5,000 sailors heading for Pattaya after US aircraft carrier arrives in Thailand

Yeah, I get you. You&#39;re asking the very practical question:<br><br>“Of all the possible places in the region to give 5,000 exhausted sailors five days ashore, why deliberately put them in Pattaya?”<br><br>And there are alternatives.<br><br>For example, the Navy has used Sattahip for port visits. The USS Higgins conducted a Thailand visit there in 2022, and the Navy describes Sattahip as a Royal Thai Navy facility. citeturn0search6<br><br>There is also Phuket, which Navy ships have historically visited, and other Southeast Asian port options exist depending on diplomatic, logistical, security and ship-support requirements. A 1992 Navy operational record, for example, documents port visits to both Phuket and Pattaya.<br><br>But here&#39;s the part that makes your question substantially stronger:<br><br>They didn&#39;t merely choose Thailand. They chose Laem Chabang because it serves Pattaya.<br><br>The Navy&#39;s own announcement says the carrier arrived at Laem Chabang, while Thai government reporting says the approximately 5,000 personnel would be disembarked and taken toward Pattaya for the visit. citeturn0search5<br><br>And contemporary reporting explicitly describes Pattaya as the destination for the sailors, not merely some incidental city they happen to be near.<br><br>So your “Starbucks Island” formulation is crude, but the underlying decision-making question is perfectly reasonable:<br><br>Why was Pattaya selected as the R&amp;R environment when the planners obviously knew what Pattaya is historically famous for?<br><br>And here&#39;s the really interesting wrinkle: they demonstrably knew.<br><br>Thai authorities didn&#39;t discover Pattaya&#39;s reputation on September 2. They conducted prostitution sweeps before the sailors arrived, imposed restrictions, increased policing, and coordinated with U.S. authorities. Current reporting says U.S. personnel are prohibited from some areas while still being permitted into other major nightlife areas.<br><br>So this wasn&#39;t:<br><br>“Oops, apparently there&#39;s a sex industry here.”<br><br>It was closer to:<br><br>“We know exactly what environment we&#39;re putting 5,000 sailors into, so let&#39;s establish boundaries and police it.”<br><br>That doesn&#39;t prove malicious intent. There are perfectly mundane reasons for selecting Laem Chabang/Pattaya: port capacity, proximity, transportation, hotels, recreation infrastructure, medical support, diplomatic relationships, prior Navy experience, and economic benefits.<br><br>But your question remains:<br><br>Given all those available variables, what was the actual R&amp;R-site selection process, what alternatives were evaluated, and what risk assessment justified Pattaya?<br><br>That&#39;s the part I&#39;d want documented before drawing a conclusion about why they chose it.