PLAN announce strategic shift

[Deino]

@ sferrin !

Sorry to answer You personally, and I know we both only agree in that we disagree with the result You surely will accuse we of being too-much-China-friendly, but I do not really understand Your altitude:

- if an uninhabited island is claimed by China it is illegal, since it is disputed, in regard to the Sengaku Islands You dismiss that fact.
- if China sets up an ADIZ it is an act of aggression since it covers "disputed" territory - or in Your parlance Japanese territory - but if Japan sets up such a zone even earlier and expands it close to Chinese territory or at least covering the EEZ, it o.k. ?
- if PLAAF fighters come close to a Japanese or US "intruder" is an aggression, but if a Japanese or US F-15 intercepts a PLAAF type both over international water it's o.k. ?
- if an US P-8 flies over such an disputed island it's o.k., but if a Chinese Y-12 comes close to a similar disputed Japanese rock in the Pacific its an aggression ...

Don't get me wrong and I really don't want to argue but please stop Your single sides biased way of arguments, the world is not black and white only.

Deino

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/19568/20141031/china-s-large-scale-reclamation-works-over-disputed-spratly-islands-not-valid-study.htm
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/04/09/398517750/chinas-neighbors-see-mischief-in-whats-happening-at-disputed-reef

 

[Triton]

The People's Republic of China isn't the only country to construct installations in the disputed territories.

Source:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippines-seeks-construction-halt-in-disputed-south-china-sea-1402912823

 

[sferrin]

@ sferrin !

Sorry to answer You personally, and I know we both only agree in that we disagree with the result You surely will accuse we of being too-much-China-friendly, but I do not really understand Your altitude:

- if an uninhabited island is claimed by China it is illegal, since it is disputed, in regard to the Sengaku Islands You dismiss that fact.
- if China sets up an ADIZ it is an act of aggression since it covers "disputed" territory - or in Your parlance Japanese territory - but if Japan sets up such a zone even earlier and expands it close to Chinese territory or at least covering the EEZ, it o.k. ?
- if PLAAF fighters come close to a Japanese or US "intruder" is an aggression, but if a Japanese or US F-15 intercepts a PLAAF type both over international water it's o.k. ?
- if an US P-8 flies over such an disputed island it's o.k., but if a Chinese Y-12 comes close to a similar disputed Japanese rock in the Pacific its an aggression ...

Don't get me wrong and I really don't want to argue but please stop Your single sides biased way of arguments, the world is not black and white only.

Deino

If it's disputed NOBODY should be building anything there IMO. And if Japan had done what China IS doing China would be going berserk. Anyway, this seems like too hot of a topic really for this site. Too difficult to separate out the politics if you know what I mean.

 

[Triton]

The People's Republic of China and the United States have a very odd relationship that has been described as "frenemies."

 

[sublight_]

It is very simple. China does not have a non aggression pact with the United States. China has nuclear weapons. Our department of Defense would be very remiss in their duties if they were not consistently updating their offensive plans to deal with that threat. How does the DoD update their plans? They probe China's defenses. Naturally China does not like this and has been working to increase the buffer zone against probes by any ridiculous means necessary. The land grab and artificial islands aren't going to stop the DoD, it's just going to create a bump in the defense budget, and give the engineers at various contractors the next delicious challenge they've been waiting for.

If China really wants to solve the problem, they should either get rid of their nukes or sign a non aggression pact.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

@ sferrin !

Sorry to answer You personally, and I know we both only agree in that we disagree with the result You surely will accuse we of being too-much-China-friendly, but I do not really understand Your altitude:

- if an uninhabited island is claimed by China it is illegal, since it is disputed, in regard to the Sengaku Islands You dismiss that fact.
- if China sets up an ADIZ it is an act of aggression since it covers "disputed" territory - or in Your parlance Japanese territory - but if Japan sets up such a zone even earlier and expands it close to Chinese territory or at least covering the EEZ, it o.k. ?
- if PLAAF fighters come close to a Japanese or US "intruder" is an aggression, but if a Japanese or US F-15 intercepts a PLAAF type both over international water it's o.k. ?
- if an US P-8 flies over such an disputed island it's o.k., but if a Chinese Y-12 comes close to a similar disputed Japanese rock in the Pacific its an aggression ...

Don't get me wrong and I really don't want to argue but please stop Your single sides biased way of arguments, the world is not black and white only.

Deino

Well actually you never want to give an enemy any advantage. This isn't about what is fair, etc in a debating society. This is the real world and politics/war is about winning. Hem in China so that it can't move 12 miles offshore. They are not my friend.
I think the problem on this topic is a lack of enemy identification. NYT had a recent article on China MIRVing their ICBMs. What is that for? Fighting ISIS? Before someone says, "well the U.S. has them too," I say good for us and anything that helps them is bad for us. Zero sum world.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If China really wants to solve the problem, they should either get rid of their nukes or sign a non aggression pact.

Or they could arrest everyone in the Communist party and tear down all the memorials to Mao. If you basically *revere* a genocidal murderer and thief, you're not going to be well perceived by your neighbors.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

@ sferrin !

Sorry to answer You personally, and I know we both only agree in that we disagree with the result You surely will accuse we of being too-much-China-friendly, but I do not really understand Your altitude:

- if an uninhabited island is claimed by China it is illegal, since it is disputed, in regard to the Sengaku Islands You dismiss that fact.
- if China sets up an ADIZ it is an act of aggression since it covers "disputed" territory - or in Your parlance Japanese territory - but if Japan sets up such a zone even earlier and expands it close to Chinese territory or at least covering the EEZ, it o.k. ?
- if PLAAF fighters come close to a Japanese or US "intruder" is an aggression, but if a Japanese or US F-15 intercepts a PLAAF type both over international water it's o.k. ?
- if an US P-8 flies over such an disputed island it's o.k., but if a Chinese Y-12 comes close to a similar disputed Japanese rock in the Pacific its an aggression ...

Don't get me wrong and I really don't want to argue but please stop Your single sides biased way of arguments, the world is not black and white only.

Deino

The Senkaku Islands are not disputed in the same sense that the Spratly Islands are. The Senkaku Islands are widely recognised as Japanese and even historically as such by China. They are also actual islands. The only people who think they are disputed is China and thanks to a recent claim.


The Spratlies on the other hand not being actual natural islands have a long history of multiple claims from the various nearby nations. The case of who owns the Spratlies is far less concrete and even if someone did own them as underwater reefs, shoals and man made structures such ownership provides no legal claim to nearby waters and seabeds.


So to conflate the two as a moral conundrum is flawed. Further it is clear in both cases that China is the aggressor in these cases. To remind you an aggressor is someone who (attacks) first. While fortunately the level of attack is below that of actual kinetic violence the Chinese are clearly encroaching via overinflated legal claims, ADIZ claims, sand dredging and so on into these areas. Aggression is widely understood as being a wrong thing to do.

 

[bobbymike]

So your post is a complete non-sequitur and irrelevant to my post and question contained therein.

First paragraph I said synopsis of last decade NOT synopsis of how the Cold War was WON.

Second paragraph how is China doing this to the US (YOUR point) when the US is spending ever smaller portions of national wealth and government spending on the military?

Actually another poster, not me, believes China will try to spend us under the table. I said something else.
Please re-read my post.
Your post implies that the last decade of the Cold War ended the Cold War. Sorry I don't see the distinction in your stated difference.
As for the rest of my post, sorry I disagree with Prof. Sean Hannity's view of history.

Of course from a historical timeline the LAST part of something ended something. The last quarter of the football game ended it although it might have been 28-0 after the 1st quarter. If I analysed the 4th quarter DOES NOT imply the game was won in the fourth quarter.

It has been said that Stalingrad and then Kursk was the beginning of the end of WWII in Europe (effectively 'winning' it for the allies). If I posted something about Britain's contribution to the war effort in 1945 to the surrender of Germany would you chime in saying "Oh you think Britain won WWII singlehandedly?"

That said there is no doubt that at the start of 1981 the US strategy towards the USSR changed from containment to defeat of the USSR by OOTW (operations other than war) HUNDREDS of books have been written on the subject. Reagan did have an outsized impact on the end of the Cold War. Again to use the WWII analogy I don't believe the USSR could have singlehandedly defeated Germany without the US/Canada/Great Britain but no question they had an outsized impact over each of those countries TAKEN individually.

But for you to then posit I meant "Reagan did it all himself because Sean Hannity or Neo-cons" is puerile, infantile and disingenuous. A good mind-set to have at SPF is giving persons the benefit that they have a larger, deeper understanding of the issues than a typical FOX or MSNBC viewer. Goes a long way to having more reasonable, less vitriolic discussions

 

[Bruno Anthony]

BobbyMike,

I said that the end of the Cold War involved both countries actions and inactions. You assume that the Reagan Admin flipped a switch in 1981 and the USSR was doomed without any input from itself. One of their old schoolers would have machined gunned the people at the Wall with no more backlash from the West as China did only a few months earlier. Yeah China has really paid a price for Tiananmen ! No Harpoon anti ship missiles for you! Lol!
If you read excerpts of George Hoffman's book on late Cold War USSR WMD programs, they weren't exactly quaking at the Soviet MOD. Have you forgotten that the INF treaty was seen as the old man(Reagan) going soft by many conservatives?
IMO, we didn't win the Cold War as much as our adversary tripped over his feet. They were mighty indeed and let's not minimize the threat they posed. To think they were disposed of by some dissidents showing up at the White House or by Tear Down this Wall(see James Mann) forgets how much the weaklings in W. Europe LOVED Gorby as the savior from that(their view not mine) senile, maniac in the WH.

Infantile? You should talk. You dismissed my counter thesis out of hand.

 

[bobbymike]

BobbyMike,

I said that the end of the Cold War involved both countries actions and inactions. You assume that the Reagan Admin flipped a switch in 1981 and the USSR was doomed without any input from itself. One of their old schoolers would have machined gunned the people at the Wall with no more backlash from the West as China did only a few months earlier. Yeah China has really paid a price for Tiananmen ! No Harpoon anti ship missiles for you! Lol!
If you read excerpts of George Hoffman's book on late Cold War USSR WMD programs, they weren't exactly quaking at the Soviet MOD. Have you forgotten that the INF treaty was seen as the old man(Reagan) going soft by many conservatives?
IMO, we didn't win the Cold War as much as our adversary tripped over his feet. They were mighty indeed and let's not minimize the threat they posed. To think they were disposed of by some dissidents showing up at the White House or by Tear Down this Wall(see James Mann) forgets how much the weaklings in W. Europe LOVED Gorby as the savior from that(their view not mine) senile, maniac in the WH.

Infantile? You should talk. You dismissed my counter thesis out of hand.

Arguing facts not in evidence. Jeez you're all over the place your inability to debate a cogent set of points is beyond frustrating. You're onto the IMF Treaty and the European's love of Gorbachev? Really?

Yes I agree the Cold War cannot be summed up IN A TWO paragraph post here at SPF and that many, many thousands of pages have been written and debated on the subject, DUH!!

One fact is this YOU STARTED the Hannity, Neocon, Fox News BS being completely dismissive of my post.

What about Kimoy and Matsu? Don't wait for the translation Mr. Ambassador.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

I believe it is Quemoy.
You believe what you want to believe and I will do the same. There was an infallible plan under Reagan and it worked like a charm. Don't know about facts or evidence but hey it sounds good!

 

[marauder2048]

Well actually you never want to give an enemy any advantage. This isn't about what is fair, etc in a debating society. This is the real world and politics/war is about winning. Hem in China so that it can't move 12 miles offshore. They are not my friend.
I think the problem on this topic is a lack of enemy identification. NYT had a recent article on China MIRVing their ICBMs. What is that for? Fighting ISIS? Before someone says, "well the U.S. has them too," I say good for us and anything that helps them is bad for us. Zero sum world.

I think that PLAN recognizes that it is naturally hemmed in by hydrography and topography. The question is how to break out. Bastioning in the South China Sea is one approach.
You don't want your SSBNs anywhere near the continental shelf so a transit to the deep waters of the South China Sea protected by your ASW and other assets
would let your SSBNs operate there or could facilitate a further transit to the Pacific.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think that PLAN recognizes that it is naturally hemmed in by hydrography and topography. The question is how to break out. Bastioning in the South China Sea is one approach.

I agree that China’s attempts to acquire islands (or make them) is an attempt to break out of their restrictive sea access geography. Lack of free access to the sea was a major input into the downfall of the super power claims of France, Germany and Russia. They surely don’t want to be in the same boat as these guys, so to speak, if it comes to war.

But I very much doubt you will see an attempt to base SSBNs in the South China Sea. It’s a terrible location for such a Soviet style SSBN bastion with plenty of access for unfriendly ASW assets and constrained waters. It may be the only deep water off China but they would be better off in the oceans where at least they would be out of range of shore based ASW.

However a base on the Spratlies provides China with 600km further reach southwards and the ability to support operations in key sea access chokepoints between the Philippines, Borneo, Malaya and Sumatra. Such a base is effectively half way between Hainan and Singapore. It also right next door to the weekly held Sulu and Celebes Seas providing a potential back door past South Korea, Japan and Taiwan to the Western Pacific.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

I agree that China’s attempts to acquire islands (or make them) is an attempt to break out of their restrictive sea access geography. Lack of free access to the sea was a major input into the downfall of the super power claims of France, Germany and Russia. They surely don’t want to be in the same boat as these guys, so to speak, if it comes to war.

But I very much doubt you will see an attempt to base SSBNs in the South China Sea. It’s a terrible location for such a Soviet style SSBN bastion with plenty of access for unfriendly ASW assets and constrained waters. It may be the only deep water off China but they would be better off in the oceans where at least they would be out of range of shore based ASW.

However a base on the Spratlies provides China with 600km further reach southwards and the ability to support operations in key sea access chokepoints between the Philippines, Borneo, Malaya and Sumatra. Such a base is effectively half way between Hainan and Singapore. It also right next door to the weekly held Sulu and Celebes Seas providing a potential back door past South Korea, Japan and Taiwan to the Western Pacific.

Very well said Abraham. I still think the area south of the Philippines can be held if we start making some alliances.
But yes, "invasion routes" are two way roads. If they break out into the Western Pacific even with only SSNs or SSs that would mean next stop Hawaii or even off the West Coast.
Yeah, I like hemming them in more and more. Too f***ing bad if it's "not fair."

 

[Hot Breath]

"China will never seek expansion" as they busily build islands for doing just that. Tick-tock people, this needs to be nipped in the bud.

You never tire of proposing war, do you? :

Show me where I suggested such. :

It is the possible outcome of anything you propose which includes being aggressive towards other nations which refuse to accept the leadership of your own in world affairs.

It does need to be "nipped in the bud" but diplomatically, not militarily.

ROFL!! Right. Ask Neville Chamberlain how well that works. It's amusing how people such as yourself think diplomacy works in every instance. Diplomacy is the wrong tool here sweetie.

Actually, it worked quite well, up to a point. A point which Neville Chamberlain acknowledged. It delayed war by 18 months and that time was used to re-equip the British military forces for the onrushing war.

WWIII isn't something everybody likes the idea of, particularly if nuclear weapons use is likely.

Was waiting for the drama queen to pop out and you don't disappoint. You think WWIII is going to start if we do anything other than wring our hands yet you think diplomacy will work? That's just sad. And typical of you.

Well, considering the US's apparent desire to make sure it always appears the victim in every piece of shenanigans it attempts, its not surprising that you don't think diplomacy works. Despite it having successfully ended the Cold War! : :

 

[Hot Breath]

"China will never seek expansion" as they busily build islands for doing just that. Tick-tock people, this needs to be nipped in the bud.

Genuine question, do you really think that going to war with China over some uninhabited rocks and sand banks whose ownership is disputed between half a dozen countries (of which the US is not one) would be a good use of resources and American lives?

It's hardly the Sudetenland.

Genuine question, "What actions by China would cause you to consider a military response, if any?"

An invasion of the Republic of China.

 

[Hot Breath]

Genuine questions: why should China be allowed to construct military bases on our allies territory? And what do you do when talking doesn't work? What makes you think WWIII would kick off over China getting kicked off a couple rocks? Lastly, why would any shots need to be fired at all? Pull a page from China's book on "diplomacy"- put soldiers on those "islands" (delivered by 2 -3 3 Wasp action groups), and if they try to get in the way ram them. I've been told ramming other countries ships is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming territory.

It's not your allies territory any more than it is China's, thats the point, its disputed. What do you propose to do about the Chinese soldiers already there?

Start building structures literally right next to them on those "islands". What are THEY going to do? Start WWIII?

They might. What precautions are you going to take to prevent that occurring? Any? I suspect not. You'll just reply with more firepower! :

 

[Hot Breath]

Can we all please calm down, ... and leave out all politically motivated single-sided bashing ?

To admit, the situation out there in the South and East China Sea is indeed far more complicated than a pure black and white and sadly it is fired up from several sides by their own political interest most often by ignoring the other's side even legal claims.

Therefore I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss such a difficult issue ...

Deino

It's one thing to have disputed territory. Completely another altogether to TAKE it and set up military bases on it. People are right to be PO'd about it.

I take it then you're against the efforts by Jeremiah Heaton? Afterall, both Egypt and Sudan dispute his claims to his "kingdom". :

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Very well said Abraham. I still think the area south of the Philippines can be held if we start making some alliances.

Every area can be defended by various means but the axis south of the Philippines through the Sulu Sea and the Celebes Sea (south south east from China) is noteworthy in that it lacks any significant defence capability and infrastructure. Especially compared to the other Chinese sea access routes: through the South China Sea to the Malacca Straights or Java Sea (south south west), between Taiwan and the Philippines (south east), between Taiwan and South Korea (north east). Of these four routes to the open oceans only one does not have major military facilities alongside it and that is the one between the Philippines in the north and Borneo and Sulawesi in the south.

So it’s not just an issue of defence arrangements between Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and other powers but the lack of in place force and the ability to sustain them.

But yes, "invasion routes" are two way roads. If they break out into the Western Pacific even with only SSNs or SSs that would mean next stop Hawaii or even off the West Coast.
Yeah, I like hemming them in more and more. Too f***ing bad if it's "not fair."

Well the Chinese lack the kind of combat power to do any real damage to western America short of nuclear weapons. The big problem is if they want to have control over access to the high seas that they start a local war and occupy one of the countries that sit astride these choke points. The best way to deter such a way with military means is to deny them the bases they need to prosecute such a conflict. Which for the south south east and south south west sea lines is this artificial island in the Spratlies.

 

[marauder2048]

An ATACMS with ASBM capability that would stay within the MTCR limits (300 km) would facilitate some chokepoints in and around the Philippines or anywhere else
in the South China Sea.

 

[sferrin]

Well, considering the US's apparent desire to make sure it always appears the victim in every piece of shenanigans it attempts, its not surprising that you don't think diplomacy works. Despite it having successfully ended the Cold War! : :

Diplomacy didn't end the Cold War sweetie. : The USSR imploded.

 

[sferrin]

An invasion of the Republic of China.

Weak. : Why wait until you have to start shooting people to get off your backside when, if you'd shown a bit of backbone earlier, the shooting could have been avoided altogether? :

 

[sferrin]

Genuine questions: why should China be allowed to construct military bases on our allies territory? And what do you do when talking doesn't work? What makes you think WWIII would kick off over China getting kicked off a couple rocks? Lastly, why would any shots need to be fired at all? Pull a page from China's book on "diplomacy"- put soldiers on those "islands" (delivered by 2 -3 3 Wasp action groups), and if they try to get in the way ram them. I've been told ramming other countries ships is a perfectly acceptable method of claiming territory.

It's not your allies territory any more than it is China's, thats the point, its disputed. What do you propose to do about the Chinese soldiers already there?

Start building structures literally right next to them on those "islands". What are THEY going to do? Start WWIII?

They might. What precautions are you going to take to prevent that occurring? Any? I suspect not. You'll just reply with more firepower! :

I know. Let's not do anything, that will surely work. : Wait, wait, wait, I know, let's talk while they continue to act. : Sadly, I think you really believe what you say even though history is clearly not on your side. That's how wars start. Perceived weakness has started more wars than strength and deterrence (those "primitive" things you love to look down your nose at) ever will. :

 

[sferrin]

Can we all please calm down, ... and leave out all politically motivated single-sided bashing ?

To admit, the situation out there in the South and East China Sea is indeed far more complicated than a pure black and white and sadly it is fired up from several sides by their own political interest most often by ignoring the other's side even legal claims.

Therefore I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss such a difficult issue ...

Deino

It's one thing to have disputed territory. Completely another altogether to TAKE it and set up military bases on it. People are right to be PO'd about it.

I take it then you're against the efforts by Jeremiah Heaton? Afterall, both Egypt and Sudan dispute his claims to his "kingdom". :

Has he set up a military base in his kingdom? : :

 

[JFC Fuller]

I know. Let's not do anything, that will surely work. : Wait, wait, wait, I know, let's talk while they continue to act. : Sadly, I think you really believe what you say even though history is clearly not on your side. That's how wars start. Perceived weakness has started more wars than strength and deterrence (those "primitive" things you love to look down your nose at) ever will. :

Why do you even want to stop the Chinese doing this? Its a disputed, uninhabited sand bank over the which the US has no claim. The Chinese aren't planning to invade the Philippines, this is nothing.

 

[starviking]

I know. Let's not do anything, that will surely work. : Wait, wait, wait, I know, let's talk while they continue to act. : Sadly, I think you really believe what you say even though history is clearly not on your side. That's how wars start. Perceived weakness has started more wars than strength and deterrence (those "primitive" things you love to look down your nose at) ever will. :

Why do you even want to stop the Chinese doing this? Its a disputed, uninhabited sand bank over the which the US has no claim. The Chinese aren't planning to invade the Philippines, this is nothing.

I think the problem is that these 'islands' are going to be used to claim exclusive economic zones almost right up to the shores of the other nations bordering the South China Sea.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think the problem is that these 'islands' are going to be used to claim exclusive economic zones almost right up to the shores of the other nations bordering the South China Sea.

If you want to break the UNCLOS so significantly there is not need for an artificial island, just claim that your EEZ or even territorial waters go wherever you want it to (which is what China actually does in the South China Sea). Artificial islands are no basis for a claim to rights over waters and the seabed under UNCLOS. Most of the Spratlies are in the EEZs of the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. A little bit is outside the 200 nmi reach of any land mass.


China's illegal and unreasonable claims to various waters needs to be stopped before it triggers a war. The best way to stop someone from deviant behaviour is the reverse golden rule. Do it to them and see how they like it. The US just has to emplace an artificial island about 100 km due east of downtown Shanghai. This is just outside Chinese territorial waters and still in quite shallow waters. I would suggest prefabricating the island and towing it there rather than trying to build it up with land reclamation. Maybe something along the lines of Fort Drum crossed with a carrier strike group and an expeditionary strike group.


Anyway I’m pretty sure the Chinese will be quite uncomfortable about this unsinkable and very powerful "Fort Reagan" located just off their major seaport. They will no doubt agree to remove all their facilities from the Spratly and Parcel Islands, withdraw their claims to various disputed islands and shoals and promise to behave nicely if the USA will in turn remove this new steel and concrete island from just off their most sensitive littoral area.

 

[covert_shores]

I think the problem is that these 'islands' are going to be used to claim exclusive economic zones almost right up to the shores of the other nations bordering the South China Sea.

If you want to break the UNCLOS so significantly there is not need for an artificial island, just claim that your EEZ or even territorial waters go wherever you want it to (which is what China actually does in the South China Sea). Artificial islands are no basis for a claim to rights over waters and the seabed under UNCLOS. Most of the Spratlies are in the EEZs of the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. A little bit is outside the 200 nmi reach of any land mass.


China's illegal and unreasonable claims to various waters needs to be stopped before it triggers a war. The best way to stop someone from deviant behaviour is the reverse golden rule. Do it to them and see how they like it. The US just has to emplace an artificial island about 100 km due east of downtown Shanghai. This is just outside Chinese territorial waters and still in quite shallow waters. I would suggest prefabricating the island and towing it there rather than trying to build it up with land reclamation. Maybe something along the lines of Fort Drum crossed with a carrier strike group and an expeditionary strike group.


Anyway I’m pretty sure the Chinese will be quite uncomfortable about this unsinkable and very powerful "Fort Reagan" located just off their major seaport. They will no doubt agree to remove all their facilities from the Spratly and Parcel Islands, withdraw their claims to various disputed islands and shoals and promise to behave nicely if the USA will in turn remove this new steel and concrete island from just off their most sensitive littoral area.

i think that this would have precisely the opposite effect and reinforce China's sense of righteousness surrounding owning the south China sea.


In a hot war scenario I can imagine China has more than enough subs and surface combatants to break out through all choke points simultaneously regardless of which neighbors are involved. Most of the surface combatants would have to return or RZ in whatever turns out to be the real focus area after a few days but the initial numeric advantage is clear. The SSNs are clearly the greatest threat once lose in the Pacific due to their persistence.

Strategically I think that their biggest coup would be either reunification with Taiwan or some sort of basing deal on North Korean east coast.

Also, if they intervene in North Korea, the would will turn it's back on the spratleys. I don't get why they don't just take over North Korea, the world would thank them and then they'd forget to leave, or at least take corridors to the Sea of Japan.

 

[JFC Fuller]

You can now not probe further inland, you have to turn around at the sand banks. You can now not park your carrier group closer to shore, you have to park away from the sand banks. The DoD HAS to have contingency plans for conflict. It is their job and they would be grossly derelict not to do it. For the warfighter tasked with the constant job of assessing South China sea defenses, this IS the apocalypse.

That is not an apocalypse, not even close to one, and its also not even the case.

 

[sferrin]

That is not an apocalypse, not even close to one, and its also not even the case.

Evidence?

 

[sferrin]

]i think that this would have precisely the opposite effect and reinforce China's sense of righteousness surrounding owning the south China sea.

Doing nothing is not really a viable option.

 

[JFC Fuller]

China hasn't drained the South China Sea so its still possible to sail ships there.

Doing nothing is an option because in reality this actually changes little.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Sigh. All this talk of war. Doesn't everyone know that China just wants piece?

 

[Triton]

"China deployed artillery in S.China Sea: US officials"

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/china-deployed-artillery-china-sea-us-officials-174655956.html

Washington (AFP) - China recently deployed two artillery pieces on one of its artificial islands in the contested South China Sea, US defense officials said Friday, in an unprecedented move that will heighten suspicion of Beijing's intentions.

The heavy weapons, since removed, posed no security threat but their positioning -- within range of territory claimed by Vietnam -- underscored Washington's concerns that China is pursuing a huge island-building project for military purposes, officials said.

The two motorized artillery pieces were spotted on a manmade island about a month ago in the Spratly Islands, a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity told AFP, citing surveillance imagery.

It is the first time that China has been accused of deploying artillery or other weaponry on their manmade islands in the area.

"We can confirm we have identified some weapons on one of these reclaimed Chinese islands," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steven Warren told reporters.

"The militarization of these islands is something we're opposed to."
View gallery
US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter at the opening …
US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter at the opening of the 14th Asia Security Summit, the Internati …

China and the United States have been engaged in an escalating war of words over the South China Sea, where Beijing has rapidly built up reefs over about 2,000 acres (800 hectares) -- including 1,500 acres just since January.

On Wednesday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who is on a 10-day tour of Asia, called for an "immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation by any claimant."

The United States has insisted the areas claimed by China are international waters and airspace, and has sent out surveillance planes and naval ships to drive home the point.

Last week the Chinese military ordered a US Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft to leave an area above the heavily disputed Spratly Islands. But the American plane ignored the demand and stated it was flying in what US officials deem to be international airspace.

Beijing has defended its dredging work in the contested waters and accused Washington of singling out China over an activity that other countries in the region are also engaged in.

China insists it has sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea, a major global shipping route and believed to be home to a wealth of oil and gas reserves.

The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei also claim parts of the sea.

Tensions in the South China Sea will likely dominate the Shangri-La Dialogue this week in Singapore, a major annual security conference that gathers defense ministers and top brass from across Asia. Carter is due to deliver a speech at the conference.

 

[Triton]

Sigh. All this talk of war. Doesn't everyone know that China just wants piece?

A piece of the Paracel Islands, a piece of the Spratly Islands, a piece of the Pratas Islands, a piece of the Macclesfield Bank, a piece of the Scarborough Shoal, the Diaoyu Islands (ex-Senkaku Islands), and Taiwan. Once the People's Republic of China has piece we will have peace.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Sigh. All this talk of war. Doesn't everyone know that China just wants piece?

A piece of the Paracel Islands, a piece of the Spratly Islands, a piece of the Pratas Islands, a piece of the Macclesfield Bank, a piece of the Scarborough Shoal, the Diaoyu Islands (ex-Senkaku Islands), and Taiwan. Once the People's Republic of China has piece we will have peace.

Well Triton, what you are saying is a start but China needs more piece from everyone. Then we will be relieved of the incredible financial burden of maintaining a Pac Fleet. They truly are looking out for all of us. Piece everlasting. ;D
"Americans" like Sen. Paul and looney tunes dad would agree with the piece offering.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Yeah, sorry but you can't say introducing several new military bases in the South Pacific "changes little". It changes everything. Obviously no amount of talk is going to pull you out of your little cocoon so I'm done.

No don't go yet, I want to hear how China putting people on uninhabited sandbanks "changes everything"..?

Well I'm sure these worthless sandbanks that China is putting people on are so worthless they won't mind leaving.

 

[sferrin]

Yeah, sorry but you can't say introducing several new military bases in the South Pacific "changes little". It changes everything. Obviously no amount of talk is going to pull you out of your little cocoon so I'm done.

No don't go yet, I want to hear how China putting people on uninhabited sandbanks "changes everything"..?

Well I'm sure these worthless sandbanks that China is putting people on are so worthless they won't mind leaving.

I know right? I'm sure China is putting forth that kind of effort, and the world is reacting as they are, because it changes absolutely nothing. How nice it must be living in a nice little bubble of denial.