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

China Expanding Air Defence Zone, Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippine-leader-rodrigo-duterte-rolls-dice-with-embrace-of-china-1476639455
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2016/10/in-philippines-money-wont-buy-you-love.html
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
43
kaiserd said:
Grey Havoc said:
NeilChapman said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
Little old South Korea showing the US how it should have been done from the get go.

Granted there's an armistice but isn't United Nations Command, including the US and S. Korea technically still at war with North Korea and the PRC?

Not that it matters any but should the ramming and sinking of a S. Korean Coast Guard vessel by a PRC militarized fishing boat technically be considered a violation of the Armistice Agreement by the PRC?
A very interesting question indeed.
In practise primarily of interest to people looking to restart the Korean War.
Don't think even the apparently wronged party (South Korea) interested in that angle.

Perhaps not. I was thinking of the UN angle. If the PRC is reverting to acting in a 'war-like' way it's good to consider the leverage of possible UN sanctions - maybe only verbal but worth considering. The PRC needs to feel the unanimous 'heat' of this unacceptable behavior. That's possible by using the UN world stage to bring these actions 'into the light'.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
351
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
Grey Havoc said:
NeilChapman said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
Little old South Korea showing the US how it should have been done from the get go.

Granted there's an armistice but isn't United Nations Command, including the US and S. Korea technically still at war with North Korea and the PRC?

Not that it matters any but should the ramming and sinking of a S. Korean Coast Guard vessel by a PRC militarized fishing boat technically be considered a violation of the Armistice Agreement by the PRC?
A very interesting question indeed.
In practise primarily of interest to people looking to restart the Korean War.
Don't think even the apparently wronged party (South Korea) interested in that angle.

Perhaps not. I was thinking of the UN angle. If the PRC is reverting to acting in a 'war-like' way it's good to consider the leverage of possible UN sanctions - maybe only verbal but worth considering. The PRC needs to feel the unanimous 'heat' of this unacceptable behavior. That's possible by using the UN world stage to bring these actions 'into the light'.
Given the Chinese (& Russian) veto, and actual negotiations you have to do with these countries, getting war-like wording in the UN just to be "clever" isn't going to happen and would be unwise if it did.
By all means do what you can re: sanctions for issues like Russia's war crimes in Syria but what is being suggested here a distraction.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,247
Reaction score
1,269
kaiserd said:
Given the Chinese (& Russian) veto, and actual negotiations you have to do with these countries, getting war-like wording in the UN just to be "clever" isn't going to happen and would be unwise if it did.
By all means do what you can re: sanctions for issues like Russia's war crimes in Syria but what is being suggested here a distraction.
What would you suggest?
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
43
kaiserd said:
NeilChapman said:
kaiserd said:
Grey Havoc said:
NeilChapman said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
Little old South Korea showing the US how it should have been done from the get go.

Granted there's an armistice but isn't United Nations Command, including the US and S. Korea technically still at war with North Korea and the PRC?

Not that it matters any but should the ramming and sinking of a S. Korean Coast Guard vessel by a PRC militarized fishing boat technically be considered a violation of the Armistice Agreement by the PRC?
A very interesting question indeed.
In practise primarily of interest to people looking to restart the Korean War.
Don't think even the apparently wronged party (South Korea) interested in that angle.

Perhaps not. I was thinking of the UN angle. If the PRC is reverting to acting in a 'war-like' way it's good to consider the leverage of possible UN sanctions - maybe only verbal but worth considering. The PRC needs to feel the unanimous 'heat' of this unacceptable behavior. That's possible by using the UN world stage to bring these actions 'into the light'.
Given the Chinese (& Russian) veto, and actual negotiations you have to do with these countries, getting war-like wording in the UN just to be "clever" isn't going to happen and would be unwise if it did.
By all means do what you can re: sanctions for issues like Russia's war crimes in Syria but what is being suggested here a distraction.
Veto is only in the Security Council. I'm not sure about what could be done but here are a few ideas.

There could be a General Resolution. No one is talking about authorizing military action. This is more about preserving the peace.

Or perhaps, the militarization of the fishing fleet could be brought up re: the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In fact, since the fishing vessels are "private" ships one could even make a case that these acts of violence are acts of piracy.

''Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).''

You don't have to take the ship for it to be piracy. The PRC would be forced to claim these hostile acts as being performed by state actors to protect their actions. That has its own ramifications.

Any thoughts?
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
43
Duterte aligns Philippines with China, says U.S. has lost

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-philippines-idUSKCN12K0AS


How 'bout dat.
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,038
Reaction score
124
NeilChapman said:
Duterte aligns Philippines with China, says U.S. has lost

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-philippines-idUSKCN12K0AS


How 'bout dat.
And I'm sure the US and Japan will be only too happy to halt the supply of surplus equipment and parts. The nice shiny new FA-50s are just as vunerable.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,247
Reaction score
1,269
http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/john-f-lehman-former-us-secretary-of-the-navy-on-the-south-china-sea/

"The Chinese are pursuing a doctrine to secure the first island chain, then the second, and third chain, which includes Hawaii. We’re there imposing our presence, but with little to back it up. The fact is, we have cut our navy more than in half, and while the president says we are pivoting to Asia, we’re not. We talk about building a bigger navy, but the Chinese see we’re building an average of 8 ships a year, with a 30-year life. They know how big our fleet is going to be. We are not maintaining the balance of power and we’re not maintaining command of the seas. In fact, to even use that term, which was Reagan’s constant, would be considered politically incorrect to use today in the Obama administration."
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
351
sferrin said:
http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/john-f-lehman-former-us-secretary-of-the-navy-on-the-south-china-sea/

"The Chinese are pursuing a doctrine to secure the first island chain, then the second, and third chain, which includes Hawaii. We’re there imposing our presence, but with little to back it up. The fact is, we have cut our navy more than in half, and while the president says we are pivoting to Asia, we’re not. We talk about building a bigger navy, but the Chinese see we’re building an average of 8 ships a year, with a 30-year life. They know how big our fleet is going to be. We are not maintaining the balance of power and we’re not maintaining command of the seas. In fact, to even use that term, which was Reagan’s constant, would be considered politically incorrect to use today in the Obama administration."
An interesting and considerably more nuanced article/ interview than this selective quoting would suggest.
Features critisim of Republican and Democrate administrations (arguably far more positive about Obama's policies than Bush senior's & junior's) and grounded in practical reality and limitations rather than unrealistic wish-lists and the like.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,247
Reaction score
1,269
"Nuance". It seems to be the go-to phrase to explain all kinds of shady behavior. Right up there with, "I was for it before I was against it", "It depends what the meaning of "is" is", and "I don't recall".

"On Taiwan: theoretically we have an obligation to defend Taiwan against attacks from the mainland. I don’t think there are too many people who really take that obligation seriously anymore."

This should come of great comfort to our supposed allies.

"The reality today is that we are not the naval power that we were after the Cold War. The nation has chosen under both Republican and Democratic administrations not to pay the price to be able to guarantee freedom of the seas. It would take a complete change of national security policy to reverse this. Reagan was a 180-degree reversal from Carter in terms of naval power; he addressed the balance very quickly, but very quickly took five-six years. You would have to have a new president who had a grasp of elements of national security policy, and the determination to do something about it. Nobody like that is on the horizon."

I'm sure that's got people in Russia and China grinning from ear to ear.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
43
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/john-f-lehman-former-us-secretary-of-the-navy-on-the-south-china-sea/

"The Chinese are pursuing a doctrine to secure the first island chain, then the second, and third chain, which includes Hawaii. We’re there imposing our presence, but with little to back it up. The fact is, we have cut our navy more than in half, and while the president says we are pivoting to Asia, we’re not. We talk about building a bigger navy, but the Chinese see we’re building an average of 8 ships a year, with a 30-year life. They know how big our fleet is going to be. We are not maintaining the balance of power and we’re not maintaining command of the seas. In fact, to even use that term, which was Reagan’s constant, would be considered politically incorrect to use today in the Obama administration."
An interesting and considerably more nuanced article/ interview than this selective quoting would suggest.
Features critisim of Republican and Democrate administrations (arguably far more positive about Obama's policies than Bush senior's & junior's) and grounded in practical reality and limitations rather than unrealistic wish-lists and the like.
Perhaps.

If you want to make a case for a US$40B program or two then you've got to have a justification that Congress can take to the people. The PRC/Russia problems were certainly not as pronounced during Bush 41 or 43's presidency as they are today.

The PRC submitted its SCS nine-dash line claim to the UN in 2009 after which the PI lodged its protest.
XI has been consolidating power in the PRC since he took office.
Russia didn't invade Crimea until 2014.

These actions have been during President Obama's watch.

Arguably, both authoritarian leaders are operating in fear.

Putin is dealing with an economy the size of Australia but with a per capita income the size of St. Kit and a negative or effectively zero population growth rate.

The PRC has made a decision to prop up government owned companies which has resulted in US$25T in debt and will likely result in long term economic stagnation. That with a rapidly aging population and a population growth rate of about .5%.

My point is that each seem to be taking actions to consolidate power. Each is dealing with serious, systemic economic problems. Each leader has made their country considerably more volatile since Obama has been President.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,050
Reaction score
1,097
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/10/22/us-navy-destroyer-operates-waters-claimed-china.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

A Chinese defense ministry statement called it "a gravely illegal act" and "intentionally provocative." The Chinese navy sent a guided missile destroyer and an escort vessel that "spotted and verified the American ships and warned them to leave," the statement said.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
43
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/10/26/new-system-will-allow-ospreys-refuel-f-35s-flight/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dodbuzz+%28DoD+Buzz%29&comp%3D1199442450861%26rank%3D0

Interesting article. Reflects the understanding that refueling capability out of unimproved or atypical areas may be required in the not to distant future. Good planning, especially with threats in the Pacific and the concerns about Kadena.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,050
Reaction score
1,097
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-flight-tests-10-df-21-missiles/

Time to drop the INF Treaty for conventional missiles.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,247
Reaction score
1,269
bobbymike said:
Time to drop the INF Treaty for conventional missiles.
Especially since the US is the only country abiding by it. Russia, China, India, Iran, and others all have intermediate range missiles.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
43
bobbymike said:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-flight-tests-10-df-21-missiles/

Time to drop the INF Treaty for conventional missiles.
Here's a thought...

PE Trump is getting pasted for speaking w/President Tsai on December 2. I find it very interesting that this call took place immediately after this "test flight" of 10 missiles simultaneously.

To me it looks like the PRC 'serve' and PE Trump's 'volley'.

Let the games begin.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/risking-beijings-ire-vietnam-begins-dredging-south-china-sea-reef/
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,247
Reaction score
1,269
Grey Havoc said:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/risking-beijings-ire-vietnam-begins-dredging-south-china-sea-reef/
China has no room to complain.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-china-installs-weapons-systems-artificial-islands-u-140752120.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China appears to have installed weapons, including anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, on all seven of the artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea, a U.S. think tank reported on Wednesday, citing new satellite imagery.

The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) said its findings come despite statements by the Chinese leadership that Beijing has no intention to militarize the islands in the strategic trade route, where territory is claimed by several countries.

AMTI said it had been tracking construction of hexagonal structures on Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi reefs in the Spratly Islands since June and July. China has already built military length airstrips on these islands.

"It now seems that these structures are an evolution of point-defense fortifications already constructed at China’s smaller facilities on Gaven, Hughes, Johnson, and Cuarteron reefs," it said citing images taken in November and made available to Reuters.

"This model has gone through another evolution at (the) much-larger bases on Fiery Cross, Subi and Mischief reefs."

Satellite images of Hughes and Gaven reefs showed what appeared to be anti-aircraft guns and what were likely to be close-in weapons systems (CIWS) to protect against cruise missile strikes, it said.

Images from Fiery Cross Reef showed towers that likely contained targeting radar, it said.

AMTI said covers had been installed on the towers at Fiery Cross, but the size of platforms on these and the covers suggested they concealed defense systems similar to those at the smaller reefs.

"These gun and probable CIWS emplacements show that Beijing is serious about defense of its artificial islands in case of an armed contingency in the South China Sea," it said.

"Among other things, they would be the last line of defense against cruise missiles launched by the United States or others against these soon-to-be-operational air bases."

[snip]
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-idUSKBN1430CJ
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
China's Defense Ministry said in a statement on its microblog on Thursday that it was "legitimate and lawful" for it to place defensive military installations on islands where it said Beijing had "indisputable sovereignty."

"If someone makes a show of force at your front door, would you not ready your slingshot?" it said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a regular news briefing in Beijing that he "did not understand" the situation referred to in the report.

Beijing says the manufactured islands are intended to boost maritime safety in the region while downplaying their military utility. They also mark China's claim to ownership of practically the entire South China Sea, its islands, reefs and other maritime features.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/south-china-sea-artificial-islands-have-weapons-installed-report-n696311
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-underwater-drone-stolen/index.html
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
Grey Havoc said:
China's Defense Ministry said in a statement on its microblog on Thursday that it was "legitimate and lawful" for it to place defensive military installations on islands where it said Beijing had "indisputable sovereignty."

"If someone makes a show of force at your front door, would you not ready your slingshot?" it said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a regular news briefing in Beijing that he "did not understand" the situation referred to in the report.

Beijing says the manufactured islands are intended to boost maritime safety in the region while downplaying their military utility. They also mark China's claim to ownership of practically the entire South China Sea, its islands, reefs and other maritime features.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/south-china-sea-artificial-islands-have-weapons-installed-report-n696311
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a regular news briefing in Beijing that he "did not understand" the situation referred to in the AMTI report.

"The Nansha islands are China's inherent territory. China's building of facilities and necessary territorial defensive facilities on its own territory is completely normal," he said, using China's name for the Spratlys.

"If China's building of normal facilities and deploying necessary territorial defensive facilities on its own islands is considered militarization, then what is the sailing of fleets into the South China Sea?"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-idUSKBN1441DE
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/duterte-says-hell-set-aside-sea-feud-ruling-against-china/2016/12/16/4e4a606e-c40f-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
https://www.lawfareblog.com/nonexistent-legal-basis-chinas-seizure-us-navys-drone-south-china-sea
https://www.lawfareblog.com/chinas-capture-us-underwater-drone-violates-law-sea
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-drone-idUSKBN14526J
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/world/asia/china-us-drone.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/17/china-returns-us-drone-after-explaining-seizure/95555610/
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
513
Reaction score
162
While not trying to Hitlerize China by any means, these few months are somewhat reminiscent of the realization of the Baltic states that if France (and to some extent Britain) were not going to face off against Germany over the Rhineland move, odds were slim that they would come to their defense in the Baltic. They then tried their best to come to their own terms with Germany. Maybe we start to see a shift in the center of gravity regarding these "satellites".
I'm not at all suggesting that China is going to start invading neighbors like Vietnam and the Phillipines, or even that this realignment would necessarilly be a bad thing, though it's clearly not a positive for the US geopolitically. Just a broad observation.
 

VH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
205
Reaction score
0
Here's another observation for you: China is under increasing economic pressure at home to keep the good times rolling:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/china-cooling-property-market-may-be-new-economic-growth-threat
"..Harrison Hu, chief greater China economist at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc. in Singapore, wrote in a report. "A full-fledged property downturn will bring significant downward pressures on the real economy" and increase the potential for a hard-landing, he said.
Creating external enemies abroad is an well worn tactic to keep a restless population's mind off of a worsening domestic situation. Factor in China's increasing attempts to automate industry and you have more pressure on full Chinese employment.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-factories-count-on-robots-as-workforce-shrinks-1471339805
Donald Trump's willingness to throw elbows with the PRC is an added worry for the Chinese.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
442
Time for the Chinese government to realise the threat to their power lies in their own policies. The only alternative is conflict and I for one do not want to see that. With the increases in democracy promoting growth of the individual they are at risk of civil war too.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-drone-idUSKBN1490EG?il=0
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,050
Reaction score
1,097
http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/countering-chinas-adventurism-in-the-south-china-sea-strategy-options-for-t
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,050
Reaction score
1,097
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/asia-times-chinas-military-2016-missiles-intelligence-scs/
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
442
OK, seeing as most of the western world in particular, are in bed with the PRC to the tune of billions (dollars, euro's, pounds etc), what the hell can be realistically done to bring understanding to their government? The government of the PRC seems to want to throw its weight around a lot what with Taiwan and Nepal for starters not to mention human rights offences against their own people. I knew it was a bad idea to allow the PRC to have access to overseas investments and putting money into the PRC so they could blackmail us anytime we try to get them to play nice. I am not normally one to argue for violence but these buggers and the North Korean government really do need to be castrated power wise.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
43
Foo Fighter - They are castrating themselves. They are driving their economy toward serious problems as they have been financing overproduction and growth via debt. Look for continued serious outflows of capital from the PRC in 2017 and slowing economic growth for PRC in 2017 & 2018.

On another note. The pressure on the PRC re:Taiwan is increasing.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/29/national/politics-diplomacy/name-change-taiwans-de-facto-embassy-irks-china/#.WGs47rGZOHo

"Japan’s organization in Taiwan, the Interchange Association, said in a statement Wednesday that as of Jan. 1 it will be known as the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association. Its Chinese name has also been changed to add the names of Japan and Taiwan."

PEOTUS phone call followed by this. I feel confident there will be more to come. Hopefully Xi will change his tune, but I doubt it. The party and he have too much to lose. With the coming economic reckoning 'a little nationalism' could be just the thing to take PRC citizens mind off internal problems. It's been done before.

Hopefully the US is prepared to handle any contingencies.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,620
Reaction score
1,776
http://www.eaglespeak.us/2017/01/china-lies-again-and-new-drone-war.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/duterte-seeks-strategic-shift-us-china-envoy-113028417.html
 
Top