PLAN announce strategic shift

Status
Not open for further replies.

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
31 October 2014
Messages
717
Reaction score
303
Website
www.hisutton.com
This was in the news yesterday (random example beloW. Discuss :D
http://rt.com/news/261989-china-military-defense-strategy/

China has unveiled a new defense strategy to boost its naval capability and said it will now shift from “territorial air defense” to both “defense and offense.” Beijing also slammed its neighbors for their “provocative actions” on its “reefs and islands.”

The white paper China’s military strategy was issued by the State Council on Tuesday, signaling ambitions for greater naval presence in the region where tensions are rising over disputed territories in the South China Sea.

“The [People's Liberation Army] Navy (PLAN) will gradually shift its focus from "offshore waters defense" to the combination of "offshore waters defense" with "open seas protection," and build a combined, multi-functional and efficient marine combat force structure,” says the document.

Personally I am interested how unconventional and special forces fit into this. The addition of a dry deck shelter on one of the latest submarine designs came as a surprise. I am thinking of gathering and sharing what little I know of Chinese midget subs and SDV programs
 
"Beijing also slammed its neighbors for their “provocative actions” on its “reefs and islands.”"


Wow. China starts building islands in other people's territory and it's got the stones to accuse others of acting provocatively? I guess it's pulled a page from modern American politics: if you say the sky is green with a straight face there are people stupid enough to believe it.
 
sferrin said:
"Beijing also slammed its neighbors for their “provocative actions” on its “reefs and islands.”"


Wow. China starts building islands in other people's territory and it's got the stones to accuse others of acting provocatively? I guess it's pulled a page from modern American politics: if you say the sky is green with a straight face there are people stupid enough to believe it.

Or the, "everything other countries do is 'provocative' forcing us to 'respond' with measures to enhance peace and stability in the region." The former USSR's favorite approach redux.
 
I haven't had a chance to read the analysts' interpretations, is this new policy a reference to :
A) the various small island claims
B) break out into open pacific ocean
C) Muddle East and africa
D) Taiwan

?
 
Considering the rising sea levels and the savagely fierce storms that have recently hit the Philippines and surrounding areas, just one super typhoon like Noul will cause China's sand islands to vanish without a trace.

I contend that China has not thought this move out very well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8llDhl48wtU&feature=youtu.be
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/sasc-pushes-bigger-army-role-in-pacific-vs-china/
 
Your mileage may vary--

"If U.S. Interferes In China’s Land Grab, 'War Is Inevitable'"--The Global Times

Source:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-land-grab-could-provoke-101500902.html

The Chinese government on Tuesday took a step the U.S. government has long been calling for when it released a white paper outlining its general military strategy. However, while the Obama administration may be pleased with more transparency from Beijing, it surely wasn’t pleased by the plans the Chinese government outlined, particularly its stated intention to continue development of man-made islands in the South China Sea.

The white paper asserted that the Chinese military “will not attack unless we are attacked, but we will surely counterattack if attacked” and that “China will never seek hegemony or expansion,” according to China Daily.

The assurances sound fine, but there is a definitional problem that makes some of the Chinese government’s promises unsatisfying to its neighbors and, indeed to the United States. China’s definition of its sovereign territory – meaning the areas of land and sea that it has the right to defend – doesn’t mesh with most other countries’ understanding of China’s territory.

China has been steadily creating what it claims is new sovereign territory in the middle of the South China Sea by reclaiming land on artificially enlarged reefs and nearly submerged islands. The Chinese military has installed ports and airstrips, and has begun treating them as sovereign territory with regard to air defense and shipping traffic.

This has heightened tensions in a region already worried about China’s increasing global reach. The area in dispute is some 750 miles from the Chinese mainland and far closer to the shores of a number of other countries, including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Brunei. However, as a matter of policy, China claims territorial rights over most of the South China Sea.

An estimated $5 trillion in trade flows through the contested area each year, raising concerns that waters that have until now been freely navigable might be subject to an effort by China to control sea traffic.

The United States has been adamantly opposed to China’s continued development of the artificial islands, and in recent weeks has been increasingly aggressive in challenging the Chinese assertion that they constitute sovereign territory whose airspace and territorial waters must be respected. In the past week, the U.S. military flew a spy plane over some of the territory claimed by China, drawing an angry reaction from Beijing.

Tuesday’s white paper release revealed that China intends not only to keep the installations it currently has in the South China Sea, but also to expand them. It plans to build two lighthouses in the region, known as the Spratly Islands.

The paper criticized foreign governments for “meddling” in the affairs of nations in the region, and revealed that the Chinese military intends to take a more assertive role in defending China’s interests in the region. It also clearly states the Chinese military will change its posture in the region from one where the key role is defending Chinese territory to one in which defense is balanced with the capability to act offensively.

The United States and China’s neighbors in the South China Sea – particularly the Philippines – have utterly refused to recognized that the reclaimed islands, which are claimed by multiple countries, as sovereign territory.

A spokesman for the Chinese Defense Ministry on Tuesday said that the matter was beyond dispute, claiming that the construction of airstrips and other facilities was no different than building homes on the Chinese mainland. That, of course, begs the question of whether the Spratlys are Chinese territory in the first place.

As tensions in the region continue to build, an editorial in a state-run Chinese newspaper on Monday warned that unless the United States changes it position, conflict between the two countries could be inevitable.
 
"China will never seek expansion" as they busily build islands for doing just that. Tick-tock people, this needs to be nipped in the bud.
 
All countries aspire to the following but only wealthy ones can do it:
"The defense of our nation begins at the borders of our adversaries."

China is no different and the USA no longer has the stomach for another Cold War. We barely finished the last one before Gorby buried the USSR. Have we forgotten the cries in the mid-late 80s to lower the military budget?
I fear the PRC will go far before we do something.
 
American corporations will be the biggest saboteurs of any U.S. attempt to halt China. Led by Apple, they will not allow their biggest market(China) be vilified and/or attacked. They will be China's biggest supporters in any US/China shootout or serious dispute. That's why you don't completely trust capitalists either. Their loyalty is to profits.
 
sferrin said:
"China will never seek expansion" as they busily build islands for doing just that. Tick-tock people, this needs to be nipped in the bud.

You never tire of proposing war, do you? ::)

It does need to be "nipped in the bud" but diplomatically, not militarily. WWIII isn't something everybody likes the idea of, particularly if nuclear weapons use is likely.
 
If it's Chinese dirt it must be Chinese property. Or is it? -SP
 
Bruno Anthony said:
All countries aspire to the following but only wealthy ones can do it:
"The defense of our nation begins at the borders of our adversaries."

China is no different and the USA no longer has the stomach for another Cold War. We barely finished the last one before Gorby buried the USSR. Have we forgotten the cries in the mid-late 80s to lower the military budget?
I fear the PRC will go far before we do something.
Add to this the obsession American ideology of its 'War on Terror', which has both drained and sapped its military of conventional warfighting capability- something the PRC has not but noticed and taken full advantage of!
Its ironic in my opinion that so many neo-conservatives like to gloat how American capitalism during the Cold War outspent and eventually crippled the Soviet Union.
Now I see China playing the same tact against the United States.

Regards
Pioneer
 
http://www.smh.com.au/national/china-puts-weapons-on-its-new-artificial-islands-20150527-ghaxa8.html

Article doesn't mention exactly what heavy weaponry has been put in place so far.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
American corporations will be the biggest saboteurs of any U.S. attempt to halt China. Led by Apple, they will not allow their biggest market(China) be vilified and/or attacked. They will be China's biggest supporters in any US/China shootout or serious dispute. That's why you don't completely trust capitalists either. Their loyalty is to profits.
How sad, but true my dear Bruno Anthony :-[
But then again this is not a new American business philosophy! Lets see, I sadly recall Ford, General Motors, Bayer Co, Standard Oil, DuPont, Alcoa, and Dow Chemical, just to name a few, supporting Franco during the Spanish Civil War of 1936, as well as Mussolini, and Adolph Hitler. :eek:

Regards
Pioneer
 
Hot Breath said:
sferrin said:
"China will never seek expansion" as they busily build islands for doing just that. Tick-tock people, this needs to be nipped in the bud.

You never tire of proposing war, do you? ::)

Show me where I suggested such. ::)

Hot Breath said:
It does need to be "nipped in the bud" but diplomatically, not militarily.

ROFL!! Right. Ask Neville Chamberlain how well that works. It's amusing how people such as yourself think diplomacy works in every instance. Diplomacy is the wrong tool here sweetie.

Hot Breath said:
WWIII isn't something everybody likes the idea of, particularly if nuclear weapons use is likely.

Was waiting for the drama queen to pop out and you don't disappoint. You think WWIII is going to start if we do anything other than wring our hands yet you think diplomacy will work? That's just sad. And typical of you.
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/china-puts-weapons-on-its-new-artificial-islands-20150527-ghaxa8.html

Article doesn't mention exactly what heavy weaponry has been put in place so far.

SAMs and antitank missiles would be the logical candidates.
 
Pioneer said:
Bruno Anthony said:
All countries aspire to the following but only wealthy ones can do it:
"The defense of our nation begins at the borders of our adversaries."

China is no different and the USA no longer has the stomach for another Cold War. We barely finished the last one before Gorby buried the USSR. Have we forgotten the cries in the mid-late 80s to lower the military budget?
I fear the PRC will go far before we do something.
Add to this the obsession American ideology of its 'War on Terror', which has both drained and sapped its military of conventional warfighting capability- something the PRC has not but noticed and taken full advantage of!
Its ironic in my opinion that so many neo-conservatives like to gloat how American capitalism during the Cold War outspent and eventually crippled the Soviet Union.
Now I see China playing the same tact against the United States.

Regards
Pioneer

So a very brief synopsis of the last decade of the Cold War. During the '80's the US defense build-up, including SDI, was said to cause the USSR to continue to strain it's economy with excessive defense spending in order to 'keep up' with the US. Combined with low energy prices which caused foreign exchange holdings to dramatically decrease eventually led to the 'bankruptcy' of the Soviet Union. At the time it was estimated the USSR spent upwards of 25% of GDP on the military, although there is some disagreement to this number (some say as low as 20% others say upwards of 30%, let's agree on "a lot").

Please explain how China is causing the US to spend excessively on its' military, the current FY2016 budget, including OCO funding represents about 3.3% of GDP less than 1/2 of average spending during the Cold War and approximately 15% of the federal budget again less than 1/2 of Cold War averages.
 
sferrin said:
"China will never seek expansion" as they busily build islands for doing just that. Tick-tock people, this needs to be nipped in the bud.

Genuine question, do you really think that going to war with China over some uninhabited rocks and sand banks whose ownership is disputed between half a dozen countries (of which the US is not one) would be a good use of resources and American lives?

It's hardly the Sudetenland.
 
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
"China will never seek expansion" as they busily build islands for doing just that. Tick-tock people, this needs to be nipped in the bud.

Genuine question, do you really think that going to war with China over some uninhabited rocks and sand banks whose ownership is disputed between half a dozen countries (of which the US is not one) would be a good use of resources and American lives?

It's hardly the Sudetenland.

Genuine question, "What actions by China would cause you to consider a military response, if any?"
 
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
"China will never seek expansion" as they busily build islands for doing just that. Tick-tock people, this needs to be nipped in the bud.

Genuine question, do you really think that going to war with China over some uninhabited rocks and sand banks whose ownership is disputed between half a dozen countries (of which the US is not one) would be a good use of resources and American lives?

It's hardly the Sudetenland.

Genuine questions: why should China be allowed to construct military bases on our allies territory? And what do you do when talking doesn't work? What makes you think WWIII would kick off over China getting kicked off a couple rocks? Lastly, why would any shots need to be fired at all? Pull a page from China's book on "diplomacy"- put soldiers on those "islands" (delivered by 2 -3 3 Wasp action groups), and if they try to get in the way ram them. I've been told ramming other countries ships is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming territory.
 
bobbymike said:
Genuine question, "What actions by China would cause you to consider a military response, if any?"

Outright attack of inhabited allied sovereign territory. Disputed rocks and sandbanks don't cut it.
 
sferrin said:
Genuine questions: why should China be allowed to construct military bases on our allies territory? And what do you do when talking doesn't work? What makes you think WWIII would kick off over China getting kicked off a couple rocks? Lastly, why would any shots need to be fired at all? Pull a page from China's book on "diplomacy"- put soldiers on those "islands" (delivered by 2 -3 3 Wasp action groups), and if they try to get in the way ram them. I've been told ramming other countries ships is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming territory.

It's not your allies territory any more than it is China's, thats the point, its disputed. What do you propose to do about the Chinese soldiers already there?
 
bobbymike said:
So a very brief synopsis of the last decade of the Cold War. During the '80's the US defense build-up, including SDI, was said to cause the USSR to continue to strain it's economy with excessive defense spending in order to 'keep up' with the US. Combined with low energy prices which caused foreign exchange holdings to dramatically decrease eventually led to the 'bankruptcy' of the Soviet Union. At the time it was estimated the USSR spent upwards of 25% of GDP on the military, although there is some disagreement to this number (some say as low as 20% others say upwards of 30%, let's agree on "a lot").

Please explain how China is causing the US to spend excessively on its' military, the current FY2016 budget, including OCO funding represents about 3.3% of GDP less than 1/2 of average spending during the Cold War and approximately 15% of the federal budget again less than 1/2 of Cold War averages.

Bit off topic but the Fox News view of the end of the Cold War goes something like this:
The USSR was going strong until Reagan said,"SDI, Evil Empire and Tear down this wall." The leaders of the USSR then sh*t their pants and pleaded for mercy. So ended the Cold War and it was all due to Reagan and a handful of years of increased defense spending.
Sorry I don't buy that. You can read Prof Mark Harrison's writings from U. Of Warwick or in Hoover Digest. Those defense budgets started coming down under Reagan because Congress was concerned over the debt.

China's larger economy in comparison to the USSR will give them more for less percentage. To expect the U.S. public to support increased defense budgets to confront China when virtually no U.S. citizen sees China as a threat(due to bad leadership and obsession with chasing Abdul and his AK-47, also partially thanks to Fox News. Also G.W. Bush was not hard on China.) is highly dubious.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
bobbymike said:
So a very brief synopsis of the last decade of the Cold War. During the '80's the US defense build-up, including SDI, was said to cause the USSR to continue to strain it's economy with excessive defense spending in order to 'keep up' with the US. Combined with low energy prices which caused foreign exchange holdings to dramatically decrease eventually led to the 'bankruptcy' of the Soviet Union. At the time it was estimated the USSR spent upwards of 25% of GDP on the military, although there is some disagreement to this number (some say as low as 20% others say upwards of 30%, let's agree on "a lot").

Please explain how China is causing the US to spend excessively on its' military, the current FY2016 budget, including OCO funding represents about 3.3% of GDP less than 1/2 of average spending during the Cold War and approximately 15% of the federal budget again less than 1/2 of Cold War averages.

Bit off topic but the Fox News view of the end of the Cold War goes something like this:
The USSR was going strong until Reagan said,"SDI, Evil Empire and Tear down this wall." The leaders of the USSR then sh*t their pants and pleaded for mercy. So ended the Cold War and it was all due to Reagan and a handful of years of increased defense spending.
Sorry I don't buy that. You can read Prof Mark Harrison's writings from U. Of Warwick or in Hoover Digest. Those defense budgets started coming down under Reagan because Congress was concerned over the debt.

China's larger economy in comparison to the USSR will give them more for less percentage. To expect the U.S. public to support increased defense budgets to confront China when virtually no U.S. citizen sees China as a threat(due to bad leadership and obsession with chasing Abdul and his AK-47, also partially thanks to Fox News. Also G.W. Bush was not hard on China.) is highly dubious.

So your post is a complete non-sequitur and irrelevant to my post and question contained therein.

First paragraph I said synopsis of last decade NOT synopsis of how the Cold War was WON.

Second paragraph how is China doing this to the US (YOUR point) when the US is spending ever smaller portions of national wealth and government spending on the military?
 
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
Genuine questions: why should China be allowed to construct military bases on our allies territory? And what do you do when talking doesn't work? What makes you think WWIII would kick off over China getting kicked off a couple rocks? Lastly, why would any shots need to be fired at all? Pull a page from China's book on "diplomacy"- put soldiers on those "islands" (delivered by 2 -3 3 Wasp action groups), and if they try to get in the way ram them. I've been told ramming other countries ships is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming territory.

It's not your allies territory any more than it is China's, thats the point, its disputed. What do you propose to do about the Chinese soldiers already there?

Start building structures literally right next to them on those "islands". What are THEY going to do? Start WWIII?
 
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
Genuine questions: why should China be allowed to construct military bases on our allies territory? And what do you do when talking doesn't work? What makes you think WWIII would kick off over China getting kicked off a couple rocks? Lastly, why would any shots need to be fired at all? Pull a page from China's book on "diplomacy"- put soldiers on those "islands" (delivered by 2 -3 3 Wasp action groups), and if they try to get in the way ram them. I've been told ramming other countries ships is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming territory.

It's not your allies territory any more than it is China's, thats the point, its disputed. What do you propose to do about the Chinese soldiers already there?

So essentially, they're free to do whatever they like in disputed territory as far as you're concerned? That sounds like a sure plan for success.
 
sferrin said:
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
Genuine questions: why should China be allowed to construct military bases on our allies territory? And what do you do when talking doesn't work? What makes you think WWIII would kick off over China getting kicked off a couple rocks? Lastly, why would any shots need to be fired at all? Pull a page from China's book on "diplomacy"- put soldiers on those "islands" (delivered by 2 -3 3 Wasp action groups), and if they try to get in the way ram them. I've been told ramming other countries ships is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming territory.

It's not your allies territory any more than it is China's, thats the point, its disputed. What do you propose to do about the Chinese soldiers already there?

So essentially, they're free to do whatever they like in disputed territory as far as you're concerned? That sounds like a sure plan for success.

Also begs the question of China just continually 'adding' to the 'disputed' territory list............
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
Genuine questions: why should China be allowed to construct military bases on our allies territory? And what do you do when talking doesn't work? What makes you think WWIII would kick off over China getting kicked off a couple rocks? Lastly, why would any shots need to be fired at all? Pull a page from China's book on "diplomacy"- put soldiers on those "islands" (delivered by 2 -3 3 Wasp action groups), and if they try to get in the way ram them. I've been told ramming other countries ships is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming territory.

It's not your allies territory any more than it is China's, thats the point, its disputed. What do you propose to do about the Chinese soldiers already there?

So essentially, they're free to do whatever they like in disputed territory as far as you're concerned? That sounds like a sure plan for success.

Also begs the question of China just continually 'adding' to the 'disputed' territory list............

Yep. Much of the "disputed" territory is only disputed in China's eyes. If I say my neighbor's car is mine one could technically say the ownership is "disputed" but that doesn't make it mine. Seems to be a convenient crutch for the doves to lean on. "Oh, we should let them do whatever they want in that territory. It's disputed after all." Disgusting.
 
bobbymike said:
So your post is a complete non-sequitur and irrelevant to my post and question contained therein.

First paragraph I said synopsis of last decade NOT synopsis of how the Cold War was WON.

Second paragraph how is China doing this to the US (YOUR point) when the US is spending ever smaller portions of national wealth and government spending on the military?

Actually another poster, not me, believes China will try to spend us under the table. I said something else.
Please re-read my post.
Your post implies that the last decade of the Cold War ended the Cold War. Sorry I don't see the distinction in your stated difference.
As for the rest of my post, sorry I disagree with Prof. Sean Hannity's view of history.
 
sferrin said:
Also begs the question of China just continually 'adding' to the 'disputed' territory list............

sferrin said:
Yep. Much of the "disputed" territory is only disputed in China's eyes. If I say my neighbor's car is mine one could technically say the ownership is "disputed" but that doesn't make it mine. Seems to be a convenient crutch for the doves to lean on. "Oh, we should let them do whatever they want in that territory. It's disputed after all." Disgusting.

China has actually shrunk the amount of territory it has disputes over. Whats left, with the exception of Taiwan, consists of uninhabited rocks, shoals and sandbanks. It has not added anything. Take one look at the overlapping claims in the South China Sea and its clear its a free-for-all. By all means have military alliances with Taiwan and Japan but starting a war because of a regional territorial spat (in which America has no claim) about an uninhabited sand bank is stupid.
 
JFC Fuller said:
about an uninhabited sand bank is stupid.

And if it were an "uninhabited sand bank" I'd agree. They're not though. They're soon to have Chinese military bases on them. It shouldn't need to be said, but that changes things just a weee bit.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
As for the rest of my post, sorry I disagree with Prof. Sean Hannity's view of history.

Because John Stewart told you the real truth right? ::)
 
sferrin said:
And if it were an "uninhabited sand bank" I'd agree. They're not though. They're soon to have Chinese military bases on them. It shouldn't need to be said, but that changes things just a weee bit.

Yes, it goes from being an uninhabited disputed sand bank to which America has no territorial claim to a sand bank inhabited by rotations of Chinese troops to which America still has no territorial claim. The world keeps spinning on its axis, nobody gets killed and China acquires no new subjects.
 
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
And if it were an "uninhabited sand bank" I'd agree. They're not though. They're soon to have Chinese military bases on them. It shouldn't need to be said, but that changes things just a weee bit.

Yes, it goes from being an uninhabited disputed sand bank to which America has no territorial claim to a sand bank inhabited by rotations of Chinese troops to which America still has no territorial claim. The world keeps spinning on its axis, nobody gets killed and China acquires no new subjects.

Wow. I guess it's okay to throw your allies under the bus and put a noose around your neck then. So I guess we're just Allies In Name Only huh? Seriously, I just don't get the pacifist mentality.
 
Can we all please calm down, ... and leave out all politically motivated single-sided bashing ?

To admit, the situation out there in the South and East China Sea is indeed far more complicated than a pure black and white and sadly it is fired up from several sides by their own political interest most often by ignoring the other's side even legal claims.

Therefore I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss such a difficult issue ...

Deino
 
Deino said:
Can we all please calm down, ... and leave out all politically motivated single-sided bashing ?

To admit, the situation out there in the South and East China Sea is indeed far more complicated than a pure black and white and sadly it is fired up from several sides by their own political interest most often by ignoring the other's side even legal claims.

Therefore I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss such a difficult issue ...

Deino

It's one thing to have disputed territory. Completely another altogether to TAKE it and set up military bases on it. People are right to be PO'd about it.
 
sferrin said:
Wow. I guess it's okay to throw your allies under the bus and put a noose around your neck then. So I guess we're just Allies In Name Only huh? Seriously, I just don't get the pacifist mentality.

Who is getting thrown under a bus and who is having a noose put round their necks? Its the occupation of an uninhabited and disputed sandbank, not the rape of Nanking. Nobody is being pacifist just genuinely confused as to why you want to start a fight with China over an uninhabited sandbank. If they had just launched an attack on Taiwan I could see your point, but this is ridiculous.
 
sferrin said:
Bruno Anthony said:
As for the rest of my post, sorry I disagree with Prof. Sean Hannity's view of history.

Because John Stewart told you the real truth right? ::)

WHOA! Hold on, I agree with the threat of China. I was referring to the Hannity view that Reagan single handedly won the Cold War. Hannity's never mentions China, he is only concerned with Islamists.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Its the occupation of an uninhabited and disputed sandbank, not the rape of Nanking.

That's your bar huh?

JFC Fuller said:
Nobody is being pacifist just genuinely confused as to why you want to start a fight with China over an uninhabited sandbank.

Where did I say I wanted to start a fight over an uninhabited sandbank?

JFC Fuller said:
If they had just launched an attack on Taiwan I could see your point, but this is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is thinking that the way to solve a problem is to wait until it's too big to solve before doing anything about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom