Public sentiment regarding U.S. military advancements in the Indo-Pacific is polarized. While some express pride in technological superiority and readiness to deter threats, others voice skepticism about the motives and consequences of militarization, emphasizing a need for diplomatic solutions over armed conflict. Concerns also arise around misinformation and the complexities of international relations, particularly in the context of U.S.-China dynamics.

U.S. Military

China

International Community

Apparently they were suppose to start appearing on Pmkeys in May. No one I know (including me) have it on theirs yet.

basicburt

[deleted]

It has started appearing on PMkeyS for some people, so I'd say it will start arriving in the next month or so.

Usually the time between appearing on PMkeyS and it being delivered to your unit for distribution is 1-3 weeks, although it could take them longer to actually hand it out.

*edit: the distribution of the medal was being prioritised for currently serving members who had the qualifying days already. Discharged members and members who qualify after the introduction were to follow*

Snakeshit_

realDoritoMussolini

Oh, pretty, didn't even know this thing existed until this thread popped up.   
  
But yay, another gong a tonne will qualify for but never actually get due to the absolute awful bureaucracy in the back end (me included).

grantspatchcock

Thanks everyone for the updates, it's been so long I forgot how slow the defence train moves, I do note that they changed the page from when I last looked, it's used to say 2nd quarter 2025 and now says 3rd, I'm sure next time I look it will say 4th

SomethigIronic

Guilty_Most4117

Id Like to how ex adf members are notified.

Optimal-Walrus-636

shsusnsnaj

Probably won’t be for ages as it covers a lot of operations and there will be a gargantuan backlog to issue them.

Thrithias

00zoo

This map is just bad. Taiwan’s dot is on Okinawa…

20thMaine

Terrible map, flags are wrong, placements are wrong. This is map gore not map porn

LPSD_FTW

![gif](giphy|1jCs6Doz3WRtOPl6bq)

46 troops in philippines

From___Ukraine

The locations of the bases in Japan are interesting. So close to each others

Environmental_Unit20

Not sure why this map includes

- Hawaii
- Guam
- Wake Island
- Diego Garcia
- India
- Taiwan

Three of these are US territories, one is a NATO territory, and the last two are listed despite having zero formal presence whatsoever.

MustardLabs

Im pretty sure that's not the flag of Hawaii (nor where it is located) and that Okinawa, Japan is not part of Taiwan

GamerBoixX

53000 in Japan. Damn.

Why do they have so many. They must be bored a shit

nomamesgueyz

"Why is China moving its troops so close to our bases"

roomuuluus

Only 100k? That’s not gonna do much against China

Speedydds

When you have a global empire, and wonder why local powers like China, Russia, or Iran may be concerned about your presence.

Yet somehow, they are the evil bad guys. Don't talk to me about how these neighboring countries want the US there when they are all US vassals.

Downvotes incoming :)

Putrid_Line_1027

Most of these countries allow all open ports to US forces to resupply, have airbases only US can use/ allow US to use their own airbases.

For Korea, Japan and Australia in particular their forces and equipment interoperable with US forces and equipment they’re essentially a separate branch of US forces, so you should count their army numbers together for a more accurate picture.

CreepyDepartment5509

What the US B-2 Bomber can accomplish . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9enhyWbOy8

truth-4-sale

The U.S. has 100,000+ troops stationed across the Indo-Pacific, maintaining strategic bases and alliances to counter regional threats.

Compiled by Clash Report.

UpgradedSiera6666

The US military bases in Japan are 40, not 5. Saying "major bases: 5" doesn't show how serious this occupation is.

Sus_scrofa_

AIRdomination

Hope Trump pulls every one of them out, except those on American territories, same with Europe.

No_Mall5340

China resisting American imperialism in the Pacific, and Russia fighting back in Eastern Europe! 

Best of luck to them.

londonbridge1985

Alaska was left out, and so was Washington State.

I think it might make sense to include them.

Ashamed-Tomatillo592

I_love_pillows

100k of Troops is much less than in Europe

itzekindofmagic

The US needs to get out and leave. China needs to get out and leave. India needs to get out and leave. Russia needs to get out and leave. Australia needs to get out and leave. Let sovereign countries own their land and water. Do not threaten them or invade them or go to war against them. Shame on all of them!

In essence it boils down to how China is trying to expand its influence on the region while the US is trying to maintain theirs.

DecentlySizedPotato

Preventing a country in the world that could challenge American hegemony is at the heart of American foreign policy.

Turning the great powers on the Eurasian continent against each other and creating wars near the great powers is a method that has been used since the UK. The US just inherited the UK.

adminPASSW0RD

In a geographic, economic and political sense, the US is a [Pacific nation](https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/the-u-s-as-a-pacific-nation/). Its geopolitical power in the region stems from its network of security alliances. If the US does not defend Taiwan-- which has *decades* of robust bipartisan support enshrined in multiple pieces of legislation-- then why would Korea or Japan ever expect the US to defend them? Lose Taiwan, lose the alliances that act as a force multiplier for the US in the region. 

Here's a quick blurb on the America's actual [goals](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/11/fact-sheet-indo-pacific-strategy-of-the-united-states/) in the region. In a nutshell, it boils down to deterring revanchist powers and defending the international rules-based order which created conditions for the Asia-Pacific's phenomenal economic growth. 

The US is not trying to contain China-- hell, the US facilitated China's rise-- but instead seeks to influence China's behavior and persuade them to pursue their legitimate interests through internationally-accepted means.

CJOD149-W-MARU-3P

Simply put, power.
Power that every country wants.
Power to tell others what to do.
Power to tell others what to buy.
Power to tell others what to kill.

Luke__Jaywalker

The U.S. has built an international order that's been relatively peaceful for nearly 70 years.  "Relatively peaceful" means compared with the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, and is mostly that there haven't been any world wars or nuclear conflicts.

Similarly, the global trade system largely built by the U.S. has created vast amounts of wealth. Finally, the U.S. likes to see promoting democracy and human rights as inherently in its national interest. There are certainly critiques of all three of those, but the question is what the U.S. sees as its national interest, not if the U.S.' self-image is correct.

The rise of China threatens all three of those. For a time around the turn of the century, there was an idea (mostly outside of China) that China could be integrated into the existing international systems and eventually become a 'normal nation.'  Inside China, I often heard things along the lines of "Nobody should worry about China, we're not expansionist. All we want is to return to our rightful place and undo the harms inflicted on us over the last few hundred years."  

Since then, we've learned that (1) China isn't interested in merely finding its place in a system that was set up by other nations; and (2) resentful nationalism makes for erratic foreign policy.  In the last 20 years, we've seen that China is quite comfortable simply taking things from its neighbors by force and seems to invent "traditional" territorial claims to justify expansionism.  The treatment of Hong Kong made clear that expanding Chinese power means a rollback of democracy, and the treatment of the Uighurs should be a warning to any non-Han near China who seek to preserve their own national identity.

Finally, there's raw national security interest: the U.S. has had some bad experiences with expansionist Asian powers, and is heavily invested in the current balance of power as a way of keeping everything stable.

tomrlutong

The U.S. wants to retain full control over the world. China doesn't give a fuck about what the U.S. wants. 

That's all there is to it.

Lollmfaowhatever

Something I don't get about American foreign policy is how it's gradually retreating from the global stage, economically and militarily, while at the same time it's zooming in on what China does. Shouldn't America care less about what China does the more protectionist and anti-interventionist it becomes?

Doexitre

simple. the world is better off under us hegemony than under china hegemony.

In 1955 and 1958, America intervened in Taiwan strait wars because of anti-communism policies. At the time US worried communism will spread to more countries and eventually surround then engulf the US. It is a sense of insecurity, amplified to the level of existential crisis.

In the past 20 years, it is part of "pivot to Asia", to stun the growth of China so they won't become more advanced in technology and economy. Basically Taiwan is used as a tool to weaken and slow down China, such that US can enjoy the sole superpower status. The best result is Taiwan can trigger China to collapse.

Does it really need to be questioned that wars to conquer other nations are bad? What the hell even is this question? I guess you could say that it has been US policy since WW2 to oppose countries which openly espouse armed conquest. Certainly during the Cold War the US was willing to turn a blind eye to violations of this when it suited the anti-communist cause, but people would generally criticize such digressions, not the other way around. I think most people with their heads screwed on right recognize that the world is better off if stronger countries don't just conquer the weaker ones.

If you really want to get into it, it makes sense both morally and from the standpoint of self interest. Invading other countries is bad morally, pretty simple. For one thing, people who live in areas added by force to another country tend to be oppressed a lot more than they tend to enjoy happy new lives as co-equal citizens of said country. But if a country like China invades all its neighbors it is also bad for the US just in a self interested sense because we lose trade and because they might go to war with us eventually.

they want hegemony over all of it

edit: im feelin' charitable - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HObJIsSdJWI

Bu11ism

xKalisx

Meanwhile the whole of 92WG needs their gong racks redone

argonaut_75

“Too many digs without gongs makes PR photos bad”. Army newspaper editor-in-chief

alfalfa_dog

I spent two months in the South China sea in 21, being harassed by Chinese destroyers and all that fun stuff. However the Op Saville dates I have is only for one day, the day we went up to the Spratleys and flipped em off.

So I guess you'd need to do 30, 2 month long RPD's to get the medal for that? Kinda gash

Jaidenator

Yeah sick, 28 days force assigned to Render Safe in 2016, 4.5 tonnes of UXO found and destroyed. Don't qualify.

RPDs don’t count as SAVILLE do they? Be some miffed Navy pers

Superest22

What dates do I need to be looking at to know if I'm eligible?

Interesting though not counting SOLANIA but LILLIA gets a look in 

There has been many cases to the tribunal to have RCB recognised they could have with this but have chosen not too

hawkeyebasil

OP SIEA 2019 - Solomon's denied. I guess I'm waiting for that Parramatta medal

mentally_retirednow

If we have left the ADF and are eligible, how do we go about getting the medal? Do we have to apply for it or can we get our replica mounted straight away? I've only ever been awarded medals while serving so apologies for the question if it's a gash one.

Positive_Beginning93

does anyone know if IPE19 (Indo Pacific Endeavour) qualifies for this medal? Was a 7m deployment to Sri lanka, India, Thailand, Phillipines, Vietnam, Singapore, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur (probably more). We probably did alot of operations on that trip but unsure if someone can help me confirm.

PuzzleheadedRub3368

Kind of surprising this doesn’t cover Op Saville, that’s the bread and butter of RPDs.

It’s important to note it’s for ‘hazardous’ deployments. I initially thought it was a shame APEC Assist and Vanuatu Assist wasn’t included. They were hardly hazardous from my experience tho. Happy to be corrected as experiences may differ…..

Puzzleheaded-Pie-277

I wonder how the submarines fit into this. They clearly meet some of the requirement but are not forced assigned when on the operations - they go to the location in which there is an opportunity to collect intelligence

Stock-Doctor8735

We should leave it up to whoever was able to successfully conduct the largest amphibious assault in US military history.

Kinmuan

The Army committed 22 divisions to the Pacific in WW2, which amounted to about 25% of the total Army.  The Marines had 6 divisions total by the end of the war and not a single one of them was at Normandy.

It’s not even a competition.

&gt; If the Marines are “there first and we come in behind them, that allows them to continue to move on”

Never gonna hear the end of this

jab116

Why even fight for it.
 Like fuck that shit. 
I'd rather not get stuck with no where to run while the floating shit box I'm on gets shredded by modern anti-armor type weapons. Naval landings are probably the only thing worse than sitting in a tank fighting against a country, group et all that have decent AT munitions. Atleast when your tank goes boom, if your not dead or dieing you can possibly get out of it and get to cover. Naval your just fucked.not only that, but say you make it to a area where you can dismount, now you get to play he sees me I'm up I'm down fuck fuck  games while soggy and tired.  Yeah no Let the marines have it.

GeneralGork

Also, it's fuckin crazy that we're back in Palau with a military presence. 

Tho I'd love to check out Peleliu during my free time if I was there.

itsyaboibillrill

The U.S. military is enhancing capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region to deter potential Chinese aggression through technology upgrades and new missile deployments.

U.S. Military Advances in Indo-Pacific

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want