China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Abraham Gubler said:
So Taiwan will be fine then and the PLA will get Diepped trying to cross the beach. The strategic level air attacks against Iraq in 1991 achieved almost nothing of direct military value. They made for great TV, harrased a lot of city dwellers and smashed the Iraqi military's real estate portfolio. But achieved squat against the dispersed and hardened Iraqi military C2 and logistic capability. It was only the tactical air strikes against Iraqi ground forces that made a difference. You can't do that by typing in grid squares into a rocket launching system. Unless you want to kill a lot of trees and move a lot of dirt. Which to clarify by nation state standards is actually a very small number of trees knocked down and a very small acerage cratered.

Finding targets has advanced just a tad since Desert Storm. Also, it's a bit difficult to hide runways, ramps, ports, bunkers, HASs, etc. etc. Lastly, Saddam had six months to disperse his forces. I doubt China would give Taiwan 6 months to disperse their forces to new locations.
 
Problem solved

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/white-house-tells-the-pentagon-to-quit-talking-about-competition-with-china
 
bobbymike said:
Problem solved

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/white-house-tells-the-pentagon-to-quit-talking-about-competition-with-china

That seems to be this administration's go-to "strategy" - pretend there is no problem and hope it goes away. Putin and Xi must love these idiots we have.
 
perhaps those nation states concerned should start reclaiming the shallows around their waters too, i'm not so sure the US. would be happy to fund it tho ? (maybe China could even assist same with a fiscal loan to cover the excess debt accrued) ;)
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Problem solved

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/white-house-tells-the-pentagon-to-quit-talking-about-competition-with-china

That seems to be this administration's go-to "strategy" - pretend there is no problem and hope it goes away. Putin and Xi must love these idiots we have.

The only "problem" has been one that the US has created in it's own mind. The Chinese are not gaining any significant advantage from building islands which can be eliminated in the blink of an eye if war was to ever break out and which can be negated by trade and economic sanctions in peacetime.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-warns-japan-not-play-fire-china-sea-093847293.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/duterte-says-upcoming-philippines-war-games-u-last-143004467--business.html
 
It is apparent that the current Chinese government is keen to bully this region into ownership. I have no problems with the Chinese people but their government, along with that of north Korea makes up one heck of a threat to peaceful co-existence.
 
Foo Fighter said:
It is apparent that the current Chinese government is keen to bully this region into ownership. I have no problems with the Chinese people but their government, along with that of north Korea makes up one heck of a threat to peaceful co-existence.

Bullies only bully because they're allowed to. If they'd been told no two years ago the South and East China Seas wouldn't be anywhere near as out of control as they are now.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-usa-idUSKCN1220O4
 
https://gcaptain.com/fishermen-coast-guards-worry-singapore-most-in-south-china-sea/
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-indonesia-idUSKCN1240O9
 
Via JasonJ over at Tanknet: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/10/07/1631266/philippines-us-halt-plans-joint-south-china-sea-patrols
 
Grey Havoc said:
Via JasonJ over at Tanknet: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/10/07/1631266/philippines-us-halt-plans-joint-south-china-sea-patrols

Thats the problem with Democracy, you get as the US has learnt several times now, sometimes the people you don't want elected. The US has always preferred to deal with dictators. They do usually what they are told.
 
sferrin said:
Foo Fighter said:
It is apparent that the current Chinese government is keen to bully this region into ownership. I have no problems with the Chinese people but their government, along with that of north Korea makes up one heck of a threat to peaceful co-existence.

Bullies only bully because they're allowed to. If they'd been told no two years ago the South and East China Seas wouldn't be anywhere near as out of control as they are now.

Because such complicated issues can be accuately boiled down to "just say No@.
Don't disagree that China's vaulting ambitions need to be opposed by the US jointly with China's concerned neighbours, but let's not pretend it's simple and easy to do so and that it's all a question of simple resolve.
The least worst solutions are not going to be found in an internet discussion forum.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Grey Havoc said:
Via JasonJ over at Tanknet: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/10/07/1631266/philippines-us-halt-plans-joint-south-china-sea-patrols

Thats the problem with Democracy, you get as the US has learnt several times now, sometimes the people you don't want elected. The US has always preferred to deal with dictators. They do usually what they are told.

With all respect Kadija_Man the same argument can equally validly be made against critics of the US who look the other way or are less fulsome in their criticism re: the despicable aspects of leaders/ regimes that have happened to have fallen out with the US.
The current Philippines President and his regime are clearly extremely unpleasant and likely extremely criminal people well deserving of the criticism and condemnation heading their way.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37582498
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36251094
 
http://www.defencetalk.com/us-navy-sends-reinforced-strike-group-into-south-china-sea-68308/
 
kaiserd said:
sferrin said:
Foo Fighter said:
It is apparent that the current Chinese government is keen to bully this region into ownership. I have no problems with the Chinese people but their government, along with that of north Korea makes up one heck of a threat to peaceful co-existence.

Bullies only bully because they're allowed to. If they'd been told no two years ago the South and East China Seas wouldn't be anywhere near as out of control as they are now.

Because such complicated issues can be accuately boiled down to "just say No@.
Don't disagree that China's vaulting ambitions need to be opposed by the US jointly with China's concerned neighbours, but let's not pretend it's simple and easy to do so and that it's all a question of simple resolve.
The least worst solutions are not going to be found in an internet discussion forum.

It's an interesting use of the word 'ambition'. Typically we think of the word ambition as seeking success - or positive ambition. One has an ambition to succeed as parents raising children of character, or perhaps to reduce ones 10K time, or even ambition to prepare for a particular career, such as medicine. I don't perceive the PRC as having ambition, rather, it has an objective. The objective of the PRC's authoritarian regime is to stay in power and gather power for the party. "We must conquer the globe where we will create a powerful state," claimed Mao Zedong

Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk according to Zedong, were lost in the fall of the Qing empire. That list would also include what the PRC calls "Liberated Tibet". While today we generally hear of the 9-dash line and arctic the PRC's false territorial claims have a substantial list to call upon.

By design, authoritarian regimes use power to manipulate and control its subjects and with whomever they interact. We've seen this in the PRC's growing territorial claims for areas they have convinced themselves they own. The purpose being access via force to natural resources and sources of food.

It has been the policy of the United States and other governments to encourage positive behavior by the PRC. Unfortunately, it is becoming more obvious that the PRC has no intention of wanting to participate in the existing order. The PRC's plan is to develop a new order. So the world must decide. Does it want a government like the PRC's to use that same authoritarian power and control to force its 'benevolence' on others as it did in "Liberated Tibet" and seeks in Taiwan?

This is only the beginning.
 
Exactly. Use of the word, "ambition" sounds apologetic. Call a spade a spade. China is trying to take what doesn't belong to it. Period. A looter isn't "ambitious" when they steal a new flat screen for themselves, they're criminals. The end.
 
kaiserd said:
Kadija_Man said:
Grey Havoc said:
Via JasonJ over at Tanknet: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/10/07/1631266/philippines-us-halt-plans-joint-south-china-sea-patrols

Thats the problem with Democracy, you get as the US has learnt several times now, sometimes the people you don't want elected. The US has always preferred to deal with dictators. They do usually what they are told.

With all respect Kadija_Man the same argument can equally validly be made against critics of the US who look the other way or are less fulsome in their criticism re: the despicable aspects of leaders/ regimes that have happened to have fallen out with the US.

True. However, such criticism or even action needs to have a firm foundation in ethics on which it can be based. Manufacturing a casus belli is not an adequate justification IMO.

The current Philippines President and his regime are clearly extremely unpleasant and likely extremely criminal people well deserving of the criticism and condemnation heading their way.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37582498
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36251094

Without a doubt. However, they were democratically elected and appear to be popular with the Philippino people it appears.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-orders-us-forces-out-of-the-philippines-cutting-65-years-of-military-ties-a7353961.html

Oh, joy.
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-orders-us-forces-out-of-the-philippines-cutting-65-years-of-military-ties-a7353961.html

Oh, joy.

Will be interesting when (not if) China comes a knockin'. I wonder if the guy is in their pocket.
 
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-orders-us-forces-out-of-the-philippines-cutting-65-years-of-military-ties-a7353961.html

Oh, joy.

Will be interesting when (not if) China comes a knockin'. I wonder if the guy is in their pocket.


He sees Peso signs for investment in the PI. Unfortunately PRC construction is usually pretty bad. Lots of problems in Angola and Africa with construction quality. We'll see how it goes.

Scuttle-butt is that he'll keep the mutual defense treaty.
 
NeilChapman said:
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-orders-us-forces-out-of-the-philippines-cutting-65-years-of-military-ties-a7353961.html

Oh, joy.

Will be interesting when (not if) China comes a knockin'. I wonder if the guy is in their pocket.

He sees Peso signs for investment in the PI. Unfortunately PRC construction is usually pretty bad. Lots of problems in Angola and Africa with construction quality. We'll see how it goes.

Scuttle-butt is that he'll keep the mutual defense treaty.

Sure. He'll still want us to ride to his rescue but he doesn't want to lift a finger to help. With "friends" like that...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

China Backs Peace Talks for North Korea
 
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/10/philippines-about-give-south-china-sea-china/132319/

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Philippines_Duterte_seeks_money_respect_in_China_999.html
 
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.
 
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
 
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'.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
Duterte aligns Philippines with China, says U.S. has lost

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


How 'bout dat.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom