China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

[sferrin]

China criticises Japanese jet scramble over East China Sea (BBC News)

China being China. :

 

[Grey Havoc]

China holds combat drill in the South China Sea (Reuters)

 

[Grey Havoc]

The submarines and rivalries underneath the South China Sea (BBC News)

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/07/12/un-tribunal-rules-for-philippines-in-south-china-sea-dispute/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-claim-to-most-of-south-china-sea-has-no-legal-basis-court-says-1468315137

In a statement published on a verified social media feed just before the ruling, China’s Ministry of Defense said the decision wouldn't affect its approach in the South China Sea.

“No matter what the result of the arbitration, the Chinese military will unswervingly protect the nation’s sovereignty, security and maritime rights, resolutely protect the safety and stability of the region, and face down all manner of threats and challenges,” it said.

After the ruling, the ministry referred to the comment as its official statement.

 

[Grey Havoc]

H/t JasonJ over at Tanknet:

BEIJING, July 12 (Xinhua) -- Following is the full text of the Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines issued on Tuesday.

Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines

With regard to the award rendered on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the unilateral request of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Tribunal"), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it.

1. On 22 January 2013, the then government of the Republic of the Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration on the relevant disputes in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines. On 19 February 2013, the Chinese government solemnly declared that it neither accepts nor participates in that arbitration and has since repeatedly reiterated that position. On 7 December 2014, the Chinese government released the Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, pointing out that the Philippines' initiation of arbitration breaches the agreement between the two states, violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and goes against the general practice of international arbitration, and that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction. On 29 October 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered an award on jurisdiction and admissibility. The Chinese government immediately stated that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China's positions are clear and consistent.

2. The unilateral initiation of arbitration by the Philippines is out of bad faith. It aims not to resolve the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines, or to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, but to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. The initiation of this arbitration violates international law. First, the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is in essence an issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao (the Nansha Islands), and inevitably concerns and cannot be separated from maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. Fully aware that territorial issues are not subject to UNCLOS, and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines deliberately packaged the relevant disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Second, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration infringes upon China's right as a state party to UNCLOS to choose on its own will the procedures and means for dispute settlement. As early as in 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China excluded from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. Third, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration violates the bilateral agreement reached between China and the Philippines, and repeatedly reaffirmed over the years, to resolve relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. Fourth, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration violates the commitment made by China and ASEAN Member States, including the Philippines, in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) to resolve the relevant disputes through negotiations by states directly concerned. By unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines violates UNCLOS and its provisions on the application of dispute settlement procedures, the principle of "pacta sunt servanda" and other rules and principles of international law.

3. The Arbitral Tribunal disregards the fact that the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, erroneously interprets the common choice of means of dispute settlement already made jointly by China and the Philippines, erroneously construes the legal effect of the relevant commitment in the DOC, deliberately circumvents the optional exceptions declaration made by China under Article 298 of UNCLOS, selectively takes relevant islands and reefs out of the macro-geographical framework of Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands), subjectively and speculatively interprets and applies UNCLOS, and obviously errs in ascertaining fact and applying the law. The conduct of the Arbitral Tribunal and its awards seriously contravene the general practice of international arbitration, completely deviate from the object and purpose of UNCLOS to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, substantially impair the integrity and authority of UNCLOS, gravely infringe upon China's legitimate rights as a sovereign state and state party to UNCLOS, and are unjust and unlawful.

4. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on those awards.

5. The Chinese government reiterates that, regarding territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, China does not accept any means of third party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on China. The Chinese government will continue to abide by international law and basic norms governing international relations as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the principles of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity and peaceful settlement of disputes, and continue to work with states directly concerned to resolve the relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, so as to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/12/c_135507744.htm

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2016/07/china-loses-south-china-sea-arbitration.html

 

[sferrin]

"The initiation of this arbitration violates international law. "

Oh, that's rich China. :

 

[Grey Havoc]

From the BBC:

South China Sea: China 'has right to set up air defence zone'

Beijing engineers coverage of South China Sea ruling

 

[Grey Havoc]

China vows to protect South China Sea sovereignty, Manila upbeat (Reuters)

 

[sferrin]

China vows to protect South China Sea sovereignty, Manila upbeat (Reuters)

"China vows to protect the territory it's trying to steal."

 

[Grey Havoc]

China irked by Australia remarks on S. China Sea; Philippines eyes talks (The Yomiuri Shimbun)

 

[Grey Havoc]

China announces South China Sea military exercises (The Associated Press)

 

[bobbymike]

China Conducting “Air Combat Patrols” Over Contested Sea

—Otto Kreisher

7/21/2016

​In open defiance of last week’s ruling by an international court rejecting its claims to sovereignty over much of the South China Sea, China has announced that it is conducting “air combat patrols” over the contested sea, including Scarborough Shoal, which was the primary focus of the successful legal challenge by the Philippines. On July 18, the state-run Xinhua news agency quoted a People’s Liberation Army Air Force spokesman saying H-6K strategic bombers and other aircraft were patrolling disputed reefs and artificial islands China has built to bolster its now legally discounted territorial claims, IHS Jane’s 360 reported. “To effectively fulfill its mission, the air force will continue to conduct combat patrols on a regular basis in the South China Sea,” despite the Hague’s July 12 ruling,the PLAAF spokesman said. Those patrols could create the potential for tense encounters with the occasional flights US aircraft, including B-52s, conduct in what is considered international airspace. The Xinhua news agency also reported that China’s top Navy officer, Adm. Wu Shengli, told US Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson during a visit to Beijing that China would continue its construction of artificial islands, several of which have runways able to handle military aircraft.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/major-chinese-state-paper-calls-for-a-military-strike-on-australian-ships-that-enter-the-south-china-sea-2016-7

China must take revenge and let it know it’s wrong. Australia’s power means nothing compared to the security of China. If Australia steps into the South China Sea waters, it will be an ideal target for China to warn and strike.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-will-hold-its-fire-the-south-china-sea-%E2%80%94-until-17201

 

[sferrin]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-will-hold-its-fire-the-south-china-sea-%E2%80%94-until-17201

"Peaceful Rise". China is like the guy who punches you in the head and then calls you the attacker because his hand got hurt.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html?adbsc=social_20160801_939041&adbid=759975709167132672&adbpl=tw&adbpr=22545453

RAND Report War with China

 

[NeilChapman]

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html?adbsc=social_20160801_939041&adbid=759975709167132672&adbpl=tw&adbpr=22545453

RAND Report War with China

Interesting read...

Given the likelihood of the PRC's planning for a "controlled" military engagement with the US I will posit the following...

Perhaps the island building is to give the US something to shoot at.

For example, the PRC has some given political objective. To meet that objective requires some engagement that will potentially or likely result in some armed US response but will also result in the political objective being met.

If you're planning for a "controlled" military engagement then you're also planning on your oppositions response i.e. what your opposition will be shooting at. You would want to give the opposition something that

1. allows them to make a point
2. you really won't miss
3. limits the likelihood that your core military assets will be damaged
4. limits the number of PRC comrades that will be killed
5. makes it less likely you'll have negative political fallout from the populace
6. makes it more likely that it will generate national fervor

so you build islands 600 miles from your coast and stick a flag on it. Then you make a bunch of noise like it "really" matters to you.

 

[NeilChapman]

Interesting read...

http://www.army-technology.com/features/featureunravelling-chinas-state-sponsored-cyber-war-with-project-camerashy-4939205/

 

[sferrin]

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html?adbsc=social_20160801_939041&adbid=759975709167132672&adbpl=tw&adbpr=22545453

RAND Report War with China

Interesting read...

Given the likelihood of the PRC's planning for a "controlled" military engagement with the US I will posit the following...

Perhaps the island building is to give the US something to shoot at.

For example, the PRC has some given political objective. To meet that objective requires some engagement that will potentially or likely result in some armed US response but will also result in the political objective being met.

If you're planning for a "controlled" military engagement then you're also planning on your oppositions response i.e. what your opposition will be shooting at. You would want to give the opposition something that

1. allows them to make a point
2. you really won't miss
3. limits the likelihood that your core military assets will be damaged
4. limits the number of PRC comrades that will be killed
5. makes it less likely you'll have negative political fallout from the populace
6. makes it more likely that it will generate national fervor

so you build islands 600 miles from your coast and stick a flag on it. Then you make a bunch of noise like it "really" matters to you.

7. That if they don't get rid of it it's a REALLY valuable military asset.

 

[Grey Havoc]

China conducts 'combat patrols' over contested islands (Yahoo News)

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-falls-into-a-nightmare-of-a-us-japan-south-korea-alliance-2016-8

 

[sferrin]

Well lookie here, China has built hardened aircraft shelters on their new "islands".

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/09/u-s-pacific-fleets-swift-calls-military-transparency-china-visit

"The CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative report analyzed recent satellite imagery and determined that on China’s artificial islands in the Spratlys with runways – Firey Cross Reef, Mischief Reef and Subi Reef – Beijing has built hardened military aircraft hangars.

The smallest hangars, “can easily accommodate any fighter-jet in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), including the J-11 and Su-30. The second type of hangar is large enough for the H-6 bomber and H-6U refueling tanker, Y-8 transport aircraft, and KJ200 Airborne Warning and Control System plane,” read the report. “The largest of the hangars can accommodate the largest planes in the PLAAF fleet—the Y-20 and Il-76 transport planes, Il-78 refueling tanker and KJ-2000 surveillance aircraft.”


I. Am. Shocked. Shocked! I tell you.

 

[kaiserd]

Well lookie here, China has built hardened aircraft shelters on their new "islands".

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/09/u-s-pacific-fleets-swift-calls-military-transparency-china-visit

"The CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative report analyzed recent satellite imagery and determined that on China’s artificial islands in the Spratlys with runways – Firey Cross Reef, Mischief Reef and Subi Reef – Beijing has built hardened military aircraft hangars.

The smallest hangars, “can easily accommodate any fighter-jet in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), including the J-11 and Su-30. The second type of hangar is large enough for the H-6 bomber and H-6U refueling tanker, Y-8 transport aircraft, and KJ200 Airborne Warning and Control System plane,” read the report. “The largest of the hangars can accommodate the largest planes in the PLAAF fleet—the Y-20 and Il-76 transport planes, Il-78 refueling tanker and KJ-2000 surveillance aircraft.”


I. Am. Shocked. Shocked! I tell you.

And who exactly is supposed to be actualy shocked or surprised?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/china-and-us-anti-submarine-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/china-launches-a-stealth-invasion-in-the-south-china-sea.html

Years ago I read a hypothetical argument (I believe it was just after the Cold War and the break up of the USSR) that asked what would the world do if China ordered 250 million civilians to simply walk north and settle in the resource rich but largely empty region of eastern Russia?

 

[sferrin]

"New Images Suggest China Has Built Reinforced Hangars On Disputed Islands"

Recent satellite photographs show China appears to have built reinforced aircraft hangars on its holdings in the disputed South China Sea, according to a Washington-based think tank.

Pictures taken in late July show the hangars constructed on Fiery Cross, Subi and Mischief Reefs in the Spratly islands, have room for any fighter jet in the Chinese air force, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

. . .

"The United States has urged China and other claimants not to militarize their holdings in the South China Sea."

And we can see how useless talk has been.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/176064/photos-suggest-china-hardening-bases-on-disputed-islands.html

 

[Grey Havoc]

Exclusive: Vietnam moves new rocket launchers into disputed South China Sea - sources (Reuters)

 

[fightingirish]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/china-launches-a-stealth-invasion-in-the-south-china-sea.html

Years ago I read a hypothetical argument (I believe it was just after the Cold War and the break up of the USSR) that asked what would the world do if China ordered 250 million civilians to simply walk north and settle in the resource rich but largely empty region of eastern Russia?

Tom Clancy had the same idea in his novel 'The Bear and the Dragon' from 2000.

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/china-launches-a-stealth-invasion-in-the-south-china-sea.html

Years ago I read a hypothetical argument (I believe it was just after the Cold War and the break up of the USSR) that asked what would the world do if China ordered 250 million civilians to simply walk north and settle in the resource rich but largely empty region of eastern Russia?

Just like the "The Daily Beast" to be a bit behind. The PRC has been using its "Coast Guard" and "civilian" fishing fleet as a proxy for the PLAN for quite some time.

I would like to see the US Coast Guard work with Coast Guards in this region. It would be helpful for more large US flagged ships to operate in the East and South China Seas. Especially if the US Coast Guard ships were Whidbey Island and Wasp-class vessels (painted white) as they are replaced on the US Naval registry. These vessels are larger then the PRC Coast Guard vessels and would add a great deal of HA/DR capability to the regions Coast Guards and perhaps encourage a measure of restraint to the PRC bullying tactics.

 

[NeilChapman]

An interesting read - all propaganda of course, but useful...

http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/how-the-us-misjudged-the-south-china-sea-part-ii/

 

[TsrJoe]

as a counterpoint, has anyone actually thought through possible reasons why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea ?

The answer I guess if you were sitting in Beijing would be glaringly obvious. The United States could be perceived as encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear armed bombers. This arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea, and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India.

In 2015 the US. and Australia staged 'Tasman Sabre', the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent years. Its aim was to rehearse an air-sea battle plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Strait of Malacca and the Lombok Strait, that cut off China's access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa

seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a 'threat'. China's building of airstrips in the Spratly Islands was initially a dispute between the Philippines and the PRC. prior to the Pentagon's 'freedom of navigation' campaign, in reality the freedom for US. warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California (shades of 1962 perhaps ?)

in no way should it be perceived I have any issue with either state, its just interesting to at times step back and take a look at the continuity of the 'great game'

cheers, Joe

 

[sferrin]

as a counterpoint, has anyone actually thought through possible reasons why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea ?

The answer I guess if you were sitting in Beijing would be glaringly obvious. The United States could be perceived as encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear armed bombers.

Sure, if one were paranoid. Those US bases have been there for over half a century, and in fact there are fewer today than there have been in the past. And what has the US done to China? Nothing. We've not tried to take any of their territory. When things were far more lop-sided we lived and let live. Yes, we support our allies, and if we respond to China's attempts to intimidate them China has nobody to blame but themselves. So no, some made up US boogie-man does not justify China's behavior. The reason China is building those bases is to make it easier to intimidate it's neighbors when it decides to take what doesn't belong to it, and to attack them if they try to fight back. Everything they've done to this point supports that assessment.

 

[bobbymike]

as a counterpoint, has anyone actually thought through possible reasons why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea ?

The answer I guess if you were sitting in Beijing would be glaringly obvious. The United States could be perceived as encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear armed bombers.

Sure, if one were paranoid. Those US bases have been there for over half a century, and in fact there are fewer today than there have been in the past. And what has the US done to China? Nothing. We've not tried to take any of their territory. When things were far more lop-sided we lived and let live. Yes, we support our allies, and if we respond to China's attempts to intimidate them China has nobody to blame but themselves. So no, some made up US boogie-man does not justify China's behavior. The reason China is building those bases is to make it easier to intimidate it's neighbors when it decides to take what doesn't belong to it, and to attack them if they try to fight back. Everything they've done to this point supports that assessment.

Agree completely, the US had really not changed its posture vis-a-vis China until - other than moving in the direction of increased economic/military cooperation - until recent events. Yes there has been movements in policies and how good the relationship actually was based on certain events but the direction as a whole was to accommodate "China's rise". Heck I think Bill Clinton even used that phrase.

And let's not forget this is far more then the South China Sea

http://qz.com/415649/china-is-building-the-most-extensive-global-commercial-military-empire-in-history/

 

[sferrin]

"Though the closest Chinese territory gets to the Arctic Circle is a thousand miles away, China nonetheless calls itself a “near-Arctic state.” Chinese oil company Cnooc has a majority share in Iceland’s Dreki oil and natural gas field, and Beijing established the Arctic Yellow River Station, a permanent research facility on Norway’s Spitsbergen Island. In Antarctica, China has four research stations, structures that allow nations to stake a claim to the continent. Plans for a fifth station at a place called Inexpressible Island are under way. It is positioning itself to move for the continent’s resources when a 1959 treaty guaranteeing its wilderness status expires in 2048."

This is how China works. The West usually can't see beyond the next news cycle, or at a stretch, the next election.

 

[NeilChapman]

as a counterpoint, has anyone actually thought through possible reasons why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea ?

The answer I guess if you were sitting in Beijing would be glaringly obvious. The United States could be perceived as encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear armed bombers. This arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea, and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India.

In 2015 the US. and Australia staged 'Tasman Sabre', the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent years. Its aim was to rehearse an air-sea battle plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Strait of Malacca and the Lombok Strait, that cut off China's access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa

seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a 'threat'. China's building of airstrips in the Spratly Islands was initially a dispute between the Philippines and the PRC. prior to the Pentagon's 'freedom of navigation' campaign, in reality the freedom for US. warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California (shades of 1962 perhaps ?)

in no way should it be perceived I have any issue with either state, its just interesting to at times step back and take a look at the continuity of the 'great game'

cheers, Joe

And it would be a bullshit argument Joe.

Couple of points...

As regards the US presence in the Pacific, the US has had a significant presence in the PI prior to WWII. Of course after WWII the US held territory out the wazoo - including, of course, all the island groups you mentioned and 1/2 of Korea, from which US forces withdrew in 1949. Then there was Korea...

The Russians and PRC assisted the aggression of N Korea forces to "re-unite" the country. The PRC used the opportunity to try and take Taiwan. The UN forces in Korea pushed the N Koreans to the Chinese border and we know what happened next. The US 7th Fleet forced the PRC to abandon their invasion of Taiwan and the PRC used those forces to make war on the United Nations forces. What was the cost of this mis-calculation by the PRC and Soviets to initiate aggression to take territory? >900,000 military dead, >1.3 million military wounded, >2.5 million civilian casualties.

There is a pattern. The PRC initiated aggression to get it's way. The UN responded to aggression and got its way.

The world has encouraged, since Nixon's trip to the PRC, the participation of this country in world affairs. As a result, millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty. There is a peaceful path for the Chinese people to contribute and participate in the world.

What does the world get in return?

Bullying tactics by the PRC to its neighbors.

Aggressive "Coast Guard" and armed fishing fleets sailing on neighboring countries.

The building of armed islands in areas the United Nations says does not belong to the PRC.

Wholesale stealing of intellectual property of others.

Attacks on the military and civilian data networks to disrupt the lives of the worlds citizens.

The PRC has had opportunity after opportunity to enter peacefully into world affairs. They choose not to do so. It is what the world is coming to expect of the PRC since that is the behavior they exhibit.

We saw what carnage the PRC is capable of against their own people in China, and in Korea, in the 1960's in support of Vietnam communists and, most recently, against the Vietnamese, their old allies. The PRC is forcing other countries to take defensive measures to deter the PRC from initiating aggression. The world has seen what happens if we do not.

 

[Arjen]

And it would be a bullshit argument Joe.

It's called Realpolitik - perceiving international politics as they are, not as they should be. It doesn't mean you have to agree with what you see.

Careful with that B-word.

 

[NeilChapman]

And it would be a bullshit argument Joe.

It's called Realpolitik - perceiving international politics as they are, not as they should be. It doesn't mean you have to agree with what you see.

Careful with that B-word.

To your first point, you can understand realpolitik in multiple ways. If he's suggesting that the PRC is coercive by creating a false narrative about its neighbors and strategic partners then I would agree with you. If he's suggesting that the PRC is claiming territory that the does not belong to them because of malicious intent on the part of the its neighbors and their strategic partners then this is very, very dangerous. He seeks to provide international legitimacy, that does not exist, for aggressive behavior.

To your second point, if you are offended by an adverb, well.. I'll elucidate that it was carefully and conservatively used. The world would prefer that another "Korea-like" military event not occur because of the mis-calculations of the PRC leadership. They have chosen poorly in the past and their aggressive behavior towards neighbors suggests that they are prepared to do so again. People make decisions that are not in their best interests, daily.

We tend to ignore or at least not discuss the level of destruction that is possible should the PRC's neighbors and strategic allies be forced to respond to belligerent actions. Unfortunately, it will not be avoided at all costs. This would be devastating for the people of China.

The PRC may encourage the N. Koreans to "assist" them by opening another front which would be devastating for the Koreans. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will die and it will have a serious but strategically marginal effect on the United States. There is no room for pointless, false rhetoric that would encourage mis-calculation.

 

[Arjen]

The way China is trying to gain territory in the South Chinese Sea
- most likely violates international law
- might lead to war
... but China still feels its aims impaired by the presence of US and US-allied military forces in East and South East Asia. With its economic boom, it now has the means to do something about the matter. Whether it's wise/effective to try to achieve its goals in ways that are offending all its neighbours is, well, open to debate. When China last invaded Vietnam in 1979, the PLA didn't exactly cover itself in glory.

The PRC may encourage the N. Koreans to "assist" them by opening another front which would be devastating for the Koreans.

Highly unlikely.