That's an Asian and European desire not an American need. America doesn't need to police those waters.
Well, then I will say Asia and Europe better step up their naval effort. Also, US have territories in both Asia and Pacific, so these are going to be relevant to the American
All these passageways can't simultaneously be blockaded while containing China to the first or second island chain. This is also the reason for the Chinese military build up in the SCS to undo any such blockage.
CPEC can assist in reducing the reliance on the shipping lanes. How beneficial it is depends on how many goods China wants flowing through.
You don't need to blockade first and second island chain because it was an open ocean, and the other side of that ocean is America, the Chinese can't make those journey unless the Chinese invade Hawaii or surrounding island.
And you cannot contest that blockade from Chinese island in the SCS, the best the Chinese can do is to send fighter that way, even if they can do that, the coverage is small, ship going that far without ground and air support would be suicidal.
CPEC is not going to be near the volume of sea transit. I mean, they can do it, but that's a very heavy toll being put on them switching from Sea Route to Ground Route.
The initial placement of missiles was done covertly. After removing the missiles it was impossible to put them there again because he US was alert. Any attempt to replace them would have guaranteed nuclear war and the USSR would be considered the belligerent.
The bases are not needed if there are no nuclear missiles. What would non nuclear weapons do in a conflict between then USSR and US?
Again, I am not talking about those missiles, I am talking about hosting USSR troop in Cuba, they tried with San Antanios de los Banos, in the end they have to give those Mig the USSR had to Cuba because shipping parts and supporting a base that far is untenable, they don't need the missile to project force, they only need to station ship and aircraft in Cuba, which is something they choose not to do.
What those base is for is another issue, again, as I said, you need both the need and the mean to have a base in a foreign area.
It worked in Sri Lanka and China doesn't control their government. I didn't say debt trap because that's a loaded term, I don't see China following the US in Africa or Japan. Africa, South America are becoming China friendly that's why US is amping investment in those regions but is behind China.
Does it really work in Sri Lanka??
Hambantota Port is not for military operation, it cannot be used as a forward logistic base, nor a repair base, which mean the Chinese literally forgave the Sri Lanka government over 50 billion of debt to lease that port for 99 years. If they just want a safe harbor to resupply their provision, that is something they probably be able to do cheaper without underwriting the debt here, granted if and when China decided to invade Sri Lanka that would have been a good jumping point for them to unload their equipment and force to take down the country. Which they probably would need to do if and when Sri Lanka renege their deal and nationalise the port if and when business pick up. Other than that, this means nothing to control area around Sri Lanka.
Conversely, I would say the British handing back Deigo Garcia to Mauritius is probably more of an issue for the United States in that region because they are going to lose both the Air and Naval Base to asset control of the sea area,
South America being "Friendly" to China does not actually do anything, because US influence in South America is very strong, this is like conversely Vietnam and Cambodia is increasing become more US friendly, that does not mean those country will do what US tell them to, that's the same as these "Chinese Friendly" South American nation.
syria.liveuamap.com
en.wikipedia.org
