• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

China Expanded Air Defense Zone

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
710
Reaction score
60
Kadija_Man said:
While, on the surface it may appear admirable that the USCG wants to become involved in the South China Sea dispute with the PRC, I somehow doubt it would have much authority (outside the US). The PRC's Coast Guard is there, because the SCS is on the PRC's doorstep. Proximity tends to led authority to coast guard forces, which are designed to, afterall, guard the nation's coasts (and surrounding seas).
Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
kaiserd said:
Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".
I agree. It's why I like the idea of transferring the Whidby Island-class of amphibs to the USGS. Those, combined with HH60's are perfect for HA/DR training. There is no shortage of HA/DR incidents in this region.

At ~15000 tons they are big.
They are amphibs so the well deck with connectors is great for HA/DR training.
HH60's have proven capabilities and is a bird the USGS uses today.
Whidby Island-class comes with significant defensive systems.
Built to military survivability class II standard.
It can be done immediately.
US Navy amphib plans are built around San Antonio-class ships (LX/R)
Two SA-Class LPD's are being built today. There is industrial capacity to add another in the shipbuilding plan.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
28
kaiserd said:
Kadija_Man said:
While, on the surface it may appear admirable that the USCG wants to become involved in the South China Sea dispute with the PRC, I somehow doubt it would have much authority (outside the US). The PRC's Coast Guard is there, because the SCS is on the PRC's doorstep. Proximity tends to led authority to coast guard forces, which are designed to, afterall, guard the nation's coasts (and surrounding seas).
Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".
The Chinese "fishermen" are a minor problem for the most part. This is a problem, if the USCG Commander was smart, he wouldn't want to buy into. It is a very long way from home and as you agree, his forces' legitimacy would be questionable. The USCG can be involved, advising the local coast guard forces much more effectively and a lot less risky than if they had ships in action there.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".
I agree. It's why I like the idea of transferring the Whidby Island-class of amphibs to the USGS. Those, combined with HH60's are perfect for HA/DR training. There is no shortage of HA/DR incidents in this region.

At ~15000 tons they are big.
They are amphibs so the well deck with connectors is great for HA/DR training.
HH60's have proven capabilities and is a bird the USGS uses today.
Whidby Island-class comes with significant defensive systems.
Built to military survivability class II standard.
It can be done immediately.
US Navy amphib plans are built around San Antonio-class ships (LX/R)
Two SA-Class LPD's are being built today. There is industrial capacity to add another in the shipbuilding plan.
Actually Kaiser, let me qualify where I agree. The USCG would be very beneficial in the Pacific theater. Joint operations is a great way for the USCG to assist, but it quite obviously doesn't have to be the only way.

No United States government civilian or military entity ever suffers from a lack of "real legitimacy". Why would such a characterization be considered? Further, they would not be operating "so far from home". Especially if by "home" we mean those areas where the United States clearly has economic and security interest.

The name, "US Coast Guard", only suggests that they are not typically a blue water force. My goodness, it does not define where they perform their duties. That would ignore historical precedence. Of course we all know there are countries that, unfortunately, do abdicate their responsibilities. They either don't choose to, or perhaps, they just don't have the ability to protect their national interests. That doesn't mean the United States must operate in the same etiolated manner.

The mission of the USGS is "to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests — in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security."

That, my friend, includes the South China Sea.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
28
NeilChapman said:
Actually Kaiser, let me qualify where I agree. The USCG would be very beneficial in the Pacific theater. Joint operations is a great way for the USCG to assist, but it quite obviously doesn't have to be the only way.

No United States government civilian or military entity ever suffers from a lack of "real legitimacy". Why would such a characterization be considered? Further, they would not be operating "so far from home". Especially if by "home" we mean those areas where the United States clearly has economic and security interest.

The name, "US Coast Guard", only suggests that they are not typically a blue water force. My goodness, it does not define where they perform their duties. That would ignore historical precedence. Of course we all know there are countries that, unfortunately, do abdicate their responsibilities. They either don't choose to, or perhaps, they just don't have the ability to protect their national interests. That doesn't mean the United States must operate in the same etiolated manner.

The mission of the USGS is "to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests — in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security."

That, my friend, includes the South China Sea.
And you wonder why people view the US Government's intentions suspiciously? The South China Sea is approximately half the way around the world from the US's coastlines. The USCG has the word "Coast" in it's title. Most people would assume that this mean the US's own coasts, not the coasts of the PRC on the South China Sea...

Before you go into a rant about how the US always operates honourably and so on, the historical record suggests otherwise. The US military has acted dishonourably in the past, creating casus belli for the US Government when and if it is required. The US's interests are not always the same as the interests of the locals.

Locals have their own interests and their own reasons for acting the way they do. The US has it's own interests and it's own reasons for acting the way it does. The two do not always coincide and while I appreciate most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world, the rest of the world is not ignorant about the US. Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq are all obvious examples of where the US has acted dishonourably for it's own intentions.

By all means, help the locals but don't usurp them. Unless of course you're missing out on a war?
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
Kadija_Man said:
And you wonder why people view the US Government's intentions suspiciously? The South China Sea is approximately half the way around the world from the US's coastlines. The USCG has the word "Coast" in it's title. Most people would assume that this mean the US's own coasts, not the coasts of the PRC on the South China Sea...

Before you go into a rant about how the US always operates honourably and so on, the historical record suggests otherwise. The US military has acted dishonourably in the past, creating casus belli for the US Government when and if it is required. The US's interests are not always the same as the interests of the locals.

Locals have their own interests and their own reasons for acting the way they do. The US has it's own interests and it's own reasons for acting the way it does. The two do not always coincide and while I appreciate most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world, the rest of the world is not ignorant about the US. Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq are all obvious examples of where the US has acted dishonourably for it's own intentions.

By all means, help the locals but don't usurp them. Unless of course you're missing out on a war?

talk about a rant ::)
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
28
NeilChapman said:
Kadija_Man said:
And you wonder why people view the US Government's intentions suspiciously? The South China Sea is approximately half the way around the world from the US's coastlines. The USCG has the word "Coast" in it's title. Most people would assume that this mean the US's own coasts, not the coasts of the PRC on the South China Sea...

Before you go into a rant about how the US always operates honourably and so on, the historical record suggests otherwise. The US military has acted dishonourably in the past, creating casus belli for the US Government when and if it is required. The US's interests are not always the same as the interests of the locals.

Locals have their own interests and their own reasons for acting the way they do. The US has it's own interests and it's own reasons for acting the way it does. The two do not always coincide and while I appreciate most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world, the rest of the world is not ignorant about the US. Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq are all obvious examples of where the US has acted dishonourably for it's own intentions.

By all means, help the locals but don't usurp them. Unless of course you're missing out on a war?
talk about a rant ::)
If you perceived my post as a "rant", I feel sorry for you. It's obvious you've never encountered calm, reasoned discussion from someone with an opposing point of view. The USCG is a fine organisation. However, it is an instrument of the US Government, just as the other armed services of the US are. It implements the policy that it sets out for it and institutes the best method, according to it, to achieve the objectives desired. If the US Government tells it to lie about something which did or did not occur, it will do so, just as the US Government instructed the USN to lie about the Gulf of Tonkin "incident". I am unsure why you appear to be upset with me stating facts like that...
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
Kadija_Man said:
If you perceived my post as a "rant", I feel sorry for you. It's obvious you've never encountered calm, reasoned discussion from someone with an opposing point of view. The USCG is a fine organisation. However, it is an instrument of the US Government, just as the other armed services of the US are. It implements the policy that it sets out for it and institutes the best method, according to it, to achieve the objectives desired. If the US Government tells it to lie about something which did or did not occur, it will do so, just as the US Government instructed the USN to lie about the Gulf of Tonkin "incident". I am unsure why you appear to be upset with me stating facts like that...

It's ok K_M. I'm not upset with you.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-taiwan-carrier-idUSKBN14V061?il=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-bomber-idUSKBN14U2ER?il=0
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
710
Reaction score
60
NeilChapman said:
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".
I agree. It's why I like the idea of transferring the Whidby Island-class of amphibs to the USGS. Those, combined with HH60's are perfect for HA/DR training. There is no shortage of HA/DR incidents in this region.

At ~15000 tons they are big.
They are amphibs so the well deck with connectors is great for HA/DR training.
HH60's have proven capabilities and is a bird the USGS uses today.
Whidby Island-class comes with significant defensive systems.
Built to military survivability class II standard.
It can be done immediately.
US Navy amphib plans are built around San Antonio-class ships (LX/R)
Two SA-Class LPD's are being built today. There is industrial capacity to add another in the shipbuilding plan.
Actually Kaiser, let me qualify where I agree. The USCG would be very beneficial in the Pacific theater. Joint operations is a great way for the USCG to assist, but it quite obviously doesn't have to be the only way.

No United States government civilian or military entity ever suffers from a lack of "real legitimacy". Why would such a characterization be considered? Further, they would not be operating "so far from home". Especially if by "home" we mean those areas where the United States clearly has economic and security interest.

The name, "US Coast Guard", only suggests that they are not typically a blue water force. My goodness, it does not define where they perform their duties. That would ignore historical precedence. Of course we all know there are countries that, unfortunately, do abdicate their responsibilities. They either don't choose to, or perhaps, they just don't have the ability to protect their national interests. That doesn't mean the United States must operate in the same etiolated manner.

The mission of the USGS is "to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests — in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security."

That, my friend, includes the South China Sea.
Not looking to start an argument about "legitimacy" :)
Would just add that it would look decidedly odd if the US tried to enforce the maritime rights/ claims of specific countries if these actions weren't agreed and in unison with said specific countries.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
kaiserd said:
i.) Not looking to start an argument about "legitimacy" :)
Would just add that ii.) it would look decidedly odd if the US tried to enforce the maritime rights/ claims of specific countries if these actions weren't agreed and in unison with said specific countries.
i.) No. Your argument was about "real legitimacy." You're trying to make your argument sound reasonable. But reasonableness isn't relevant if the argument is based on the wrong claim.

ii.) This has nothing to do with the claims of any country. There is no need for the US to work with any other country. These are international waters. This US may deem this behavior is disrupting international norms and placing trade and US security at risk. The US is the largest importer in the world, mostly by ship. If the US decides their security interests include addressing miscreant behavior by utilizing the USGS (for which it is included in the USGS Mission Statement) it is within their rights to do so.

The US has decided to (literally) pay the price to ensure that it's shipping is not threatened by any actor seeking hegemony in a region. That interest also benefits other countries around the world. Especially those for which trade transit is also mostly by ship.

Some may chose to feel that the actions by the PRC are reasonable and proportional. The US has the right and the wherewithal to not only disagree, but take action to ensure any threats are countered or otherwise eliminated. The US Secretary of State-designate has implied that changing the norms by which shipping or aircraft transit the region through threat of force will not be acceptable.

My supposition is that the PRC is receiving a message through the president-elects actions. One elucidated by James Fallows in the Atlantic last month from which I'll paraphrase. The PRC can do this the easy way, or the hard way. The United States would prefer the easier path of cooperation and international norms which has been so beneficial to both countries. But the United States is preparing for the hard way.

Personally, I hope the PRC changes course.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
28
NeilChapman said:
My supposition is that the PRC is receiving a message through the president-elects actions. One elucidated by James Fallows in the Atlantic last month from which I'll paraphrase. The PRC can do this the easy way, or the hard way. The United States would prefer the easier path of cooperation and international norms which has been so beneficial to both countries. But the United States is preparing for the hard way.

Personally, I hope the PRC changes course.
In other words, "our way or the highway"?

Many Americans wonder why many in the world wonder at the way in which the US conducts itself in the world. The hubris and arrogance in that statement is quite breathtaking.

Wouldn't it be better for the US, rather than risk an unnecessary war with the PRC over it's ability to import goods from the PRC, to actively seek a replacement for the PRC's manufacturing ability, such as India? By removing the threat that it mistakenly perceives the PRC creating. ot could, by engaging in a distant embargo of the PRC's imports, it would starve the PRC of the raw materials it needs to manufacture goods for itself and in turn to export to the US and other Western nations.

That is, of course, if your nation doesn't want a war. If, on the other hand, you do want a war, well, I suspect you're going about the right course to getting one.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
Kadija_Man said:
NeilChapman said:
My supposition is that the PRC is receiving a message through the president-elects actions. One elucidated by James Fallows in the Atlantic last month from which I'll paraphrase. The PRC can do this the easy way, or the hard way. The United States would prefer the easier path of cooperation and international norms which has been so beneficial to both countries. But the United States is preparing for the hard way.

Personally, I hope the PRC changes course.
In other words, "our way or the highway"?

Many Americans wonder why many in the world wonder at the way in which the US conducts itself in the world. The hubris and arrogance in that statement is quite breathtaking.

Wouldn't it be better for the US, rather than risk an unnecessary war with the PRC over it's ability to import goods from the PRC, to actively seek a replacement for the PRC's manufacturing ability, such as India? By removing the threat that it mistakenly perceives the PRC creating. ot could, by engaging in a distant embargo of the PRC's imports, it would starve the PRC of the raw materials it needs to manufacture goods for itself and in turn to export to the US and other Western nations.

That is, of course, if your nation doesn't want a war. If, on the other hand, you do want a war, well, I suspect you're going about the right course to getting one.
Sure K_M

???
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
347
Kadija_Man said:
The hubris and arrogance in that statement is quite breathtaking.
Do you really believe expecting countries to follow international laws and honor national boundaries is a "breathtaking display of hubris and arrogance"? The reality is that they can either do things the easy way or the hard way. There is no Door #3.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
893
Reaction score
70
The PRC is the bully on the street corner, they are attempting to seize international waters with the sublety of a brick to the head. This is ensuring that other nations in the area move to reinforce THEIR sovereign rights and that will lead to a bunfight of epic proportions. China will NOT back down as long as it can force others to and standing up to bullies is the only way to deal with them.

Are some people here suggesting that the Philippines et al face the PRC alone?

That is a one way street to closing the area for PRC use only.
 

TsrJoe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
337
Reaction score
23
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/chinese-media-warns-of-war-with-us-after-trumps-state-department-pick-stirs-south-china-sea-row/ar-AAlPn5W
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,899
Reaction score
176
http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/preserving-the-balance-a-u.s.-eurasia-defense-strategy
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729207
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729207
Don't believe that the global understanding of an EEZ allows you to build "new territory" to expand your EEZ.

This looks intractable. Good time for discussions.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,899
Reaction score
176
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-southchinasea-idUSKBN1572M4?il=0
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
Interesting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-usa-defence-idUSKBN15A18Z?il=0
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198
Indeed. However, whether it's a genuine U-turn by Duterte remains to be seen.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,899
Reaction score
176
http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/reinforcing-the-front-line-u.s.-defense-strategy-and-the-rise-of-china
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/has-china-been-practicing-preemptive-missile-strikes-against-u-s-bases/

Hmmmm. No wonder SECDEF made his first trip to this region.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/05/politics/us-japan-aegis-missile-defense-test/
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
http://www.janes.com/article/67485/us-navy-deploys-e-2ds-to-japan-as-part-of-pacific-re-balance
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,899
Reaction score
176
China Sends Warships to Japanese Islands After Mattis’s Warnings

—Brian Everstine2/7/2017

​​China sent three warships to the Senkaku Islands on Monday, just days after Defense Secretary James Mattis reaffirmed its commitment to Japan’s ownership. Three Chinese ships sailed within Japan’s waters about 12 miles off the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea on Monday, FOX News reported. Mattis, during a Saturday briefing with Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada, said China has shown “increasingly confrontational behavior” in the East and South China Seas, and that the US “opposes any unilateral action to overthrow Japan’s administration of the Senkaku Islands.” Mattis blasted China’s moves to claim international parts of the East and South China Seas, as threatening the security of the region. “The point behind a rules-based international order, what those words mean, is that we all play by the rules, and if we have disputes we take them to arbitration,” Mattis said. “We don’t settle them by taking military means and occupying land that is subject to question, to say the least about who actually owns it, or is it international waters.”
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/05/op-ed-president-trumps-major-asian-breakthrough.html

Another take on SECDEF trip.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,899
Reaction score
176
http://www.defensenews.com/paracels-buildup
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
347
https://news.usni.org/2017/02/10/manila-predicts-beijing-will-build-base-on-scarborough-shoal

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/10/pentagon-reviewing-unsafe-military-aircraft-encounter-south-china-sea
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
sferrin said:
https://news.usni.org/2017/02/10/manila-predicts-beijing-will-build-base-on-scarborough-shoal

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/10/pentagon-reviewing-unsafe-military-aircraft-encounter-south-china-sea
Better get those munitions orders processed.
 

TsrJoe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
337
Reaction score
23
Quote ... 'The P-3C was in the midst of a turn when the crew received a potential collision alert, spotted the KJ-200 and took evasive action to avoid a crash, one defense official told USNI News on Friday.' hmm, IF true (and i personally believe its just more hype), i guess 'observation and awareness' werent on the crews minds :/
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
17
TsrJoe said:
'The P-3C was in the midst of a turn when the crew received a potential collision alert, spotted the KJ-200 and took evasive action to avoid a crash, one defense official told USNI News on Friday.'.. hmm if true (and i personally believe its just more hype), i guess 'observation and awareness' werent on the crews minds :/

Hmmmmm... ???
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,899
Reaction score
176
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-make-sure-americas-aircraft-carriers-can-battle-china-19422
 
Top