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.

For more than a year since that announcement, daily protests have been taking place in Seongju and elsewhere around the country. In June, an anti-THAAD protest of several thousand people briefly and peacefully surrounded the US embassy in Seoul.

THAAD manufacturer Lockheed Martin says the system is intended to defend "US troops, allied forces, population centers and critical infrastructure against short and medium range ballistic missiles."

Seongju residents and Koreans across the country, however, recite a litany of reasons they are opposed to THAAD, from environmental and health concerns to the lack of a democratic process to ever-increasing deployment of foreign weapons, as well as economic repercussions and tension with its neighbors China and Russia.


Image above: Korean Army personnel stand guard at the Demilitarized Zone/Joint Security Area outside the Military Armistice Commission buildings along the tense border. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

Two weeks before South Korea's snap election on May 9 this year, the US, citing North Korean threats, hurriedly began the deployment of THAAD in what had been a golf course outside a small village called Soseong-ri.

When South Korea's newly elected President Moon Jae-in learned that his own Ministry of Defense had failed to notify him of the presence of an additional four THAAD launchers, Moon called for a temporary suspension of THAAD to conduct an environmental assessment.

That suspension, however, is being reevaluated now as South Korea considers deploying additional launchers in response to a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile test last week.

Like other aspects of the military alliance between the US and South Korea, THAAD is supported by some South Koreans and reviled by others. And like the communities in Gangjeong village on Jeju and Pyeongtaek near Seoul, the people of Seongju and Gimcheon are divided.

Speaking at a candlelight vigil outside the Seongju County government office on May 30, three local women were eager to share their thoughts with Americans.

On this 310th day of consecutive protests, the women told Truthout they wanted their lives back the way they were before THAAD.

They said their community was being torn apart -- even relations between parents and children were being strained by strong disagreements over THAAD.

Some of their neighbors have given up opposition to THAAD, either accepting it as unavoidable or simply focusing on other matters.

These women, however, refuse to give up and say they feel a responsibility to attend nightly demonstrations against THAAD. They also admit feeling a growing resentment toward what they see as an unequal alliance.

"We are starting to have anti-American sentiments even though we don't hate Americans," a woman who identified herself as Mrs. Kim said.

"To be honest, I want the US military to go home," said a second woman, who also goes by the name Mrs. Kim, adding the English phrase, "Yankee, go home."

The Truth Is Very Powerful


Image above: Demonstrators perform 100 bows for peace six days a week as a protest against the South Korean Jeju naval base in Gangjeong village, Jeju island. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

Even as new bases are built, old bases expanded and more weapons imported, what fuels South Korean peace movements in the face of overwhelming power?

In Seoul, Jungmin Choi who works with Durebang (My Sister's Place), an NGO that provides counseling to foreign women working in bars and clubs near US bases, says those women are living witnesses to the impact of military bases.

Choi calls the impacts of the bases "indescribably huge" and both tangible and intangible, but insists, "we believe this fight cannot be defeated … we will fight in a creative way with a long-term view."

On the other side of the country, Jeju base opponent Choi Sung-hee says that even though the Jeju base is operational and US warships have started visiting, the protests must continue.

Not only does the military know it is being watched, but protests build solidarity with other anti-base movements across South Korea and internationally, in places like Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines and Hawaii, particularly among women.


Image above: A protester is blocked by a security guard as he sits in silent protest outside the entry to the South Korean naval base on Jeju island. Photo by John Letman. From original article.

"That's the role of people ... we should constantly demand: we do not need arms, we do not need THAAD, we do not need more military bases," Choi says. "If the people's movement is strong, I think it can also influence the decisions of the South Korean president."

Nearby, in the St. Francis Peace Center, Father Mun carves messages of peace into wooden boards after each morning's protest. Nearly 80 years old, Father Mun has been a peace activist for decades in Pyeongtaek, on Jeju and elsewhere acting, in his words, as "a witness for truth."

When asked why he continues to resist in the face of overwhelming power, Father Mun declared, "The truth cannot be thrown away. The truth will stand up some day. The truth is very powerful. So, I believe the truth is going to win all enemies."

.

War with China now more likely

SUBHEAD: Expert thinks North Korea can be the catalyst for war between the United States and China.

By Danieal Jennings on 7 July 2017 for Off Grid News -
(http://www.offthegridnews.com/how-to-2/war-between-u-s-china-more-likely-than-not-adviser-to-5-u-s-presidents-says/)


Image above: The nuclear carrier USS John C. Stennis is deployed in the Western Pacific and would be a key player in a conflict with North  Korea and/or China. From original article.

The world is underestimating the risk of a cataclysmic clash between the United States and China. That’s the belief of Graham Allison, a foreign policy expert who advised every presidential administration from Reagan to Obama.

Allison sees disturbing parallels between the present relationship between China and America and situations that have led to catastrophic wars in the past, The Economist reported July 6. He even has a name for it: the “Thucydides Trap.”

The trap occurs when a rising nation like China clashes with an established power such as the United States. A classic example of the trap was World War I, which broke out because Imperial Germany challenged the British Empire.

Thucydides was an ancient Greek historian who chronicled the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. That conflict led to the destruction of both nations.

Destined for War?
“It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” Allison wrote in his new book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?

Allison says war between the two nations is “more likely than not.”

“This alarming conclusion is shared by many in Washington, where Mr. Allison’s book is causing a stir,” The Economist reported.

President Trump’s foreign policy team is taking Allison’s warnings very seriously. Politico reported that Allison visited the White House and met with some of Trump’s top advisers but not the president.

Tensions between the U.S. and China are rising. On Monday, China’s military accused the U.S. of a making a “serious political and military provocation” after the guided missile destroyer USS Stethem sailed within 12 nautical miles of a Chinese base on Triton Island in the South China Sea.

The complaint came on the same day that President Trump lashed out at China on Twitter.

“Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter,” Trump tweeted. “So much for China working with us — but we had to give it a try!”

Allison is director of Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Last month, Allison told the CBC that he thinks North Korea can be the catalyst for war between the United States and China.

“I think in that sense it’s dangerous,” Allison said of North Korea. “If you asked me what’s a good way to get to war, that would be a good way.”

“If you end up having a war between the U.S. and China, China can deliver 50 or 60 nuclear weapons against the U.S.” Allison said. “Basically, that’s the end of the country as you would think of it. That’s catastrophic.”

.

Hanjin shipping bankruptcy

SUBHEAD: Just-in-time is very efficient financially (until it isn't). But just-in-time is not very resilient.

By  Kurt Cobb on 4 September 2016 for Resource Insights -
(http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2016/09/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy-efficient.html)


Image above: Hanjin container ship "Hanjin China" underqway with containers. From (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:408968/mmsi:352058000/imo:9408865/vessel:HANJIN_CHINA).

We are about to learn once again that lack of resilience is the flip side of efficiency. The world's seventh largest shipping firm, Korean-based Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd., failed to rally the support of its creditors last week and was forced to file for bankruptcy.

Retailers and manufacturers worldwide are in a bit of a panic as the fate of goods on Hanjin ships shifts into the hands of courts and lawyers for creditors intent on seizing Hanjin assets in order to ensure payment of outstanding bills. Much of Hanjin's fleet is chartered, that is, owned by others, and those owners want to make sure they get paid their charter fees or get their ships back pronto.

The result has been that half of Hanjin's container vessels are currently blocked from the world's ports for fear that the ports will not be paid for their loading and unloading services. Other shippers which include trucking companies which carry containers to their final destination are reluctant to take on Hanjin freight for fear of not getting paid. (You are perhaps seeing the main theme here.)

Meanwhile, the sudden drop in available shipping containers and ships has caused shipping rates to soar as businesses scramble to make other arrangements for items still to be shipped.

U.S. retailers are so panicked that they have asked the U.S. Department of Commerce to step in to help resolve the breakdown which is likely to hurt those retailers during the upcoming Christmas shopping season.

Let's take a step back to understand how this all happened. Clever business owners have learned to run so-called "lean" operations to compete with their equally lean competitors.

One way to be lean is to reduce idle inventories which just sit in expensive warehouses by arranging to have what the business needs delivered practically every day. The approach is often referred to as a warehouse on wheels and also as just-in-time delivery.

With little or no inventory of essential goods and raw materials retailers and manufacturers are subject to disruptions all along their supply chains which reach around the globe. A breakdown at any step can quickly bring activity to a halt on the factory floor or on the sales floor.

Just-in-time is very efficient financially (until, of course, it isn't). Little money is tied up in inventories or the space to warehouse them. But just-in-time is not very resilient. It used to be that businesses stockpiled goods and critical resources to ensure against disruptions.

But the advent of computerized tracking combined with more efficient shipping practices worked to end the stockpiling of inventories.

I wrote about the vulnerabilities of just-in-time delivery systems back in 2006, 2008 and updated the 2006 piece in 2011. My suggestion back in 2006 that just-in-time systems were likely to recede in the wake of repeated shocks has proven to be premature.

But the wisdom of running hospitals, for instance, on just-in-time supply principles seems foolhardy. It seems logical for hospitals as emergency facilities to be prepared for a mass catastrophe (earthquake, hurricane, etc.) with substantial medical supplies.

Along these lines, does a three-day supply of food now available in most metropolises seem like wise planning?

The Hanjin bankruptcy also calls into the question the wisdom of allowing so much freight--7.8 percent of all trans-Pacific U.S. freight--to be handled by one carrier. And yet large size and just-in-time systems create what economists like to call economies of scale. Goods and services are provided more cheaply.

But such systems are not resilient. Resilience often requires redundancy and that spells inefficiency in today's business climate. It is, however, what we see in nature. Humans have two kidneys, but can survive with just one. Some genes are redundant, able to perform the same functions. There are 4,186 known species of diving beetles, lots of redundancy to ensure survival and biodiversity.

Two organizations worldwide practice redundancy on a major scale. Space exploration agencies build multiple redundant systems, especially for manned flight, to ensure the survival of spaceships, probes and people. Space exploration is so hazardous that even these redundancies don't always ensure survival as the loss of two space shuttles has shown.

The world's militaries also practice redundancy to ensure survivability and deterrence. The United States, for example, continues to maintain a trio of nuclear armaments on land, on and under the sea and in the air at all times on the theory that in order to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent, the U.S. military must have nuclear arsenals that are difficult to destroy in a first strike.

If some of those arsenals are deep in the oceans in nuclear submarines or on bombers in flight, some of those will likely survive to strike back--though sane people will ask what of human civilization will be left after such an exchange.

And when it comes to oil, the lifeblood of the world economy, countries across the globe now have what are called strategic petroleum reserves, oil reserves controlled by or mandated by governments to ensure against disruption of oil deliveries.

All of these redundancies would be considered "inefficient" in the business world. But they create much more resilient systems. Tightly networked systems with little redundancy such as the worldwide logistics system we now live under are highly efficient but vulnerable to widespread breakdowns from small hiccups. What seems rational on the surface is deeply irrational underneath.

The Hanjin bankruptcy is unlikely to bring down the world logistics system. At most it will shutter some factories temporarily and result in store shelves that are a little less diverse this fall. But the Hanjin affair will make clear that efficiency does not always come cheap, and that efficient systems are only efficient if they function continuously.

Should the pressures we saw in 2008 return, we may wish that just-in-time systems had been abandoned or least modified so as not to create the large and cascading disruptions that are an inevitable cost of such "efficiency." And should the financial uncertainty experienced at the end of 2008 after the financial crash return, we may find far more Hanjins filing for bankruptcy and far more serious disruptions occurring than we are experiencing today.

Kurt Cobb is an author, speaker, and columnist focusing on energy and the environment. He is a regular contributor to the Energy Voices section of The Christian Science Monitor and author of the peak-oil-themed novel Prelude. In addition, he has written columns for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen, and his work has been featured on Energy Bulletin (now Resilience.org), The Oil Drum, OilPrice.com, Econ Matters, Peak Oil Review, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights and can be contacted at kurtcobb2001@yahoo.com.

.

TPP won't get Senate vote now

SUBHEAD: Republicans will not seek lame duck vote on Trans Pacific Partnership. Thank God!

By Deidre Fulton on 26 August 2016 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/26/good-news-says-sanders-mcconnell-signals-no-lame-duck-vote-tpp)


Image above: People attend a rally protesting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Maui, Hawaii, the United States, July 29, 2015. From (http://thebricspost.com/if-tpp-fails-us-will-cede-trade-leadership-role-to-china-us-trade-rep/#.V8M86LUnqe8).

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that the U.S. Senate will not vote on the 12-nation, corporate-friendly Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) this year, buoying progressive hopes that the trade deal will never come to fruition. 

Responding to the news, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—whose opposition to the TPP was a hallmark of his presidential campaign—said: "This is good news for American workers, for the environment, and for the ability to protect public health."

McConnell told a Kentucky State Farm Bureau breakfast in Louisville that the agreement, "which has some serious flaws, will not be acted upon this year."

Grassroots groups have led a concerted campaign to prevent a vote during the so-called "lame-duck" session of Congress, after the November election and before President Barack Obama leaves office in January. The White House recently vowed to wage an "all-out push" in favor of such a vote.

"We never thought we would agree with Mitch McConnell on something, but we do agree on not bringing the TPP to a vote in the lame-duck session," said Adam Green, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder, on Friday. "There's widespread, bipartisan opposition to the corporate-written TPP and an unaccountable, lame-duck Congress voting on it."

However, The Hill reports, "McConnell said that while the trade agreement won't get approved in its current form, it could pass next year with some changes."

"It will still be around," said the Republican from Kentucky. "It can be massaged, changed, worked on during the next administration."

Both Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton say they're against the deal, but that opposition isn't guaranteed. And that's why opponents need to keep the pressure on.

Indeed, added Sanders: "This treaty is opposed by every trade union in the country and virtually the entire grassroots base of the Democratic Party.

In my view, it is now time for the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate and the House to go on the record in opposition to holding a vote on this job-killing trade deal during the lame-duck session of Congress and beyond."

To that end, Reuters notes that earlier this month, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan "said he saw no point in bringing up the TPP deal for a vote in any 'lame duck' session of Congress later this year because 'we don't have the votes.'"

.

The US and Korea

SUBHEAD: For three generations American lessons learned and lost in relating to Korea.

By Jon Letman on 13 May 2016 for Truth Out -
(http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36022-the-us-in-korea-lessons-lost-lessons-learned)


Image above:A US Navy ship stands by amid the destruction of port facilities in Hungnam, North Korea, on December 24, 1950. (Photo: US Navy).From original article).

With the American public's limited attention span for international affairs tied up by fears of ISIS (also known as Daesh), intractable wars in the Middle East and unease about Putin's Russia, Obama's much-touted Asia-Pacific pivot frequently gets third or fourth billing on the foreign policy marquee.

The "pivot" (also called the "Indo-Asia-Pacific Rebalance") is centered on exerting a greater US economic, diplomatic and military influence in the world's most populous and economically vibrant region.

But on the Korean peninsula, even as the United States bolsters its military posture with more troops, training and weapons, US politicians and the public view the standoff with North Korea without fully knowing or considering important historical realities and potential opportunities.

First, a few facts.

Economically, Northeast Asia is critical to the US economy. China, Japan and South Korea are among the United States' top seven largest trading partners, with whom the US is trying to turn trade imbalances in its favor. A hallmark of President Obama's foreign trade efforts in Asia has been the much-disputed free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

In a speech about the Asia-Pacific pivot in 2015, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter described the TPP's passage as being "as important as another aircraft carrier." Whether intentional or not, Carter's comparison highlights the overlap between trade and militarism in the rebalance to Asia.

The US has roughly 28,500 troops in South Korea today, with 54,000 more in Okinawa and Japan. With its ally, South Korea (otherwise known as the Republic of Korea or ROK), the US military operates on the premise that it must be "ready to fight tonight."

And while the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump, argues South Korea and Japan must "pay their fair share" for the US to keep its soldiers in their countries.

The Associated Press recently reported that the four-star Army general overseeing US forces in South Korea said it is cheaper to operate from South Korea than from the United States, because Korea pays half the annual bill ($808 million) and is funding over 90 percent of a new $10.8 billion US base.

It should be noted that independent of what the US spends on its large military presence in South Korea, in 2015, South Korea was ranked the world's 10th largest military spender (Japan was eighth).

Currently, under a military agreement with the United States, South Korean forces would fall under the command of the US in the event of a war, but a new operational plan to change that is now being considered.

According to a 2015 US Department of Defense report, North Korea (otherwise known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK) has an estimated 950,000 troops. The Guardian's North Korea Datablog published a summary of Korean military figures here.

North Korea Threatens a "Sea of Fire"
Given North Korea's recent history of nuclear tests, rocket launches and threats to turn South Korea into a sea of fire and reduce the US to ashes, it is often dismissed as irrationally hostile, but scholars and foreign policy experts specializing in the region say the country needs to be examined in historical context and with a greater appreciation of how North Korea came into existence.

North Korea was founded on the core tenet of juche (self-reliance) three years after US colonels hastily divided Korea along the 38th parallel following the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and North Koreans suffered extraordinary death and destruction from US carpet bombings during the Korean War (1950-53). By one estimate, Pyongyang was reduced from 500,000 to 50,000 in one year of the Korean War with up to 90 percent (or more) of Pyongyang destroyed by US bombs.

Although an armistice brought fighting on the Korean peninsula to a halt, a peace treaty was never signed and North Korea and South Korea remain technically in a state of war. In the subsequent six decades, North Korea has been threatened with nuclear weapons at least eight times by six US presidents, including President Obama, according to Joseph Gerson, director of the Peace and Economic Security Program with the American Friends Service Committee.

And despite a thaw in 2000, when then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met face to face with Kim Jong-il, relations between the US and North Korea nose dived under President George W. Bush, who branded North Korea as part of an "axis of evil" and called North Korea's leader a tyrant and a "pygmy."

In 2006 North Korea detonated its first nuclear explosion and became the world's eighth declared nuclear state, a milestone North Korea's foreign ministry attributed to "US nuclear threat, sanctions and pressure." Today, North Korea is believed to have six to eight nuclear weapons (compared with the United States' more than 7,200).

Korea analysts say that under Obama's policy of "strategic patience," US-North Korean relations are near historic lows. In January 2016, the North conducted a fourth nuclear test (claiming it was a hydrogen bomb), followed by a rocket launch and more fiery threats. Additional UN Security Council sanctions have been imposed but their effectiveness is in question and there's talk of a fifth nuclear test being imminent.

Meanwhile the US and South Korea regularly practice for war with the North, carrying out large-scale military exercises that include amphibious landings, surgical hits and "decapitation training" to remove Kim Jong-un and other senior leaders. This spring's war games, reportedly the largest ever, were accompanied by North Korean provocations with each side using the other to justify its own saber rattling.

Gerson and other analysts call the joint exercises harmful and say they should be scaled back or halted to de-escalate tensions. The only way out of this chicken-and-egg cycle of threat-counter threat, Gerson says, is with "disciplined, difficult, patient diplomacy," something he charges the Obama administration has refused to do.

Continued US Involvement in South Korea
Scott Snyder, senior fellow for Korea studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said South Korea does have a growing military capability but added, "South Korea is well aware of the risks and consequences of rivalry and transition in Northeast Asia because they've been the biggest victims ... as the smaller country that is less powerful than Japan or China."

"For South Korea, the US is a security blanket that helps to buffer them against [North Korean] threats," Snyder said. But without the US security commitment and absent trust-based relations among neighboring Northeast Asian nations, he finds it hard to imagine security for South Korea.

 Snyder sees the United States' security relationships with South Korea (and Japan) as a stabilizing force that has prevented the outbreak of hot conflicts but says the overall situation on the Korean peninsula is moving in the wrong direction. "To be honest, I am probably more pessimistic than I have been in a long time," he said.

"There are a lot of problems [that] are part of the reason why the US continues to be involved in the region," Snyder said. This raises the question: Is long-term US military involvement in Northeast Asia part of the solution or part of the problem?

The B-52s
In 2013, calling the move a form of "diplomacy," the US flew nuclear-capable B-2 bombers and B-52s on flyover missions as a message to North Korea. Similar B-52 flyovers followed the North's latest nuclear test as a show of strength but Snyder says they offer "diminishing utility."

"It might have had some utility the first time but increasingly it just looks like part of the usual drill," said Snyder, warning that nuclear bomber runs are a type of US propaganda that could backfire if North Korean leadership uses the flyovers to reinforce the internal perception that the country is under siege.

"We need to address the situation directly through negotiations that actually have the effect of lowering tensions rather than engaging in propaganda signaling exercises," Snyder added.

Paul Liem, an executive board member of the Korea Policy Institute in California, agrees that US-South Korean war games are counterproductive and breed instability. He says stopping the exercises in exchange for a freeze in North Korea's nuclear program could pave the way for a peace treaty that would officially end the Korean War, which could in turn eventually lead to normalized relations.

Liem is confident Koreans on both sides of the demilitarized zone dividing North and South Korea would support such steps but added, "I don't think we'll do it ... the contest in Asia is not between North Korea and the United States; it's between China and the United States.

The North Korean tests play very handily into the perceived need for the US to ramp up its military preparedness in the region." Liem suggests that much of the increased military activity around the Korean peninsula is, in fact, directed at China more than North Korea.

The Wrong Questions
At the University of Connecticut, Korea and Japan history Prof. Alexis Dudden points out that Korea has been divided as two nations since the dawn of the atomic age. In 2003, during the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq, Dudden says it was absolutely clear to the North Korean leadership that nuclear weapons equal state sovereignty.

"South Korea has always been occupied by the US military so it has not developed its own nuclear weapons system, whereas the North Koreans, having come into being in that historical juncture, determined almost right away -- especially building on the experience of the firebombing of Pyongyang -- the Korean War was always potentially a nuclear war, not simply because of its timing, but there were discussions of using nuclear materials in that war, on the US side at least," Dudden said.

Despite the Asia-Pacific pivot, Dudden says the Obama administration's policy toward Korea has been "willful and absent at best -- entirely outsourced to different think tanks and policy interests" and, in her words, "not consistent at all."

If the US is really interested in helping to bring about "a peaceful and prosperous Northeast Asia," Dudden said, "we need to ask different questions." She argues that instead of pursuing a renewed containment theory, creating fearful populations and boosting defense budgets, we should be discussing our common aims such as combating climate change.

Talk Before You Run
Part of the problem with US-North Korean relations, says Daniel Jasper, Asia advocacy coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, is a dangerous lack of direct engagement that creates bureaucrats and diplomats who lack the linguistic and cultural experience to interact in a positive, meaningful and direct way.

Because diplomats come and go, if they don't have on-the-ground experience, it's that much harder to make concrete decisions and anticipate what the other side is thinking, Jasper says.

Before engaging in the most complex issues, like a peace treaty and nuclear negotiations, it's important to lay the groundwork by cooperating in areas of mutual interest like education, agriculture, health and climate change, according to Jasper. Institutional person-to-person exchanges are essential to building capacity and trust.

He insists the problem is exacerbated by the characterization of North Koreans as irrational, cartoonish and flat-out "insane." Jasper sees a failure to recognize that tensions spike just before the war games, and says it's no coincidence that North Korea chose to detonate a nuclear bomb prior to major US-South Korean military exercises.

Dudden agrees that dismissing North Korean leadership as "crazy" is counterproductive and misses the reality that the government is deeply calculating, even if Kim Jong-un has sent very mixed messages about engaging with the United States.

Give Peace a Chance
If a disastrous Northeast Asian war is to be avoided, it will require engagement and diplomacy. Calls for a peace treaty that would formally end the Korean War continued to come from the North even as it prepared to hold its first Workers' Party Congress in 36 years. South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported on North Korean state-run media suggesting Kim Jong-un would not be the first to use nuclear weapons unless "[North Korea's] sovereignty is violated." The same report indicated the North was willing to mend relations with "hostile" nations.

Approaching the twilight of the Obama presidency, many questions remain. Will the next US president work to reestablish a dialogue with North Korea? Will the next administration have the ability and patience to engage in tough, long-term negotiations and the flexibility to address complex, decades-old animosity?

In a region clouded with distrust and fear, one thing is clear: Larger war games, more lethal weapons and heightened threats and hostility have proven to be ineffective means to achieve peace and regional stability, which are, after all, what everyone insists they want most.

 • Jon Letman is a freelance journalist on Kauai. He writes about politics, people and the environment in the Asia-Pacific region. Follow him on Twitter: @jonletman.
.

An ugly dance - The Asian Pivot

SUBHEAD: The Asian Pivot has so far been a feeble attempt by USA to outplay Asia in the game of who can destroy the planet the fastest. 

By Juan Wilson on 5 December 2013 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2013/12/an-ugly-dance-asian-pivot.html)

http://www.islandbreath.org/2013Year/12/131205pacificbig.jpg
Image above: Overview of western Pacific showing how distant Pearl Harbor (far right) is from the "action" (far left). It's halfway around the world. From GoogleEarth by Juan Wilson.

Who are the most destructive bastards in the Pacific - WE ARE!

Needless to say, after dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945, we held the lead and kept a lap ahead of the field with our hundreds of a-bomb and h-bomb tests in the 50's. We left Russia and France in the dust (laced with Strontium 90). We followed up with a grinding war against South East Asia through the 60s and 70s. In terms of "big wars" after that America simply coasted through the next couple of decades.

We got a wake-up call on September 11th, 2001. That temporarily diverted our attention from destroying the Pacific Ocean full time. We've spent two decades shredding the Middle East over 911 and Al Qaeda.

Oh sure, we kept up pretenses. We went through the obligatory biennial RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) War Games, but our hearts weren't in it. The Japanese and others were strip-mining the ocean mega-fauna faster than we could kill them with sonar and weapons tests.

It was only when the environmental destructiveness of China's industrial expansion started to eclipse our own that President Obama admitted we we falling behind. Now we had some real competition.

Our response?  - "The Asian Pivot". It was announced on April Fools Day 2009.The idea was that America would turn its strategic might towards the western Pacific and China.

In over our heads
The Asian Pivot has so far been a feeble attempt by USA to outplay Asia in the game of who can destroy the planet the fastest.

We had no idea what we were up against. On March 11th, 2011 An earthquake and tsunami devastated the eastern coast of Japan. Significantly, it destroyed the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant and in the process melted down the cores of three boiling water reactors.

This amounted to 350 tons of melted "corium"consisting mostly of uranium and plutonium. Enough for about 50,000 nuclear bombs yielding 40 kilotons of energy each. And this trove didn't include the much vaster amounts of nuclear material in the sites other two reactors and seven "spent" fuel cooling ponds.

Curses, outdone again!
Immediately the Japanese began cooling the ravaged reactors with Pacific Ocean water that, to this day, has been recycled back into the sea at a rate of about 300 to 400 tons a day - this was, of course, along with incalculable amounts of radioactive Cesium 137, Iodine 131 and Strontium 90. Simply stir and serve.

With the entire Pacific threatened the Japanese had moved into first place in planetary destruction.

Certainly China was not to be deterred. The Chinese had their own plans. They announced territorial rights on the entire South China Sea as well its undersea petroleum exploitation rights. Drill baby drill! They have recently extended claims of airspace control of areas hitherto not in their jurisdiction.

America will not to be deterred by these Johny-Come-Latelys. We have been working on our own plans.

A bit of backgound
Our Navy is the most deadly and destructive force in the world. The Pacific Ocean is almost 40% of the Earth's surface. At one time the strategic control of our Navy was centered in San Diego.

America realized, late in the 19th century that if it wanted to dominate the Pacific it would have to take down the Spanish Navy. Before the Spanish American War we overthrew the Hawaiian government and made Pearl Harbor our safe haven in the Pacific.

In 1898 we fought the Spanish over Cuba and the Philippines. Since 1907 United States Pacific Fleet headquarters has been at Pearl Harbor on Oahu, Hawaii. It has since become the strategic center of operations for the US Navy throughout the Pacific.

http://www.islandbreath.org/2013Year/12/131205pivotbig.jpg
Image above: A closer look at the western Pacific near the South China Sea showing our Strategic Islands, including Guam and the Marianas; Subic Bay, the Philippines; Okinawa, Japan; and Jeju Island, South Korea. Click to enlarge. From GoogleEarth by Juan Wilson.
 
Westward Ho!
With the Pacific Pivot the US Navy strategic center is moving farther West - Or that is East by going over the international dateline. How far are we talking about? Some 5,000 miles. That's about twice the distance from San Diego to Pearl Harbor.

It is my opinion you will see continued pressure on South Korea and Japan to "step-up" and support our saber rattling. There will be pressure on Japan to let our bases on Okinawa not only remain, but get beefed up.

We will likely see renewed some arm twisting of the Philippines. In June 1991, the second largest volcanic eruption of the twentieth century took place on the island of Luzon in the Philippines, a mere 55 miles northwest of the capital city Manila. Following their near complete destruction, two of the largest American military bases in the world were abandoned - Clark Air Force Base and the Navy's base in Subic Bay.

Back in 1991 Bill Clinton was president and those distant and our interests were in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. We simply abandoned the Philippine bases. In my opinion we will see renewed interest in those bases attached to offers of aide to the Philippine government in the aftermath of typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan).

The costs be damned!
Needless to say, trying to face down China halfway around the world will be hideously expensive. A lot of that cost is the maintenance of about a dozen Carrier Strike Groups (CSG). CSGs comprise the principal element of U.S. power projection capability.They include nuclear aircraft carriers, cruisers; destroyers, submarines and other specialized ships. Weapons platforms include fighter/bomber and anti-tank aircraft; heliccopters; long range sea-to-surfaceguided missiles; air-to-air short range missles; etc. Nuclear weapons are a key element of their armament.

The number of CSGs varies of the years between ten and fifteen. You can bet the CSGs will play a party in the Pacific Pivot on Jeju and Gaum islands in the western Pacific Ocean and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The idea is that you steam one or two CSG anywhere in the world and you establish full-spectrum dominance. 

How will the Pacific Pivot be paid for? Most likely by continued reduction of support for the lower and middle classes. It will take the form of cuts in Social Security payments; reduced unemployment benefits; cuts in food supplements, infrastructure maintenance, disaster relief and anything else you can think of.

The Real Enemies
The sad part is that the Carrier Strike Group is an obsolete system. It was what we successfully fought the Japanese with in WWII, and what could not win the long war in South East Asia or the Middle East. It is likely the defenses of the CSGs will be overcome with a variety of technologies in the next decade or so. That could include electromagnetic pulses; GPS satellite intereference; electronic hacking and other tactics. The CSG are lumbering dinosaurs with no real enemy or mission.

The real enemies today are the spread of radioactive poison throughout the Pacific; climate induced ocean levels rising; acidification, and global warming. The Pacific is also being ravaged by over fishing; gigantic gyres of floating plastic waste; reef dieoff; and, of course, the US Navy's own war games.

Asian Pivot my ass. It's an ugly dance of death!

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Help save Mariana Islands 11/13/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Moana Nui Confereence 11/1/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Okinawa breathes easier 4/27/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Navy Next-War-Itis 4/13/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Hawaii - Start of American Empire 2/26/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Military schmoozes Guam & Hawaii 3/17/11
Ea O Ka Aina: In Search of Real Security - One 8/31/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Peace for the Blue Continent 8/10/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Pacific Resistance to U.S. Military 5/24/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Shift in Pacific Power Balance 8/5/10
Ea O Ka Aina: RIMPAC to Return in 2010 5/2/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Living at the Tip of the Spear 4/5/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Guam Land Grab 11/30/09
Ea O Ka Aina: Guam as a modern Bikini Atoll 12/25/09
Ea O Ka Aina: GUAM - Another Strategic Island 11/8/09
Ea O Ka Aina: Diego Garcia - Another stolen island 11/6/09
Ea O Ka Aina: DARPA & Super-Cavitation on Kauai 3/24/09
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2008 - Navy fired up in Hawaii 7/2/08
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2008 uses destructive sonar 4/22/08
Island Breath: Navy Plans for the Pacific 9/3/07
Island Breath: Judge restricts sonar off California 08/07/07
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2006 - Impact on oceani 5/23/06
Island Breath: RIMPAC 2004 - Whale strandings on Kauai 9/2/04
Island Breath: PMRF Land Grab 3/15/04


.