← Back to context

Comment by mmooss

7 months ago

AFAIK, the US and UK value Diego Garcia because currently there aren't geographical alternatives for that base. Where else could they put it that would have the same benefits?

The lease expires in 2123. The militarily strategic landscape then is pretty much unknowable.

To a 1925 (99 years ago) military force, the Diego Garcia airfield would have had zero importance.

  • > The lease expires in 2123. The militarily strategic landscape then is pretty much unknowable.

    I bet that's what the UK thought about Hong Kong in the late 1800s, but when 1996 rolled around I think they (and many HKers) would have liked a longer-and-99-years lease.

    While geography isn't quite destiny, it is fairly important, and having a random rock in a place where there are no other rocks will always be useful IMHO (unless we perhaps develop teleportation).

  • in 99 years, most of the island probably will be underwater due to climate change.

    • Further information on 13,000 islands: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2...

      "Of over 13,000 islands examined, approximately 12% experienced significant shifts in shoreline positions. The total shoreline length of these islands approaches 200,000 km, with 7.57% showing signs of landward erosion and 6.05% expanding seaward. Human activities, particularly reclamation and land filling, were identified as primary drivers of local shoreline transformations, while natural factors have a comparatively minor impact. "

    • The island is certainly in the risk zone, but I think that is also unknowable.

      My guess is that by carbon sequestering and/or SO2 injection in the stratosphere, the climate change will be controllable within a few decades.

      19 replies →

  • I wonder if they would have anticipated its value. I can anticipate a moon base would be valuable in 2123 even though it has little present value.

    • Considering that 99 years ago both Maldives and India were still colonised (and would remain so for decades), I'm gonna go out on a limb by saying that no, Chagos Islands weren't seen as particularly important back then.

  • Q: Is there a reason for making a lease 99 years, rather than - say - 999 years?

I am sure that if at the end of 99 years the US or the UK still really really want to retain them, they will find a way (another lease, or by force).

Mauritius is not China. Not that I am suggesting for this to happen, but what are they going to do if the UK just decides not to leave after 99 years?

  • They said basically the same thing about HongKong. You can’t predict political landscape in 100 years

    • The Chinese negotiators for Kowloon deliberately settled on 99 years. Probably because they knew they'd be lynched by the Chinese public otherwise. It was not a mistake made by the British they just couldn't get a better deal.

There are multiple islands and archipelagos in the region.

Close to Africa/ME: Maldives, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte

Close to SE Asia: Cocos and Christmas Island

Diego Garcia just happened to be forcibly depopulated by the British, so was a convenient choice.

  •   Close to Africa/ME: Maldives, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte
      Close to SE Asia: Cocos and Christmas Island
    

    That's the whole point of Diego Garcia: It's not "close to" anywhere, and it's nearly in the middle of a bunch of places. That's what give it its strategic importance.

  • I mean, what current option is equivalent to Diego Garcia? Are any of those options realistic right now?

    • They're all pretty far from land and in the same general area.

      If Diego Garcia were no longer an option, there would be alternatives. Especially with US levels of lease money.

      That said, few of them are quite as remote as Diego Garcia. Which means not quite as easy to secretly fly RQ-180s or whatever the hell is more clandestinely based there.

      2 replies →