lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,024 
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2022 10:22:24 GMT
As per the treaty, the USN will clear the mines. What could China do? In North Vietnamese territorial waters. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2022 11:10:41 GMT
The Chinese don’t have extensive modern mine warfare vessels, nor are they a signatory to the treaty at all.
North Vietnam is a Soviet ally, which I would argue is even more significant here than in @.
The US mines were all laid close in by bombers, submarines, carrier planes and destroyers; not that territorial waters existed at this point in time in either @ or Dark Earth.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,024
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2022 11:34:12 GMT
The Chinese don’t have extensive modern mine warfare vessels, nor are they a signatory to the treaty at all. North Vietnam is a Soviet ally, which I would argue is even more significant here than in @. The US mines were all laid close in by bombers, submarines, carrier planes and destroyers; not that territorial waters existed at this point in time in either @ or Dark Earth. So they are not laid in mine fields that the US knows of, instead it is hunting separate mines. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2022 12:35:37 GMT
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,024
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2022 12:40:12 GMT
That is going to take a while, unless there is some sort of Magic mine Sweeping. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2022 13:03:40 GMT
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,024
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2022 13:07:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2022 13:46:58 GMT
You're welcome, as are all questions. The necessity of keeping naval forces on station, both for minesweeping and general presence, will alter some USN force size calculations as the 1970s begin.
The last of the Essex CVs and the larger part of the wartime cruisers and destroyers will be decommissioning soon, but construction has kept up fairly well. There will be shifts in other parts of the fleet as well.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,024
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2022 13:49:05 GMT
You're welcome, as are all questions. The necessity of keeping naval forces on station, both for minesweeping and general presence, will alter some USN force size calculations as the 1970s begin. The last of the Essex CVs and the larger part of the wartime cruisers and destroyers will be decommissioning soon, but construction has kept up fairly well. There will be shifts in other parts of the fleet as well. Did a check, could not find the number of mines that the US laid during OTL Vietnam War, but i assume as everything is bigger and more here, it is more than OTL. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2022 14:06:14 GMT
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,024
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2022 14:07:51 GMT
there were some 90,000 mines of various types laid. Any type of mines that are not of the normal type. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2022 14:37:14 GMT
No nuclear mines, just bottom mines and moored mines further offshore. The really interesting developments are what is coming in the 1970s.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Jul 24, 2022 14:37:33 GMT
The Chinese don’t have extensive modern mine warfare vessels, nor are they a signatory to the treaty at all. North Vietnam is a Soviet ally, which I would argue is even more significant here than in @. The US mines were all laid close in by bombers, submarines, carrier planes and destroyers; not that territorial waters existed at this point in time in either @ or Dark Earth.
I though the concept of territorial waters had been present since the start of the modern era? Know that by this time there was a fairly generally accepted 3-4 mile limit and that by the early-mid 70's this was being massively expanded by the general acceptance of a 12 mile limit and a 200 mile EEZ, see the cod wars for some details. Given that nationalism is stronger in the DE and hence probably ideas of protection of interests as well I would have thought its more protective in general and such ideas would be at least as strong as OTL? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2022 14:56:34 GMT
That part is my International Law pedantry coming into action. The general concept of territorial waters in the modern legal sense is established in the UNCLOS of 1982, which hasn't been adopted in Dark Earth yet for obvious reasons. Prior to that, there were attempts at getting a binding convention in place from 1958-1964 in @, but they didn't set out the specific extent of TWs, just the concept of them, as well as some details on bays.
What is in place is the traditional 3 mile limit, which is very much obsolete in its old basis of cannon range. There have been moves towards the extension out to 12 miles, but nothing has been agreed upon at treaty level, nor has the uptake been sufficient for it to become customary international law.
The Cod War ended rather more abruptly, given the disparity between Britain and Iceland in strength, so the notion of EEZs is way into the future. As matters stand, there might be a conventional on what comprises territorial waters within the coming years, but with some different measurements and articles.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2022 16:47:25 GMT
As a coda to the above, the largest EEZ… 1.) Britain: 15,733,567 6805586 (UK and possessions in @) 953633 (Azores) 410310 (Ireland) 260995 (Faroes) 98707 (Cyprus) 54823 (Malta) 923322 (Maldives) 1284997 (Mauritius) 1336559 (Seychelles) 325021 (Cocos) 410722 (Heard and McDonald) 468599 (Trinidade and Martim Vaz) 413636 (Saint Peter and Saint Paul) 363362 (Fernando de Noronha) 720412 (Easter Island) 436004 (Bouvet) 466879 (Prince Edward Islands) British Pacific Islands/South Pacific Federation 127950 (Samoa) 308480 (Nauru) 659558 (Tonga) 663251 (Vanuatu) 749790 (Tuvalu) 1282978 (Fiji) 1589477 (Solomons) 3441810 (Kiribati) 8823294 Plus the Galapagos, Heligoland, Minorca and Lyonesse, which I can’t calculate on my phone. This dominance would make it less likely for some other states to support the notion of EEZs as it cuts them out of a lot of potential sea areas. Germany isn’t keen as by nature of British control of Heligoland, it is cut out of the North Sea. That particular body of water is an area of contention, given the British expansion of oil and gas platforms into what would be Danish, Dutch and Norwegian sectors in @. www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/hccmq7/eez_of_the_uk_and_neighbouring_coastal_states/ |
|
