Sir Keir Starmer’s controversial Chagos Islands deal is facing a potentially devastating blow after reports that Donald Trump is considering a plan to acquire the territory directly, bypassing the Prime Minister’s agreement and raising fresh questions over the future of one of Labour’s most contentious foreign policy decisions.

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/trump-moves-to-save-diego-garcia-from-starmers-35bn-surrender/

Sounds like a good idea for the USA.

Territories and islands have been bought and sold historically (e.g., Alaska from Russia, Louisiana Purchase, Virgin Islands from Denmark). There is no fundamental legal barrier preventing Mauritius from selling the islands to the United States if both sides agree on a price and terms.

Trump has strongly opposed the UK handing the islands to Mauritius (calling it “stupidity” and a security risk due to Mauritius’s ties to China). A direct US purchase would give America permanent control of one of its most important overseas military bases in the Indian Ocean.

What's this another , we must have it ,before the Chinese or Russia gets it,

and why does he need to buy it when they already have a base there,just

to spend money ,he would do better spending it on people who need help

in USA , and are not getting it, maybe he wants the Islands so he can build

resorts on them ,looking at it long term ,with the sea levels reported to rise,

they could all end up underwater ,but he does not believe that

regards worgeordie

Can they put a Trump golf course there?

Actually, it's chaos that Trump is so interested.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Sounds like a good idea for the USA.

Territories and islands have been bought and sold historically (e.g., Alaska from Russia, Louisiana Purchase, Virgin Islands from Denmark). There is no fundamental legal barrier preventing Mauritius from selling the islands to the United States if both sides agree on a price and terms.

Trump has strongly opposed the UK handing the islands to Mauritius (calling it “stupidity” and a security risk due to Mauritius’s ties to China). A direct US purchase would give America permanent control of one of its most important overseas military bases in the Indian Ocean.

Shut Diego Garcia, the US base that causes so much suffering worldwide.

The the US wants to buy Chagos, where will it get the money. Oh, yeah, those $250 bills.

On 6/8/2026 at 9:58 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Sounds like a good idea for the USA.

Territories and islands have been bought and sold historically (e.g., Alaska from Russia, Louisiana Purchase, Virgin Islands from Denmark). There is no fundamental legal barrier preventing Mauritius from selling the islands to the United States if both sides agree on a price and terms.

Trump has strongly opposed the UK handing the islands to Mauritius (calling it “stupidity” and a security risk due to Mauritius’s ties to China). A direct US purchase would give America permanent control of one of its most important overseas military bases in the Indian Ocean.

In 50 years time, why would a US, that has no interest in imported goods, does not need Arab oil, has divorced itself from any involvement in Europe, have any interest in maintaining an isolated outpost that cannot sustain itself, and which becomes ruinously expensive to maintain (ask the Dutch how expensive sea walls are).

As for worrying about China, the US has basically surrendered the entire continent of Africa to China, through the withdrawal of its Soft Power (aka USAid). If America wants to replace all of its imported European cars with American cars, and all of its scotch with some sort of homebrew knockoff, why should it really care what Europe and China get up to? Maybe the EU can get in on the bidding war for the Chagos Islands, along with China and India, given that Trump has now formally acknowledged where sovereignty lies (Mauritius can only sell something it owns).

The Louisiana Purchase and Alaska purchase were examples where it made economic sense for an expanding country to have these. The US Virgin Islands; purchased to stop Germany gaining a presence in the Caribbean, and affecting the Panama canal. Not really all that relevant now.

Of course, how is the US going to pay for it. Its skint.

There are cheaper ways to keep a presence in the Chagos. Be a better friend with the government of Mauritius than China might be a good start, stop pissing off the UK might be another.

11 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

In 50 years time, why would a US, that has no interest in imported goods, does not need Arab oil, has divorced itself from any involvement in Europe, have any interest in maintaining an isolated outpost that cannot sustain itself, and which becomes ruinously expensive to maintain (ask the Dutch how expensive sea walls are).

As for worrying about China, the US has basically surrendered the entire continent of Africa to China, through the withdrawal of its Soft Power (aka USAid). If America wants to replace all of its imported European cars with American cars, and all of its scotch with some sort of homebrew knockoff, why should it really care what Europe and China get up to? Maybe the EU can get in on the bidding war for the Chagos Islands, along with China and India, given that Trump has now formally acknowledged where sovereignty lies (Mauritius can only sell something it owns).

The Louisiana Purchase and Alaska purchase were examples where it made economic sense for an expanding country to have these. The US Virgin Islands; purchased to stop Germany gaining a presence in the Caribbean, and affecting the Panama canal. Not really all that relevant now.

Of course, how is the US going to pay for it. Its skint.

There are cheaper ways to keep a presence in the Chagos. Be a better friend with the government of Mauritius than China might be a good start, stop pissing off the UK might be another.

Abandoning Diego Garcia in a more isolationist future would be strategic stupidity.

Even if the US imports less oil and goods, global energy prices and sea lanes still matter enormously to the American economy. Disruptions in the Indian Ocean would spike fuel costs and wreck supply chains for US consumers and businesses. “Replace European cars and Scotch with homebrew” is rhetoric, not reality — the US cannot wall itself off from the world’s most important trade routes.

Diego Garcia is not some useless isolated outpost. It is a secure, unsinkable aircraft carrier in the central Indian Ocean with a long runway, deep-water port, and massive logistics capability.

It supports bombers, ships, and operations across the Middle East, Africa, and into the Pacific. In any China conflict, it becomes even more vital as a rear base when closer facilities like Guam are under threat.

No other location offers this combination of security and reach. Handing it over would be a gift to China’s String of Pearls strategy.

Maintenance costs are modest compared to the strategic value and far cheaper than the alternatives: higher risk of war, more expensive naval forces, or lost deterrence.

Befriending Mauritius is nice but no substitute for reliable sovereign control. Giving up this base would accelerate Chinese dominance of critical sea lanes and weaken America’s global position for decades. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

The US is far from “skint.” With a ~$28 trillion economy and a defense budget exceeding $900 billion annually, the cost of securing Diego Garcia is negligible.

" stop pissing off the UK might be another."....obviously you have that ass backwards!!

A deal he approved last year! 😂

https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-uk-and-mauritius-agreement-on-chagos-archipelago

14 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Abandoning Diego Garcia in a more isolationist future would be strategic stupidity.

Even if the US imports less oil and goods, global energy prices and sea lanes still matter enormously to the American economy. Disruptions in the Indian Ocean would spike fuel costs and wreck supply chains for US consumers and businesses. “Replace European cars and Scotch with homebrew” is rhetoric, not reality — the US cannot wall itself off from the world’s most important trade routes.

Diego Garcia is not some useless isolated outpost. It is a secure, unsinkable aircraft carrier in the central Indian Ocean with a long runway, deep-water port, and massive logistics capability.

It supports bombers, ships, and operations across the Middle East, Africa, and into the Pacific. In any China conflict, it becomes even more vital as a rear base when closer facilities like Guam are under threat.

No other location offers this combination of security and reach. Handing it over would be a gift to China’s String of Pearls strategy.

Maintenance costs are modest compared to the strategic value and far cheaper than the alternatives: higher risk of war, more expensive naval forces, or lost deterrence.

Befriending Mauritius is nice but no substitute for reliable sovereign control. Giving up this base would accelerate Chinese dominance of critical sea lanes and weaken America’s global position for decades. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

The US is far from “skint.” With a ~$28 trillion economy and a defense budget exceeding $900 billion annually, the cost of securing Diego Garcia is negligible.

" stop pissing off the UK might be another."....obviously you have that ass backwards!!

Top Chat-GPTing.

On 6/8/2026 at 10:58 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Trump has strongly opposed the UK handing the islands to Mauritius (calling it “stupidity” and a security risk due to Mauritius’s ties to China). A direct US purchase would give America permanent control of one of its most important overseas military bases in the Indian Ocean.

Which means, that he CANNOT buy the island from Mauritius; he would need to buy it from the UK, no?

How stupid are the Americans?

In the end, a rethorical question; also obvious: this is just another diversion from his failed politics and the Epstein files.

11 minutes ago, jts-khorat said:

In the end, a rethorical question; also obvious: this is just another diversion from his failed politics and the Epstein files.

Currently, what has happened to the Epstein files, which seem to serve as fodder for conspiracy theorists on the left?

13 minutes ago, jts-khorat said:

How stupid are the Americans?

We are so stupid that we still occupy your country 81 years after the end of World War II.

On 6/9/2026 at 3:12 PM, Roadsternut said:

In 50 years time, why would a US, that has no interest in imported goods, does not need Arab oil, has divorced itself from any involvement in Europe, have any interest in maintaining an isolated outpost that cannot sustain itself, and which becomes ruinously expensive to maintain (ask the Dutch how expensive sea walls are).

As for worrying about China, the US has basically surrendered the entire continent of Africa to China, through the withdrawal of its Soft Power (aka USAid). If America wants to replace all of its imported European cars with American cars, and all of its scotch with some sort of homebrew knockoff, why should it really care what Europe and China get up to? Maybe the EU can get in on the bidding war for the Chagos Islands, along with China and India, given that Trump has now formally acknowledged where sovereignty lies (Mauritius can only sell something it owns).

The Louisiana Purchase and Alaska purchase were examples where it made economic sense for an expanding country to have these. The US Virgin Islands; purchased to stop Germany gaining a presence in the Caribbean, and affecting the Panama canal. Not really all that relevant now.

Of course, how is the US going to pay for it. Its skint.

There are cheaper ways to keep a presence in the Chagos. Be a better friend with the government of Mauritius than China might be a good start, stop pissing off the UK might be another.

Top Chat-GPTing.

3 hours ago, jts-khorat said:

Which means, that he CANNOT buy the island from Mauritius; he would need to buy it from the UK, no?

How stupid are the Americans?

In the end, a rethorical question; also obvious: this is just another diversion from his failed politics and the Epstein files.

No — that’s a misunderstanding of the current situation.

I see Epstein still lives rent free in some folks head?

3 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Top Chat-GPTing.

No rebuttal.....speaks volumes!

On 6/8/2026 at 3:58 PM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Sounds like a good idea for the USA.

Territories and islands have been bought and sold historically (e.g., Alaska from Russia, Louisiana Purchase, Virgin Islands from Denmark). There is no fundamental legal barrier preventing Mauritius from selling the islands to the United States if both sides agree on a price and terms.

Trump has strongly opposed the UK handing the islands to Mauritius (calling it “stupidity” and a security risk due to Mauritius’s ties to China). A direct US purchase would give America permanent control of one of its most important overseas military bases in the Indian Ocean.

'Bought & sold' ... more like taken, and all indigenous folks expelled.

Mind boggling something like that can even happen in the 1960s & 70s. Nothing like living under the 'Crown'. A little colonialism history that you must have missed, from G AI ...

... "History and Enforced Exile

• Colonial Era: The UK took control in 1814, administering Chagos as a dependency of Mauritius.

• Expulsion of the Chagossians: Between 1967 and 1973, the British government forcibly expelled the entire indigenous population of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 Chagossians to Mauritius and the Seychelles" ...

Edited June 11Jun 11 by KhunLA

19 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

'Bought & sold' ... more like taken, and all indigenous folks expelled.

Mind boggling something like that can even happen in the 1960s & 70s. Nothing like living under the 'Crown'. A little colonialism history that you must have missed, from G AI ...

... "History and Enforced Exile

• Colonial Era: The UK took control in 1814, administering Chagos as a dependency of Mauritius.

• Expulsion of the Chagossians: Between 1967 and 1973, the British government forcibly expelled the entire indigenous population of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 Chagossians to Mauritius and the Seychelles" ...

Absolutely, the UK expelled them. I didn't miss it!

The Chagossians (Îlois) are descendants of enslaved Africans (mainly from Madagascar and Mozambique) and later indentured workers brought by the French in the late 18th century.

While they are recognized as the indigenous people of the islands under international law (as the first permanent human community), the UK historically tried to portray them as temporary plantation workers to justify the expulsion.

Today, Diego Garcia has had no permanent civilian population since the Chagossians were expelled in the early 1970s. Today it houses only military personnel and contractors (roughly 3,000–5,000 people at any time).

34 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Absolutely, the UK expelled them. I didn't miss it!

The Chagossians (Îlois) are descendants of enslaved Africans (mainly from Madagascar and Mozambique) and later indentured workers brought by the French in the late 18th century.

While they are recognized as the indigenous people of the islands under international law (as the first permanent human community), the UK historically tried to portray them as temporary plantation workers to justify the expulsion.

Today, Diego Garcia has had no permanent civilian population since the Chagossians were expelled in the early 1970s. Today it houses only military personnel and contractors (roughly 3,000–5,000 people at any time).

Just pointing out another embarrassing example of the Empire's inhumane colonialism. Bad enough in the 19 Century, but to have it happen in the late 20th Century, mind boggling.

Good the UN was established to keep world peace and people safe in their homes. A few generations thrown out of their homes. Well done UK. 'God Save the Queen'

Nothing left for the EIT Co. to trade for, so we'll just take your homes & livelihood.

Even in the 21st Century, they continue to get screwed, from G AI ...

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

No rebuttal.....speaks volumes!

It's amazing that some folks can't come up whith a better excuse for not being able to give a reasonable reply!

30 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

It's amazing that some folks can't come up whith a better excuse for not being able to give a reasonable reply!

Who comes on AN to give a "reasonable reply". Just have a laugh and enjoy the sunshine and palm trees.

On 6/11/2026 at 3:18 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

No — that’s a misunderstanding of the current situation.

I see Epstein still lives rent free in some folks head?

Why don't you explain this misunderstanding? Currnetly, the Chagos Islands are still part of the UK, as the necessary legislation to complete the transfer to Mauritius is currnetly paused -- due to pressure by the Americans. Hence it is impossible to buy those islands from Mauritius, they do not own them (yet).

And yes, I think what Epstein did was absolutely horrible and anybody criminally connected to this issue should be prosecuted in a court of law, to either be proclaimed guilty (or not).

On 6/11/2026 at 4:23 AM, VocalNeal said:

Who comes on AN to give a "reasonable reply". Just have a laugh and enjoy the sunshine and palm trees.

Spot on, anyone would think this is a <deleted> debating club.

12 hours ago, jts-khorat said:

Why don't you explain this misunderstanding? Currnetly, the Chagos Islands are still part of the UK, as the necessary legislation to complete the transfer to Mauritius is currnetly paused -- due to pressure by the Americans. Hence it is impossible to buy those islands from Mauritius, they do not own them (yet).

And yes, I think what Epstein did was absolutely horrible and anybody criminally connected to this issue should be prosecuted in a court of law, to either be proclaimed guilty (or not).

Actually its worse than that. The United Nations and the ICJ, have ruled that the UK's separation of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 was unlawful. The UN ordered the UK to end its administration of the archipelago as rapidly as possible to complete the decolonisation of Mauritius.

The previous UK government accepted that argument as a point of fact, and the various negotiations by the FCO, started under the Tories, continued under Labour, attempted to salvage something from that situation to allow the continuation of the Anglo-American presence, while maintaining alliances within the Commonwealth. And in truth, all the negotiations are between civil servants (and not failed estate agents), with Ministers only involved with the initial brief (we need some sort of deal to save face, come up with options to save this cockup) and final sign off (cue smiling faces, looking at the camera, shaking hands across a nice mahogany table, flags either side).

What the President's words mean, after spend most of the last 10 years criticising the UN, dismissing, using crude language, any and all international organisations, such as the ICC, in fact, he is now selectively accepting of such decisions. The UK asked for an advisory opinion, so the ICJs view was never binding. In fact, in 2018, the US put forward an argument, supporting the then British position, that the dispute was between the UK and Mauritius, and argued that the ICJ's ruling had not meaning, along the lines of States cannot be forced into judicial settlement merely because another state persuades the UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion. In effect, the US in 2026 has thrown out the arguments put forward in 2018, that this dispute should not have been framed as a decolonisation dispute, which was the correct argument. In 2026, essentially, and this is how ridiculous it is, the US President has now embraced the anti-colonial, leftist, anti-Western rhetoric used by some parts of the United Nations, which it has previously criticised.

Essentially, the American leader, if he carefully considers what he said, no longer thinks the Chagos Islands are British. Naval Party 1002 needs to batten down the hatches. There maybe US Marines on their way to enforce this "leftist globalist agenda" and eject them from what the Americans now see as Mauritius territory.

I'm surprised the Americans aren't kicking up a storm about Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and the French Antilles.

Some inflammatory post with profane and insulting language and the replies have been removed:

• Be polite and respectful to other users.

• You will not post vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

• Avoid flaming, trolling, or stalking other members.

A lengthy post with unattributed content has been removed, please provide a link to the source of information when posting.

Sir not so clear Keir' is going to give it to Xi' and pay him to keep it by the look of it, but things may change in another UEee who knows?🤔

Posts containing excessive use of AI have been removed. Please limit AI to one short paragraph and mark it as “AI supported.”

On 6/11/2026 at 2:20 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

No rebuttal.....speaks volumes!

You used AI in your response. Why would I debate with an AI response?

I'll break it down

Abandoning Diego Garcia in a more isolationist future would be strategic stupidity.

I agree that if the US went in a direction of isolationism, that would be an act of monumental strategic stupidity. But the US has, always, since it was founded really, an isolationist country by instinct. Americans are, by their nature, an insular people. Most have no or little knowledge of the wider world, and often no interest. Only 1 in 2 Americans have a passport. Yes, we try and excuse by saying America is such a big country, why would they want to travel overseas. But that just shows Americans are insular, isolationist. The American "Can Do" spirit is actually an isolationist one.

You were a gnats testicle from not joining the other free nations in defeating Nazism. People like Lindbergh are still regarded as heroes

But isolationism means turning your metaphorical back on the rest of the world.

Even if the US imports less oil and goods, global energy prices and sea lanes still matter enormously to the American economy. Disruptions in the Indian Ocean would spike fuel costs and wreck supply chains for US consumers and businesses.

Americans by instinct want to import nothing and export everything. We are constantly reminded the Americans have more than enough enery of their own. Disruptions to oil will have zero effect on American fish-killing hydroelectric , baby killing nuclear and bird killing wind power

Wrecking supply chains? You literally voted in a man who said he wanted to wreck all those global supply chains and have everything made in America. Ultimately, why should Americans pay the same for oil as Europeans. You have started down a route of nationalising big corporations like Intel. You will end up nationalising the oil companies and dictating your own price for American oil out of American soil, even if that American soil used to be Venezuelan, or the waters used tob e Mexican. America has decided it all belongs to them.

Replace European cars and Scotch with homebrew” is rhetoric, not reality — the US cannot wall itself off from the world’s most important trade routes.

This is the problem when you rely on AI. AI didn't recognise an Anglo Saxon p*ss take. For you, European cars are made in Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama. Your homebrew knockoff of Scotch is Bourbon. Of course the US can choose not to buy Munich built BMWs, and it doesn't need Johnnie Walker. Whether of not the US is capable of walling itself off is irrelevant. Its about desire. As a country, you want to wall yourself off.

Diego Garcia is not some useless isolated outpost. It is a secure, unsinkable aircraft carrier in the central Indian Ocean with a long runway, deep-water port, and massive logistics capability.

It supports bombers, ships, and operations across the Middle East, Africa, and into the Pacific. In any China conflict, it becomes even more vital as a rear base when closer facilities like Guam are under threat.

Here's another issue with the AI, It relies on the Internet as a single point of truth, and anything pre-Internet doesn't exist. You've framed Diego Garcia as somehow essential to policing the Indian Ocean. its not. You cannot police the Indian Ocean from Diego Garcia.

Ever since the Suez Canal was opened, the Indian Ocean was important to trade, policed by the Royal Navy. Diego Garcia played no military role until WW2, when it became a seaplane base to look for German Subs. When WW2 finished, the base was closed. There was no need for it. It was never important to Great Britain when it ruled the oceans. Not important to trade today.

When the US approached the UK government in the mid 60s looking for somewhere in the Indian Ocean, it was not to establish an "Aircraft Carrier", it was to establish a Communications Station. Arguably, in the 21st Century, the need for such relay stations has gone, overtaken by technology.

In the mid-70s, the base was expanded because the Soviet presence in Somalia. The Soviet Union no longer exists, let along anyone caring what happens in the Horn of Africa.

The base was only maintained because the Shah was unexpectedly overthrown.. You might be a complete MAGAphile and believe in then drill baby drill bull<deleted>, but one day we won't be driving in petrol power cars, or jet fuel powered aircraft, and we won't care about a bunch of illiterate goat herders in Arabia. There is nothing there but oil. And like coal, one day we won't need it, and the Arabs will have to go back to doing whatever the hell they did before oil, which was the sum of FA, Iran has a future I suppose in pistachios.

The "unsinkable aircraft carrier" line is also just a well worn and hackneyed slogan . And from the perspective of an island in the Indian Ocean, its literally untrue.

Diego Garcia is, at most, 2 meters above sea level. Now, there is a long term risk that the island will literally disappear. But the short to medium term risk is that the base become to all intents and purposes, inoperable, due to the increasing frequency of storm surges. Basically, you won't be able to rely on it, and then because its so remote, there is no nearby alternate airfield, leaving crews low of fuel to ditch. Long before that, the Air Force will call time on it.

An unsinkable carrier sitting thousands of miles from the United States is only useful if Washington remains committed to fighting wars and maintaining military dominance across half the globe. Isolationists reject that premise entirely. Trump was elected on the basis of no more wars. Even if he has croaked by the next election, candidates will still be standing by that. The Republican party is now definitively Anti-NATO. The US will leave NATO. They will campaign, and likely win on the basis of ending America's role as world policeman. And now that is more likely than ever before.

The American economy is going to tank. All the effects of the war are going to ripple through, as inflation. increased taxes, increased joblessness. Notably, some hard right Republicans are disowning themselves from Trump, claiming he has taken over their party. When he goes, and he will, it won't be a return to the "old " Republican party, but a new one, ultra-nationalistic, ultra-isolationist, now armed with all the evidence they need of why America must turn its back on the world, especially the ME. it might be a stupid strategy, but stupidity often wins elections. hence Brexit. Hence Boris Johnson. Hence Sir Keir Starmer.

At the next election, it will be a brave American politician who makes the case that to help the YS economy, you need to drop tariffs, re-engage with Allies, re-invigorate the expeditionary forces, become more of a force for good in the UN and WHO. None of that will wash.

So you will have less need for Diego Garcia.

No other location offers this combination of security and reach. Handing it over would be a gift to China’s String of Pearls strategy.

Maintenance costs are modest compared to the strategic value and far cheaper than the alternatives: higher risk of war, more expensive naval forces, or lost deterrence.

Befriending Mauritius is nice but no substitute for reliable sovereign control. Giving up this base would accelerate Chinese dominance of critical sea lanes and weaken America’s global position for decades. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

More Temu-grade AI. Where the hell did it dig up the String of Pearls Strategy. Ah, so obscure Think Tank paper no doubt.

The US has, presently, global dominance. That dominance does not hinge on some tiny atoll in the middle of the ocean, that, guess what, is no longer isolated. The whole reason the British selected the islands to meet the US brief, was because they were isolated, discrete, with no territorial disputes. That's why the Americans nicknamed it "Fantasy Island". Well you can forget about the territorial disputes. Now the Seychelles wants them. Not just Mauritius. Plus its no longer isolated, and is now within range of a tinpot dictatorship over in Tehran.

Right now I don't want the US to dominate the sea lanes. Its a dramatic shift from the US being a friend to liberal democracies to a malevolent force intent on conquest and intimidating allies, former and current. Viz. Greenland. You are not a friend to Europe, or the UK, if you keep that nonsense up. And you will. Yet Germany, in the space of 3-4 generations, went from literal kith and kin of the UK to sworn enemy and rival.

The US is far from “skint.” With a ~$28 trillion economy and a defense budget exceeding $900 billion annually, the cost of securing Diego Garcia is negligible.

Most revealing is the contradiction at the heart of the argument. On one hand we are told the United States has a $28 trillion economy and a $900 billion defence budget. On the other, we are told that abandoning one tiny island would be a historic strategic disaster that would reshape the balance of power for decades. Both cannot be true. Either American power is vast and resilient, or it is so fragile that a remote base in the middle of the Indian Ocean is indispensable.

Your AI-lite comment on costs did not address my comment about rising operational costs combined with diminishing importance. You are likely a climate change denier, so there is no persuading you that sea levels are rising, you will just deny it as lies. But they are.

Operational costs of Diego Garcia are secret, so when your Temu AI tells you "costs are modest", it doesn't actually know and comes up with some meaningless drivel. Arguably, if the US wasn't in Diego Garcia, its operational support of Israeli attacks on Iran would not have happened, so its actually increased the prospect of war, not reduced it. Or maybe its committing an AI hallucination, and confecting the stated costs to the UK, which are public record, with the overall US defence budget, which is also a matter of public record. I'm also supposing when the AI said it reduces the chances of war, it was drawing upon pre-2024 sources, in which there was no war with Iran.

In terms of cost, the base at Diego Garcia costs about 4 times as much to operate compared to other bases of comparable size, because of its geographic isolation (all supplies, essentially, hav e to come in by infrequent sea supply) and the additional burden of maintaining operability where there are rising sea levels and no local construction supplies (even cement has to come in my sea. The size of the base means it can't host many construction workers when needed, and civvie contractors are on triple rate because of the isolation.

The "global sea lanes" argument is also exaggerated. China, India, Japan, South Korea and Europe all depend heavily on Indian Ocean shipping. Why is it automatically America's responsibility to bear the burden of securing routes that other major powers rely upon at least as much as the United States does? The assumption that every disruption anywhere in the world requires an American base is precisely the mindset many Americans will be questioning in the next election, as they are pumped full of anti-NATO, anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner rhetoric, and revert to their instinctual isolationist type.

The Naval Support Facilty at Diego Garcia is of diminishing importance to the Fifth Fleet. Modern naval forces are far less dependent on fixed logistics hubs than they once were. The U.S. Navy has invested heavily in underway replenishment, prepositioned supplies, long-range aviation, and distributed logistics. Carrier strike groups and surface action groups can operate for extended periods without relying directly on Diego Garcia. The Fifth Fleet's day-to-day operations are centred much closer to the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea than Diego Garcia itself.

The US has now has a broader network of facilities throughout the region. The Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Manama, which is geographically much closer to the fleet's principal operating areas than Diego Garcia.

As I said before, the choice of Diego Garcia was all about the Cold War. Its over. The major concerns of the Fifth Fleet involve regional deterrence, maritime security, missile defense, and managing tensions with Iran. These missions are largely conducted from assets and facilities located much closer to the Gulf. Despite what the AI is telling you, the USN is not spending its time patrolling the sealanes making sure the Chinese aren't there. In fact, what the hell are you on about "ceding control to the Chinese. The USN almost every day is working with the Chinese in freedom of navigation drills. The US navy isn't operating in the Indian Ocean to keep it clear of Chinese "dominance" but clear of pirates in skiffs armed with AKs and RPGs. Your AI has mixed up the South China Sea with the Indian Ocean! There, the US, and others, force FON drills to ensure that China does not assert sovereignty in a disputed area. No one is going to stop Chinese ships moving around the Indian Ocean.

Advances in precision-guided missiles and satellite surveillance have reduced the advantage of concentrating logistics in a single large facility. Modern military thinking increasingly emphasises dispersal and redundancy. A strategy dependent on one isolated island base can be seen as less resilient than a distributed network of smaller facilities and mobile support assets. That Iranian missile was a HMS Warrior moment. HMS Warrior predated the Dreadnoughts. HMS Warrior never fought a battle, but it instantly made all naval warfare at that moment obsolete. So you have an island in the middle of the, ocean, chosen because you think its isolated, safe. And because its isolated and safe you build a huge logistics facility there, to support ships, bombers etc. But now its not safe. And the seas are rising. Singapore was once such a place, impregnable. Until it wasn't.

And another contradiction in your Temu AI argument. If the base in the Indian Ocean is indispensable to the US, why are bases in Europe and Korea dispensable. The President has said repeatedly he wants to shut them all down. If its all about China, why do you think China is not interested in Europe?. Peace will come one day with Russia, and then China has a landbridge to Europe. Does the US want to dominate that, to make sure China doesn't dominate.

The comment that the US is skint, is based on a report stating the US is now technically insolvent.The is based on an economist report interpreting a US Treasury report, using the rules a business uses, showing the government’s liabilities outweigh its assets. Of course this has been the case for a while, the US spends taxpayers money like a drunken sailor. The headline was incorrect; the US government can never be skint because you, the taxpayer, will always give it more money through taxes. But a lot of people do wish the US government would start acting like a household that was, proverbially, skint. Start spending less, be more careful with other people's money. Most commentators agree that the federal budget is unsustainably imbalanced.