China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

[kaiserd]

Joint operations with the coast guards and equivalents of China's neighbours would be the only way US Coast Guard operating so far from home would have any real legitimacy operating so far from home.
You would have complications associated with this (chains of command, other disputes between other countries not involving China etc.) but If there was a will on all relevant sides these potentially could be overcome in a way to avoid overt militarisation of the response to these Chinese "fishermen".

I agree. It's why I like the idea of transferring the Whidby Island-class of amphibs to the USGS. Those, combined with HH60's are perfect for HA/DR training. There is no shortage of HA/DR incidents in this region.

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

Actually Kaiser, let me qualify where I agree. The USCG would be very beneficial in the Pacific theater. Joint operations is a great way for the USCG to assist, but it quite obviously doesn't have to be the only way.

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

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

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

That, my friend, includes the South China Sea.

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

 

[NeilChapman]

i.) Not looking to start an argument about "legitimacy"
Would just add that ii.) it would look decidedly odd if the US tried to enforce the maritime rights/ claims of specific countries if these actions weren't agreed and in unison with said specific countries.

i.) No. Your argument was about "real legitimacy." You're trying to make your argument sound reasonable. But reasonableness isn't relevant if the argument is based on the wrong claim.

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

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

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

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

Personally, I hope the PRC changes course.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Tillerson sets stage for clash with Beijing over South China Sea (ft.com, registration may be required.)

Tillerson sets stage for showdown with Beijing over South China Sea (CNN)

 

[Rickshaw]

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

Personally, I hope the PRC changes course.

In other words, "our way or the highway"?

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

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

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

 

[NeilChapman]

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

Personally, I hope the PRC changes course.

In other words, "our way or the highway"?

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

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

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

Sure K_M

???

 

[sferrin]

The hubris and arrogance in that statement is quite breathtaking.

Do you really believe expecting countries to follow international laws and honor national boundaries is a "breathtaking display of hubris and arrogance"? The reality is that they can either do things the easy way or the hard way. There is no Door #3.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The PRC is the bully on the street corner, they are attempting to seize international waters with the sublety of a brick to the head. This is ensuring that other nations in the area move to reinforce THEIR sovereign rights and that will lead to a bunfight of epic proportions. China will NOT back down as long as it can force others to and standing up to bullies is the only way to deal with them.

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

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

 

[Grey Havoc]

South China Sea: China media warn US over 'confrontation' (BBC News)

 

[TsrJoe]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/chinese-media-warns-of-war-with-us-after-trumps-state-department-pick-stirs-south-china-sea-row/ar-AAlPn5W

 

[bobbymike]

http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/preserving-the-balance-a-u.s.-eurasia-defense-strategy

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729207

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729207

Don't believe that the global understanding of an EEZ allows you to build "new territory" to expand your EEZ.

This looks intractable. Good time for discussions.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-southchinasea-idUSKBN1572M4?il=0

 

[NeilChapman]

Interesting.

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

 

[Grey Havoc]

Indeed. However, whether it's a genuine U-turn by Duterte remains to be seen.

 

[bobbymike]

http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/reinforcing-the-front-line-u.s.-defense-strategy-and-the-rise-of-china

 

[Grey Havoc]

China lashes out at remarks by U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis on the East China Sea islands (Los Angeles Times)

 

[Grey Havoc]

I somehow missed this last week: Philippines' Duterte asks China to patrol piracy-plagued waters (Reuters)

 

[Grey Havoc]

China welcomes Mattis' emphasis on South China Sea diplomacy (Reuters)

 

[NeilChapman]

https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/has-china-been-practicing-preemptive-missile-strikes-against-u-s-bases/

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

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/05/politics/us-japan-aegis-missile-defense-test/

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.janes.com/article/67485/us-navy-deploys-e-2ds-to-japan-as-part-of-pacific-re-balance

 

[bobbymike]

China Sends Warships to Japanese Islands After Mattis’s Warnings

—Brian Everstine2/7/2017

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

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/05/op-ed-president-trumps-major-asian-breakthrough.html

Another take on SECDEF trip.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/paracels-buildup

 

[sferrin]

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/10/manila-predicts-beijing-will-build-base-on-scarborough-shoal

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

 

[NeilChapman]

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/10/manila-predicts-beijing-will-build-base-on-scarborough-shoal

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

Better get those munitions orders processed.

 

[TsrJoe]

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

 

[NeilChapman]

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

Hmmmmm... ???

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-make-sure-americas-aircraft-carriers-can-battle-china-19422

 

[NeilChapman]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-make-sure-americas-aircraft-carriers-can-battle-china-19422

“A 2000-mile combat sortie, however, would take at least 10 hours round-trip, which exceeds the reasonable endurance of a pilot in an ejection seat,” the report stats. “For these missions, the CVW would therefore need an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) with an unrefueled combat radius of greater than 500 nm to ensure refueling aircraft could remain outside the reach of adversary air defenses and defensive CAPs. The vehicle would also need to be stealthy, so it can penetrate the highly contested airspace near the Chinese mainland.”

==

Or you send B-21's based in Australia...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/us-stealth-fighter-jets-planes-f-22-northern-australia-south-china-sea-pacific-command-a7473701.html

 

[Rickshaw]

Or you send B-21's based in Australia...

You really have as much chance as a snowball in hell for that to happen. You have absolutely no understanding of the predicament that the mutual antagonism that is occurring in the South China Sea is causing to the Australian Government. On one hand, you have our largest (and I mean LARGEST) trading partner and on the other, our (supposed) main security guarantee partner...

I do wish Beijing and Washington would get over their school yard bully-boy tactics and sit down and actually thrash this out. Beijing is on a sticky wicket indeed but they just refuse to recognise it and Washington prefers "quick" (translate to read "nasty") responses to being diplomatic and turning the screw of trade against Beijing. :

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-usa-idUSKBN15U16Y?utm_content=bufferab40a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[kaiserd]

Evidence that this areas politics are more complicated than contributors would like to pretend.
China' relationship with North Korea is complex and real attempts to contain and discipline North Korea's regime wil need to be in concert with China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39015529

 

[NeilChapman]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/us-navys-carrier-strike-group-starts-patrolling-in-scs/articleshow/57225236.cms

So much for the "warning."

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-southchinasea-exclusive-idUSKBN161029

 

[bobbymike]

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-sam-shelters-spratlys/

 

[sferrin]

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-sam-shelters-spratlys/

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

 

[Rickshaw]

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-sam-shelters-spratlys/

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

Why the shock? I understood the USAF had "bunker buster" bombs. Didn't they use them in Iraq against Iraqi bomb shelters?

 

[Grey Havoc]

He was being sarcastic there.


http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/us-fonops-actually-conceded-maritime-rights-to-china/