sardia wrote:The Chinese strategy in the Pacific and world wide is interesting. It's creating a world wide system (one belt one road)of bases in order to emulate US Military bases on the cheap. Instead of a carrier, you have a militarized island. Instead of a logistics hub, you have a commercial port backed by China.
It's not entirely unlike what we did in the pre/early WW2 era, when carriers were not yet commonplace. Islands are not mobile, but they are logistically a lot easier in many ways.
The system's vulnerable to cargo interdiction as well as being overwhelmed with localized force from a more mobile opponent one island at a time. Basically, Japan's entire problem with WW2 after losing their carrier fleet. For China, this will probably suffice against most regional opponents, who lack that sort of mobile firepower to flatten them one at a time, but Japan is notably one of the top few carrier-based countries(I'd rank them US, France, Japan, with everyone else coming in a distant fourth). Given a tendency for island conflict in the area and generally lessening anti-military sentiment in Japan, this may be relevant.
Zamfir wrote:Seriously, I don't think that plays any role when buying jet fighters for Belgium. They assume that any foreseeable self-defense will be fought as junior partners, in NATO or something resembling NATO. There is no realistic scenario where a few dozen f35s make a difference to Belgium's ability to defend itself on its own.
Yeah, it's largely a team effort thing. It does, however, provide them with an on-site reaction force, and on a tactical level, that can matter a great deal. Being able to fly a CAP or not without getting another country involved can be utterly critical.