• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

China Draws Sabre

Beerina said:
That's exactly the kind that needs to be put in its place by free people.

I hope the next president has the balls to sail ships within the 12 mile military exclusion zones, which do not exist on some of these newly-created islands (per international law of the sea.)
Click to expand...

If there were a nation of free people that only worked for the betterment of mankind then yes, such a nation could interfere.

Since no such nation exists, nor has ever existed in the history of mankind, we are left with nations of various ways of government exploiting a situation for themselves.

At least be honest and say that you want to take the Chinese down a peg or two so the SE Asian nations will keep their favourable trade status with the US so the US and not China can keep reaping the reward of unfair trade.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning the US for doing international politics. All nations do things with the intent of favouring themselves. But I do dislike the 'but we are the good guys because *democracy, freedom*' hypocrisy.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
If there were a nation of free people that only worked for the betterment of mankind then yes, such a nation could interfere.

Since no such nation exists, nor has ever existed in the history of mankind, we are left with nations of various ways of government exploiting a situation for themselves.

At least be honest and say that you want to take the Chinese down a peg or two so the SE Asian nations will keep their favourable trade status with the US so the US and not China can keep reaping the reward of unfair trade.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning the US for doing international politics. All nations do things with the intent of favouring themselves. But I do dislike the 'but we are the good guys because *democracy, freedom*' hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I dislike it, too, but such a stance is as much a part of international politics as are trade agreements.
 
Seems they aren't very impressed: After the show, it's time for US destroyer to leave

Global Times said:
[...] We should stay calm. If we feel disgraced and utter some furious words, it will only make the US achieve its goal of irritating us.

We should analyze the actual condition of the US harassment. It seems that the US only wants to display its presence as it didn't raise the imprudent demand that China stops island-building. It has no intention to launch a military clash with China. It is just the US' political show. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea provides three categories. The first is islands, which are naturally formed, habitable areas above water at high tide, and are therefore entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters and a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs). The second is reefs that have portions above water at low tide, and are uninhabitable, which have territorial waters but no EEZs. Finally, completely submerged "low tide elevations" have no territorial waters.

The islands and reefs in the Nansha Islands under the control of the Chinese mainland belong to the latter two categories. China did not elaborate whether it will expand its territorial seas after land construction. This is where the ambiguity of the international law. In addition, China hasn't announced its territorial baseline in the South China Sea, making the legal meaning of Sino-US contention in the South China Sea vague. [...]

Chinese should be aware that the US harassment is only a common challenge in China's rise. We should regard it with calm and be confident of our government and troops. It is certain that the Chinese government, ordering the land reclamation, is able and determined to safeguard the islands. China is gradually recovering its justified rights in the South China Sea. China has not emphasized the "12 nautical miles." It is the US that helps us to build and reinforce this concept. Then, it is fine for us to accept the "12 nautical miles" and we have no intention to accept 13 or more than 13 nautical miles.
Click to expand...
 
I'm with The Atheist on this one. Consider the following:

The structure on the island looks suspiciously like a large airfield. Populate that with Shenyang J-16's or Nanchang Q-5's, and Spratley Island can dominate the air in a 3000+ Km radius.

Add a naval resupply base (especially for submarines), and suddenly China can blockade the entire Western approaches to.... Taiwan.

So if they decide to re-take their "Wayward Province", NATO would struggle to intervene.

Question: why has China spent SO much effort and money in the last 20 years in building up a large quantity of Troop/Tank carriers ? (e.g. heavy-duty landing craft).

You can't use landing craft in a defensive capacity. They can ONLY be used for amphibious assault.
 
Roofgardener said:
I'm with The Atheist on this one. Consider the following:

The structure on the island looks suspiciously like a large airfield. Populate that with Shenyang J-16's or Nanchang Q-5's, and Spratley Island can dominate the air in a 3000+ Km radius.

Add a naval resupply base (especially for submarines), and suddenly China can blockade the entire Western approaches to.... Taiwan.

So if they decide to re-take their "Wayward Province", NATO would struggle to intervene.

Question: why has China spent SO much effort and money in the last 20 years in building up a large quantity of Troop/Tank carriers ? (e.g. heavy-duty landing craft).

You can't use landing craft in a defensive capacity. They can ONLY be used for amphibious assault.
Click to expand...
The same long view. Re-absorption of Taiwan is part of that, and whether that means it happens peacefully or not or whether it happens in 5 years or 50 is beside the point.

The 20 year build up is commensurate with their ability to do such a build up, and the airfield is only one part (albeit a big one) of their area denial capabilities and plans.

Moreover, even if the Taiwan piece never materializes, the new artificial island still buttresses their sea claims and area denial.

The only downsides on their part are short term.
 
It all adds up. China is waiting for the day when it is stronger than the USA is in the region. Then it can take Taiwan and no one can stop them. However this date is still decades away. Claiming sovereignty over the waters is nothing but a smoke screen.
 
rjh01 said:
It all adds up. China is waiting for the day when it is stronger than the USA is in the region. Then it can take Taiwan and no one can stop them. However this date is still decades away. Claiming sovereignty over the waters is nothing but a smoke screen.
Click to expand...
Mainly correct in regard to forest but off base in regard to the trees.

Taiwan is one piece of it, not the end game. Control of the waters is not a smoke screen but an actual goal separate from the Taiwan question.
 
Bit of an update on this one - missile batteries now erected on the Paracel chain.
 
I keep going back and forth on this. On the one hand, putting missile batteries on these islands seems like the obvious smart play. On the other hand, they're fixed targets and practically unmissable. If the US or one of its allies really wanted to operate in the region, all it would take was a few JSOWs to return the seas to status quo ante and return the US Navy to full freedom of action.
 
The Atheist said:
Bit of an update on this one - missile batteries now erected on the Paracel chain.
Click to expand...


BBC: China 'has deployed missiles in South China Sea' - reports
CNN: Taiwan: China has deployed missiles on South China Sea island

theprestige said:
I keep going back and forth on this. On the one hand, putting missile batteries on these islands seems like the obvious smart play. On the other hand, they're fixed targets and practically unmissable. If the US or one of its allies really wanted to operate in the region, all it would take was a few JSOWs to return the seas to status quo ante and return the US Navy to full freedom of action.
Click to expand...


The batteries may have a secondary (or primary) purpose of acting as bait.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I keep going back and forth on this. On the one hand, putting missile batteries on these islands seems like the obvious smart play. On the other hand, they're fixed targets and practically unmissable. If the US or one of its allies really wanted to operate in the region, all it would take was a few JSOWs to return the seas to status quo ante and return the US Navy to full freedom of action.
Click to expand...

By the time it reaches that point a few nukes from china would take care of that navy running around.

Realistically the scenario you speak of would never play out in a civil atmosphere, only in a war, and a war between nuclear armed country would not be pretty, by that point nobody would care about paracel, but rather more how many million people would die.

I hate to say this, but on the long term the chinese pretty much won the island.
 
Missiles they can't use.
All the world apart from China accepts the waters around as international. China can't fire those missiles at anything.
 
Aepervius said:
By the time it reaches that point a few nukes from china would take care of that navy running around.
Click to expand...

It takes a very brave leader to order a nuclear strike against forces of a nation who can put five nukes to each one of yours and still have enough left over to destroy the world twice over if needed be.

He also needs to be rather foolish.

Plus I wouldn't count on long range ballistic missiles to be all that effective against fleets. Sure, you can destroy it, but you'll need to use a fair number of warheads per fleet to be able to guarantee a hit. Unlike cities, fleets tend to move, that's kind of their point.

McHrozni
 
Aepervius said:
By the time it reaches that point a few nukes from china would take care of that navy running around.
Click to expand...

The US Navy has the world's preeminent anti-ballistic missile defense system. A few nukes from China--assuming they could even find the fleet in the first place--would be shot down.

In any case, I doubt that China would open hostilities with a preemptive nuke strike. I think a more plausible escalation would be:

China perpetrates shenanigans > USN determines to force entry to South China Sea > USN shoots Chinese recon satellites, islands > USN enters South China Sea and projects force there > Diplomats negotiate a truce > Whatever China has already gained it keeps, whatever else it hoped to gain is saved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom