China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

[NeilChapman]

The personal attack was "***** *********" by sferrin in response to the use of : by Kadija_Man when K_M was expressing doubt about the reliability of Fox News.
"Orwellian" ... no, I don't think so.

Time to get on topic again?

So I did miss something... Thanks!

 

[Antonio]

Orwellian?

Of course not my intention... I'll check carefuly for a more precisse synominus next time.

In the era of globalization, cultural misunderstanding should never be missed. It demands to take an extra dose of care when communicating but otherwise it's a great opportunity for learning.

Time to get on topic again, please.

 

[sferrin]

Is this like Fox News' declaration that it had discovered WMDs in Iraq? :

This is every bit as insulting as what I said. Fox News was far from the only organization/individual who said there were WMDs in Iraq yet this guy gets to slander those who refer to them, and attempt to discredit the source, (simply because he doesn't like Fox News' politics) with the sarcastic rolling eyes? Really? This is what I mean about consistency. This guy shouldn't be allowed to toss out insults, like candy at a parade, while everybody else is expected to toe the line. That's all I'm going to say on that.

Back on topic.

Whether there are 500 missiles, 472, or 526, the fact remains that China is rapidly deploying weapons to the various islands it's created in international waters, islands that it claims in the South/East China seas, in an attempt to turn the entire area into sovereign Chinese territory, with all ships and aircraft under the gun. It would be akin to the US claiming the entire Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, all the islands around there, deploying weapons to them, and then telling everybody they'll be shot down unless the US says they can be there.

 

[fredymac]

At the risk of attracting moderator displeasure and because this specific thread is an obvious example, I would like to throw in my 2 cents. There is a long standing political divide within Secrets Projects. As politics usually influence opinions on military technology (and by whom it is being used), it can dominate supposedly "technical" discussions on specific weapons as has been repeatedly demonstrated by the F-35 thread. Given realities of human behavior, you can either keep locking threads or arrange opposing threads and have each group stick to its own. Only threads which create such tension would need to have this done.

Reality will eventually favor one thread over the other (the surviving F-35 thread being an example as noted by individuals posting to it are mainly from one side). Individuals who can respectfully post in either thread can do so. Those who provoke and troll would be barred rather than locking the thread. Moderators can call for reason and collegiality all they want but you will just keep getting locked threads and purged posts.

 

[kaiserd]

At the risk of attracting moderator displeasure and because this specific thread is an obvious example, I would like to throw in my 2 cents. There is a long standing political divide within Secrets Projects. As politics usually influence opinions on military technology (and by whom it is being used), it can dominate supposedly "technical" discussions on specific weapons as has been repeatedly demonstrated by the F-35 thread. Given realities of human behavior, you can either keep locking threads or arrange opposing threads and have each group stick to its own. Only threads which create such tension would need to have this done.

Reality will eventually favor one thread over the other (the surviving F-35 thread being an example as noted by individuals posting to it are mainly from one side). Individuals who can respectfully post in either thread can do so. Those who provoke and troll would be barred rather than locking the thread. Moderators can call for reason and collegiality all they want but you will just keep getting locked threads and purged posts.

I will keep my comment brief and related to the topic as I'm not sure your comment (and hence this comment) will necessarily survive long.

This is a discussion forum, intended for discussion and debate, not the echo chamber you appear to be describing (I am not saying you desire the outcome you describe). We would all be diminished by such a development
On the subject of this specific topic, and in this thread I don't think that there is a genuine (any where near) 50/50 political divide. I think virtually every contributor acknowledges clear intent by the Chinese state to extend its influence and reach in a way many of its neighbours perceive as aggressive and unwarranted.
It is after that the disagreement/ depart kicks in.
There is a small section of contributors who are willing to offer simplistic "we must be tougher with China" solutions but are unwilling to have these "solutions" challenged or debated. Similarly they are unwilling to be challenged on any parallels between China's current activity and current and/or historic potential parallels with the actions of other states, such as the US.
I often don't agree with some of these challenges and see limits to the relevance and significance to some of these parallels (2 wrongs don't make a right) but I have not seen anything objectionable in this regard.

I hope I am speaking for most contributors when I express concern that more and more threads are being hijacked by contributors with pronounced intolerant political views who often act with what can be seen as troll-like methods. I hope the moderators can support the reasonable majority.

 

[phrenzy]

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.

To partially misquote an old adage... When a debt becomes too big to repay...

The fact that the PBOC and China generally (where big commercial banks are less independent and more interconnected than the Japanese Zaibatsu at their prime) are net sellers of T-bills in a big rest for the first time since Deng opened things up and are buying gold like it's going out of fashion tells you everything you need to know. You don't need to hire at what weapons system a concrete base is being built for on a sad bar in the SCS to see it.

As I said though they have a big problem, they lent too much too quick ABC although it could be used as you say for financial warfare (Jim.Rickarfs is marketing heavy in this department but has good info from books to YouTube), at the moment they have a lot more to lose than to gain by trying to play anything but subtle debt games. If anything you could run it in reverse against the PRC.

The thing is that this incremental long game work can be carried out in the PRC, even if the credit bubble pops there. In the war potato uncertainty makes policy laying longer than a decision makers next election cycle is very hard.

 

[GTX]

I hope I am speaking for most contributors when I express concern that more and more threads are being hijacked by contributors with pronounced intolerant political views who often act with what can be seen as troll-like methods. I hope the moderators can support the reasonable majority.

Agreed.

 

[Arjen]

I hope I am speaking for most contributors when I express concern that more and more threads are being hijacked by contributors with pronounced intolerant political views who often act with what can be seen as troll-like methods. I hope the moderators can support the reasonable majority.

Agreed.

Second that.

 

[sferrin]

I hope I am speaking for most contributors when I express concern that more and more threads are being hijacked by contributors with pronounced intolerant political views who often act with what can be seen as troll-like methods. I hope the moderators can support the reasonable majority.

Agreed.

x3. Another behavior frequently seen by certain individuals is an attempt to shut down conversation about things they don't like. At least one posted, "I recommend not listening to the above poster". Don't recall who they were aiming that comment at, or what the topic was, but that kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated either.

 

[Arjen]

I'm sorry to say this man, but you're one of the offenders.

 

[sferrin]

I'm sorry to say this man, but you're one of the offenders.

So are you. So is Kaiser. I thought his comment was a particularly ironic own-goal, given he's the main offender when it comes to trying to shut down any conversation he doesn't agree with. Thing is we (you, me, kaiser, others) have different political views with none seeming able to let the others' jibes go. Somebody pokes me, I poke back. I hope I wasn't expected to take KMan's, "hurr, Faux news :" comment lying down. Would you? Nor should I be castigated for responding in kind. Maybe we just all try to ignore these things and ping a mod when they come up rather than responding? Seems to me that would be the best way.

 

[Arjen]

You lack all introspection.

 

[sferrin]

You lack all introspection.

Case in point.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Maybe we just all try to ignore these things and ping a mod when they come up rather than responding? Seems to me that would be the best way.

Or do what I've done: back away from the forum. After the last gasp when the moderator decided to nuke a number of my posts, I have effectively pulled out. Way I see it, if my opinions aren't welcome, I guess my facts aren't either, and that just doesn't leave a whole lot.

 

[sferrin]

Maybe we just all try to ignore these things and ping a mod when they come up rather than responding? Seems to me that would be the best way.

Or do what I've done: back away from the forum. After the last gasp when the moderately decided to nuke a number of my posts, I have effectively pulled out. Way i see it, if my opinions aren't welcome, I guess my facts aren't either, and that just doesn't leave a whole lot.

Good point.

 

[fredymac]

Sigh. Let me clarify. Declaring someone's opinion to be "simplistic" and motivated by intolerance is precisely what I am describing. Rather than take issue with tactics or strategy on the basis of complexity or cost or some other objective basis, there are 3 specific individuals who consistently impugn the character, deride the intelligence, and proclaim the political unacceptability of those with whom they disagree. Sometimes this provokes reaction which then is attacked to obfuscate the offending post.

A real debate would center on relative military priorities and where Chinese encroachment into the South China Sea fits into it or with the political limitations inherent with the countries bordering the area. Instead, the very discussion of Chinese actions (creating and arming artificial islands with the intent of proclaiming sovereignty over waters that geographically are not theirs) is itself attacked as imperialism, or racist, or an act of historical hypocrisy. In other words, a politically based divide.

I don't see the three individuals I am thinking about ever being swayed by arguments presented by those they dismiss as intolerant and simple minded. I don't believe these individuals have any intent on persuading those they dislike. That leads back to the question of how to handle this. The three individuals that are involved had once declared that they would henceforth ignore posts by those they are now again attacking. I am perfectly willing to ignore threads which I deem uninteresting and founded on politics I do not accept. Unfortunately, the same principle does not exist the other way around.

 

[sferrin]

Shall we look at the post by Kadija_Man that took it off the rails this time?

"Is this like Fox News' declaration that it had discovered WMDs in Iraq? :"

Is that an acceptable post in your opinion or would you agree it's meant to get a reaction and denigrate the person it is aimed at? (i.e. "troll")? Keep in mind, this is the same individual who's been busted in the past for having multiple sock puppet accounts to troll from on this forum. (And they're no doubt sitting back, watching in glee, at the effect their grenade had.)

 

[kaiserd]

Shall we look at the post by Kadija_Man that took it off the rails this time?

"Is this like Fox News' declaration that it had discovered WMDs in Iraq? :"

Is that an acceptable post in your opinion or would you agree it's meant to get a reaction and denigrate the person it is aimed at? (i.e. "troll")? Keep in mind, this is the same individual who's been busted in the past for having multiple sock puppet accounts to troll from on this forum. (And they're no doubt sitting back, watching in glee, at the effect their grenade had.)

I don't understand your point or why this criticism of Fox News is taken so personally and angrilly.
Correctly or incorrectly much of the wider world does not take much of Fox News's content as credible or reliable; perhaps somewhat unfairly at its worst extremes it is seen as a less-prounced US contemporary of RT. In a wider context I understand Fox News has played a key role in pushing the Republican Party further to the right.

I'm not an expert on Fox New's coverage on finding WMD's in Iraq but from a very quick google search there is a least some superficial basis/ support for K-Ms point of view. For example http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/06/23/fox-news-hosts-and-guests-touted-discredited-re/136028
Considering the sort of ultra right-wing click bait you and some other contributors are more than happy to offer up in your posts your reaction/ position makes even less sense.
Look I don't actualy agree with the large majority of what K-M posts and I don't really think he had a particularly good point with this particular post.
But your reaction is very clearly pernicious and hypocritical; you were the offender yet you seek the position of victim to silence him. Your posts are consistently more insulting and intolerant than his yet he's the bad guy?
I want to have reasonable debates, particularly with people of different views and I'm not pretending to be a saint. We've all typed something in haste or wished we worded something better. But the likes of (specifically) Orion have already proved himself over and over to be extremist troll advocating crimes against humanity etc.
You can judge a man by the quality of his friends.

 

[sferrin]

Shall we look at the post by Kadija_Man that took it off the rails this time?

"Is this like Fox News' declaration that it had discovered WMDs in Iraq? :"

I don't understand your point or why this criticism of Fox News is taken so personally and angrilly.

The way it was said. If they'd said something along the lines of, "where did Fox get their info" or "how reliable is that info" that would be one thing. Kman couldn't resist the insult though. I consider most MSM sources dubious and would prefer to know the actual sources myself (if they're available).

But the likes of (specifically) Orion have already proved himself over and over to be extremist troll advocating crimes against humanity etc.
You can judge a man by the quality of his friends.

Do you honestly believe this statement added quality to the thread? And this shouldn't really need to be said but one man's "crime against humanity" is somebody elses "preserving the lives of a country's citizens". It's also a pretty good example of how things go south here. Things like the Holocaust and The Killing Fields are almost universally recognized as crimes against humanity / genocides. Others like using nuclear weapons on Japan, and the fire bombings in Germany and Japan are less so. (Though neither Germany or Japan appear to hold those incidents against us.)

Banning politics would be the logical solution at first glance but they still tend to creep in. Or maybe just limiting politics to a sub-thread in the bar. I don't have an answer.

 

[NeilChapman]

You guys done? Do we need a group hug here?

You're not going to be allowed to play together if you can't get along.

I'm going to go pour a double Bookers and I expect this to be over when I get back.

 

[sferrin]

You guys done? Do we need a group hug here?

You're not going to be allowed to play together if you can't get along.

I'm going to go pour a double Bookers and I expect this to be over when I get back.

I'm done.

 

[Rickshaw]

I will just add, Fox News is, IMHO, crap. It posts deliberately provocative stuff in order to influence people who, I suspect aren't interested in accuracy or truth in their reporting but rather like to have their stereotypes and of course, prejudices reinforced. My example of the WMDs in Iraq is a perfect example of that. It was lapped up by the supporters of the invasion of Iraq as justification, yet, when it was revealed to be false, they remained silent and refused to admit their error in believing it. The invasion was undertaken for false reasons and they appear still unwilling to admit that their own government lied to them about WMDs.

Another example from this thread was that of Darwin Harbour's management being sold to a Chinese company. Some people reacted angrily, almost as if they believed Australia had "betrayed" the USA. In reality, the Chinese company was given management of a the civilian harbour, not the military one and it's ability to influence operations by the RAN or the USN was severely limited. The Australian DoD had examined the problem and declared that they weren't interested in the civilian side of things. Yet, to the people who were outraged, that didn't matter. They were "handing over the family jewels to Beijing" or words to that effect. This is, despite Darwin being a tiny little city with a small harbour (in capacity, if not physical size) a long, long, way from any of importance in Australia. It may be the capital city of our Northern Territory but it has the population of a small country town. They have no respect for any sovereignty other than their own, it appears. I wonder what they think of New Zealand's ongoing ban on nuclear armed and/or power warships in their harbour?

They are not interested in discussing the issue of the PRC and it's actions in a calm manner. They are fearful that the US's hegemony is being eroded away, despite the fact that the means of maintaining that hegemony hasn't changed since the election of their bete noire, Barack Obama. They perceived their (still) current President as some sort of traitor, simply because he is following IMHO Teddy Roosevelt's advice ("talk softly but carry a big stick!"). Instead, they appear to believe that all US Presidents must thunder from the rooftops their belligerence and their opposition to anything that looks to them, dangerous. Despite the US having the most powerful military machine in the world, they are still fearful of another Pearl Harbor. :

 

[Orionblamblam]

But the likes of (specifically) Orion have already proved himself over and over to be extremist troll advocating crimes against humanity etc.
You can judge a man by the quality of his friends.

Do you honestly believe this statement added quality to the thread?

Whether it adds to the quality of the thread is dubious, but it certainly adds to an understanding of some of those in it. As we have seen in recent years in the world at large, there are increasing attempts at equating "opinions I don't like" with "stuff that should be illegal."

 

[Arjen]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21728.0.html
Forum rules.

 

[Jemiba]

I hope I am speaking for most contributors when I express concern that more and more threads are being hijacked by contributors with pronounced intolerant political views who often act with what can be seen as troll-like methods. ...

I fully agree !

... Somebody pokes me, I poke back.

.. and the hassle starts, especially as some people are striving to pay back with interest. And sometimes, I think,
even in a kind of preemptive obedience, already knowing, what others will post ! And those encounters in the
Heavy Weight Championships nearly always are between the same contenders !

... Maybe we just all try to ignore these things and ping a mod when they come up rather than responding? Seems to me that would be the best way.

You've got it !

The Bar IS a place to chill out, just in this bar here, you have to bring your drinks by yourself. But if you compare it to a bar
in the "real world", the barkeeper quite probably would let a discussion run only, as long as the participants aren't after
the other and so endangering furnishings.

"The Bar is for offtopic postings", yes, but point 2 ("Political, religious and nationalistic posts are prohibited ...")
of the forum rules still is valid. Politics often can creep in, but it's up to us to allow them to determine a discussion.
Having had a look into a German political forum, they were just discussing the ability and justification of the Bundeswehr
to conduct missions in foreign countries (pure politics !) with the support of transport aircraft. Not a single word about the
engine and gear problems with the A400M !
If they can, why not we?

 

[NeilChapman]

the engine and gear problems with the A400M !

Hey - we're drifting here.

--

Did one of you get my post about the USCG working the SCS to Zukunft? To be fair he should give me some credit. At least a shout-out to SPF. He's talking about working w/the PI, Japan, Vietnam and I discussed working with ASEAN. USN can transfer some amphibs to USCG to get started.

It's about time some else saw the light!

Emphasis below is mine.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/trump-kelly-the-coast-guard-exclusive-interview-with-adm-zukunft/

The Coast Guard’s jurisdiction can extend even to the South China Sea. While our interview occurred before a Chinese warship seized a US Navy drone off the coast of the Philippines — essentially an act of piracy — Zunkunft told even then that he had requested sending enhanced USCG presence to the region.

“I have discussed with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson, the senior officer in the Navy) the concept that we would create a permanent USCG presence in the South China Sea and related areas,” Zukunft said. “This would allow us to expand our working relationship with Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan. We can spearhead work with allies on freedom of navigation exercises as well.”

 

[VH]

The Chinese have created a presence in the SCS based on their nascent coast guard so an American coast guard presence is a case of 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/11/02/china-lassen-destroyer-spratly-islands-south-china-sea-andrew-erickson-naval-war-college-militia-coast-guard-navy-confrontation-territorial-dispute/75070058/

 

[Rickshaw]

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).

 

[NeilChapman]

The Chinese have created a presence in the SCS based on their nascent coast guard so an American coast guard presence is a case of 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/11/02/china-lassen-destroyer-spratly-islands-south-china-sea-andrew-erickson-naval-war-college-militia-coast-guard-navy-confrontation-territorial-dispute/75070058/

It would seem so. The PRC "little blue men" need to be managed by somebody. They don't portend to be military vessels. If they are not abiding by the laws of the sea then the USCG should intervene getting it all on camera. It's important that the bullying tactics of the PRC be well documented. Especially if US allies do not possess vessels of the size required to safely engage.

Recall the USCG mission: 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.

So this, in fact, is their job. Not the Navy.

Start transfer of Whidby Island-class to USCG. Paint them white. Replace some USN HH-60's w/CMV-22's and move some HH-60's to the USCG. Not perfect but a good start.

Recall that in times of war the Navy can legally "tactically acquire" ships from the USCG if necessary.

Someone want to forward this to Zukunft, Mattis, Dunford and Richardson?

 

[sferrin]

The Chinese have created a presence in the SCS based on their nascent coast guard so an American coast guard presence is a case of 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/11/02/china-lassen-destroyer-spratly-islands-south-china-sea-andrew-erickson-naval-war-college-militia-coast-guard-navy-confrontation-territorial-dispute/75070058/

It would seem so. The PRC "little blue men" need to be managed by somebody. They don't portend to be military vessels. If they are not abiding by the laws of the sea then the USCG should intervene getting it all on camera. It's important that the bullying tactics of the PRC be well documented. Especially if US allies do not possess vessels of the size required to safely engage.

Recall the USCG mission: 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.

So this, in fact, is their job. Not the Navy.

Start transfer of Whidby Island-class to USCG. Paint them white. Replace some USN HH-60's w/CMV-22's and move some HH-60's to the USCG. Not perfect but a good start.

Recall that in times of war the Navy can legally "tactically acquire" ships from the USCG if necessary.

Someone want to forward this to Zukunft, Mattis, Dunford and Richardson?

x2. Consider all the harassment of other ships these Chinese "fishing vessels" undertake. The only way to get them to behave is to meet aggression with aggression as their entire goal here is intimidation.

 

[kaiserd]

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]

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.

 

[Rickshaw]

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]

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.

 

[Rickshaw]

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]

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 :

 

[Rickshaw]

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]

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]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-taiwan-carrier-idUSKBN14V061?il=0

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

 

[Grey Havoc]

Philippines hopes South China Sea 'conduct code' ready this year (Reuters)