PDA

View Full Version : South China Sea and China (2011-2017)



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Bob's World
04-17-2012, 12:10 PM
Strategic Inertia.

A policy in motion tends to stay in motion.

The shortest distance (to war) between two nations is an outdated policy.

Ray
04-17-2012, 01:05 PM
There has been some interesting pros and cons on the issue.

What does one make out of this?


Reports: US, Philippines building new naval base in Spratlys

A new seaport being built by the Philippine government in the Spratly islands could become the Pentagon's military outpost in the hotly contested South China Sea, according to news reports.

Manila is looking to rebuild the seaport and adjoining runway on Pagasa Island, which part of the chain of islands off the coast of the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.

The Philippine government claims the effort is strictly designed to support commercial business and tourism to the island.

However local residents say the construction is the first step in creating a mini-naval base for U.S. and Philippine troops.

"It is near the Spratlys and U.S. can always check China’s aggressive campaign claim over Spratlys and maintain its military interest in the Asian region ... these advantages are non-negotiable," Salvador France, head of Pamalakaya, a local advocacy group in the region, told The Philippine Star on Monday.

The installation could also be used as a jumping-off point for counterterrorism operations in the Palawan region of the southern Philippines. The area is home to the Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic terror groups with ties to al Qaeda.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/army/219717-reports-us-philippines-building-new-naval-base-in-spratlys-

Ray
04-17-2012, 01:23 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Spratly_Is_since_NalGeoMaps.png

Dayuhan
04-17-2012, 01:35 PM
What does one make out of this?

Not much, if you take it in context.

The item in the lead paragraph is correct: the Philippine government is reconditioning a short airstrip and a very small port on one island in the Spratlys. So far there's been no sign of US involvement in the construction. Somehow that gets blown into a US/Philippine military base, solely on the unsupported word of a member of a fringe militant left group that sees US intrusion and a US base in the making literally everywhere.

Those who watch the Philippines closely will recall the case of the GenSan fishing port, which the Philippine left declared to be a US base in the making, on the grounds that the contractor was an American company that had done work for the military. Turned out to be a fishing port.

The stated purpose of the Spratlys facility is to bring tourists out, and the island does have very nice beaches. Of course it's more about staking a claim by establishing a presence.

Military relevance is going to be limited by the size of the place. It's tiny, to say the least.

Read this line:


France also asserts the new facility on Pagasa Island will be the new home for thousands of U.S. Marines scheduled to leave Okinawa within the next two years.

And look at this picture:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/dayuhan/Thitu-Pagasa-Island_Spratly-Islands_DX0DX.jpg

Where are you going to put "thousands of marines" on that little fleaspeck of an island?

This one:


The area is home to the Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic terror groups with ties to al Qaeda.

Is equally absurd, as a quick look at a map will reveal. The Spratly islands are not even remotely close to the ASG heartland.

Ray
04-17-2012, 01:51 PM
It is then ridiculous to revamp the airstrip on the fleaspeck of an island.

Tourists?

With tourist infrastructure on an island that cannot take a 1000 troops?

Tourist infrastructure takes up a lot of space.

Ken White
04-17-2012, 02:28 PM
Korea ended in a stalemate.Yes, it did. Need not have but it did because the Politicians wanted it that way. Your'e familiar with that...

You might also look at the relative numbers of troops involved and relative degree of effort and expense to include reported casualties by the nominal combatants.
But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.We'll never know about then but there was and is now no question that the numerical superiority would have to be countered by something. The nuclear option is certainly one but there are others.

It had and has been a long held tenet of US military (not foreign...) policy to avoid getting sucked into a land war in Asia -- that in spite of the fact that we helped the British with their mid-19th Century endeavors there, made several minor incursion during that century then went to Peking during the Boxer Rebellion kept a couple of Army and a Marine Regiment in China for many years. Then came Korea, Viet Nam -- all counter to that military policy and as a result of the US foreign policy of the moment; All dictated by US politicians who commit forces and then tie the hands of those forces. Hard to win wars when you're on a leash...
For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.Both political decisions based on US domestic politics, as you know -- and I would expect you to be smarter than Osama Bin Laden who foolishly cited the same things and built an er, 'strategy' on that house of cards. That hasn't worked out as he and his crowd expected...
...the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.Fiendishly cunning? You're reading too much Graham Greene. :D

Defeated? Heh. There was NEVER any question but that we would stay (when we should not have) and leave with yet another politically determined stalemate / defeat -- call it what you will. There was never going to be a win in any of our post WW II foolishness...

However, I suggest you need to rearrange your Goat entrails or tea leaves. The fact that we are still in Afghanistan at this late date, no matter we should not be, totally negates the premise of Lebanon and Mogadishu as defining -- and makes 'defeat' borderline arguable :wry:
Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.Heh. Speaking of fiendishly cunning -- fooled you, there is no standard US game plan.

That changes with the wind, as we change Coaches...

Many things are past -- however, the US penchant for not making a big effort or getting things done right unless there's an overarching need to do so has not changed. We, the people; the troops; will avoid doing the hard things unless pushed. Hedonistic I know but there you are. We tend to accept barely adequate most of the time, rising to good enough to get the job done only with the correct impetus and never reach excellence -- no need for it. We're lazy and way too introspective. The Saturday game is more important than anyplace from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. We'd really rather not be bothered. Unless...

Excessive bother of the wrong kind will not invoke a sleeping giant scenario -- you're as dated as Carl and those pundits and think tanks I warned him to eschew. That was then, this is now. No sleeping giant, no fire up the industrial base. Those days are indeed gone. What is not gone is the ability to simply remove the leash IF and when warranted. Not a lot of Troops on the ground required, very few in fact. ;)

We don't do the war among the people thing very well, never have (too selfish and hedonistic...) so insurgencies and the like are to be avoided. OTOH, if one has an infrastructure of any kind and wishes to keep it reasonably intact; if one has population centers, one is well advised to not try to get too cute. We may not be sophisticated or do nuances well but when pushed we can break things far further away and more rapidly and completely than anyone. I do not see that changing significantly in the next 30-40 years.

It should be noted that the "if and when" determination is a US unilateral decision which may come at any time and is somewhat unpredictable as is all US foreign and military policy. All, that is, except for a low to zero tolerance for SIGNIFICANT threats (the degree of significance also being a unilateral US determination...). Your or anyone else's definition of what constitutes such a threat is essentially irrelevant.

It should also be recalled that sometimes the Frog turns over the pot, spilling smelly hot water all over everything and everybody and forcing them to deal with a really pissed off Frog. Same deal with the cutting. Scalpel wielder slips, inadvertently cuts too deep in a sensitive area and then gets cold cocked and the OR gets thoroughly trashed. :D

Ken White
04-17-2012, 02:33 PM
You got my vote. All this talk about China becoming Capitalist is nothing but propaganda put out by the American RPI ... Just wait till they land on the moon in a few years.Uh, okay. How long will that be after we did that? :confused:

Seem like we have some time and don't need to go into the China panic mode... :D

Dayuhan
04-17-2012, 02:44 PM
It is then ridiculous to revamp the airstrip on the fleaspeck of an island.

Tourists?

With tourist infrastructure on an island that cannot take a 1000 troops?

Tourist infrastructure takes up a lot of space.

I doubt that a tourism operation would ever be profitable. It would have to be very small and very expensive, there's very little space and literally everything would have to come in by plane or boat. It's out of the typhoon belt but would get bad weather during the SW monsoon and strong swell from during the NE monsoon. Not an ideal place.

As I said, tourism is a nominal purpose but it's more about establishing some kind of activity to reinforce a claim to the surrounding water.

A little vignette about life on Pagasa...

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/26/world/fg-paradise-prison26

I'm sure you could put a couple of patrol planes and a small garrison there and get some military utility out of it but as an actual military base?

This gives a better idea of the scale:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/dayuhan/07.jpg

As you can see, the 1.3km airstrip is far longer than the island itself. Seriously, thousands of marines?

Is there any evidence of US involvement or plans for basing beyond comments from one guy, who's associated with a group that has - to put it mildly - little to no credibility?

Ray
04-17-2012, 03:23 PM
I am reminded of small island called Diego Gracia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Diegogarcia.jpg/220px-Diegogarcia.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/CIA-DG-BIOT.jpg/319px-CIA-DG-BIOT.jpg

It is an atoll and is approximately 1,800 nautical miles (3,300 km) east of the African coast and 1,200 nautical miles (2,200 km) south of the southern tip of India.

The US Navy operates a large naval ship and submarine support base, military air base, communications and space tracking facilities, and an anchorage for pre-positioned military supplies for regional operations aboard Military Sealift Command ships in the lagoon.

It is an atoll occupying approximately 174 square kilometres (67 sq mi), of which 27.19 square kilometres (10 sq mi) is dry land.

Info obtained from Wiki.

Imagine that having a very important base back of nowhere and in just such a small area of land!!

It controls much of US ops in the area and is so important that the local inhabitants have been banished from the atoll.


While one can be deprecating about the US and its reach and aims, I for one, do not underestimate either the US or China and go into complacency and later be awoken with a rude shock.

Every bit of info must be put into the jigsaw and analysed and not sit back and feel it was a day late and a dollar short when it zaps you between the eye.

If you want peace, be prepared for war is what the US is doing! That is what I feel!

Jingoism or pacifism apart, it would be worth seeing how an American reacts when they are on the losing side!

Have we not seen the US reaction here on Iraq and Afghanistan, when anything negative was suggested?

It is all very well to have intellectual goodness overflowing when all things go well. This applies to all nationals of all Nations!

Ray
04-17-2012, 04:38 PM
China’s military rise
There are ways to reduce the threat to stability that an emerging superpower poses

http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

wm
04-17-2012, 06:35 PM
The world has come a long way since then and found the weaknesses in the US's armour.

For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.

Only a fool will entice the US into a conventional conflict and so we see a variation on the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.

Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.

I suspect the examples cited are not germane to the final paragraph. US involvement in the Levant and SWA/Afghanistan is at best, adventurism or a display of testosterone (not unlike Grenada and Panama) on the part of some US leaders. To draw conclusions from the engagements of the last 20 odd years about how the US might respond to a perceived existential threat is a mistake because no meaningful basis of analogy exists between the two sorts of cases.

BTW, the earlier appeal to Korea as an esample of US capabilities vis-a-vis PRC is equally a mistake. If memory serves, the principle global concern of the US senior leadership during the Korean conflict was the USSR advancing further in Western Europe. I seem to recall that the US sent as many or more troops to reinforce Europe as were sent to fight on the Korean peninsula.

JMA
04-17-2012, 07:08 PM
Yes, it did. Need not have but it did because the Politicians wanted it that way. Your'e familiar with that...

Yes I am and I am also familiar with the fact that in the main US soldiers will do their duty when called upon to do so with the utmost bravery... your politicians are the pits... in fact if at all possible worse than that.

...but then again... in a democracy you get the government you deserve.

Remember this?


“It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

Something got lost somewhere?

Ken White
04-17-2012, 07:54 PM
Certainly for near normal times. However and fortunately, we still do crunch time fairly well...

carl
04-17-2012, 09:00 PM
Let me put it this way. I haven't been embarrassed by anything the US has done in my lifetime. I could and have wished that some things had been done better but that's mostly from an effectiveness standpoint. You may or may not have been embarrassed, don't know -- but I do know some who've been embarrassed by US actions. Pity...

I have. I remember reading that during the Vietnam War, there was some kind of agreement between the US and the North Vietnamese. We weren't supposed to fly over. Unfortunately, there were around 40 or so South Vietnamese agents that were still in the DRV when the agreement went into effect. The USAF guys wanted an exception made so they could be extracted. It was not allowed. So we left them there and all were picked up. I am actually not embarrassed by that. I am ashamed. Then there were the 3 Marines we left on Koh Tang Island. I am ashamed about that too. An exagerrated (sic) sense of shame I guess.


Regardless, the nation has not been embarrassed. As an expander, the word 'we' refers to persons, not things. A nation is not a person.

Thank you for that. Now I know.


Or you could become carrier qualified -- and don't bother with carrier killer ICBMS and / or cruise missiles. Unproven technology -- and unannounced technology (ours or theirs) are unknowns. ;)For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere.

I don't know how to respond to that. I am certain you know about logistics trains, sea and air and how those change with distance over which something is to be supported. You know about American dependence upon air refueling, how carriers can't go swanning off by themselves, that VLS systems can't be reloaded at sea. You know all that stuff and all the rest inside and out. Since you know, the only thing I can conclude is that you delight in faking obtuse.


Umm, question. Just out of curiosity, did you mean you read superficially or that the books treatment of things you read is superficial?

It was a straight line that was yours to use if you cared to. You did.


Not a rhetorical technique, just a statement of opinion -- note the first word here; "If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian..." A statement of opinion and potential followed by a logical premise that isl predicated on that IF. :wry:

Ok. I get it now.

carl
04-17-2012, 09:06 PM
Um, you did note that I mentioned those guys were 30-40 years out of date? So are some of those inept Generals and Admirals you despise...

Et Tu? :D

Yes I did note that you mentioned that. But I prefer to judge for myself and if they recognize the importance of conveniently placed island and land bases, I figure they are seeing what has been plainly evident throughout the whole history of sea fighting.

Me too what?

carl
04-17-2012, 09:16 PM
You got the American RPI(Rich People s's Insurgency)

Slap that is as good as it gets. Hit home too because I am reading right now Charles Murray's book Coming Apart and it is about how the US splitting into radically different cultures and the RPI describes one of those cultures well.

Dayuhan
04-17-2012, 10:45 PM
I am reminded of small island called Diego Gracia....

...It is an atoll occupying approximately 174 square kilometres (67 sq mi), of which 27.19 square kilometres (10 sq mi) is dry land.

The land area of Pag-asa island is about 0.37 square kilometers. Big difference.

An atoll also has certain natural advantages, as it creates a protected anchorage. Nothing like that at Pag-asa. The cited article claims that


Manila is looking to rebuild the seaport and adjoining runway on Pagasa Island

but the term "seaport" is a ridiculous exaggeration. There is neither port nor harbor. Manila is building a small wharf for supply ships.

Again, the article reports baseless speculation from a completely untrustworthy source. To jump from there to a "US military base in the Spratlys" is pretty absurd. There's no reliable information to suggest that such a thing is happening or has ever been contemplated.

Dayuhan
04-17-2012, 10:52 PM
China’s military rise
There are ways to reduce the threat to stability that an emerging superpower poses

http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

Reasonable article, and I agree with the general approach. This quote:


prudent concern about China’s build-up must not lapse into hysteria.


might be addressed to some here.

Bob's World
04-17-2012, 11:06 PM
The US has always been a conglomeration of 'radically different cultures." That is one of our strengths, while for many nations it is indeed a source of weakness. Why? Because of the unique form of governance we possess and the shared belief that to some degree all of those radically different cultures have in that system. Most countries don't have that.

This is what Ray misses as well with his condemnation of our politicians and political structures. Fortunately for America and Americans we are possessed of a system of governance we can believe in and that we believe we possess reasonable control over, even when, especially when, we find little to believe in in the politicians who actually man the system.

While I believe our founders intended the Executive to be far less powerful than under the current system; and the Congress to be far more powerful than under the current system, they intended all to be answerable to an armed and informed populace that felt itself free to express its concerns in print, or in large gatherings, and with the full trust that their vote would come as scheduled and count. It makes for a messy, inefficient system, constantly tripping over various "checks and balances." Nowhere near as efficient as found in places where the populace is largely left out of the equation, or where one small part of government is allowed to dominate over the rest.

Personally I take great comfort in the inefficiency. Because efficiency of government is the enemy of stability of that which is governed. We are learning this Soooooo slowly in Afghanistan, where we swooped in and put in place all manner of highly efficient systems, such as the outrageous (to Afghans and foreigners alike) amount of power vested in the President under their current constitution. Such as US controlled and ran CT operations and prisons. Very efficient, yet horribly destructive of the very stability used to rationalize both. The examples go on and on.

Embrace messy politics. Embrace inefficient COIN that lends to host nation legitimacy and sovereignty rather than robbing from the same. From such inefficiency comes stability. It's a crazy world. Finding that balance of just enough control to keep the country on the road, that's the trick.

carl
04-18-2012, 12:14 AM
The US has always been a conglomeration of 'radically different cultures." That is one of our strengths, while for many nations it is indeed a source of weakness. Why? Because of the unique form of governance we possess and the shared belief that to some degree all of those radically different cultures have in that system. Most countries don't have that.

I don't know about "always" but Mr. Murray so far has made a persuasive case that when he begins looking at data, around 1960, things like workforce participation, marriage rates, rates of legitimate births (I am not finished yet) etc were quite similar amongst the white population of the US. Since then things have changed, and changed radically. So much so that what it amounts to are radically different sets of primary cultural values. That is not a source of strength, it is more like it is in those other nations you mention, divisive. The shared beliefs are not there anymore which appears to be the main thesis of the book.


We are learning this Soooooo slowly in Afghanistan, where we swooped in and put in place all manner of highly efficient systems, such as the outrageous (to Afghans and foreigners alike) amount of power vested in the President under their current constitution. Such as US controlled and ran CT operations and prisons. Very efficient, yet horribly destructive of the very stability used to rationalize both. The examples go on and on.

Good point. Upon reflection I thought it strange that we supported the creation of a national police force over there. We hate the idea of a national police force and get along just fine with sort of an accidentally coordinated system of local and regional police forces with some national detective agencies to supplement them.

Ken White
04-18-2012, 01:23 AM
I have. I remember reading that during the Vietnam War, there was some kind of agreement between the US and the North Vietnamese...No need to be embarrassed or ashamed. You didn't have anything to do with it and you couldn't have prevented that. Many far worse things tha happened there. If one wishes to be embarrassed or ashamed of anything that occurred in or about Viet Nam, one could start with the fact that the Brothers Kennedy started the totally unnecessary war to boost the US economy and to prove the Democratic Party could be tough on Communism. It was a war in which we had no business and in which there was no real US interest.
Since you know, the only thing I can conclude is that you delight in faking obtuse.I'm not the one being obtuse nor am I faking anything. I mentioned Carrier qual only with respect to you and your comment:
"Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land. They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too."I said nothing about using carriers to mess with China, in fact I think that would be sorta dumb. That's why I suggested that the nuke boats, SSBN, SSN and particularly the SSGNs. None of which most other nations can really counter and which don't have a refueling problem. Nor would I send Bones, B2s or 52s -- or F15Es for that matter -- anywhere until the Tomahawks had pretty well done in the relevant -- not all, just relevant -- ADA systems.
"I still think land bases and islands are as useful to navies and naval power as they ever were."They are if you're going to use Carrier Battle Groups and surface warships though I'm unsure why you would do that in anything above mid intensity conflict (where they have their uses). In a high intensity fight, the Carrier and surface ships are big fat targets and an impediment until a lot of sanitizing in the objective area has occurred.

They always told me the Generals and Admirals prepared for the last war -- no one mentioned that civilian Pilots did so as well. :D

My fellow curmudgeon Bill Sweetman not withstanding, the F35 brings some new capabilities for later phase of operations while the production models of the X-47B as AQ-whatevers, will aid in the initial effort, not least because they'll have twice the range and loiter time of the 18s or 35s -- and even that can and will be extended by by Buddy Tanking refueling from other AQ-whatevers. Then there's the X-37...
... I prefer to judge for myself and if they recognize the importance of conveniently placed island and land bases, I figure they are seeing what has been plainly evident throughout the whole history of sea fighting.Do they recognize importance or are they parroting conventional wisdom based on 30-40 year old concepts and capabilities? Good for you arriving at your own judgements; bad for them that they, like some Gen-Gens and Admirals are still looking behind instead of ahead. Both the FlagOs and the punditocracy have a vested interest in as little change as possible; makes 'em look smart. Fortunately, as Ernie King said on 30 December 1941; "When they get in trouble they send for the sons-of-bitches." So we do that and the young SOBs discard the old ways and get with the program. We may not have as much time in the future but we know that and people are thinking...
Me too what?A tongue in cheek reference to old ways; 30-40 year old concepts... ;)

History can never be more than a 'sorta, maybe' guide, militarily one should not let it cloud thinking or ever dictate what one can or will do. In fact, one should do their best to avoid what went before lest they establish a pattern that can be circumvented. Though it's quite okay to let folks think one is planning on doing that old, tired thing while he or she actually contemplates something entirely different. We do that fairly well..:cool:

carl
04-18-2012, 01:33 AM
Ken:

As far as the importance of land bases and island bases go, you're wrong. The entire history of sea fighting from the time of rafts with spearmen on board has demonstrated the need for bases. The latest tech toys don't change that. Some people fight the last battle, some recognize the fundamentals, and some fall in love with the latest and greatest gimmick and tool and think that changes the fundamentals.

Oh. I thought of something else. In any kind of sea fight with anybody, you are going to have to move supplies with surface ships. I can't think of one where that didn't happen. And when you do that, you have to defend them from air attack. Subs can't do that. You need surface ships or aircraft...which brings us to the need for land bases conveniently located.

Ken White
04-18-2012, 03:18 AM
As far as the importance of land bases and island bases go, you're wrong.As I wrote earlier, that happens. Rarely. And not on this.

I didn't write they generically were unimportant. You do a lot of standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions. I didn't write they were all unnecessary, merely that the ones you've mentioned are not totally critical and that there were workarounds. You might also consider the issue of when which Islands may be a detriment and when they might be beneficial...

In any event, I'll now go a step farther and suggest that for a variety of reasons (not least including who can best cope with time:distance issues and net weapon available numbers) we're better off without that outer perimeter you and John Foster Dulles like. Ducks sitting and all that. Recall that Pearl Harbor was an attack on US Soil and it got a response. An attack on Taiwan or the Philippines will NOT get such a political response -- nor should it.

You may have seen me rail against the FOBs in Afghanistan -- that's a tactically unsound approach that violates the fundamentals of avoiding tieing down force to fixed locations, avoiding tactical repetition and not providing easy targets as well as several others. The Islands you want -- as opposed to all the other places available in the pacific -- are FOBs and they are as dumb as the bases in the 'Stan. Fixed Bases are targets and they severely inhibit the most important fundamental, Maneuver and it's ally, Flexibility.
Some people fight the last battle, some recognize the fundamentals, and some fall in love with the latest and greatest gimmick and tool and think that changes the fundamentals.And some learned the fundamentals the hard way and know that some, not all, new tools will not change everything but can and will aid in accomplishing those fundementals and changing, if slightly, the way business is done. :wry:

Some also are far too old, experienced and cynical to fall in love with much of anything... :rolleyes:

A lot of new stuff is borderline worthless for warfighting -- but some of it has great merit and applies directly to those fundamentals. Note the subject of my last comment and Google it. Not much new under the sun -- or sea. Nothing I've mentioned is really new except possibly the X-37 which is only kinda new; all those items have been seen and used before and all the current iterations have been in development for years except the X-47B which the Navy is moving big bucks to -- do those stodgy Admirals know something...

As an aside, it is important to realize with fundamentals that one cannot pick and choose those one likes -- you have to take them all, they're part of an inseparable total package...
Oh. I thought of something else. In any kind of sea fight with anybody, you are going to have to move supplies with surface ships. I can't think of one where that didn't happen. And when you do that, you have to defend them from air attack. Subs can't do that. You need surface ships or aircraft...which brings us to the need for land bases conveniently located.At the risk of sounding Clintonesque, define 'conveniently.'

Define also 'sea fight.' Sub surface, surface, above the surface or way, way, way above the surface... :eek:

You may not think so but the Navy thinks it fights in all those and does so simultaneously. They consider themselves a Sea service. They also have well over 50 year experience at it and that matters a great deal -- plus they have a lot of experience dealing with 'inconvenience'...

All unduly bellicose, the Chinese, hopefully, will be smarter than we are likely to be and none of this is likely to be problematical for a good many years if ever. You worry too much... :wry:

Entropy
04-18-2012, 03:44 AM
Bob,

Great comment, with a caveat. On one hand I totally agree with this:


Personally I take great comfort in the inefficiency. Because efficiency of government is the enemy of stability of that which is governed.

On the other hand I'm reminded of the <a href="http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/this-is-obscene.html">F-35 program</a> along with any number of other boondoggles and plenty of example of waste personally witnessed by me.

Anyway, the gist of your comment seems to be that the US needs more federalism.

Ray
04-18-2012, 04:45 AM
This is what Ray misses as well with his condemnation of our politicians and political structures.

Where did you get that idea from?

In fact, I am throughout stating that the US rules and will rule the waves.

It is some of you who are being defeatist.


The land area of Pag-asa island is about 0.37 square kilometers. Big difference.

An atoll also has certain natural advantages, as it creates a protected anchorage. Nothing like that at Pag-asa.

Philippine Navy renamed Naval Station Pag-Asa in the Kalayaan Islands in the province of Palawan as Naval Station Emilio Liwanag.

The airstrip takes C 130.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_inwdIe1giWk/Sv7-kD8zZOI/AAAAAAAAQvI/XSOKP5UaMDw/s400/kalayaan+island+group.jpg

Ray
04-18-2012, 04:57 AM
No need to be embarrassed or ashamed. You didn't have anything to do with it and you couldn't have prevented that. Many far worse things tha happened there. If one wishes to be embarrassed or ashamed of anything that occurred in or about Viet Nam, one could start with the fact that the Brothers Kennedy started the totally unnecessary war to boost the US economy and to prove the Democratic Party could be tough on Communism. It was a war in which we had no business and in which there was no real US interest.

If Kennedys are to be blamed, one could start with John Foster Dulles.

Ray
04-18-2012, 05:58 AM
The land area of Pag-asa island is about 0.37 square kilometers. Big difference.

Indeed, comparisons makes things appear to have 'big difference'.

One wonders if Diego Gracia would be worth having, if one could get, say, Mauritius or Seychelles! Diego Gracia in comparison would very inadequate.

The whole issue of anything military is threat and need based and one has to make good with whatever one gets and optimise its 'tactical/ strategic throw'.


but the term "seaport" is a ridiculous exaggeration. There is neither port nor harbor.

I would not know if is a ridiculous exaggeration. I take it that whoever has claimed so, is aware of what he is stating. Suffice it to say that there is a port.


Again, the article reports baseless speculation from a completely untrustworthy source. To jump from there to a "US military base in the Spratlys" is pretty absurd.

Everything that is stated from articles, papers etc to you is rubbished as 'untrustworthy source'. What would be a 'trustworthy source' for you?

Ray
04-18-2012, 06:12 AM
Ken,


They are if you're going to use Carrier Battle Groups and surface warships though I'm unsure why you would do that in anything above mid intensity conflict (where they have their uses). In a high intensity fight, the Carrier and surface ships are big fat targets and an impediment until a lot of sanitizing in the objective area has occurred.

A nuclear submarine is noisier than a submarine working on batteries.

The pumps are noisy, then there is the steam noise, and the electric plant puts out a "hum".

This can be detected by any good sonar system. Even the quietest of nuclear submarine makes more noise than a conventional submarine.

And then there is 'environmental fatigue' and so to believe that a nuclear submarine can continue endlessly is not quite correct.

Supplies also have to be given enroute.

Bases just cannot be avoided.

US is refurbishing the submarine base at Guam.

CBGs may be good targets, but then they have their weapon systems that also protect them and are complementary

It's protection hinges on detecting, tracking, engaging and destroying threats before they pose a danger. .

Be it CBG or nuclear submarines, the danger is always there. Just because we cannot observe a submarine unlike a CBG, it does not mean that it is near invincible.

slapout9
04-18-2012, 06:47 AM
Slap that is as good as it gets. Hit home too because I am reading right now Charles Murray's book Coming Apart and it is about how the US splitting into radically different cultures and the RPI describes one of those cultures well.

Hi carl,
Yes, I heard that guy on a talk show the other night, have not read his book but seems worthwhile.
Check this out from the Harvard Business Review
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/04/there_is_no_invisible_hand.html
finally admitting that Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Theory was nothing but a bunch of RPI propaganda, there is no such thing and never has been any such thing. China is not burdened by such economic nonsense so they are free to make deals that benefit China not some imaginary Invisible idea:D
So to get back to the thread China understands that Military power comes from Economic power.

slapout9
04-18-2012, 06:48 AM
If Kennedys are to be blamed, one could start with John Foster Dulles.

That's right, the war was going on a long time before Kennedy got to be President.

JMA
04-18-2012, 06:50 AM
Certainly for near normal times. However and fortunately, we still do crunch time fairly well...

When last was a 'crunch time'?

Will the next enemy allow you the time to get the Henry Ford style human and industrial production lines into operation?

This was the game plan I was speaking of. As observed by von Schell in 1930 during his time at Fort Benning. Sorry if I was not too clear on that.

JMA
04-18-2012, 06:55 AM
One wonders if Diego Gracia would be worth having, if one could get, say, Mauritius or Seychelles! Diego Gracia in comparison would very inadequate.

There is no population on Diego Garcia to upset ... so no 'yankee go home' demonstrations... no billions in aid to the basket case island... just peace.

The yanks wouldn't be there it was not fit for purpose. Its the USian politicians that are the cretins... among the military there are some pretty smart guys.

slapout9
04-18-2012, 07:00 AM
Uh, okay. How long will that be after we did that? :confused:
I can't remember their stated goal, maybe 2020??


Seem like we have some time and don't need to go into the China panic mode... :D


Yes, in true Commie fashion they will wait as long as possible before they use the military in a direct manner, more likley they will try to control us economically by using their "Rare Earth Policy" at least that is my non-expert opinion.

Ray
04-18-2012, 07:44 AM
There is no population on Diego Garcia to upset ... so no 'yankee go home' demonstrations... no billions in aid to the basket case island... just peace.

The yanks wouldn't be there it was not fit for purpose. Its the USian politicians that are the cretins... among the military there are some pretty smart guys.

There was indigenous population who were evicted from the island.

I thought this was fairly well known.



Diego Garcia: Exiles Still Barred

The Americans had asked the British, their long-time allies, who still had colonies in the region, to find an uninhabited island for their base.

There was just one problem -- there were inhabitants on Diego Garcia and they have been living there for more than 200 years. Correspondent Christiane Amanpour reports.

But the British didn't see that as a problem. They simply moved all the inhabitants 1,200 miles away to other tropical islands, Mauritius and the Seychelles.

Back then when the island was a British colony, Marcel Moulinie managed the coconut plantation. He was ordered to ship the people out.

"Total evacuation. They wanted no indigenous people there," says Moulinie.

"When the final time came and the ships were chartered, they weren't allowed to take anything with them except a suitcase of their clothes. The ships were small and they could take nothing else, no furniture, nothing."

The people of Diego Garcia say they left paradise and landed in hell when they were dumped here in the urban slums of Mauritius. They had brought no possessions and as islanders who had lived off fishing and farming they had no real professional skills.

No one helped them resettle or pay for the homes they lost. They were forced to become squatters in a foreign land.

Before the final evacuation, the British had cut off the ships carrying food and medicine to Diego Garcia.

More at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-558378.htm

The indigenous people of Diego Gracia are Chagossians.

They are illiterates and hardly the Yankee go home types.

No compensation has been paid either!


Quote:
Seem like we have some time and don't need to go into the China panic mode...

I wonder if to be ready for all contingencies would be a 'panic mode'. I am of the belief that the US is hardly a nation that goes into a panic mode. Whatever one has seen so far is that the US makes others go into a panic mode! ;) :)

If one goes back in time to the Cold War days and the creation of NATO, would the creation of NATO and creating US Bases in Europe and elsewhere be taken to have been a 'Soviet panic mode'.

It is being ready for all eventualities and nothing more. It is good for all that nothing happened to justify that readiness.

Would MAD be taken to be a 'panic mode'?

The Chinese are a patient people. They do not take hasty actions. Each action they take is well thought out and planned over the years.

Take their shift from Mao Communism to capitalism. It has been comparatively seamless. There was nothing knee jerk about it and it was contemplated even when Mao was alive!

Take the 'Peaceful Rise'. That put all off guard. They used that period to become reckonable economically and also militarily.

They are now ready to a great extent and so they are flexing their muscle and testing the waters to see the reaction. Having seen how the wind blows, they will take further actions to neutralise the effects that they have observed with a wee bit of muscle flexing.

What is happening in the South China Sea, reminds me of the Chinese game of 'Go' or weiqi. It is a "board game of surrounding."

Bob's World
04-18-2012, 09:57 AM
Indeed, comparisons makes things appear to have 'big difference'.

One wonders if Diego Gracia would be worth having, if one could get, say, Mauritius or Seychelles! Diego Gracia in comparison would very inadequate.

The whole issue of anything military is threat and need based and one has to make good with whatever one gets and optimise its 'tactical/ strategic throw'.



I would not know if is a ridiculous exaggeration. I take it that whoever has claimed so, is aware of what he is stating. Suffice it to say that there is a port.



Everything that is stated from articles, papers etc to you is rubbished as 'untrustworthy source'. What would be a 'trustworthy source' for you?

Ray,

The US looked out into the Pacific at the turn of the last century for "ports" and found them. Mostly already staked out by a fading Spanish empire. The fact that the US Flag flies over American Samoa, Oahu, and Guam is no accident. Those, along with Manila, were, and are, the best deep water protected anchorages in the region. That was in the age of coaling stations, but such anchorages remain important. Certainly Diego Garcia falls in that same category. The airfields on Guam, Clark in the Philippines, and Diego Garcia all have served to launch and recover countless B-52 (and B-29s and 17s for the first two) sorties.

This Little rock you are talking about might make a good coast guard station, to handle a couple of small law enforcement vessels, a few helos and the occasional C-130; but is physically incapable of being what the author of your article is attempting to make it out to be.

Trust me, if there was a viable island in the Spratleys, it would have been occupied and developed long ago. The French, Spanish, Dutch and English would have fought over it; the US and Japan would have fought over it; and so on and so on. Such is the nature of strategic key terrain. Singapore is such a place.

The Spratleys are one of many places in the world where national spheres of influence overlap. Often this happens in places long occupied by long suffering people always at the crossroads of competition between larger neighbors. (The fate of Poland, Afghanistan, the Levant, etc). Sometimes it happens in the global commons. The Caribbean was such a place once; until Britain agreed to dedicate its maritime power to the support of America's Monroe Doctrine. Britain saw that play as being in their interest, as they leveraged the US to keep European competitors from gaining advantages in that hemisphere. The US saw it in her advantage as well, as it put to rest decades of fighting with Britain and allowed our commercial fleet to leverage the protection of the Royal Navy. A win-win based on shared interests.

China seeks to do as the US did; but I doubt we will play the role of Britain on this, as we are far less pragmatic than the Brits in being able to set past grievances aside to take advantage of current opportunities. We are more apt to side with some little guy and get sucked into a fight that is not our own. Very American, that. Better we help all the parties involved get to some compromised position that they all can live with, but these are not nations that are very good at multilateral agreements, so that is unlikely.

JMA
04-18-2012, 10:42 AM
There was indigenous population who were evicted from the island.

I thought this was fairly well known

Yes there were a few thousand of them relocated to other islands by the Brits to make room for the yanks in 1968.

How many of the original population are left (after 45 years)?

45 years ago thoughts of compensation were probably not even considered.

Dayuhan
04-18-2012, 12:59 PM
This Little rock you are talking about might make a good coast guard station, to handle a couple of small law enforcement vessels, a few helos and the occasional C-130; but is physically incapable of being what the author of your article is attempting to make it out to be.

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to say.

The cited source belongs to a group that is constantly and incessantly pushing the idea that the US is trying to establish permanent military bases in the Philippines and will stop at nothing to achieve that goal. Everything and anything gets twisted into that agenda.

slapout9
04-18-2012, 02:14 PM
Link to article on how China may be helping North Korea with missile technology that would allow them to reach the USA.


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/17/congressman_alleges_china_helping_north_korea_with _icbms

Ray
04-18-2012, 04:26 PM
Yes there were a few thousand of them relocated to other islands by the Brits to make room for the yanks in 1968.

How many of the original population are left (after 45 years)?

45 years ago thoughts of compensation were probably not even considered.

I thought you had said quite categorically that Diego Gracia was uninhabited.

How come that you now claim that, yes a few thousands were there?

It was inhabited as anyone who knew about Diego Gracia would know and of that, there is no doubt. One should not be categorical to push a point! One should check and then comment.

Once again you are wrong. Compensation was considered. It must be remembered that it is not so far into history when this happened and there would have been a stink, if the 'i' s were not dotted and 't' s not crossed. Days of colonial requirement to unilaterally shift labour to other parts of the world was long over.

Mauritius was paid to accept the Deigo Gracians. Mauritius accepted them but did not consider that the payment was in anyway to rehabilitate them.

A case was filed in Britain and the British Government offered £1.25m to the surviving Chagossians. They were expected to withdraw the case and and sign a "full and final" document renouncing any right of return to the island.

Some signed and some amongst them who were totally illiterate claimed that they had been tricked into signing!

The issue will drag on and when all Diego Gracians are dead, people will forget that there were people who inhabited the island and that it was never inhabited!

Human memory is short!

Ray
04-18-2012, 04:35 PM
Bob,


This Little rock you are talking about might make a good coast guard station, to handle a couple of small law enforcement vessels, a few helos and the occasional C-130; but is physically incapable of being what the author of your article is attempting to make it out to be.

Trust me, if there was a viable island in the Spratleys, it would have been occupied and developed long ago.

It is not my article that I gave a link to. I am not Murdoch as yet! :)

China feels CNN, BBC and the western media is nothing but propaganda, twisting the truth and mangling it to suit the western purpose. Perceptions!

When there is a requirement and when there is nothing available, even a little rock (as you put it) will do. Given the size of Diego Gracia, it too is a little rock or atoll. It is again perceptions.

And


This is what Ray misses as well with his condemnation of our politicians and political structures.

Your perception!

And I have been batting all along for US and its actions! :eek:

Trust me, when strategic interests are at stake, even the impossible become possible. Or else, why should India be on the Siachen Glacier that is so expensive an operation and the environment claims lives, if not claimed by the weapons?!

C 130 cannot land and helicopters are few and far between! And yet India is there!

Pakistan just a few days back lost over 100 men, not at the mountain top, but at a Base!

If India does not sit on those impossible heights, then it will become the continuation of China into Pakistan! And other areas with India will become vulnerable to China's designs!

Ray
04-18-2012, 04:52 PM
Kwajalein Atoll

The island is about 1.2 square miles (3.1 km)

The U.S. Army has an installation at Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA).

Every atoll and every island has its value.

Iran dug into the mountain to build its reactors! Some would think that is crazy!

Necessity is the Mother of Invention!

Ray
04-18-2012, 05:20 PM
Link to article on how China may be helping North Korea with missile technology that would allow them to reach the USA.


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/17/congressman_alleges_china_helping_north_korea_with _icbms

One wonders what some would feel about that.

Should the US do nothing? And feel that all things are bright and beautiful and things will work out?

Or should US undertake to frustrate China in her designs to indicate enough is enough?

There was a reference that the US mucks in to fight the 'little guys' battle'.

Is it out of compassion that the US tailors her foreign policy or is it because there is a 'convergence of interest' that US fights 'the little guys' battle'?

There are no friends or enemies. There are only common national interests.

Ken White
04-18-2012, 06:42 PM
A nuclear submarine is noisier than a submarine working on batteries...And then there is 'environmental fatigue' and so to believe that a nuclear submarine can continue endlessly is not quite correct.Of course and I didn't write or even imply endlessly -- long enough with adequate supplies on board to do the job, though, is a capability. The number available is a factor and it is in our favor.
US is refurbishing the submarine base at Guam.Yes, and that's a political commitment to reassure the Pacific Rim and a time distance saving effort. Both those factors are beneficial but not critical.
CBGs may be good targets... Just because we cannot observe a submarine unlike a CBG, it does not mean that it is near invincible.Nothing is invincible; any system can be defeated. Most of us are well aware of that and the Nuke boats -- as India will discover -- have their own problems. Still, on balance, they are the inevitable future of sea warfare in major conflicts for the next forty years or so, barring an unseen or not openly known and revolutionary discovery.

The surface stuff is all necessary, certainly for less than total warfare but also for later stages of major conflicts and for operations outside the primary sea battlespace. Bases are also necessary, no question. Those things are not at issue; the issue is one of where things are located and when they are used. Thus it is not a question of needs and capabilities, simply one of employment.

All you say is correct, is well known to most including me and does not change my assessment -- or, I suspect, that of the US Navy. You and others who wish to make China a threat that it is not (to the US, not necessarily true for closer neighbors to the Middle Kingdom... :wry:) may certainly do so.

Even if you are most likely wrong... ;)

Ken White
04-18-2012, 06:59 PM
If Kennedys are to be blamed, one could start with John Foster Dulles.The action in question is the war and US involvement therein, not the political stupidity that allowed -- allowed, not caused -- that war.

You can go back further and blame Truman and Dean Acheson for not supporting the OSS / Ho Chi Minh overtures for US support and for aiding France in their effort to 'retake' Indo China. Certainly Dulles and the Eisenhower administration also bear some blame for the political debacle that was Viet Nam. However, they, on the advice of Matthew Ridgeway, then Army Chief of Staff, ruled out any direct combat commitment of US forces.

The Kennedy's (I use the plural because Bobby was the brain and driving force...) committed to combat action -- so they, for the US, essentially started the war. Lyndon Johnson of course initiated the major commitment so he gets some blame, a bunch in fact, and Nixon's flawed withdrawal plan was not error free to say the least -- but make no mistake, the Kennedy's started the war we all know and love...

Ken White
04-18-2012, 07:27 PM
When last was a 'crunch time'?Actually, we started the mobilization effort in September of '39, got far more serious in November of '40 but it was the mid '43 before we got totally serious.
Will the next enemy allow you the time to get the Henry Ford style human and industrial production lines into operation?Note the last time, it took us almost four years to really get involved -- some would say it was really the winter of 1944 before we got up to speed. So no, I doubt anyone thinks even a fourth or fifth that time will be available in the future. I personally suspect that a week or two is probably the most time we'll have, thus my earlier comment:

"Excessive bother of the wrong kind will not invoke a sleeping giant scenario -- you're as dated as Carl and those pundits and think tanks I warned him to eschew. That was then, this is now. No sleeping giant, no fire up the industrial base. Those days are indeed gone. What is not gone is the ability to simply remove the leash IF and when warranted. Not a lot of Troops on the ground required, very few in fact."

Note that I do not include any of our subsequent wars or interventions as crunches. None were, all were minimum effort soirees essentially aimed at US domestic politics and not at any serious effort in international affairs. They are minimum efforts and they also produced far less than even good, much less optimum, results. One gets what one pays for...

The US political establishment will only provide maximum reaction to what it perceives as a maximum threat, lesser threats we'll attempt to disrupt or channelize with the least possible effort. As you know, politicians assess both threats and effort differently than do military people.

Regardless, we have considerable capability that is rarely displayed and even more rarely understood and we have not since WW II allowed more than a small fraction of that to be used; the Armed Forces have been kept on a very short leash and other nations have actually been handled relatively gently. Thus my 'remove the leash' comment above.
This was the game plan I was speaking of. As observed by von Schell in 1930 during his time at Fort Benning. Sorry if I was not too clear on that.I understood. In those days, we did tend to have long term plans. Among other things we've lost here, it seems that ability has also fallen to political expediency thus my also earlier comment that "there is no standard US game plan."

Sadly... :(

Ken White
04-18-2012, 07:37 PM
I can't remember their stated goal, maybe 2020??Lesse, we did that in 1969, so say they're fifty years behind us in that. Figure maybe half that for most other things, that means they're about 25 years from catch-up time. You and I will both be gone. Well, you may not be, I hope not -- but I certainly will be. So now you know why I'm not worried. ;)

Neither is the Abn MSG kid of mine who's way younger than bofus. He stays abreast of all that stuff and sees stuff we don't; he says "No worries at this time."
Yes, in true Commie fashion they will wait as long as possible before they use the military in a direct manner, more likley they will try to control us economically by using their "Rare Earth Policy" at least that is my non-expert opinion.I'm sure they will do both those things. Doubt they'll succeed economically though they will almost certainly do a little harm. As for the other, they likely will think and plan that way but mayhap like their USSR predecessor, that'll become OBE. We'll have to wait and see.

carl
04-18-2012, 08:31 PM
...finally admitting that Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Theory was nothing but a bunch of RPI propaganda, there is no such thing and never has been any such thing.

Slap:

I will look at that but to my mind Adam Smith has stood the test of time and the closer polities come to letting the people decide for themselves how and where to spend their money, that is what the invisible hand is all about, the better they do. Red China has done as well as it has because it has let a few of its people spend their money and direct their efforts as they like, not because they have been directed how to do so by the wise men in the Party. They don't do any better than our "wise men" do.

You should read the book if you can. The RPI I was talking about is not only differentiated by money, they also are differentiated by very, extremely, insular lives. They go to the same schools, shop at the same stores, read the same newspapers and magazines and live in the same neighborhoods. The problem with that is they only know about themselves and from that make conclusions about the rest of the Americans, which they know nothing about. That is why so many of them really believe that $5 gallon gas is good for everybody.

JMA
04-18-2012, 08:37 PM
I thought you had said quite categorically that Diego Gracia was uninhabited.

I did because it is ... now.

carl
04-18-2012, 09:05 PM
Actually, we started the mobilization effort in September of '39, got far more serious in November of '40 but it was the mid '43 before we got totally serious.Note the last time, it took us almost four years to really get involved -- some would say it was really the winter of 1944 before we got up to speed.

Are you sure that's true? It takes a long time to get production lines built and up to speed, even back then. In mid-43 everything was already in place and beginning to ramp up. We were already totally serious. The Navy checked the Japanese with ships that were almost all launched before the start of the war. The services knew war with Japan was coming and built up as best they could early. We were better men then than we are now but even then we couldn't turn it on all that fast.

Ken White
04-18-2012, 10:21 PM
Are you sure that's true? It takes a long time to get production lines built and up to speed, even back then. In mid-43 everything was already in place and beginning to ramp up. We were already totally serious. The Navy checked the Japanese with ships that were almost all launched before the start of the war. The services knew war with Japan was coming and built up as best they could early. We were better men then than we are now but even then we couldn't turn it on all that fast.I think ( ??? ) you said what I said.

Yes, it takes a long time to get production line up to speed -- 1939/1940 to 1943/1944 is three to five years anyway you count the start and end.

Yes, by 1943 everything was in place and totally serious. Before that things were coalescing and production was ramping up and most everyone was getting more serious by the day -- but it was 1943 before the Draft picked up almost everyone, the WPB controlled civilian employment in war industries, rationing was extended to most items and the services had learned that incompetent commanders had to be rapidly relieved and uniformly did that. All the efforts of many people from 1939 until then culminated in a reasonably good and serious effort by most Americans and the Nation by late 1943.

Not so on the Navy, a lot of the pre-war ships were lost for some good and bad reasons. The Navy was very slow in getting ready for WW II. In fact, the Maritime Adminsitration with its 1936 shipbuilding standardization and building plan was ahead of the Navy and helped the Navy get their late 1939 plan going and that only because it became obvious there was going to be a war and Franklin was adamant that we be involved. The only big class building and arriving prior to the war that fought heavily in the Pacific was the Gleaves Class and they weren't the best destroyers around, That 1939 plan saw the Fletchers, Clevelands, Baltimores, South Dakotas and Essexes but they didn't start arriving in the fleet until mid 1942 as didThe Atlantas and the Independence class CVLs (which FDR had to browbeat the Navy into ordering; then as now, they wanted BIG Carriers -- more people, thus bigger budget slice...). Most of the program didn't hit the fleet until '44. The Navy effectively won in the Pacific with those 1939 Program ships while most of the pre-war ships were assigned to the Atlantic Fleet where the combat was far less demanding. Also note the Navy and the Marines knew war with Japan was coming and prepared for it as best they could -- and that only seriously after 1939 and even then slowly. The Army OTOH did not want war with Japan and tried to ignore the Pacific...

You're correct that we didn't turn it on all that fast and that we couldn't even do that well today -- except for aircraft and some other stuff; certainly not for ships, tanks, artillery and the like, though...

carl
04-18-2012, 10:36 PM
I didn't write they generically were unimportant. You do a lot of standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions. I didn't write they were all unnecessary, merely that the ones you've mentioned are not totally critical and that there were workarounds. You might also consider the issue of when which Islands may be a detriment and when they might be beneficial...

Actually you sort of did write that island and land bases were generically unimportant.

In post no. 232 you wrote "I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era.

Be careful with the pundits and think tanks, most of them are 30-40 years behind the times strategically and operationally. All of them must have and / or see crises to survive." The two preceding sentence referring to the importance of holes in the line of barrier islands.

In post 242 you wrote "Um, you did note that I mentioned those guys were 30-40 years out of date? So are some of those inept Generals and Admirals you despise...", this in response to my saying "I don't need pundits to tell me that island bases are vital."

In post 242 you also wrote "For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere. I doubt that will change in the next twenty to thirty years." This was in response to my saying ships needed land bases and islands in order fill up."

So in posts 232 and 242 you said things that sounded like simple dismissals of the importance of land bases for navies.

But then things evolved.

In post 272 you wrote "They are if you're going to use Carrier Battle Groups and surface warships though I'm unsure why you would do that in anything above mid intensity conflict (where they have their uses). In a high intensity fight, the Carrier and surface ships are big fat targets and an impediment until a lot of sanitizing in the objective area has occurred." This in response to my saying that land bases are as useful as ever.

So we are getting to an admission that land bases are useful for things mid intensity conflict and below.

Now in post 293 you said "The surface stuff is all necessary, certainly for less than total warfare but also for later stages of major conflicts and for operations outside the primary sea battlespace. Bases are also necessary, no question. Those things are not at issue; the issue is one of where things are located and when they are used. Thus it is not a question of needs and capabilities, simply one of employment."

So now with this post and 293 you say that land bases are needed for navies. Good. Now that we have that settled, we can deal with the separate question of which land bases are needed.


In any event, I'll now go a step farther and suggest that for a variety of reasons (not least including who can best cope with time:distance issues and net weapon available numbers) we're better off without that outer perimeter you and John Foster Dulles like. Ducks sitting and all that. Recall that Pearl Harbor was an attack on US Soil and it got a response. An attack on Taiwan or the Philippines will NOT get such a political response -- nor should it.

You may have seen me rail against the FOBs in Afghanistan -- that's a tactically unsound approach that violates the fundamentals of avoiding tieing down force to fixed locations, avoiding tactical repetition and not providing easy targets as well as several others. The Islands you want -- as opposed to all the other places available in the pacific -- are FOBs and they are as dumb as the bases in the 'Stan. Fixed Bases are targets and they severely inhibit the most important fundamental, Maneuver and it's ally, Flexibility.And some learned the fundamentals the hard way and know that some, not all, new tools will not change everything but can and will aid in accomplishing those fundementals and changing, if slightly, the way business is done. :wry:

The war against the Japanese was one of moving forward from one island base to take from the Japanese another island base and then doing it again and again. All the big battles that occurred resulted from contesting islands. We destroyed most of the Japanese mobile military along the way. So from this I conclude that, if it comes to it and I hope to God it doesn't, to defeat Red China or rather the PLAN and supporting aviation, the sea power that would do it has to be close enough to do it. So that means islands, as you say in post 293. So given all that, (which you won't, but I will) it seems to me foolish to give up the first islands in that barrier without a fight, since without possession of those island, I think the best we could hope for would be a stalemate with the PLAN, which would be a long term strategic victory for them and a long term strategic loss for us.

Fixed bases are vulnerable as you say. And of course in a perfect world you would eschew them. But in this imperfect world logistical considerations must be tended to. With those considerations in mind, if we lost that first line of barrier islands, we could never retake them. If we couldn't retake them, we could not defeat the PLAN. If we can't defeat the PLAN, strategically we lose and will put on the defensive. That possibility worries me.


A lot of new stuff is borderline worthless for warfighting -- but some of it has great merit and applies directly to those fundamentals. Note the subject of my last comment and Google it. Not much new under the sun -- or sea. Nothing I've mentioned is really new except possibly the X-37 which is only kinda new; all those items have been seen and used before and all the current iterations have been in development for years except the X-47B which the Navy is moving big bucks to -- do those stodgy Admirals know something...

Google what? I got mixed up. If you mean drones and space planes and hypersonic missiles, that stuff to me is like guided air to air missiles were in the 1950s, of some use but it they would not be what they were cracked up to be until 30 years later.


As an aside, it is important to realize with fundamentals that one cannot pick and choose those one likes -- you have to take them all, they're part of an inseparable total package...At the risk of sounding Clintonesque, define 'conveniently.'

Define also 'sea fight.' Sub surface, surface, above the surface or way, way, way above the surface... :eek:

Nope, I don't think I will. It is obvious from the context of all I have written on this so you should think back.


You may not think so but the Navy thinks it fights in all those and does so simultaneously. They consider themselves a Sea service. They also have well over 50 year experience at it and that matters a great deal -- plus they have a lot of experience dealing with 'inconvenience'...

Well I should hope so. That is what they get paid for. But the Navy has decided to count hospital ships and PCs as battle force ships so maybe sometimes they don't do so well.


All unduly bellicose, the Chinese, hopefully, will be smarter than we are likely to be and none of this is likely to be problematical for a good many years if ever. You worry too much... :wry:

We'll see. I hope I am wrong.

carl
04-18-2012, 11:11 PM
I think ( ??? ) you said what I said.

Yes, it takes a long time to get production line up to speed -- 1939/1940 to 1943/1944 is three to five years anyway you count the start and end.

Yes, by 1943 everything was in place and totally serious. Before that things were coalescing and production was ramping up and most everyone was getting more serious by the day -- but it was 1943 before the Draft picked up almost everyone, the WPB controlled civilian employment in war industries, rationing was extended to most items and the services had learned that incompetent commanders had to be rapidly relieved and uniformly did that. All the efforts of many people from 1939 until then culminated in a reasonably good and serious effort by most Americans and the Nation by late 1943.

Not so on the Navy, a lot of the pre-war ships were lost for some good and bad reasons. The Navy was very slow in getting ready for WW II. In fact, the Maritime Adminsitration with its 1936 shipbuilding standardization and building plan was ahead of the Navy and helped the Navy get their late 1939 plan going and that only because it became obvious there was going to be a war and Franklin was adamant that we be involved. The only big class building and arriving prior to the war that fought heavily in the Pacific was the Gleaves Class and they weren't the best destroyers around, That 1939 plan saw the Fletchers, Clevelands, Baltimores, South Dakotas and Essexes but they didn't start arriving in the fleet until mid 1942 as didThe Atlantas and the Independence class CVLs (which FDR had to browbeat the Navy into ordering; then as now, they wanted BIG Carriers -- more people, thus bigger budget slice...). Most of the program didn't hit the fleet until '44. The Navy effectively won in the Pacific with those 1939 Program ships while most of the pre-war ships were assigned to the Atlantic Fleet where the combat was far less demanding. Also note the Navy and the Marines knew war with Japan was coming and prepared for it as best they could -- and that only seriously after 1939 and even then slowly. The Army OTOH did not want war with Japan and tried to ignore the Pacific...

You're correct that we didn't turn it on all that fast and that we couldn't even do that well today -- except for aircraft and some other stuff; certainly not for ships, tanks, artillery and the like, though...

Sorry. I got mixed up when you said getting serious. I thought you meant when we started taking the thing seriously not when we started actually getting it right.

I figured that the Japanese were checked at Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal in '42. All the carriers that fought in those actions were pre-39 carriers except the Hornet. The Washington, North Carolina and South Dakota were all pre-39 battleships. The cruisers, or most all, that fought in '42 were pre-39 ships. Finally I counted 12 pre-39 destroyers lost in '42 (I only had one book to look at) and over a 1/3 of destroyers the Navy had on Dec 7 were WWI flush deckers. This ship counting is minor except to show that we checked the Japanese with what we had ordered prior to '39. We did it with ships we acquired before the need became obviously critical.

As far as the Army goes, I'll defer to what you say.

Bob's World
04-18-2012, 11:46 PM
Carl,

Again, and this cannot be emphasized enough, when you say "first line of barrier Islands" you are talking about the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan. The first and latter are not at risk, the one in the middle is already part of China.

Kind of like China arguing that it needs to hold Catalina and the Channel Islands to keep the US contained to the mainland.

Really?

You do understand that Taiwan is not a base for US military operations, right? We don't base ships or planes there and certainly have no land forces there. It is, after all, part of China. What exactly do you think we are giving up in terms of securing US national interests?

Taiwan was a vital part of our Cold War strategy in the Pacific. A moral victory and a thorn in the side of the Sino-Soviet pact. But that is over. Behind us. Obsolete. No longer critical to our current strategic priorities. It is time for the US to stop being an obstacle to the resolution of this internal Chinese issue.

Get out your map. When (not if) China consolidates Taiwan back into the fold they will have advanced a little, but are still nearly 7,000 miles from Los Angeles. Is this really worth fighting over? Why would we not be working to negotiate the smooth transition instead? If Taiwan decides that no, they would rather fight China than rejoin China, let that be their decision made with the full facts on the table. To allow them to assume we will fight China to delay the inevitable is not fair to them or to us. It could lead to miscalculations. Ones with serious consequences.

Loyalty is an admirable trait. Mine is to America first.

I know Taiwan has been a major provider of troops during the Cold War to help us in our European mission; and that they were first to stand up and send troops to help in the Gulf War, and later in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that such a staunch ally should be rewarded (tongue placed firmly in cheek).

I respect your choice if you decide someday to travel to Taiwan to fight with them in their separatist movement with China, but that should be your personal choice for personal reasons. Much like the Lincoln BDE in Spain. You can help organize a Corps of Taiwanese Americans to go with you, though I wonder how many would volunteer. If ordered our military personnel will certainly go as well. But none of that creates a national interest for doing so.

Hopefully our "pivot" to the Pacific brings issues like this out of the realm of emotional debates of outdated strategies, and puts them back on the table to assess afresh.

carl
04-19-2012, 12:33 AM
Councilor:

I did look at the map. I do understand that Taiwan is not a base for US military operations, now.

You understand that regardless of how you view the status of Taiwan, it is not currently a base for PLAN nor PLA forces. It is as the name implies, a barrier to their ops. And that is what we would be giving up in terms of US national interests, that it is not a base for the PLAN nor PLA and that it could be a base for us. We also would be giving up the willingness of some millions of people to keep the PLAN and PLA from using Taiwan as a base. That seems important to me.

I looked at the map again as you suggested. And east of Taiwan, once you get past the Volcano Islands, you run into Hawaii, a US state, long before you get to L.A. I noticed too that the Philippines are closer to Taiwan than they are to the Chinese mainland. That proved useful to attacking air forces in the past.

Are you frustrated with me and my opinions Mr. Jones? That you are is the only thing I can think of when you make references to the Lincoln Brigade. It may surprise you to know that my first loyalty is to the US also, an opinion different from yours notwithstanding.

Dayuhan
04-19-2012, 01:14 AM
Should the US do nothing? And feel that all things are bright and beautiful and things will work out?

Or should US undertake to frustrate China in her designs to indicate enough is enough?

What exasctly do you want the US to do do prevent China from selling missile technology to North Korea? Of from buying oil from Iran? Or from selling arms to Iran?


Kwajalein Atoll

The island is about 1.2 square miles (3.1 km)

The U.S. Army has an installation at Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA).

Every atoll and every island has its value.

Iran dug into the mountain to build its reactors! Some would think that is crazy!

Necessity is the Mother of Invention!

There's a small observation station on Kwajalein, which exists to monitor ballistic missile tests. You could build suich a station on Pag-asa, but there wouldn't be much point, as there are no tests to monitor. As Bob's World says, you could build a small Coast Guard or weather station there. You could not relocate thousands of Marines from Okinawa or build a military facility large enough to have any impact on the balance of power in the SCS.

In any event, the US is not in fact building anything on Pag-asa. If they were, you could be sure the Chinese would be howling about it. The Philippine Government is repairing a badly eroded airstrip and a small wharf capable of docking shallow-draft vessels. Not a "seaport". That's all.


to defeat Red China or rather the PLAN and supporting aviation, the sea power that would do it has to be close enough to do it. So that means islands, as you say in post 293. So given all that, (which you won't, but I will) it seems to me foolish to give up the first islands in that barrier without a fight, since without possession of those island, I think the best we could hope for would be a stalemate with the PLAN, which would be a long term strategic victory for them and a long term strategic loss for us.

Will somebody with great strategic knowledge tell me why the US would need or want to rerun WW2, sail into areas where China has support from land-based aircraft and missiles, and fight there? China's great vulnerability is economic dependence on trade routes that extend far outside their naval reach. Why not exploit that vulnerability? Embargo Chinese imports to thje US, Set up in the Indian Ocean, cut off the oil coming in from the Middle East and Africa and the trade going out to those locations and Europe?

In the unlikely event that it's ever necessary to fight China, why would we fight them where they are strongest?

carl
04-19-2012, 01:39 AM
Will somebody with great strategic knowledge tell me why the US would need or want to rerun WW2, sail into areas where China has support from land-based aircraft and missiles, and fight there? China's great vulnerability is economic dependence on trade routes that extend far outside their naval reach. Why not exploit that vulnerability? Embargo Chinese imports to thje US, Set up in the Indian Ocean, cut off the oil coming in from the Middle East and Africa and the trade going out to those locations and Europe?

In the unlikely event that it's ever necessary to fight China, why would we fight them where they are strongest?

That is a very good point. That probably is their greatest weakness. But two play in the sea fighting business. And one of the objects, I would guess, of our side would be to keep them from interfering with the sea lanes to Japan and other places. If Taiwan was not able to be used by the PLAN, it would be that much harder for them to do that.

Also, the US would absolutely not want to re-run WWII. That is why you wouldn't want to lose that island, and those islands in the first place. So you wouldn't have to.

Ken White
04-19-2012, 02:27 AM
Actually you sort of did write that island and land bases were generically unimportant.

In post no. 232 you wrote "I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era. (emphasis added / kw)THOSE would be Taiwan, the Philippines (and even Guam...) -- your outer barrier...
So in posts 232 and 242 you said things that sounded like simple dismissals of the importance of land bases for navies.That could be my fault for a lack of specificity, I guess...
But then things evolved.Or maybe not...
In post 272 you wrote "They are if you're going to use Carrier Battle Groups and surface warships though I'm unsure why you would do that in anything above mid intensity conflict (where they have their uses). In a high intensity fight, the Carrier and surface ships are big fat targets and an impediment until a lot of sanitizing in the objective area has occurred." This in response to my saying that land bases are as useful as ever. (emphasis added / kw)As emphasized, I wrote about CBGs and surface warships -- Committing them to major action in a high intensity war ala WW II is likely to have the same result the initial commitment it then did -- loss of half the fleet. So I asked why would one make such a dumb commitment. If one does not, then one does not need bases 'conveniently' located to the conflict zone.
So we are getting to an admission that land bases are useful for things mid intensity conflict and below.Not what I wrote but I can accept that as often if not always correct. I'd design a force that didn't need them, at least as currently used (a more than 30-40 year old concept, more like 3-4,000...) but I'm not in charge and we have what we have. That's what we have but it isn't mandatory that we use it stupidly...
Now in post 293 you said "The surface stuff is all necessary, certainly for less than total warfare but also for later stages of major conflicts and for operations outside the primary sea battlespace. Bases are also necessary, no question. Those things are not at issue; the issue is one of where things are located and when they are used. Thus it is not a question of needs and capabilities, simply one of employment."

So now with this post and 293 you say that land bases are needed for navies. Good. Now that we have that settled, we can deal with the separate question of which land bases are needed.You often misquote or misunderstand what I write, my fault perhaps but it does create unnecessary confusion. To my mind, a need for some bases and / or islands was never an issue or question; I referred to specific Islands / bases and to me, the issue has always been employment; i.e. which bases are useful (and concomitantly, which are less so...).
So from this I conclude that... the sea power that would do it has to be close enough to do it. So that means islands, as you say in post 293. So given all that, (which you won't, but I will) it seems to me foolish to give up the first islands in that barrier without a fight, since without possession of those island, I think the best we could hope for would be a stalemate with the PLAN, which would be a long term strategic victory for them and a long term strategic loss for us.We can disagree on all that. Just because that's what you conclude doesn't make it so; the sea power that will "do it" has to be survivable and effective, not necessarily close. Close can be a significant disadvantage. We have greater reach than anyone -- we should use it wisely instead of playing by the other guys rules on his turf -- or in his ocean...
With those considerations in mind, if we lost that first line of barrier islands, we could never retake them. If we couldn't retake them, we could not defeat the PLAN. If we can't defeat the PLAN, strategically we lose and will put on the defensive.Your basis for those conclusions is? I'm particularly interested in your rationale for the first statement as that seems to be the crux of your argument. You can again elect not to answer but that assertion is not supported by any evidence of which I have knowledge. In fact all those statements appear to be assumptions on your part that have no basis other than whimsy.
That possibility worries me.We noticed...:wry:
Google what? I got mixed up. If you mean drones and space planes and hypersonic missiles, that stuff to me is like guided air to air missiles were in the 1950s, of some use but it they would not be what they were cracked up to be until 30 years later.Which is where we now are and then some; thus my suggestion it might be wise to eschew 30-40 year old ideas. The Google reference was to the USS Grayback. That idea of 1956 wasn't what it was cracked up to be, didn't work that well -- until the nuke boats and Tomahawk got together in 1983. It appeared to have merit about 30 years later, 40 years later it was an agreed winner and now almost 60 years later it's an extremely potent weapon and the SSGN with 154 Tomahawks is unsettling to a lot of folks if not to you.

The Navy wanted to develop high explosive warheads to replace the nuclear warheads on some Trident missiles back in '03. Congress denied it -- but now, they are more receptive and HE Warhead Tridents will be even more worrisome than Tomahawks...

Others also worry about what the X-37 is for even if you don't... ;)
Nope, I don't think I will. It is obvious from the context of all I have written on this so you should think back.I realize what you define as 'conveniently.' Similarly, I'm sure you understand that I disagree with your definition. I asked the question as a suggestive you might want to rethink that. I am not surprised that you do not.
Well I should hope so. That is what they get paid for. But the Navy has decided to count hospital ships and PCs as battle force ships so maybe sometimes they don't do so well.That's domestic politics for you... :D

The Navy didn't decide to do that. The Administration, the SecDef and SecNav decided to do that. Totally different thing. A really rather unimportant thing other than as political fodder. Happens after every war. This is probably your first post war interlude. It'll be my fifth. They get easier to take as they go along. :rolleyes:
We'll see. I hope I am wrong.We indeed will. Perhaps.

Ken White
04-19-2012, 03:35 AM
I figured that the Japanese were checked at Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal in '42. ... This ship counting is minor except to show that we checked the Japanese with what we had ordered prior to '39...Coral Sea was a strategic victory but a tactical defeat and it cost the Navy dearly. Not only was Lexington lost but Yorktown was severely damaged and thus barely made it to Midway in June. Midway was a near run thing and only our possession of their code and a little luck helped make it a win -- it was a turning point, no question but it did not stop the Japanese. That only occurred a year or more later as we reached parity in strength then moved ahead. Guadalcanal ended in February, 1943. So I'll stick with 43 as the year we really got serious -- or started getting it right.

That was also the year the 1939 program started making itself felt. So yeah, we held, to an extent, the Japaneses with pre '39 ships but we lost a bunch of 'em. We could not have won without all of them.

Minor point, both the North Carolina and Washington, a class of two were indeed pre '39 ships -- but both were commissioned in 1941 and South Dakota, a '39 program ship wasn't until '42 as I mentioned and as were all her three sisters; their better and bigger sisters, the six ship Iowa class were in the 1940 program and hit the fleet in '43.
We did it with ships we acquired before the need became obviously critical.We did it with what was available at the time and the cost was heavy due to the lesser capabilities and small numbers. We do not have to do that today for a number of reasons...

You wrote in reply to Dayuhan:
... And one of the objects, I would guess, of our side would be to keep them from interfering with the sea lanes to Japan and other places. If Taiwan was not able to be used by the PLAN, it would be that much harder for them to do that.Questionable assertion on several counts. Japan could be easily reached from the North and North East, to include from Russia as well as the great circle from Canada or the US and the ability of others to interfere with that is minimal. For that matter, Qingdao and the Shantung Peninsula and the whole coast down to Shanghai are all much closer to Japan. Give them Taiwan and figure their radius of effective action and sea lanes to Japan are not significantly impacted; long detours in wartime are common.
Also, the US would absolutely not want to re-run WWII. That is why you wouldn't want to lose that island, and those islands in the first place. So you wouldn't have to.Even if you you didn't have those Islands, you wouldn't want to or have to re run WW II though you seem determined to believe that's the only option... :wry:

China gets no significant advantage from holding Taiwan, we acquire major disadvantages by trying to hold it. I think you missed part of Dayuhan's question. I'll re-post part of it but in reverse order:

"In the unlikely event that it's ever necessary to fight China, why would we fight them where they are strongest?"

"...why the US would need or want to rerun WW2, sail into areas where China has support from land-based aircraft and missiles, and fight there?"

Indeed. Sail in or stay in...

Ray
04-19-2012, 07:19 AM
Ken White,

Like it or not, the issue is simple. The USA is no pushover to hand over its pristine position to anyone, least of all a Johnny Come Lately. Do you really feel that US is a weak and limp state and masquerading to be a superpower? What is a superpower? Leaving world dominance to others when it has worked hard to achieve that place?

Of course, there will be the peaceniks who would go crackers to propagate the idea that there must be peace at all cost. Noble thoughts, but then Neville Chamberlain could never do down the ignominy to which he sunk, all because he, too, thought peace could be bought at all costs, including surrendering the right to defend one’s national interests.

What are US national and strategic interests?

Is it to promote China to become an economic and military giant, capable of challenging the US supremacy?

If so, why is the US not hunkering down on Mainland US and not undertaking military and quasi military forays around the world including the South China Seas, or having military bases all over the world including ‘insignificant atolls and islands', more so, when its own economic health is not all that bright? There has to be some Method in the Madness. What is it?

On the issue of CBG being redundant and nuclear submarine being the order of the day, it is worth having a look at the US Air Sea Battle concept. Is that concept the creation of the daft? I am sure that the US military is not staffed by people who do not know their job and responsibilities, and are those out here better qualified and equipped?

No, it is not that I am saying those who are out here giving their valued opinion on the US military and strategies are not competent. Indeed they are, but it is confusing for a non American to be told that indeed the US military and its national planning infrastructure is in the hands of novices and totally clueless!

Not a comforting thought I will say, given that India and US have 'converging' views on many issues. Can't say yes to incompetence, can we, even if we are the 'little guys'?

Further, it is condescending to feel that the US is fighting 'the little guys’ wars.

Am I to understand that the US is overwhelmed with Christian compassion and that the US has no strategic or national interests in doing what the US is doing? That line of thought I would find as steeped in naivety!

Let us for once agree that the US should allow China its space and allow China to become an economic and military superpower and extend its influence to Central Asian Countries and its oilfields, usurp all the natural resources including Oil in the South China Seas, become the predominant voice in US’ backyard of South America and Mexico, rule the waves in the Indian Ocean to include the Straits of Hormuz through which maximum of world’s oil resources pass ( daily oil flow of almost 17 million barrels in 2011) and so on.

I am sure the pacifists would agree that it is all hunky dory to allow China to be the head honcho!

But where does it place the US, the superpower of the world?

Am I do understand it is kosher for the US to abdicate its position to China. If so, I have nothing more to say!


**************


In so far as blaming Kennedys for Vietnam, it is understandable. Vietnam bruised the ego. The same ego that you feel should be canned and refrigerated so as to allow China to replace the US as a world power.

Let us look at WWII that is such a triumph for the US.

What if the US lost WW II?

Would you still feel that Roosevelt was a great chap?

All loves a winner.

Victory has many fathers, Defeat is an orphan!

Here is what the peaceniks have to say of Roosevelt. Just like what you feel about the US entering in War in Vietnam.

President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War in Europe:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

One cannot please all!

Observe the one time darling of the US - George Bush!

He is the reason why the war hero John McCain lost! John McCain had all the qualifications to have won the election. Bush's policy that only created body bags ruined his prospects. Bring the boys back was the cry. Why? Because US is not a Nation that likes to be defeated. It is worse when ragtag chaps make life and war miserable!

The American psychology does not encourage a loser or be with the losing side!

If Vietnam was won, you would have been cheering for the Kennedys.

All the world loves a Winner!

Dayuhan
04-19-2012, 08:08 AM
Also, the US would absolutely not want to re-run WWII. That is why you wouldn't want to lose that island, and those islands in the first place. So you wouldn't have to.

The US can't "lose" those islands, because the US hasn't got them, and you can't lose something you don't have.

You seem to be assuming that the Chinese will inevitably boil forth from their borders in an effort to conquer everything in sight, along the lines of imperial Japan. What's the basis for that assumption? More important, what would you have the US do about it, given the real-world economic and domestic political constraints.

Seems to me that we were never going to be the only major power out there forever. China's rise was not of our making, and there's not much if anything that we could have done or can do to stop it. They've been successful. Like most successful nations they're making their presence felt. Is that the end of the world, or is it something that can be adjusted to and managed?

It seems a bit premature to pretend that China is challenging ther US for global dominance. What they're doing is asserting military parity in waters in close proximity to their mainland. Not the same thing.

Also recall that the biggest challenges and constraints China faces are internal, not external.

Again, when all the terror is done and the garments are rent and we've pulled our hair out in woe over the possibility of having a peer competitor in one part of the world... what would you have us do about it?


Let us for once agree that the US should allow China its space and allow China to become an economic and military superpower and extend its influence to Central Asian Countries and its oilfields, usurp all the natural resources including Oil in the South China Seas, become the predominant voice in US’ backyard of South America and Mexico, rule the waves in the Indian Ocean to include the Straits of Hormuz through which maximum of world’s oil resources pass ( daily oil flow of almost 17 million barrels in 2011) and so on.

How did any of that come into the discussion?

China has staked out its space - by achieving a degree of economic success - and that's not for the US to allow or disallow. The US doesn't decide who gets to do business or who's allowed to build ships. The world changes; old actors diminish, new ones rise. You deal with the changes as they come... hopefully without hysteria, though there's been a fair share of that around here.

Ray
04-19-2012, 08:40 AM
How did any of that come into the discussion?

You missed it?

Wasn't convenient?

This is the first time I am told that strategy is area/Nation centric and is not complementary to the world scenario.

I am still learning.

Thanks!

True US cannot allow or disallow.

But US actions seems to work at some places!

Odd,right?

Should we join you, Ken White and Bob's World and say - Down with Dollar Imperialism?!!!!!


It seems a bit premature to pretend that China is challenging ther US for global dominance.

Correct!

China is merely establishing her God given rights.

The US and the neighbours are being paranoiac! ;)

Silly chaps!

Ray
04-19-2012, 09:36 AM
Also recall that the biggest challenges and constraints China faces are internal, not external.


One knows nothing about China's biggest challenges and constraints that are external, but everything about is internal threats and challenges!! :eek:

That is rich, given the way China conducts itself! Totally secretive about its internal affairs!

It is good to have non Chinese batting for China!

Gives a very balanced view!

Hopefully there are Chinese who reciprocate.

Backword seems to not agree!

He has gone off the radar clutter!

Ray
04-19-2012, 09:48 AM
Seems to me that we were never going to be the only major power out there forever.

What makes you feel so?


Given up the Ghost?

Thrown in the towel?

Is that what is the USA?

Land of losers?

I am yet to get that impression!

Dayuhan
04-19-2012, 09:52 AM
You missed it?

Wasn't convenient?

I haven't noticed any of this going on...


...become the predominant voice in US’ backyard of South America and Mexico, rule the waves in the Indian Ocean to include the Straits of Hormuz through which maximum of world’s oil resources pass

It all just seems overdramatized and exaggerated and... honestly, a bit hysterical. We need to respond to what China does, to the extent that response is required, not panic over remote doomsday scenarios.


Backword seems to not agree!

He has gone off the radar clutter!

He probably thought it cluttered, a reasonable conclusion.

Backwards Observer
04-19-2012, 10:01 AM
To some extent I agree with Ray, the estimable gentleman from Calcutta. There are indications that India is a borderline failed state, and without serious involvement by the US risks a descent into further volatility in an already highly unstable region. Such a descent might serve to embolden nationalistic elements in neighbouring countries who seek to capitalize on such turmoil.


Once a beacon of integrity, India's military is in disarray

Indians wearied by a litany of corruption scandals and failures of government in recent years have been able to take comfort in the fact that one national institution – the armed forces – remained unbesmirched, its reputation for efficiency and integrity intact.

No longer. Leaked secret memos, million-dollar bribe allegations, a “near-coup experience” and a bizarre dispute over the army chief’s birthday have badly tarnished the image of the 1.3 million-member fighting force that controls nuclear weapons in a volatile region.

[...]

The pattern is such that the general’s personal motivations have emerged as the leading theory to explain all of the recent developments. Gen. Singh is a distinguished veteran of India’s 1971 war with Pakistan and was a stalwart but unremarkable figure until recently. But to many observers, it seems that having won the top job, he is loathe to leave it.

“He’s lost the plot in the last year,” said Maj.-Gen. Mehta. “This is the last ditch effort of a man who is saying ‘I haven’t got what I wanted’ – the act of a man in despair, saying ‘if I’m going down why don’t I take a few others down with me.’”

Once a beacon of integrity, India's military is in disarray. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/once-a-beacon-of-integrity-indias-military-is-in-disarray/article2407054/singlepage/#articlecontent) - The Globe and Mail - April 18, 2012

...

On the positive side, military bilateralism between China and India suggests that China is now taking the China threat seriously and is co-operating with India on the containment of China:


India climbdown may help China border dispute

Predictions of a looming Sino-Indian war were "utter nonsense", Gen Singh said.

"I must tell these futurologists and experts to stop this nonsense of predicting a Indo-China war, first in 2010, then in 2012 and now in 2020. They will be proved wrong as we will not fight. We are competitors, not rivals," he said.

"These experts have no ground knowledge, they don't know that Chinese and Indian soldiers actually play volleyball on the borders.

"We have plans for extensive military-to-military interactions between the two countries," Gen Singh told the conference. "That includes joint military exercises."

He said India will nevertheless not compromise on its military preparedness.

India climbdown may help China border dispute (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17738147) - BBC - April 17, 2012.

Ken White
04-19-2012, 01:21 PM
Like it or not, the issue is simple.
...
What are US national and strategic interests?
...
Am I do understand it is kosher for the US to abdicate its position to China. If so, I have nothing more to say!I understand your interest and possible goals in all that but suggest the issues -- there are many -- are not simple; our interests are many and varied and may not always coincide with the desires of others -- yourself, for example... -- and I for one have not and am not suggesting the US abdicate anything.
In so far as blaming Kennedys for Vietnam, it is understandable. Vietnam bruised the ego. The same ego that you feel should be canned and refrigerated so as to allow China to replace the US as a world power.I spent over two years fighting in that fiasco -- it was a dumb war (all wars are dumb, that one was particularly so) and I can assure you my ego isn't bruised one little bit. I do not blame the Kennedys for the war, though I may have used that word because others did, I simply assert that they voluntarily threw us into it for reasons of domestic politics and that was not wise. Nor are the Kennedy's responsible for the fact that the Army did not fight Viet Nam well or properly.
Let us look at WWII that is such a triumph for the US...What if the US lost WW II?...Would you still feel that Roosevelt was a great chap?I have bad news for you -- I don't think Roosevelt was a great Chap -- I don't think any politician is great in any sense. Most are sort of slimy and dishonest; Roosevelt was no exception. He had very little to do with the winning of WW II, though he had a great deal to do with getting us into it and then using it to stick it to the UK and France.
If Vietnam was won, you would have been cheering for the Kennedys.No, I would not. No more than I cheered Bush (who I do give credit for doing something that needed to be done; not his fault his Army screwed it up...) and I think McCain is dumber than a box of rocks.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about the politics involved and crass stupidity.

All of which has little or nothing to do with the South China Sea -- except that we can be stupid about it as some advocate, or not. I simply hope that the latter is true. I have no problem with violence, all for it in fact and I am not afraid that China is too big or something along that line. I simply say if one is going to disagree, it should be on a rational basis; if one is going to fight, go for it but do not do that stupidly and do not do it with half hearted measures. Do it right...

Ray
04-19-2012, 04:22 PM
I am glad the report of Indian Army in disarray brought cheer to the honourable Chinese friend. Understandable.

However, do permit me to demolish the misplaced thought (to put it politely) . I will not take recourse, by rubbishing it perfunctorily as ‘unreliable/ untrustworthy’ and instead prove that the so called ‘disarray’ is a figment of imagination and journalistic voyeurism!


Leaked secret memos, million-dollar bribe allegations, a “near-coup experience” and a bizarre dispute over the army chief’s birthday have badly tarnished the image of the 1.3 million-member fighting force that controls nuclear weapons in a volatile region.


Leaked Secret Memo. If one had researched one would have seen that it was not the army that leaked the so called secret memo. It is said that it was from other sources. This so called ‘secret memo’ was on the critical deficiencies of the Army. It is well known that the ‘Arms Lobby’ are angered over the new procedures adopted by the Govt to ensure that the ‘bribes’ can no longer be paid to ‘influence’ an arms deal. Therefore, there is a strong suspicion that the Arms Lobby which is known to be well entrenched played its role in leaking the memo.

A word about the importance of Arms Deals in India. In spite of legitimate lobbying, to include by the US President and the Ambassador for the MMRCA deal of US$16.36 billion, which all felt that de facto will be in favour of the US, India selected the French Rafale! The MMRCA deal was so hotly contested that the very next day (IIRC), the US Ambassador to India resigned for ‘personal reasons’. Imagine this – personal reasons happened overnight! That is how Indian Arms deals become a big deal!

The deals are so important to foreign countries that apart from legitimate lobbying by foreign Govts, there are in addition a whole lot of shady and sleazy arms lobbyists who make a killing and would give an arm and a leg to swing the deal in favour of the company they represent!

Million Dollar Bribes. If one knew how the arms are bought by India, one would realise that that it is not the Army that buys the Arms. They (Army) merely undertake trials and opines which of the weapons selected for trials is ideal for the Army’s requirement. It is the Price Negotiation Committee which decides what is to be bought and in which there is also political considerations cranked in. In that Committee, the Military plays no part!

’Near Coup’ Experience . This is a laugh. Imagine two battalions are being used to topple a Govt! Do people think that the Indian Govt is a pack of cards?

It is journalistic imagery and sensationalism that converts a routine exercise into a ‘near coup’.

That apart, why should two battalions from different and far away stations be brought in to undertake a coup, when two Brigades are station in Delhi itself with a whole Division 40 minutes away from Delhi?

In addition, there were contingents of Infantry, tank units, mechanised units, artillery units, Air Defence artillery unit, Special Forces and a whole lot of others with their equipment already stationed for the Army Day and also for the Republic Day parade? A total of 26,000 personnel!

Therefore, it is not the Indian Army in disarray, but the journalist’s logic!

As far as the Chief’s age controversy, it is an error of bookkeeping between two branches of the Army, as also some political skulduggery so that the political favourite can be promoted without the Chief upsetting the apple cart.

Maj Gen Mehta is a Govt front since his current job (as retired officer) is at the dispensation of the Govt. One would hardly expect him to forsake his bread and butter. His brother is an Editor of an important national magazine that is pro Govt!

If one had observed the TV discussion on this issue, where retired ranking military officers participated, they all, without exception, batted for Gen VK Singh.

On Gen VK Singh's statement on India and China, no serving Chief will say anything that is contrary to the official Govt view. If he does, he will summarily be dismissed!

China may try as it might to disarm India with its ‘charm’, but it is as fickle as the wind and it cannot be taken seriously. It is India's experience that China speaks from both sides of its mouth, as the American saying goes!

That is why India today successfully launched her ICBM Agni V that can reach all parts of China with multiple warheads!

Speak softly, but carry a big stick!

If the US wishes to play its role in this region, there is no reason for India to object. Both are on the same page, so to say!

It is so amusing to read that our honourable Chinese gentleman classifies India as a borderline failed state! Thank the Lord that he showed kindness in not classifying it as a breadbasket case requiring propping up by western nations with food and money!

As the quote goes - A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a little want of knowledge is also a dangerous thing.

carl
04-19-2012, 08:32 PM
Coral Sea was a strategic victory but a tactical defeat and it cost the Navy dearly. Not only was Lexington lost but Yorktown was severely damaged and thus barely made it to Midway in June. Midway was a near run thing and only our possession of their code and a little luck helped make it a win -- it was a turning point, no question but it did not stop the Japanese. That only occurred a year or more later as we reached parity in strength then moved ahead. Guadalcanal ended in February, 1943. So I'll stick with 43 as the year we really got serious -- or started getting it right.

That was also the year the 1939 program started making itself felt. So yeah, we held, to an extent, the Japaneses with pre '39 ships but we lost a bunch of 'em. We could not have won without all of them.

Minor point, both the North Carolina and Washington, a class of two were indeed pre '39 ships -- but both were commissioned in 1941 and South Dakota, a '39 program ship wasn't until '42 as I mentioned and as were all her three sisters; their better and bigger sisters, the six ship Iowa class were in the 1940 program and hit the fleet in '43.We did it with what was available at the time and the cost was heavy due to the lesser capabilities and small numbers. We do not have to do that today for a number of reasons...

Yes, so to sum up, we checked the Japanese with ships that were acquired before the need became obviously critical.


You wrote in reply to Dayuhan:Questionable assertion on several counts. Japan could be easily reached from the North and North East, to include from Russia as well as the great circle from Canada or the US and the ability of others to interfere with that is minimal. For that matter, Qingdao and the Shantung Peninsula and the whole coast down to Shanghai are all much closer to Japan. Give them Taiwan and figure their radius of effective action and sea lanes to Japan are not significantly impacted; long detours in wartime are common.Even if you you didn't have those Islands, you wouldn't want to or have to re run WW II though you seem determined to believe that's the only option... :wry:

Not questionable. Look at the map. Ability to interfere with convoys going through the North Pacific to Japan is minimal eh. I thought you said range isn't that important to nuke subs, which they have. Those boats could get there. The trick is to make it harder for them. That is why barrier islands are nice to have.

The whole coast down to Shanghai is blocked by Japan and Korea. That is why Japan is called a barrier island. Subs can't sail through it. Keep Taiwan from them and their radius of action is affected and they have to contend with a land mass that can base forces of various kinds that will try to kill them as they make the passage. Long detours in war are common and are always a disadvantage to those who have to make them. Costs time, which is important. Conversely, they are always an advantage to those who force the enemy to have to make them.


Even if you you didn't have those Islands, you wouldn't want to or have to re run WW II though you seem determined to believe that's the only option...

You're right. If we lost the first line of barrier islands (Dayuhan, I know we don't own those islands but you know what I mean your protestations about semantics to the contrary), Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, the game would be over anyway. We would have to get good at groveling. If we lost Taiwan, we would never get it back and keeping the others would be very hard. So that is why I think it wise that they stay on our side.

I seems to be determined to be determined about all sorts of things, in your eyes, that I ain't actually determined about.:wry:


China gets no significant advantage from holding Taiwan, we acquire major disadvantages by trying to hold it.

They do get significant advantage and we lose significant advantage. See all I've written before. We do accrue the risk of making a totalitarian police state cross with us. We have a history of doing that.


I think you missed part of Dayuhan's question. I'll re-post part of it but in reverse order:

"In the unlikely event that it's ever necessary to fight China, why would we fight them where they are strongest?"

"...why the US would need or want to rerun WW2, sail into areas where China has support from land-based aircraft and missiles, and fight there?"

Asked and answered. I didn't miss a thing.

carl
04-19-2012, 09:24 PM
THOSE would be Taiwan, the Philippines (and even Guam...) -- your outer barrier...That could be my fault for a lack of specificity, I guess...Or maybe not...As emphasized, I wrote about CBGs and surface warships -- Committing them to major action in a high intensity war ala WW II is likely to have the same result the initial commitment it then did -- loss of half the fleet. So I asked why would one make such a dumb commitment. If one does not, then one does not need bases 'conveniently' located to the conflict zone.Not what I wrote but I can accept that as often if not always correct.

Ok, good. We agree that islands and land bases are useful in a general sense, sometimes more, sometimes less.


I'd design a force that didn't need them, at least as currently used (a more than 30-40 year old concept, more like 3-4,000...) but I'm not in charge and we have what we have.

What would this force consist of? How would you do it?


Your basis for those conclusions is? I'm particularly interested in your rationale for the first statement as that seems to be the crux of your argument. You can again elect not to answer but that assertion is not supported by any evidence of which I have knowledge. In fact all those statements appear to be assumptions on your part that have no basis other than whimsy.

How do I conclude that if we lose those barrier islands we will never take them back? Well let's confine it to Taiwan for simplicity's sake. If the PLA was ensconced on Taiwan, they could re-enforce from across the Taiwan Strait. Not very far. We would have to come over from North America. That is real far. Nothing whimsical about looking at the map and figuring that with economy's that are getting to be of similar strength, you can't dislodge somebody from an island only a Taiwan Straits away from the main base by mounting an attack across the breadth of the Pacific.


Which is where we now are and then some; thus my suggestion it might be wise to eschew 30-40 year old ideas.

Only if they don't still make sense. Forrest was to reputed to have said "Keep up the scare". Made sense 4X30-40 years ago. Still does.


...the SSGN with 154 Tomahawks is unsettling to a lot of folks if not to you.

The Navy wanted to develop high explosive warheads to replace the nuclear warheads on some Trident missiles back in '03. Congress denied it -- but now, they are more receptive and HE Warhead Tridents will be even more worrisome than Tomahawks...

154 Tomahawks means 154 1,000 pound warheads. That will worry Libya and Argentina. Red China would laugh at the notion that 154,000 pounds of warheads is going to phase them at all. That is a continental power we're talking about. And once those missiles were used, back to base the sub would have to go to reload. The farther away the base, the longer that would take.

HE Tridents? Congress was wise. That would have been a real expensive way to miss.


Others also worry about what the X-37 is for even if you don't... ;)

Buck Rogers in my view. Looks cool though and will probably show up on the next iteration of "24".


I realize what you define as 'conveniently.' Similarly, I'm sure you understand that I disagree with your definition. I asked the question as a suggestive you might want to rethink that.

Then why did you ask? I already thought about it.


The Navy didn't decide to do that. The Administration, the SecDef and SecNav decided to do that. Totally different thing. A really rather unimportant thing other than as political fodder. Happens after every war. This is probably your first post war interlude.

I'll concede that, though I am older than you believe.

Ken White
04-19-2012, 09:37 PM
Yes, so to sum up, we checked the Japanese with ships that were acquired before the need became obviously critical.Okay, checked and those that arrived in about 1943 were able to move from checked to skunked. Got it.
I thought you said range isn't that important to nuke subs, which they have. Those boats could get there.[quote]How many do they have, how well do they work, how good are the crews? :rolleyes:[quote] The trick is to make it harder for them. That is why barrier islands are nice to have.A big pot of money is nice to have; most of us get by without one.
The whole coast down to Shanghai is blocked by Japan and Korea. That is why Japan is called a barrier island.Uh, okay -- what do you call Korea? I don't recall Japan being considered as on of those barrier islands in this discussion, I acknowledge that it could be so considered but then so could Australia... :rolleyes:
If we lost the first line of barrier islands... Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, the game would be over anyway. We would have to get good at groveling. You have a rationale for all that or is it just a thought?
I seems to be determined to be determined about all sorts of things, in your eyes, that I ain't actually determined about.:wry:Perhaps. Since you mention it, you seem to be determined to take things as personal attacks when none is intended...
They do get significant advantage and we lose significant advantage. See all I've written before. We do accrue the risk of making a totalitarian police state cross with us. We have a history of doing that.I've read most of what you've written on this topic and warfighting in general and disagree with about all of it. Somehow, "the risk of making a totalitarian police state cross with us.' is not going to keep me awake at night. Yeah, we have a history of doing that. How did that work out for them? :wry:
Asked and answered. I didn't miss a thing.Mmm, I didn't see an answer unless you're talking about Post 306 where you stated some opinions that are at very least arguable. He may accept it as an asnwer, but IMO, you just keep saying the same thing -- we can't leave...

Dayuhan
04-19-2012, 10:11 PM
You're right. If we lost the first line of barrier islands (Dayuhan, I know we don't own those islands but you know what I mean your protestations about semantics to the contrary), Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, the game would be over anyway. We would have to get good at groveling.

I don't think it's just semantics. It betrays an underlying assumption that those places must either be "ours" or "theirs".

Do you really think the Chinese intend to invade Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines?

Even in the very unlikely event that the Chinese did occupy all three, why would the US have to grovel? What's there that we need? It would suck for the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Filipinos, and it would certainly suck for me (not that I'm specially worried about it) but Americans could just sit back and watch the Chinese choke on trying to hold what they'd taken. Occupation is a pain in the a$$.

carl
04-20-2012, 12:54 AM
How many do they have, how well do they work, how good are the crews? :rolleyes:

Well according to Wiki, they have 58 attack boats, including six nukes. Some of those conventional boats are Kilos. Don't know the answers to how well they work nor how good the crews are. They don't seem eager to convey that information. It would be prudent I think to plan on their knowing what they are doing.


Uh, okay -- what do you call Korea? I don't recall Japan being considered as on of those barrier islands in this discussion, I acknowledge that it could be so considered but then so could Australia... :rolleyes:

Korea is a barrier peninsula, which is even better as a barrier than an island. My failure about Japan. I figured it is off mainland China and not far away. Its physical configuration is ideal for a barrier and it is in the first island chain as noted in the Economist article mentioned by Ray. So I just naturally included it. Australia is kind of remote to be much of a barrier to anyplace but Tasmania.


You have a rationale for all that or is it just a thought?

Well I figure it this way. There is a good chance we would let Taiwan be taken without a fight. But little chance we would let Japan and the Philippines be taken without a fight (Dayuhan, before you say anything, this is a what if). So if those two places were taken it would mean there had been a big fight and we had lost. Then would start the groveling unless we wanted to lose other places too.


Since you mention it, you seem to be determined to take things as personal attacks when none is intended...

Me? No, I see generosity and tolerance everywhere I look.


I've read most of what you've written on this topic and warfighting in general and disagree with about all of it. Somehow, "the risk of making a totalitarian police state cross with us.' is not going to keep me awake at night. Yeah, we have a history of doing that. How did that work out for them? :wry:

Well as far as the almost total disagreement goes, either I am about always wrong, which isn't so. You are about always wrong, which isn't so. Or something else that I can't think of. (Feel free to use any of those as a straight line.)

Didn't work out well for them at all. I tried to imply that with the sentence structure, but failed. I'll have to improve my sentence structure.

carl
04-20-2012, 01:07 AM
I don't think it's just semantics. It betrays an underlying assumption that those places must either be "ours" or "theirs".

In the sense that they can't use them and we can if need be; either they are ours or theirs. If you see anything beyond that, you see what you see.


Do you really think the Chinese intend to invade Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines?

Taiwan, they mean to have it eventually. I figure invasion if they have to. As far as the other two, it was a hypothetical.


Even in the very unlikely event that the Chinese did occupy all three, why would the US have to grovel? What's there that we need? It would suck for the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Filipinos, and it would certainly suck for me (not that I'm specially worried about it) but Americans could just sit back and watch the Chinese choke on trying to hold what they'd taken. Occupation is a pain in the a$$.

As I told Ken, if we lost Japan and the Philippines, it would be because we had lost a big fight and lost it big, like the Japanese lost big in WWII. We had better damn well grovel or we would lose a lot more since, if we lost as big as the Japanese in WWII, there wouldn't be a darn thing we could do to stop them from taking anything at all they pleased.

What is there in Japan we need? Nothing at all. Nothing.

I doubt we would take much satisfaction in watching Red Chinese administrative problems right after we had been shattered militarily.

Ken White
04-20-2012, 01:20 AM
What would this force consist of? How would you do it?More submarines, fewer surface ships, smaller carriers and more of them -- all with longer legs and carrying fewer birds, more long range aircraft, AF and Navy, very stealthy insertion and extraction capability, land ,sea and air. The technology for all that has been experimented with since the 40s; we can build it, we have elected not to have it due to conservative leadership and congressional pressure to avoid excessive military capability. Congress does not want the Armed Forces to be too capable...
If the PLA was ensconced on Taiwan, they could re-enforce from across the Taiwan Strait. Not very far. We would have to come over from North America.Exactly. That's why Taiwan should be conceded to them; they accrue no real advantage from its possession, we accrue a major military problem by trying to hold it when possession would be nice but is far from imperative and it is in range of almost all their systems.

We can afford to trade space and time, they cannot -- unless we stupidly provide them a target within their capability.
Only if they don't still make sense. Forrest was to reputed to have said "Keep up the scare". Made sense 4X30-40 years ago. Still does.Forrest's horses made sense 4X30-40 years ago...

Dien Bien Phu made no sense at 2X30 years ago. Nor did Wake Island almost 2X40 years ago. They still don't.

That the 'scare' exists today is evidenced by their rushed space program and some of their other things you've cited. With all their problems, they wouldn't be spending that money unless they were worried. ;)
154 Tomahawks means 154 1,000 pound warheads.That's one boat. There are three other SSGNs (with almost certainly more on the way) plus a number of other Subs that can carry fewer. As the Actress said to the Bishop, it's not what you have, it's how you use it...:D
The farther away the base, the longer that would take.Obviously, so the trick is to get as close as one can while staying slightly out of the opponents reach -- that idea's even older than Forrest.
HE Tridents? Congress was wise. That would have been a real expensive way to miss.Congress has never been wise in my lifetime. Tridents have a fair CEP. ;)
Buck Rogers in my view. Looks cool though and will probably show up on the next iteration of "24".Dunno, never really watched the Buck Rogers shorts and have never watched '24.' However, if one is wedded to the Cavalry and to island hopping, I can understand that it might be too futuristic. :D
Then why did you ask? I already thought about it.Because the fact that you might have given it serious thought was and is not obvious. This isn't a good medium for determining nuance or who might be arguing just for the sake of arguing and stating positions that make no sense to most others just to get a controversy going.
I'll concede that, though I am older than you believe.As you don't know what I believe, that's a sorta questionable statement.

This has gone on to the point of no return. I think we've crossed the line between admirable persistence and obtuse stubbornness. So I'll leave the floor to you with one thought:

Defense is important but it will not win the contest. Forrest knew that...

carl
04-20-2012, 02:23 AM
Exactly. That's why Taiwan should be conceded to them; they accrue no real advantage from its possession, we accrue a major military problem by trying to hold it when possession would be nice but is far from imperative and it is in range of almost all their systems.

I see it just the opposite.


We can afford to trade space and time, they cannot -- unless we stupidly provide them a target within their capability.


I am not sure space vs. time works in sea fighting like it does in land fighting. You can't fall back to the next line of trenches.


That's one boat. There are three other SSGNs (with almost certainly more on the way) plus a number of other Subs that can carry fewer. As the Actress said to the Bishop, it's not what you have, it's how you use it...:D

That still makes the rough equivalent of 77 2,000 pound JDAMs per boat, or 308 for all four. That isn't very many if you are trying to impress a continental power, almost none. Perfect targeting would make a big difference though.


Tridents have a fair CEP. ;)

That is not the problem. The problem would be figuring out what to aim at and exactly what you are aiming at, at ICBM ranges.


Because the fact that you might have given it serious thought was and is not obvious. This isn't a good medium for determining nuance or who might be arguing just for the sake of arguing and stating positions that make no sense to most others just to get a controversy going.

I have given it serious thought. Despite that, or because of that, I still disagree with you.


As you don't know what I believe, that's a sorta questionable statement.

Well, no, you said "This is probably your first post war interlude." It isn't. So I just thought it reasonable to think you believed me younger than I am.


This has gone on to the point of no return. I think we've crossed the line between admirable persistence and obtuse stubbornness. So I'll leave the floor to you with one thought:

Defense is important but it will not win the contest. Forrest knew that...

Ok.

Ray
04-20-2012, 03:57 AM
U.S. cruise missile base in Guam as a major threat to China
http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/24525

I am not too sure about how one rates this on the reliability scale.

Pentagon 'Hedge' Strategy Targets China
http://www.rense.com/general70/penet.htm

From Washington Times.

Pentagon Moves Cruise Missiles To Guam
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-00d.html

Ray
04-20-2012, 04:31 AM
Moderator's Note

This item has been posted before on the main thread on China as a Superpower and it would be appropriate to comment there:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4366(ends).

This would indeed indicate that there are internal problems within China as some claimed.

Rotting From Within
Investigating the massive corruption of the Chinese military.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/16/rotting_from_within?page=full


How far this would be correct, one wonders.

slapout9
04-20-2012, 07:27 AM
link to NYT article and MSNBC video of India's "China Killer" long range ICBM nuclear missille



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47111582/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

Dayuhan
04-20-2012, 09:58 AM
In the sense that they can't use them and we can if need be; either they are ours or theirs.

And if a given party prefers to be used by neither?


As far as the other two, it was a hypothetical.

Very hypothetical indeed.

Ken White
04-20-2012, 03:07 PM
are a master of understatement...

carl
04-20-2012, 05:32 PM
And if a given party prefers to be used by neither?

That may not be one of the choices available. And it seems, most of the parties have picked a side already.

JMA
04-20-2012, 07:50 PM
Well as far as the almost total disagreement goes, either I am about always wrong, which isn't so. You are about always wrong, which isn't so. Or something else that I can't think of. (Feel free to use any of those as a straight line.)

Carl, for what it's worth I believe Ken is playing devils advocate to help you shape your argument.

Dayuhan
04-20-2012, 11:14 PM
That may not be one of the choices available. And it seems, most of the parties have picked a side already.

Who says there are only two sides?

You seem to there's some epic battle between China and the US for dominance of the Pacific, and thus the world, and that all others must choose one side or the other. I'm not sure that view is widely shared around the Pacific.

carl
04-20-2012, 11:36 PM
Dayuhan:

Maybe you are entirely right. Maybe nothing at all is shaping up. But in the event, sides will be chosen, and there will be only two. It looks to me as if Vietnam at least has chosen one. In the event, sides will have to be chosen if the party is to have any say at all in its fate.

Speaking of Vietnam, I wonder if they are the ones who will prove to be a catalyst. The don't seem to like China much and their history indicates that they don't much like being messed with.

Dayuhan
04-21-2012, 04:43 AM
Maybe you are entirely right. Maybe nothing at all is shaping up.

Something's always shaping up, but assumptions about what it's going to be are likely to be wrong.


But in the event, sides will be chosen, and there will be only two.

That would depend on the event. I suspect that if the US and China ever mixed it up a lot of countries in the region will try to stay neutral and out of it to the greatest degree possible... though I think this a most unlikely eventuality. As I've said before, I think the most probable conflict scenario in the medium/long term involving China would be China/Russia.


It looks to me as if Vietnam at least has chosen one. In the event, sides will have to be chosen if the party is to have any say at all in its fate.

The Vietnamese have chosen their own side, and it's certainly not our side. They'll work with us as long as and to the extent that they think it useful for them... as you'd expect.

Again, I think the idea that "sides will have to be chosen" is built around a fairly extreme level of assumption about the future.


Speaking of Vietnam, I wonder if they are the ones who will prove to be a catalyst. The don't seem to like China much and their history indicates that they don't much like being messed with.

A catalyst for what? I'd expect a lot of jostling there, but the Vietnamese don't want to fight the Chinese and vice versa.

Again, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that a major military confrontation between China is inevitable or even likely.

Ray
04-21-2012, 05:16 PM
China Military Paper Warns of Armed Confrontation Over Seas
Published: Saturday, 21 Apr 2012 |

China's top military newspaper warned the United States on Saturday that U.S.-Philippine military exercises have fanned risks of armed confrontation over the disputed South China Sea.

The commentary in China's Liberation Army Daily falls short of a formal government statement, but marks the harshest high-level warning yet from Beijing about tensions with the Philippines over disputed seas where both countries have recently sent ships to assert their claims.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47125632


What does one make of it?

Will the US back down?

Ray
04-21-2012, 06:58 PM
U.S. plans for larger presence in Pacific

The military’s top officer in the Pacific, Adm. Samuel Locklear, describes the new focus as “back to the Pacific,” alluding to long-standing U.S. military presence and partnerships with Pacific Rim nations dating back before World War II.

In practice, it means more Navy ships in the region, along with more Marines and soldiers, Locklear told an audience of service members April 12 at Yokota Air Base, Japan. “What you should expect from the future is an enduring presence in this part of the world that is properly shaped for the coming century,” said Locklear, a former Pacific Fleet commander who in March took the helm of Hawaii-based U.S. Pacific Command.

Among his top missions is “making this theater a priority for the long run,” he said. “We have a joint force that, for the Pacific, has been misshapen. So we have to reshape it for the contingencies that we have here.”...

The Navy already has put more ships and submarines in Hawaii and Guam and the first littoral combat ships in San Diego, ahead of plans to permanently deploy more of the new ships to Singapore. Mabus recently returned from a trip to the region, the latest in a series of visits designed to find new ways to insert U.S. ships and troops into places such as Australia and the Philippines.

Aside from North Korea, the increased U.S. presence is designed to counter China’s growing military and its more assertive posture toward its neighbors. Nowhere is that more evident than in the South China Sea, where there have been several flare-ups with Beijing over disputed territory, most recently with the Philippines, but also with Vietnam and other nations. Recent double-digit hikes in China’s defense spending and its development of an aircraft carrier also have fueled speculation about its intent.


http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/index.php?storyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navytimes.com% 2Fnews%2F2012%2F04%2Fnavy-larger-pacific-presence-china-samuel-locklear-042112w%2F

Dayuhan
04-21-2012, 09:43 PM
What does one make of it?

Not much, it's talk.


Will the US back down?

"Back down" in what sense? I wouldn't expect much reaction from the US. They'll continue the exercise, hold other exercises as scheduled, etc. They'll likely try to hold more exercises, as a way of rotating more troops through, and I expect more port calls in Manila and Subic, and a running US presence at some Philippine military facilities, as is already the case in the south. I don't think there will be any move toward actual bases in the conventional sense, too controversial and too politically complicated.

Similar for the rest of SE Asia... exercises, port calls, engagement to the extent those countries see fit, but I wouldn't expect to see "US bases" going in anywhere, beyond the already-announced LCS basing at a Singaporean Navy facility.

davidbfpo
04-21-2012, 10:00 PM
Ray rightly asks:
Will the US back down?

It is not a matter of backing down, what should not be overlooked and one hopes that PACOM and other US activity is closely checked to prevent incidents that could provoke China, especially the PLA. For example ELINT flights along China's coastline.

carl
04-21-2012, 10:23 PM
That would depend on the event. I suspect that if the US and China ever mixed it up a lot of countries in the region will try to stay neutral and out of it to the greatest degree possible... though I think this a most unlikely eventuality. As I've said before, I think the most probable conflict scenario in the medium/long term involving China would be China/Russia.

The Vietnamese have chosen their own side, and it's certainly not our side. They'll work with us as long as and to the extent that they think it useful for them... as you'd expect.

Again, I think the idea that "sides will have to be chosen" is built around a fairly extreme level of assumption about the future.

A catalyst for what? I'd expect a lot of jostling there, but the Vietnamese don't want to fight the Chinese and vice versa.

Again, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that a major military confrontation between China is inevitable or even likely.

If the US and Red China ever mixed it up, other countries would try to stay out. If it did happen though, I don't think they could. (Which may be what you said, I wasn't sure.)

Vietnam will of course work for its own interests. It just seems to me that their interests align more closely with ours and they will act on that. Which is close enough to picking our side for me.

What I meant by Vietnam being a catalyst is my purely subjective personal view is that if all this oceanic mad-dogging were ever to degenerate into serious shooting and a ship burning, it would be because the Viets had been pushed a little too far. They seem pretty feisty.

Not inevitable, not likely in the near future. But like I never tire of saying, 10 and 15 years down the road, if the Red Chinese keep going the way they appear to me to be going, it may become much more likely.

David, we had Russian Bears flying near the UK and the US often during the Cold War. We didn't do much about it besides escort them and exchange photo opportunities. They weren't looked upon as provocations. Why can't the Red Chinese be held to the same standards?

davidbfpo
04-22-2012, 11:25 AM
Carl's response to my post:
David, we had Russian Bears flying near the UK and the US often during the Cold War. We didn't do much about it besides escort them and exchange photo opportunities. They weren't looked upon as provocations. Why can't the Red Chinese be held to the same standards?

A few months ago here in the UK there was a story that Russian aircraft, IIRC 'Bears' again, had entered UK territorial airspace, along with lurid headlines, but on closer reading the planes had entered the UK air defence identification zone (ADIZ) which extends a long way beyond UK territory. Nowhere did the reporting state how close the planes had been to actual UK territory / jurisdiction.

What is normal and accepted can at times change rapidly without warning.

So for example if P3 Orion's are on missions near China first I'd ask what is the gain -v- loss; then I'd impose different rules, notably extending the distance from Chinese legal jurisdiction (I'm not aware whether PRC claims a 12 mile territorial limit, the UK IIRC only claims 3 miles).

Only towards the end of the 'Cold War' in Europe was there enough trust and confidence, with verification, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact so we understood each other. Long time since I read the Confidence Building Measures (CBM) literature; this might help:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe

I don't know whether there is an agreement, let alone institutions and practices, between the USA, PRC and others in the region.

carl
04-22-2012, 04:15 PM
I don't know whether there is an agreement, let alone institutions and practices, between the USA, PRC and others in the region.

I don't know either but The Economist article Ray cited says this "At present, despite much Pentagon prompting, contacts between the two armed forces are limited, tightly controlled by the PLA and ritually frozen by politicians whenever they want to “punish” America—usually because of a tiff over Taiwan."

That is one of the things that is part of the pattern that concerns (I'll change words today for those of you who are tired of "worries") me. They don't seem to want to talk about these nuts and bolts things, just bluster and engage in small provocations. You have to talk about this stuff to avoid misunderstandings and shooting.

JMA
04-22-2012, 04:25 PM
I don't know either but The Economist article Ray cited says this "At present, despite much Pentagon prompting, contacts between the two armed forces are limited, tightly controlled by the PLA and ritually frozen by politicians whenever they want to “punish” America—usually because of a tiff over Taiwan."

If this rank childishness is what passes for diplomacy then I just don't know. Not sure how much is specifically Chinese in character but there should be a legitimate concern that they have nuclear weapons.

Ray
04-22-2012, 05:26 PM
3 new chinese boats sighted in disputed shoal
Thursday, 19 April, 2012


THE Philippines on Thursday confirmed that three Chinese fishing vessels have been sighted near the disputed waters of the Panatag or Scarborough Shoal, where it was locked last week in a tense standoff with surveillance vessels from China......l

Chinese state media reported on Thursday that another ship had been sent to the disputed area that has been the subject of the standoff since April 10.....

The standoff started on April 10 when the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, the Philippine Navy’s largest warship, encountered eight Chinese fishing boats filled with clams, whale sharks and other endangered species.

The ship attempted to confiscate the shipment and arrest the fishermen, but it was blocked by Chinese maritime surveillance ships....

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/2012/04/19/3-new-chinese-boats-sighted-in-disputed-shoal/


So, it continues!

Ray
04-22-2012, 05:31 PM
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ARTICLE: XVIII

Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

Mutual Defense Treaty (U.S.–Philippines)

Article IV

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.


Bajo de Masinloc

Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. It is located 124 nautical miles (220 kilometers) west of Zambales and is within the 200- nautical-mile (370 kilometers) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and Philippine continental shelf.

A Philippine Navy surveillance aircraft, patrolling the area to enforce the Philippine Fisheries Code and marine environment laws, spotted eight Chinese fishing vessels anchored inside the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag Shoal) on Sunday, April 8, 2012. On April 10, the Philippine Navy sent the BRP Gregorio del Pilar to the area. In accordance with established rules of engagement, an inspection team was dispatched and it reported finding large amounts of illegally collected corals, giant clams and live sharks in the compartments of the Chinese fishing vessels.

The actions of the Chinese fishing vessels are a serious violation of the Philippines’ sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction. The poaching of endangered marine resources is a violation of the Fisheries Code and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).

Basis of sovereignty

Bajo de Masinloc (international name, Scarborough Shoal) is not an island. Bajo de Masinloc is also not part of the Spratlys.

Bajo de Masinloc is a ring-shaped coral reef, which has several rocks encircling a lagoon. About five of these rocks are above water during high tide. Some of these rocks are about three meters high and can be seen above the water. The rest of the rocks and reefs are submerged during high tide.

Bajo de Masinloc’s chain of reefs and rocks is about 124 nautical miles (220 km) from the nearest coast of Luzon and approximately 472 nautical miles (850 km) from the nearest coast of China. Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately along latitude 15°08’N and longitude 117°45’E. The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated north of the Spratlys.

Obviously then the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are also within the 200 nautical mile EEZ and the 200 nautical mile continental shelf of the Philippines.

Distinction

A distinction has to be made between the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc and the larger body of water and continental shelf where the geological features are situated. The rights or nature of rights of the Philippines over Bajo de Masinloc are different from the rights it exercises over the larger body of water and continental shelf.

The Philippines exercises full sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, and sovereign rights over the waters and continental shelf where the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated.

The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is distinct from that of its sovereign rights over the larger body of water and continental shelf.

A. Public international law

The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territory.

The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. That the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris, as alleged by China, is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.

Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200 nautical mile EEZ or continental shelf under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). Although the Philippines necessarily exercises sovereign rights over its EEZ and continental shelf, the reason why the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territory is anchored on other principles of public international law.

As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a mode for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. In the Palmas case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of “effective exercise of jurisdiction” although the island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Paris.

In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines, since it gained independence, has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc.

The name Bajo de Masinloc (which means Shallows of Masinloc or Masinloc Shoal) itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the Philippine province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.

Maps

One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named Carta Hydrographical y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, and published in 1734, showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Zambales.

The name Bajo de Masinloc was given to the shoal by the Spanish colonizers. In 1792, another map, drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. This map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census.

The Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila published in 1990 by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of the Philippines.

Philippine flags have been erected on some of the islets of the shoal, including a flag raised on an 8.3-meter high flag pole in 1965 and another Philippine flag raised by Congressmen Roque Ablan and Jose Yap in 1997. In 1965, the Philippines built and operated a small lighthouse on one of the islets in the shoal. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to the International Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights (currently this lighthouse is not working).

Bajo de Masinloc was also used as target range by Philippine and US naval forces stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales. The Philippines’ Department of Environment and Natural Resources together with the University of the Philippines has also been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the shoal. Filipino fishermen have always considered the shoal their fishing grounds because of its proximity to the coast of southwest Luzon.

Archipelagic baselines

In 2009, when the Philippines passed an amended Archipelagic Baselines Law fully consistent with Unclos, Bajo de Masinloc was classified under the “Regime of Islands” consistent with the Law of the Sea.

“Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as “Regime of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the Unclos:

a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and

b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.”




The above and the post below which is in continuation of the above is from a US Korean UN veteran.

How far would this be correct?

Ray
04-22-2012, 05:32 PM
Contd (read as a continuation of the above)


Comments on Chinese claims

Question:

But what about the historical claim of China over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal)? Does China have superior right over Bajo de Masinloc on the basis of its so-called historical claim? China is claiming Bajo de Masinloc based on historical arguments, claiming it to have been discovered by the Yuan Dynasty. China is also claiming that Bajo de Masinloc has been reflected in various official Chinese maps and has been named by China in various official documents.

Answer:

Chinese assertions based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.

Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim to mature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.

Other criteria have to be satisfied, such as that the usage must be open, continuous, adverse or in the concept of an owner, peaceful and acquiesced by other states. Mere silence by other states to one’s claim is not acquiescence under international law. Acquiescence must be affirmative such that other states recognize the claim as a right on the part of the claimant that other states ought to respect as a matter of duty. There is no indication that the international community has acquiesced to China’s so-called historical claim.

Naming and placing on maps are also not bases in determining sovereignty. In international case law relating to questions of sovereignty and ownership of land features, names and maps are not significant factors in the determination of international tribunals’ determination of sovereignty.

Question:

What about China’s claims that Bajo de Masinloc is traditional fishing waters of Chinese fishermen?

Answer:

Under international law, fishing rights are not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a state nor can it be considered a display of state authority. Fishing is an economic activity done by private individuals. For occupation to be effective there has to be clear demonstration of the intention and will of a state to act as sovereign and there has to be peaceful and continuous display of state authority, which the Philippines has consistently demonstrated.

Besides, when Unclos took effect, it has precisely appropriated various maritime zones to coastal states, eliminating so-called historical waters and justly appropriating the resources of the seas to coastal states to which the seas are appurtenant. “Traditional fishing rights” is in fact mentioned only in Article 51 of Unclos, which calls for archipelagic states to respect such rights, if such exist, in its archipelagic waters.

It should also be noted, that in this particular case, the activities of these so-called fishermen can be hardly described as fishing. The evidence culled by the Philippine Navy showed clearly that these are poaching, involving the harvesting of endangered marine species, which is illegal in the Philippines and illegal under international law, specifically the CITES.

B. Basis of sovereign rights

As earlier indicated, there is a distinction between the rocks of Bajo Masinloc and the waters around them. The question of ownership of the rocks is governed by the principles of public international law relating to modes for acquiring territories. On the other hand, the extent of its adjacent waters is governed by Unclos. The waters outside of the maritime area of Bajo de Masinloc are also governed by Unclos.

As noted, there are only about five rocks in Bajo de Masinloc that are above water during high tide. The rest are submerged during high tide. Accordingly, these rocks have only 12 nautical miles maximum territorial waters under Article 121 of Unclos. Since the Philippines has sovereignty over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, it follows that it has also sovereignty over their 12 nautical miles territorial waters.

Question:

But what about the waters outside the 12 nautical miles territorial waters of the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, what is the nature of these waters including the continental shelves? Which state has sovereign rights over them?

Answer:

As noted, Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately at latitude 15°08’N and longitude 117°45’E. It is approximately 124 nautical miles off the nearest coast of Zambales. Clearly, the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are within the 200 nautical miles EEZ and continental shelf of the Philippines.

Therefore, the waters and continental shelves outside of the 12 nautical miles territorial waters of the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc appropriately belong to the EEZ and continental shelf of the Philippines. As such, the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resources within these areas to the exclusion of other countries under Unclos. Part V of Unclos, specifically provides that the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage resources whether living or nonliving, in this area. Although other states have the right of freedom of navigation over these areas, such rights could not be exercised to the detriment of the internationally recognized sovereign rights of the Philippines to explore and exploit the resources in its 200 nautical miles EEZ and continental shelf. To do otherwise would be in violation of international law, specifically Unclos.

Therefore, the current action of the Chinese surveillance vessels within the Philippine EEZ is obviously inconsistent with its right of freedom of navigation and in violation of the sovereign rights of the Philippines under Unclos. It must also be noted that the Chinese fishermen earlier apprehended by Philippine law enforcement agents may have poached not only in Bajo de Masinloc but likely also in the EEZ of the Philippines. Therefore, these poachers have violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines under Unclos.


What is the truth?

Ray
04-22-2012, 06:18 PM
Chinese daily calls for "small-scale war" against Philippines


http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/03fL1sr1VAfIx

Ray
04-25-2012, 05:12 PM
Philippines joins Japan, Australia on Spratly Islands; approves hotline with Vietnam

http://apdforum.com/en_GB/article/rmiap/articles/online/features/2012/01/05/vietnam-australia-philippines



The expats, who have the feel of the local pulse, opine that Philippines are cool to China.

Could they explain this?

Dayuhan
04-27-2012, 04:55 AM
The expats, who have the feel of the local pulse, opine that Philippines are cool to China.

Could they explain this?

What's to explain? Yes, there's a cool relationship. Lot of jostling and shoving. No panic going on, nor is there any imminent threat of war.

JMA
04-27-2012, 06:23 AM
The expats, who have the feel of the local pulse, opine that Philippines are cool to China.

Could they explain this?

Ray, seen it many times here in Africa where expats (who are living better there than they would at home) remain delusionally optimistic and positive about their future and that of their country of residence.

Its all about them and their future you see.

Dayuhan
04-27-2012, 07:16 AM
Ray, seen it many times here in Africa where expats (who are living better there than they would at home) remain delusionally optimistic and positive about their future and that of their country of residence.

Its all about them and their future you see.

My country of residence has all manner of problems and there are probably more reasons for pessimism than optimism, but the China Threat is way down the list of issues. The Philippines is very likely to lose control over some fishing areas... well, can't really say "lose control", since they never really had it, and might miss out on some energy exploration opportunities, though there's been no Chinese effort to mess with the Malampaya platform or other exploration efforts in that area. The average Filipino is not likely to be affected, though there are some emotional issues at stake.

It's not as if we're facing invasion or anything like it. The domestic problems are far more pressing.

slapout9
04-27-2012, 07:32 AM
link to 52 minute TV special about War between China and USA.... that is already happening.... but it is a SBW kind of Warfare. Pay special attention to the last 5 minutes where a Chinese Military Analyst flat out admits it!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznkEjYO1BA&feature=related

SWJ Blog
04-27-2012, 11:20 PM
This Week at War: NIMBYs in the South China Sea (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-nimbys-in-the-south-china-sea)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-nimbys-in-the-south-china-sea) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Ray
04-28-2012, 04:47 AM
Ray, seen it many times here in Africa where expats (who are living better there than they would at home) remain delusionally optimistic and positive about their future and that of their country of residence.

Its all about them and their future you see.

Very well said!

There could be no better an explanation!

Ray
04-28-2012, 05:47 AM
link to 52 minute TV special about War between China and USA.... that is already happening.... but it is a SBW kind of Warfare. Pay special attention to the last 5 minutes where a Chinese Military Analyst flat out admits it!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznkEjYO1BA&feature=related


A fascinating video that encapsulates the aim of China and the modes of achieving the same!

Dayuhan
04-30-2012, 12:55 AM
Very well said!

There could be no better an explanation!

If you don't want to address the points being made, I suppose it's easiest to assume that anyone whose assessment of threat diverges from yours is "delusionally optimistic and positive". I'm still curious about exactly what, specifically, we're supposed to be so afraid of.

Robert Haddick has a piece on the subject on the SWJ blog, here:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-nimbys-in-the-south-china-sea

which links to another article, here:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/04/marine-more-philippines-tours-040812/

Both have some bearing on the discussion. Worth noting that nobody is discussing permanent bases in the Philippines or elsewhere in SEA, just more frequent exercises and rotating deployments. Haddick's mention of the "toxic", "corrosive", and "politically overbearing" is a reasonable summary of why that's the case. It's also a bit hard to see how having bases within easy missile range of the Chinese mainland is going to be an advantage to the US in the event of conflict, as the installations would be very vulnerable.

I personally don't see the prospect of exercises and deployments changing anything. The presence of 4500 Americans participating in the current Balikatan exercise didn't deter the Chinese from intruding at Scarborough Shoal, and it's not likely that other exercises would deter them from similar bouts of pushing and shoving... might well make those bouts more likely, as the Chinese will feel obligated to show that they aren't intimidated. A great deal of what goes on in these cases is posturing for domestic consumption, and it's more about letting politicians say they're doing something than about the impact on the supposed antagonist.

The last paragraphs of the Marine Corps Times article, referring to the raunchy party atmosphere of Philippine deployments, points to what's likely to become a bone of contention in the whole process. Filipinos have to balance between the fairly marginal impact these deployments will have on relations with China and the distinctly unwelcome social impact the deployments are likely to have. Americans often underestimate the degree to which the environment that grew up around American installations led many individuals and institutions that would normally be sympathetic to US goals (social conservative and religious organizations among them) to oppose the US presence.

Of course the US could address that problem simply by keeping the boys off the booze and the girls, which would also avoid distractions like the Daniel Smith rape case, but somehow that seems unlikely.

carl
04-30-2012, 02:54 AM
It's also a bit hard to see how having bases within easy missile range of the Chinese mainland is going to be an advantage to the US in the event of conflict, as the installations would be very vulnerable.

Missiles are just a method of delivering a load of high explosives on a target. In that respect, the effect on a target they have isn't any different from aircraft bombs. Various installations have been vulnerable to being targeted by high explosive aircraft bombs for going on 100 years now. But the fact that they were vulnerable didn't have much to do with whether that vulnerability was fatal or decisive. All of North Vietnam was vulnerable to air attack by 1972 and they won anyway. Malta was vulnerable for years but it hung on and the forces based there were able to hurt the Axis severely.

So the fact that a base is vulnerable to attack by itself is neither here nor there. You have to judge whether the damage you can inflict from that base is worth the damage it may take. Guam I think is indispensable if you want to damage Red China in the event, God forbid that it would happen, of a war. It would be vulnerable to missile attack but how many can they throw, how much HE is in each warhead, how accurate are the warheads, how well would we be able to shoot down or decoy the warheads, how effective would hardening the base be etc etc. Whether the base would be worth the effort would depend upon the answers to those questions.

carl
04-30-2012, 03:09 AM
Americans often underestimate the degree to which the environment that grew up around American installations led many individuals and institutions that would normally be sympathetic to US goals (social conservative and religious organizations among them) to oppose the US presence.

That is an excellent point, that I of course, never thought of.


Of course the US could address that problem simply by keeping the boys off the booze and the girls, which would also avoid distractions like the Daniel Smith rape case, but somehow that seems unlikely.

You are probably right but I don't see why it has to be like that. In The Left-Handed Monkey Wrench the author made the point that sailors acting up when on shore leave did so sometimes because nobody really bothered to give them alternatives. When people made the effort to guide them toward something other than tearing the place up, a lot of sailors took advantage of it and things calmed some.

Dayuhan
04-30-2012, 04:59 AM
Missiles are just a method of delivering a load of high explosives on a target. In that respect, the effect on a target they have isn't any different from aircraft bombs. Various installations have been vulnerable to being targeted by high explosive aircraft bombs for going on 100 years now. But the fact that they were vulnerable didn't have much to do with whether that vulnerability was fatal or decisive. All of North Vietnam was vulnerable to air attack by 1972 and they won anyway. Malta was vulnerable for years but it hung on and the forces based there were able to hurt the Axis severely.

So the fact that a base is vulnerable to attack by itself is neither here nor there. You have to judge whether the damage you can inflict from that base is worth the damage it may take. Guam I think is indispensable if you want to damage Red China in the event, God forbid that it would happen, of a war. It would be vulnerable to missile attack but how many can they throw, how much HE is in each warhead, how accurate are the warheads, how well would we be able to shoot down or decoy the warheads, how effective would hardening the base be etc etc. Whether the base would be worth the effort would depend upon the answers to those questions.

Haddick phrased it like this...


some military analysts fear that in a shooting war with China, missile strikes could close U.S. air bases and ports on the island, preventing the Marine infantrymen there from getting to where they might be needed....

...Under a growing missile threat, field commanders will likely prefer the flexibility afforded by an expeditionary approach compared to the vulnerability of fixed bases -- such as Okinawa -- located within easy range of Chinese missiles.

He referred to Okinawa, as nobody credible is seriously discussing bases in the Philippines.

Certainly there'd be a balance to be weighed, but apparently there's concentrating too much force in a vulnerable area could lead to a situation where that force could easily be neutralized.

There's also a question of what threat exactly we're trying to deter, and how likely that threat is to materialize. Having rapidly mobile Marine forces in the area would be of great value in a land confrontation between South and North Korea, but would have limited applicability in many of the more likely scenarios involving China. It would not, for example, be much of a deterrent to the naval and air shadow boxing that's gone on in the SCS. Again, the presence of 4500 US troops in the Philippines for the Balikatan exercsie didn't deter the Chinese from pushing at Scarborough Shoal, and may well have encouraged them.


That is an excellent point, that I of course, never thought of.

I'd say the two major factors that took the anti-bases movement out of the vociferous but ineffectual left corner and into the mainstream were residual bad feeling over the decades of American support for Marcos and distaste at what had grown up around the bases. Resentment over the support for Marcos has faded a bit with time, though the US still has very limited credibility as a champion of democracy. The second concern is still very much active, understandably. Angeles and Olongapo at the peak made Sodom and Gomorrah look like paragons of moral rectitude.

Not saying those were the only factors in play, but they were major ones. At the crux of it money was a key issue; the Philippine Senate made it clear that there would have to be a large increase in compensation, the US side declined to offer much. That to some extent may have been an example of the local habit of saying "no" by asking a price you know will be refused. At the level of popular support I suspect the money was less an issue than the factors cited above, and of course a simple desire to stop feeling like a colony.


You are probably right but I don't see why it has to be like that. In The Left-Handed Monkey Wrench the author made the point that sailors acting up when on shore leave did so sometimes because nobody really bothered to give them alternatives. When people made the effort to guide them toward something other than tearing the place up, a lot of sailors took advantage of it and things calmed some.

I don't think it has to be like that, but I think it will be like that. One of the stupidest things about the Smith case was the ease with which it could have been prevented, if a bit of discipline and supervision had been applied. There's a "boys will be boys" attitude in some quarters, and some memories of "the good old days" in Subic. Of course not everyone thought those days so good, and that's where the problems start.

davidbfpo
04-30-2012, 10:51 AM
Reading the last few posts and knowing a tiny bit of history around US military use of bases in the Phillipines and Japan made me wonder. Have we considered here the effect of impact of military sex tourism? I know sex tourism is an academic subject and has been written about a lo, plus in the popular press..

I am sure this issue is not unique to the Pacific Rim, although I cannot immediately recall contemporary public stories about it.

Ray
04-30-2012, 06:04 PM
If you don't want to address the points being made, I suppose it's easiest to assume that anyone whose assessment of threat diverges from yours is "delusionally optimistic and positive". I'm still curious about exactly what, specifically, we're supposed to be so afraid of.


I would address points if it was worth the effort.

Nowhere have I said that contrary views are "delusionally optimistic and positive".


That is your delusionally interpretation.

I take it you have reason to be afflicted by the same or why raise the irrelevant?

Ray
05-03-2012, 05:55 AM
Philippines Appeals for U.S. Help in Building Armed Forces
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120430/DEFREG03/304300009/Philippines-Appeals-U-S-Help-Building-Armed-Forces

Dayuhan
05-03-2012, 06:19 AM
Philippines, US agree to build up PH defenses

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/35353/philippines-us-govts-agree-to-build-up-ph-defenses

US neutral in Scarborough standoff but will help upgrade Philippine Navy

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/35459/us-neutral-in-scarborough-standoff-but-will-help-upgrade-philippine-navy

Lawmakers lament US ‘hands-off’ position

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/35467/lawmakers-lament-us-%E2%80%98hands-off%E2%80%99-position

Despite all the talk, the US isn't actually offering anything beyond sale of a second retired Coast Guard cutter, which was already agreed on months ago. Nothing really new anywhere in the statements; essentially it's just a restatement of the status quo ante.

There were discussions some time back between the Philippines and Italy over purchase of frigates and aircraft, I wonder if that will be revived. Some Philippine legislators were apparently hoping that a flap with China would persuade the US to give them a Navy and an Air Force, either free or on the cheap, and that's clearly not about to happen.

Dayuhan
05-15-2012, 10:24 PM
ICG report on China and the SCS...

http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/north-east-asia/223-stirring-up-the-south-china-sea-i.pdf

Material starting on page 29 is particularly relevant to this discussion.

Ray
05-16-2012, 04:32 AM
US submarine surfaces in Subic

MANILA, Philippines - One of the most modern submarines in the United States Navy surfaced last Sunday in Subic Bay in Zambales where it is currently deployed to ensure freedom of navigation in the Western Pacific.

The arrival of the Virginia-class fast attack submarine USS North Carolina (SSN-777) came as the Philippines is embroiled in a standoff with China for more than a month now in Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal, 124 nautical miles from mainland Zambales....

Unlike the visits of other US vessels in the country, the docking of USS Carolina at Subic bolstered earlier speculations that the US government, while openly declaring that it will not interfere in any territorial dispute in the region, is also closely watching the prevailing standoff between the Philippines and China over ownership of Bajo de Masinloc or “Karburo” to local fishermen....

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/05/15/12/us-submarine-surfaces-subic

davidbfpo
05-17-2012, 12:07 PM
The dispute summed up in eighty seconds:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaNVKC-9zlw

Ray
05-18-2012, 04:38 AM
Writing out the non-han


Scarborough Shoal, its historical justification is that this rock and surrounding shallow water is mentioned in a Chinese map of the 13th century when China itself was under alien - Mongol - rule. The fact that a vessel from China had visited the shoal and recorded its existence has thus become one basis for its claim. Very similar pieces of history are trotted out to justify claims to other islands visited by ships from China. Likewise, China's assumption of hegemony is often based on the fact that foreign merchant ships had to pay taxes to trade with China.

History, however, shows that Chinese sailors were latecomers to the South China Sea, let alone to onward trade to the Indian Ocean. The seagoing history of the region, at least for the first millennium of the current era, was dominated by the ancestors of today's Indonesians, Malays, Filipinos and (less directly) Vietnamese. Thus, as China's own records reveal, when the 4th century Buddhist pilgrim Fa Hsien, went to Sri Lanka, he travelled from China to Sumatra and then on to Sri Lanka in Malay ships.
....

During this era of sea-going prowess, people from Indonesia were the first colonisers of the world's third largest island, Madagascar, some 4,000 miles away. (The Madagascan language and 50% of its human gene pool are of Malay origin.) This was a thousand years before the much-vaunted voyages of Chinese admiral Zheng He in the 15th century.

Malay seagoing prowess was to be overtaken by south Indians and Arabs, but they remained the premier sea-farers in Southeast Asia until well into the era of European dominance of the region. Indeed, the Malay-speaking Hindu (like much of Southeast Asia at that time) mercantile state of central Vietnam dominated South China Sea trade until the 15th century. The 10th century Arab traveller and geographer al-Masudi made reference to the "Cham Sea", and trade between Champa and Luzon was well established long before the Chinese drew their 13th century map. As Scarborough Shoal not only lies close to the Luzon coast but is on the direct route from Manila bay to the ancient Cham ports of Hoi An and Qui Nhon, it was known to the Malay sailors long ago.

All in all, the Chinese claim to have 'been there first' is like arguing that Europeans got to Australia before its aboriginal inhabitants. But given China's reluctance to acknowledge that Taiwan was Malay terri-tory until the arrival of European conquerors,.....

China itself seems to recognise the flimsy basis of some of its historical claims. In the case of the Scarborough Shoal, it backs up its position by reference to the Treaty of Paris 1898 concluding the Spanish-American war and yielding Spanish sovereignty over the Philippine archipelago to the US. This did not mention the shoal but described a series of straight lines drawn on the map which left the shoal a few miles outside the 116E longitude defined by the treaty.....

China rejects "unequal treaties" imposed by western colonialists, it is remarkable to find it relying on one between two foreign powers conducted without any reference to the inhabitants of the Philippines. Vietnam can equally well claim all the Spratly Islands as inheritor of French claims over them......

Its long-term goal which is not ownership of a few rocks but strategic control of the whole sea, a vital waterway between northeast Asia and the Indian Ocean, the Gulf and Europe. The Scarborough Shoal is not just a petty dispute over some rocks. It is a wake-up call for many countries.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Writing-out-the-non-han/articleshow/13224479.cms

Ray
05-19-2012, 06:24 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tSdwQhUho4U/T46_SZ3C3SI/AAAAAAAAPPw/SMi9ij46Hi4/s1600/Spratly%2BIslands%2B--744816.jpg

Dayuhan
05-19-2012, 08:05 AM
What's even stranger than the Chinese claim, from a geographical perspective, is that Taiwan still claims the Spratlys, and occupies at least one of the islands...

Dayuhan
05-21-2012, 03:45 AM
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/national/3481-china-declares-scarborough-fishing-ban-and-so-does-aquino


China declares Scarborough fishing ban, and so does Aquino

CHINA and the Philippines are set to enforce fishing bans in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) waters where their ships have been engaged in a tense standoff for a month.

China’s official Xinhua News Agency cited a fisheries official Sunday as saying the annual ban includes waters around Scarborough Shoal which China calls Huangyan island and which the Philippines calls Panatag Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario initially rejected China’s ban but said President Aquino has decided that the Philippines should impose its own ban.

The last line of the article suggests that neither side is being very aggressive:


There were 11 Chinese and four Filipino fishing vessels inside the shoal as of yesterday morning, Sumangan said.

The fishing bans are largely verbiage and an excuse to pull back, as nobody fishes there June-August anyway. The SW monsoon is already blowing and sea conditions will be deteriorating rapidly by June. Shoals, strong wind, rough water and fishing boats are not a great combination.

Huffington Post had this to say...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/china-the-philippines-and_b_1531623.html


Earlier this week, the USS North Carolina -- a Virginia class fast attack submarine -- took Chinese and Philippine authorities alike by surprise after resurfacing in Philippine waters and docking in Subic Bay -- the economic free port zone in the Philippine province of Zambales.

I personally think that a bit overstated, I doubt the USN would sail a sub into a foreign port with no previous coordination with host government.

We probably won't get much information, but it would be interesting to see if the Chinese Naval vessels reportedly operating in the SCS move any closer. The sub's departure might give an opportunity for them to test their ability to observe and track.

Ray
05-23-2012, 08:30 AM
It is most surprising that a US sub surfaces and no one raises a hue and cry given that what I learn here on this thread that the Philippines is very chary about US military presence.

Odd to say the least.

Dayuhan
05-23-2012, 11:03 AM
It is most surprising that a US sub surfaces and no one raises a hue and cry given that what I learn here on this thread that the Philippines is very chary about US military presence.

Odd to say the least.

There were the usual ritual denunciations...

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/05/17/12/militants-denounce-us-submarine-visit

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/philippines/us-submarine-accused-of-violating-philippines-charter-provision-1.1023910

Not a big deal, happens every time.

It would be inaccurate to say that "the Philippines is very chary about US military presence". Some Filipinos are. Some aren't. Some (most, I would say) are more concerned with domestic affairs. As in most countries and as on most issues, there's a fair diversity of opinion.

If you want to judge public perception of threat by protest, you might note that protests against Lady Gaga's recent concert were more vigorous and drew more news coverage than those directed at China or the US. Make of that what you will...

Ray
05-24-2012, 01:52 AM
Well, I thought it was being advocated, quite forcefully that the Philippines was very chary about US deployment in the areas of Philippines.

Dayuhan
05-24-2012, 02:55 AM
Well, I thought it was being advocated, quite forcefully that the Philippines was very chary about US deployment in the areas of Philippines.

It would be silly to ascribe any such opinion to "the Philippines" generically.

There's a small but very vocal minority that opposes any military interaction between the Philippines and the US. (On the other end of the spectrum, there's a small minority that still wants the Philippines to be the 51st state of the US.)

A much larger group is ok with limited interaction (ship visits, exercises, non-permanent deployment) but opposes permanent bases. That group has sufficient influence that permanent basing is generally regarded as an untouchable idea politically.

There are also people who support greater military interaction, including bases.

As in most countries, there's substantial diversity of opinion. I would say that overall there's a sense that the US is not entirely to be trusted, and that close relations with the US carry certain risks. Some think those risks worth taking, others don't.

One refrain that's appearing consistently these days is that the Philippines should not depend on the US as its sole or primary source of military equipment. Look, for example, at the comments on the numerous articles floating around dealing with the recent transfer of another Coast Guard Cutter. There's a lot of irritation over the US decision to remove some armaments (Phalanx CIWS and 2 25mm chain guns) before the turnover, and it's often noted that the US seems reluctant to provide armaments that are competitive even with those of regional peers, let alone China.

Ray
05-24-2012, 06:27 AM
I thought you had said and posted many such posts on tis thread and in the other one China Superpwoer indicating that in Philippines they were more or less against the US deployments and military presence and whatever is there is basically for the Moro rebellion. That is IIRC.

The latest post above of your sums up every shade of opinion and thus inidcates that the cat can jump anywhere!

Just one example of one not getting the drift is:


If you actually read the article, and the other coverage on the exercise, you'll see that the line quoted above is just not a very good piece of writing. They're trying to say that China is not the hypothetical target of the exercise. All the public statements on the exercise stress that it has nothing to do with the recent incidents and is not directed at any country.

Of course any military exercise anywhere is intended to send a message to any potential antagonist, but in this case the primary potential antagonists being messaged are the rebel groups and their actual or potential foreign supporters, with China in second place. The Philippine political and military leaders consider the domestic insurgencies to be a greater threat; you can consider that "daft" if you like, but they have reasons. If you keep track of the Philippine media and talk to people you see there's a lot of irritation at the fishing incursions and some concern with conflict over offshore energy reserves, but only a tiny fringe worries about invasion and there's very limited support for major upgrades to military spending. Vietnam spends 2.5% of GDP on defense; the Philippines spends 0.9%. If you want an indication of relative fear and relative priorities, there it is. Money speaks louder than words.


I somehow feel that Philippines is now looking at China (as I have been stating all along) to be Threat # 1.

That apart the ASEAN is not amused with Chinese antics in the SCS.

Asean talks on South China Sea begin

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/24/asean-talks-south-china-sea-begin.html

Therefore, there is no doubt that China's muscle flexing has got all a bit jumpy and they are downgrading their internal issues in the bargain.

I would like to think that a foreign threat is a greater bugbear than an internal one.

Ray
05-24-2012, 07:23 AM
One refrain that's appearing consistently these days is that the Philippines should not depend on the US as its sole or primary source of military equipment. Look, for example, at the comments on the numerous articles floating around dealing with the recent transfer of another Coast Guard Cutter. There's a lot of irritation over the US decision to remove some armaments (Phalanx CIWS and 2 25mm chain guns) before the turnover, and it's often noted that the US seems reluctant to provide armaments that are competitive even with those of regional peers, let alone China.



China sends more ships to disputed shoal

China has deployed more ships to a disputed shoal in the South China Sea amid a tense stand-off with the Philippines, officials and state media said on Wednesday.

As of Monday night, there were five Chinese government vessels -- up from three -- and 16 fishing boats in the area, the Philippine foreign department said.

Manila has lodged a fresh protest with the Chinese embassy over the build-up, department spokesman Raul Hernandez said.

Using the shoal's Philippine name, Hernandez added: "The Philippines, therefore, demands that China's vessels immediately pull out from Bajo de Masinloc and the Philippines' exclusive economic zone."

China's official Xinhua news agency said controls have been "strengthened" in the area and quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying it had "about 20 fishing boats" near the disputed Scarborough Shoal, "roughly the same number as in previous years".
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/china-sends-more-ships-disputed-shoal-173705696.html

I take it that given this escalation:

1. The numerous article floating around in te Phippines has the option to look a gift horse in the teerh and demand that the teeth are made of Gold!

2. Philippines feels that the Moro rebels are threat #1 and the Chinese just a side show.

3. That Phippines feels that the US is not a dependable ally!

But then, I presume I could be wrong!

Dayuhan
05-24-2012, 10:54 AM
I thought you had said and posted many such posts on tis thread and in the other one China Superpwoer indicating that in Philippines they were more or less against the US deployments and military presence and whatever is there is basically for the Moro rebellion. That is IIRC.

I don't think you RC. I certainly don't remember saying any such thing. Who is this "they" of whom you speak? The Filipinos? All of 'em?

Certainly there's widespread suspicion of US motives, and general discomfort with having foreign forces around. For some its a major issue, for some there's more of a tradeoff involved. As I said above, permanent basing is a politically toxic issue that nobody is even willing to propose. Deployments short of permanent basing... opinions vary. So far they've been tolerated, though with objections.

US deployments to date have focused primarily on one segment of the Moro rebellion, and not the most important one.


I somehow feel that Philippines is now looking at China (as I have been stating all along) to be Threat # 1.

You see what you want to see. Who are you talking about when you say "Philippines is now looking at China"? The government? The populace? Everyone? I think you'd find that perceptions of "threat #1" vary depending on who you talk to. I also think you'd find that a lot more Filipinos would see the corruption and inadequacy of their own government as a greater threat than China.


That apart the ASEAN is not amused with Chinese antics in the SCS.

Asean talks on South China Sea begin

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/24/asean-talks-south-china-sea-begin.html

I wouldn't expect much from ASEAN, beyond a very diplomatic statement. As I've said before, ASEAN could exert considerable economic influence if they chose to, greater than their military influence: combined ASEAN GDP is similar to that of India and growing fast, and they do a lot of business with China. ASEAN working in concert is not so easy to organize; different members have very different priorities.


Therefore, there is no doubt that China's muscle flexing has got all a bit jumpy and they are downgrading their internal issues in the bargain.

Who do you see "downgrading their internal issues"?


I would like to think that a foreign threat is a greater bugbear than an internal one.

Depends on what the foreign threat is threatening. Look at it from the perspective of the Philippine elite. The Chinese are threatening to push in on fishing grounds and potential energy resources. The Moros want to dismember the country. The NPA want to hang you from the nearest lamp-post. What threat concerns you most?


I take it that given this escalation:

Not really that great of an escalation. Chinese and Vietnamese fishing boats frequent that area often, and as stated above the season is ending soon and there will be a pullout. Just making a bit of a point.


1. The numerous article floating around in te Phippines has the option to look a gift horse in the teerh and demand that the teeth are made of Gold!

There's a fair bit of that around, yes. Many of those concerned with defense issues (not something most Filipinos are very concerned about) were hoping the US could be maneuvered into supplying higher-order stuff at low prices, or even free. OHP-class frigates and F-16s were on the wish list. What was offered was substantially less, and some people got pikon.

Playing the nationalist card and complaining about foreigners, be they American or Chinese, is also a popular attention-getting stunt among the political class. It's not necessarily an indication of great concern. Many of those who whine the loudest are privately doing business with the same parties they're whining about.


2. Philippines feels that the Moro rebels are threat #1 and the Chinese just a side show.

Again, who is "Philippines"? You speak as though the country is a single person with a single opinion. In reality the perception of threat depends on who you're talking to and where. Where I live the Manila government and its armed forces are seen as a more immediate threat than the Chinese.


3. That Phippines feels that the US is not a dependable ally!

Again, who is "Philippines"? Certainly many Filipinos wonder about the extent to which they can rely on US help. It is clear, for example, that the US is not going to provide modern or even remotely competitive weaponry, and that the US is not going to take the side of the Philippines in territorial disputes. Whether or not that is dependable depends on what you were expecting in the first place.

Ray
05-24-2012, 03:32 PM
My queries are basically since I am getting conflicting signals from your posts.

Given your posts on the issue of China, US and Philippines, the approach taken by you was to rubbish the idea that Philippines was not concerned about China’s aggressive moves in the SCS.

The links to international and Filipino media were appended to indicate the views contrary to yours were also rubbished.

Logically seen, that left you as the sole authority on Philippines and its activities.

It will be appreciated that under that situation it left you the sole expert on Philippines, reinforced by your assertion that as an expat there of long standing, your views were but, for the want of a better expression, the Gospel Truth.

Personally, I would have loved to accept that but for the fact that you tend to change tack and that leaves a wake of confused contradictions.

While indeed you would have the ‘pulse’ of the people, but one wonders how far the international and the Philippines media are not aware of what they write and the veracity of the impression conveyed that you alone are the judge and ‘in the know’.

Further, in your posts, you repeatedly give the impression that China is not a major issue for Philippines. You claim that it was the Moro insurgency that was the primary concern and now you claim, in addition, it is corruption and inadequacy of the govt. To quote you - ( I also think you'd find that a lot more Filipinos would see the corruption and inadequacy of their own government as a greater threat than China.)

If China was not a major issue for Philippines why are they, out of the blue, adding naval vessels to their fleet, albeit old? Or scouting around for foreign fighter jets?



Philippines to Buy Military Jets Amid Sea Dispute With China
The government could buy new training jets for between $400 and $800 million per squadron and upgrade the planes to fighters, Aquino told Bombo Radyo today. The seller would be a “progressive nation” and not the U.S., the Philippines’ main ally, he said. A squadron includes between 16 and 24 jets.
“It may be from Europe, or somewhere nearer,” Aquino told Bombo Radyo. “That’s what the Armed Forces of the Philippines is studying to make it more economical.”
http://chinausfocus.com/u-s-news/philippines-to-buy-military-jets-amid-sea-dispute-with-china/



It could not be because of the Moro insurgency since that has been going on for quite sometimes and if it were the Moros, then this addition would have been done much earlier and not now, all of a sudden!

Therefore, given the international media and even the local news reports and the flurry in beefing up of the Philippines Military, it does indicate that, for some reason that you have not enunciated as to why you want to downplay the China issue, that your assumptions that China is not a major threat is not quite in order.

While I concede that you are in situ, but then to believe that the international media and the activities of the Philippine Govt in modernising (if that is the word) its armed forces are rubbish, it would be a bit too stretched for acceptance or belief!



I don't think you RC. I certainly don't remember saying any such thing. Who is this "they" of whom you speak? The Filipinos? All of 'em?

Certainly there's widespread suspicion of US motives, and general discomfort with having foreign forces around. For some its a major issue, for some there's more of a tradeoff involved. As I said above, permanent basing is a politically toxic issue that nobody is even willing to propose. Deployments short of permanent basing... opinions vary. So far they've been tolerated, though with objections.

US deployments to date have focused primarily on one segment of the Moro rebellion, and not the most important one.

I have no idea as to what is ‘RC’. You may not remember, but if you care to go through this thread and the one about China Superpower, you would find having said so, directly and indirectly.

I have also given a quote of what you said in the post that you have replied which give sthe essnce of your contention. Do have a look at that.

No nation would like foreign countries to establish bases on their territory. That is nothing new.

The US, in all probability, based troops against the Moro insurgents, but to believe that they are not prepared for contingencies other than the Moro would be mistaken. US Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, basically to ensure that the sealanes are clear in the Persian Gulf. However, should the need be, they are also geared to take on Iran in a more direct role. Or would they be sitting idle in a confrontation with Iran?

US has based troops in Philippines on a ‘rotational basis’. What does that mean? Semantics for permanent basing.

It is not that the Philippines has tolerated the US forces based there. Philippines has no options. It is either having a benign US or a fire breathing Dragon!

Notwithstanding your assertion, all activities, to include beefing up the military and the media reports, indicate that it is China which is the Number One issue and not the Moros or the corruption or inadequacies.

Unless you could indicate with links to the contrary, your contentions would not be correct even by a slim chance.


You see what you want to see. Who are you talking about when you say "Philippines is now looking at China"? The government? The populace? Everyone? I think you'd find that perceptions of "threat #1" vary depending on who you talk to. I also think you'd find that a lot more Filipinos would see the corruption and inadequacy of their own government as a greater threat than China.

As above.

When I speak of the Philippines, I do mean not only the Govt but the informed (as gleaned from the local media and appended here)

I take it that the Government of Philippines is responsible for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Philippines. Obviously, if they are refurbishing their Military with acquired naval vessels and scouting around for fighter jets, it is obviously not a dog and pony show (to use an Americanism) they are organising!

I would be immensely surprised if the people of Philippines who, as you say are concerned solely with corruption and inadequacies of their Govt and Moros, would sit still and not protest such needless spending on Defence. Their silence proves that they also feel that China is a threat. I am merely going by logic. You have to prove that this logic is wrong!



I wouldn't expect much from ASEAN, beyond a very diplomatic statement. As I've said before, ASEAN could exert considerable economic influence if they chose to, greater than their military influence: combined ASEAN GDP is similar to that of India and growing fast, and they do a lot of business with China. ASEAN working in concert is not so easy to organize; different members have very different priorities.

When a threat looms all close ranks.

The Chinese hegemonic pursuits have not really regaled the ASEAN. They are treading softly, but they are watching with great concern the moves by China. Militarily, they are no match for China. But should China misstep, their united pacific stance would make China lose face and that would be a big blow to China.


Who do you see "downgrading their internal issues"?

I took it that you, being the expert on Philippines, said that Moros were the No 1 threat.

But given the situation between the Philippines and China, and giving the due to your expert opinion that China is no threat, I stated that the Philippines must have downgraded the internal issues and given priority to Chinese activities or else why the brouhaha in the media and sudden US interest?

It was in deference to your expertise even though the events and the news prove otherwise to your expert opinion that I stated ‘downgrading of internal threat’, when it was obvious to any observer that Chinese hegemonic pursuits were getting too close for comfort.


Depends on what the foreign threat is threatening. Look at it from the perspective of the Philippine elite. The Chinese are threatening to push in on fishing grounds and potential energy resources. The Moros want to dismember the country. The NPA want to hang you from the nearest lamp-post. What threat concerns you most?

Good point.

I would feel that not being enslaved or pushed around with negative ramifications by a foreign power (China) would be the first priority, whether one was the elite or the poor beggarman!


Not really that great of an escalation. Chinese and Vietnamese fishing boats frequent that area often, and as stated above the season is ending soon and there will be a pullout. Just making a bit of a point.

Good that you feel it was all a charade!

Rather silly of them to keep everyone on tenterhooks.

Ray
05-24-2012, 03:33 PM
There's a fair bit of that around, yes. Many of those concerned with defense issues (not something most Filipinos are very concerned about) were hoping the US could be maneuvered into supplying higher-order stuff at low prices, or even free. OHP-class frigates and F-16s were on the wish list. What was offered was substantially less, and some people got pikon.

Playing the nationalist card and complaining about foreigners, be they American or Chinese, is also a popular attention-getting stunt among the political class. It's not necessarily an indication of great concern. Many of those who whine the loudest are privately doing business with the same parties they're whining about.

It is interesting to note that you feel that the Filipinos are great ones to manoeuvre foreign nations to give them freebies by false pretentions of threats.

Do I take it that the others are equally gullible to fall hook, line and sinker for that ploy? Are the US diplomats and intelligence agencies inept and incompetent as you make them out to be?


Again, who is "Philippines"? You speak as though the country is a single person with a single opinion. In reality the perception of threat depends on who you're talking to and where. Where I live the Manila government and its armed forces are seen as a more immediate threat than the Chinese.

The same ones who you make out who feel that the Moros are Threat #1 and China is merely a dog and pony show!

You raise another interesting issue. To quote you – Where I live the Manila government and its armed forces are seen as a more immediate threat than the Chinese.

You have now got me more confused with this assertion.

Philippines is a democracy? Or is it a dictatorship like China? If it is a democracy, then why should it be a greater threat than China?

China has to be fought, if Philippines has the Might. On the other hand in a democracy, the Philippines Govt can be chucked out by the ballot. So, how is it a greater threat than China? What is a greater threat – the bullet or the ballot?



Again, who is "Philippines"? Certainly many Filipinos wonder about the extent to which they can rely on US help. It is clear, for example, that the US is not going to provide modern or even remotely competitive weaponry, and that the US is not going to take the side of the Philippines in territorial disputes. Whether or not that is dependable depends on what you were expecting in the first place.

You wrote that Philippine does not find the US a dependable ally.

I am sure you know who you meant by ‘Philippines’!

I think you underestimate the US as an ally and do you think the US speaks with a ‘forked tongue’?

What makes you feel that the US will not live up to its words as per the Treaty?

Dayuhan
05-25-2012, 01:54 AM
Given your posts on the issue of China, US and Philippines, the approach taken by you was to rubbish the idea that Philippines was not concerned about China’s aggressive moves in the SCS.

I think the confusion comes from your apparent inability to acknowledge any possibility between "not concerned" and "#1 threat".


one wonders how far the international and the Philippines media are not aware of what they write

I think the confusion here is because you're looking at coverage of the Philippines and China out of context, meaning you're not looking at all of the other stuff the Philippine media write about. Yes, the Philippine media run stories on China. That doesn't make China "the #1 threat". They also run many stories on many other subjects. The coverage, for example, of the running impeachment trial of the Supreme Court Chief Justice, the corruption story du jour, absolutely dwarfs coverage of China.

That's one of the drawbacks to using Google News. If you search only for articles regarding China, and read only the stories that come up, you get the distorted impression that the Philippine media are focused on "the China threat". If you look at the Philippine media as a whole, you get a very different impression.


Further, in your posts, you repeatedly give the impression that China is not a major issue for Philippines. You claim that it was the Moro insurgency that was the primary concern and now you claim, in addition, it is corruption and inadequacy of the govt. To quote you - ( I also think you'd find that a lot more Filipinos would see the corruption and inadequacy of their own government as a greater threat than China.)

Again, you speak of "the Philippines" as if it were a single individual with a single set of opinions.

I have not claimed that the Moro insurgency was "the primary concern". I said it was the primary focus of US/Philippine military cooperation, a very different thing. I'd say average Filipinos across the board are more concerned with corruption and incompetence in government, which directly affect them, than they are about either insurgency or China's threat, which do not directly affect them. In areas where insurgents are active that changes, of course.


If China was not a major issue for Philippines why are they, out of the blue, adding naval vessels to their fleet, albeit old? Or scouting around for foreign fighter jets?

Out of the blue? Hardly. The Philippine Military Modernization Plan dates back to 1995, and has been the subject of much discussion and multiple promises ever since. Every administration promises it, none deliver. The reality has been -and still is - that while it's easy to build a consensus around the idea that military modernization is needed, that consensus evaporates as soon as you start talking about what budget lines are going to be cut to supply the funding. The Philippines has been in on/off talks over aircraft acquisition for decades. The talks always stall over money. There's an initiative to buy fighters because the Philippines has none, and hasn't since they retired the last of their F-5s many years ago. None of this has happened "all of a sudden", it's just getting attention because of the current standoff. Even the current acquisition of naval vessels was negotiated long before the recent events... and if you look at the vessels being supplied, both by the US and those the Japanese are now offering, you'll seer that their size and armament makes them much more suitable for COIN/anti-piracy operations than for combat with the Chinese.

There's been more serious discussion of modernization in the last few years, largely because the country has posted decent growth figures for a number of years, public deficits have been trimmed to some degree, and thus the capacity to pursue a program that dates back to 1995 is greater than it was. Even with hat capacity, the plans on the table are very modest. $1 billion spread over 3 years is not a huge amount of money, and a few upgraded trainers and ships with no SS/SAM capacity really don't mean much stacked up against China.


It could not be because of the Moro insurgency since that has been going on for quite sometimes and if it were the Moros, then this addition would have been done much earlier and not now, all of a sudden!

Therefore, given the international media and even the local news reports and the flurry in beefing up of the Philippines Military, it does indicate that, for some reason that you have not enunciated as to why you want to downplay the China issue, that your assumptions that China is not a major threat is not quite in order.

While I concede that you are in situ, but then to believe that the international media and the activities of the Philippine Govt in modernising (if that is the word) its armed forces are rubbish, it would be a bit too stretched for acceptance or belief!

As usual, if you look at current news reports without the historical and political context, you get an inaccurate impression.


I have no idea as to what is ‘RC’. You may not remember, but if you care to go through this thread and the one about China Superpower, you would find having said so, directly and indirectly.

"RC" is half of "IIRC". I don't think I ever said that, though you might have gotten that impression.


The US, in all probability, based troops against the Moro insurgents, but to believe that they are not prepared for contingencies other than the Moro would be mistaken.

The 600 or so troops stationed in the south, with no air or sea capability, would be of little use in any other contingency. They went there not because of China, but because the US managed to convince itself (for no very good reason) that SE Asia was the next front in the GWOT and that the ASG was an active AQ franchise. Nobody was much concerned with China at that time.


US has based troops in Philippines on a ‘rotational basis’. What does that mean? Semantics for permanent basing.

It keeps the numbers limited and it stations the troops on Philippine military facilities, not on facilities under US control. To some extent it's a semantic dodge. Some Filipinos find it offensive and would like to end the arrangement. Most others are willing to put up with the semantic dodge as long as the US presence is in what for most Filipinos consider a faraway corner, and as long as it's seen as a move against the ASG, not a popular group in most of the country. If large rotational deployments were made closer to home, or if aircraft and ships started making more than occasional drop-by visits, I think you'd see a lot more resistance.


It is not that the Philippines has tolerated the US forces based there. Philippines has no options. It is either having a benign US or a fire breathing Dragon!

The US forces deployed in the Philippines are working against Muslim insurgent/terrorist/bandit groups and have little or no relevance to China.


Notwithstanding your assertion, all activities, to include beefing up the military and the media reports, indicate that it is China which is the Number One issue and not the Moros or the corruption or inadequacies.


Obviously, if they are refurbishing their Military with acquired naval vessels and scouting around for fighter jets, it is obviously not a dog and pony show (to use an Americanism) they are organising!

You may have missed the constant chorus of complaints over the last few decades over the Moro rebels having faster and better-armed boats than the Navy, and of the inability of the Air Force to provide meaningful CAS. That's what happens when you only pay attention once in a long while.

Dayuhan
05-25-2012, 02:17 AM
I would be immensely surprised if the people of Philippines who, as you say are concerned solely with corruption and inadequacies of their Govt and Moros, would sit still and not protest such needless spending on Defence. Their silence proves that they also feel that China is a threat. I am merely going by logic. You have to prove that this logic is wrong!

Nobody is concerned "solely" with anything. There's a hierarchy of concern, and the hierarchy is different among different individuals. As stated above, the actual proposed expenditures for defence are not large, and there's still considerable debate over where the money is to be sourced. There are many other concerns, many of them equally pressing, some of them more pressing.


When a threat looms all close ranks.

The Chinese hegemonic pursuits have not really regaled the ASEAN. They are treading softly, but they are watching with great concern the moves by China. Militarily, they are no match for China. But should China misstep, their united pacific stance would make China lose face and that would be a big blow to China.

Don't expect ASEAN to close ranks, except perhaps with a statement. Not likely to happen. The level of perceived threat is very different for different members: the Philippines and Vietnam ar emore concerned, Malaysia and Indonesia less so, Thailand and Singapore still less.


I took it that you, being the expert on Philippines, said that Moros were the No 1 threat.

But given the situation between the Philippines and China, and giving the due to your expert opinion that China is no threat, I stated that the Philippines must have downgraded the internal issues and given priority to Chinese activities or else why the brouhaha in the media and sudden US interest?

You persist in casting this as all or nothing, "#1 threat" or no threat at all, as if there were no middle ground. As I said above, I never said the Moros were the #1 threat, I said they were the primary focus of US/Philippine military cooperation. The Philippine government has long classified the NPA as a greater security threat than the Moros.

The media make a brouhaha when there's an incident. When there's an incident in the south, the brouhaha and the US concern are all about the Moros. When there's an incident on Scarborough shoal, the media all look at that. The media are fickle, and if you look at coverage in any particular moment without the historical and political context, you're likely to get a quite inaccurate impression.


I would feel that not being enslaved or pushed around with negative ramifications by a foreign power (China) would be the first priority, whether one was the elite or the poor beggarman!

Nobody's looking at a threat of being "enslaved". The threat is of losing access to some fishing areas and to potential energy deposits. While being pushed around is humiliating and arouses an emotional response, most people here have much more immediate concerns.


It is interesting to note that you feel that the Filipinos are great ones to manoeuvre foreign nations to give them freebies by false pretentions of threats.

Do I take it that the others are equally gullible to fall hook, line and sinker for that ploy? Are the US diplomats and intelligence agencies inept and incompetent as you make them out to be?

It's worked in the past. Ferdinand Marcos cast himself as the sole bulwark against impending Commie takeover (despite being the best thing that ever happened to the Communists), and the Americans obediently threw vast sums of money in his direction, providing unquestioning support for most of his reign. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo drew a substantial upgrade in US aid by casting herself as a loyal ally in the GWOT. There were real hopes in some circles that casting the Philippines as the first line of defense against the red horde would bring in a bunch of high end military equipment and a bunch of money, and there was some real disappointment when that did not materialize. Apparently the US diplomats and agencies are smarter than they once were.


You raise another interesting issue. To quote you – Where I live the Manila government and its armed forces are seen as a more immediate threat than the Chinese.

You have now got me more confused with this assertion.

Philippines is a democracy? Or is it a dictatorship like China? If it is a democracy, then why should it be a greater threat than China?

Again, lack of context leads to misunderstanding. Throughout the tribal regions in the north (where I live), the Manila government is seen as a colonial power, trying to push its way in and grab timber, minerals, hydropower. People here fought a substantial war against the government from the late 70s through the early 90s. The town I live in was under virtual military occupation for a number of years; civilians were killed and there were many human rights abuses. There's peace now, mostly because the military stays out or keeps a very low profile and the big resource exploitation projects have been cancelled, but the people still see the Philippine military as a threat and the fighting could easily resume.

That's not unique: a long history of corruption, elite domination, and human rights abuse leaves large numbers of Filipinos seeing their own government as a major threat - and certainly a more immediate threat than China.


China has to be fought, if Philippines has the Might. On the other hand in a democracy, the Philippines Govt can be chucked out by the ballot. So, how is it a greater threat than China? What is a greater threat – the bullet or the ballot?

You might want to read up a bit on the nature of Philippine "democracy". I can e-mail you an article on the subject that makes a good start point, if you like. The online version is behind a paywall.



You wrote that Philippine does not find the US a dependable ally.

I am sure you know who you meant by ‘Philippines’!

I think you underestimate the US as an ally and do you think the US speaks with a ‘forked tongue’?

What makes you feel that the US will not live up to its words as per the Treaty?

What I said was that many Filipinos do not see the US as a dependable ally, not that "Philippine does not find the US a dependable ally".

I think Filipinos would be wise not to depend on the US to do whatever Filipinos want them to do. The US will act according to its own perceived interests.

The US has already made it clear that they've no intention of providing weaponry competitive with any regional peer, and that they will not take sides in territorial disputes. The treaty, as discussed before, obligates nothing beyond response "in accordance with constitutional procedures", which guarantees nothing. If US constitutional procedure concludes that the appropriate response to an incident is a diplomatic protest, that's all they are obligated to do.

Whether or not that makes the US a "dependable ally" depends on what you were depending on them to do in the first place. I think the Filipinos can depend on the US to at according to perceived US interests at any given time, which is all you'd expect from anyone in the realm of international affairs.

Ray
05-25-2012, 05:12 PM
Say what you wish to, but you are not in the grip of reality.

Dayuhan
05-26-2012, 04:04 AM
... and you are right, I remain outside the grip of your preferred alternate realty.

Ray
05-28-2012, 07:22 AM
Analysis: Beijing’s tough line vs. Manila in Panatag Shoal standoff

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/259439/news/specialreports/analysis-beijings-tough-line-vs-manila-in-panatag-shoal-standoff

Ray
05-28-2012, 07:42 AM
China infuriated by US-Philippines defense plans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMmfL1AIsd4&feature=related

Bob's World
05-28-2012, 10:36 AM
Many of China's neighbors, as judged by their renewed willingness to reach out to the US for strengthened security partnerships, grow increasingly wary of their powerful neighbor. This does not mean they do not embrace the economic aspect of their relationship with China, or that they seek some sort of alliance with one power to the exclusion of the others. It merely means that they recognize the value of balancing relationships with larger nations as they remain focused on their own interests as they perceive them.

Many in the West grow wary of China as well. The West has grown used to a China that was for a century too weak to defend its own sovereignty from "100 years of humiliation" at the hands of nations such as Japan, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, and yes, the US as well. Since the fall of the Nationalists China's focus has been largely internal, as it worked to redefine and reestablish itself as a viable, sovereign nation.

Recently China went on record regarding her "core interests" as she defines them; and yet much like Generals Willoughby and MacArthur in 1950, the West ignores clear expressions of red lines, purpose and intent. If I were to categorize China's posture it would be one of "strategic defense," but after so long being compressed within a posture forced upon her by others, I can see why so many see China simply shrugging her shoulders of compromises forced upon her by others, and seeking to stand up tall once again as a nation to seem "offensive" in nature.

The South China Sea is one of several regions of the world where several sphere's of influence overlap. Given the potential benefits of control over that region it is logical that competition will occur. The sooner we work to establish a reasonable distribution of the wealth from and the influence over that region the better. Otherwise such competition can only lead to conflict, warfare, and potentially war. Such a war benefits no one, but China is clear, that if given no other options, once the time is right they will exercise whatever is necessary to secure their core interests.

China is actually far less obtuse than the US when it comes to defining core interests and spheres of influence. The US seems to act as if global hegemony is some enduring right, rather than fleeting coincidence; and that our sphere of influence is, and should remain the entire globe up to the 12-mile limits and borders of Russia and China. Why else do we bandy about odd (and expensive) concepts such as "A2/AD" and Air-Sea Warfare, or somehow come to interpret a simple recognition of the importance of the far East to our national economy as a call to "contain" a rising China?

Chinese government officials have been declaring on different occasions that Taiwan, Tibet, South China Sea and Yellow Sea are national core interests. Agree or disagree, but I caution that to simply ignore is the same brand of foolishness that brought China and America to war 60 + years ago in Korea.

China is a coiled spring. She has tolerated arms sales to Taiwan because she had no choice but to do so. That does not mean that such sales do not cross a clearly marked red-line on her part. If the US continues to cross that line there will come a day when China feels she is in position to respond in kind to what she sees as an act of war against her. Better we recognize that now, rather than continuing to push dated policies that act as if China' position on such matters is irrelevant.

I am no expert on Asian culture, but know enough to roughly appreciate the concept of "losing face." Even if one only drills Wikipedia deep, it is a sobering concept to consider:

Lin Yutang considered the psychology of "face."

Interesting as the Chinese physiological face is, the psychological face makes a still more fascinating study. It is not a face that can be washed or shaved, but a face that can be "granted" and "lost" and "fought for" and "presented as a gift." Here we arrive at the most curious point of Chinese social psychology. Abstract and intangible, it is yet the most delicate standard by which Chinese social intercourse is regulated. (1935: 199-200)

How much "face" does a society such as China lose in an era declared as "100 years of humiliation"? How about in an ensuing 60 years of containment? Perhaps it is time to simply treat China with appropriate respect in general and respect specifically in regard to her declared core interests? Isn't it time to work to find a new balance of power in that region that secures the sovereignty of the smaller nations of the region without at the same time compressing so vigorously the sovereignty of the largest?

Ray
05-28-2012, 03:12 PM
[
B]U.S. triples military aid to Philippines in 2012[/B]

Washington agreed to provide $30 million in FMF this year, up from an initial 2012 allocation of $15 million and from $11.9 million last year. In 2003, funding amounted to $50 million as Washington sent forces to help the Philippines battle al Qaeda-linked militants.

The Philippines is offering the United States greater access to its airfields and may open new areas for U.S. soldiers to use as it seeks stronger military ties with its ally and faces rising tensions with China in the maritime dispute.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/03/philippines-usa-idUSL4E8G340E20120503


It is interesting to note the increase in the funding from what the US gave for fighting AQ elements and what it is now giving.

The AQ threat continues to be there or has it gone?

If there is still the AQ threat, then it requires no elaboration as to why the US has increased the aid.

It is also worth noting that the Philippines are offering the United States greater access to its airfields and may open new areas for U.S. soldiers to use.

Ray
05-28-2012, 03:23 PM
China is actually far less obtuse than the US when it comes to defining core interests and spheres of influence. The US seems to act as if global hegemony is some enduring right, rather than fleeting coincidence; and that our sphere of influence is, and should remain the entire globe up to the 12-mile limits and borders of Russia and China. Why else do we bandy about odd (and expensive) concepts such as "A2/AD" and Air-Sea Warfare, or somehow come to interpret a simple recognition of the importance of the far East to our national economy as a call to "contain" a rising China?

It is true that the US acts as if global hegemony is some enduring right.

Without debating the morality of such action, I presume the US does what she does because the US has the wherewithal to ensure her desires.

China does not have the same wherewithal as the US to act as if global hegemony is her enduring right.

Without having the same wherewithal as the US, she is acting as if hegemony in her neighbourhood is China's enduring right.

When China gears up with her wherewithal, would she lie dormant if what she is doing is an indictor of things to come?

That is the question!

Bob's World
05-28-2012, 04:11 PM
It is true that the US acts as if global hegemony is some enduring right.

Without debating the morality of such action, I presume the US does what she does because the US has the wherewithal to ensure her desires.

China does not have the same wherewithal as the US to act as if global hegemony is her enduring right.

Without having the same wherewithal as the US, she is acting as if hegemony in her neighborhood is China's enduring right.

When China gears up with her wherewithal, would she lie dormant if what she is doing is an indicator of things to come?

That is the question!

Actually, I don't that is either the situation or the question.

First, the US does not have the resources to act as a hegemon, and has been subsidizing the security of friend and foe alike for decades due to our irrational desire/belief that we must act like one. We lose no face by recognizing that the temporary high tide of US relative power has ebbed, instead we set ourselves up to lose massive face by attempting to sustain it artificially on the backs of the US taxpayer.

Currently we cross several Chinese Red lines. We don't have to recognize them for them to be Chinese Red lines, after all, they are theirs, not ours. We do, however need to be aware when we do it, and ensure that it is a calculated risk that offers some corresponding potential gain. Currently we assume all risk with no potential gain. That is a sucker's game that China is happy to let us play for now, as it only speeds the day of their relative rise in the region.

Better we take an appetite suppressant of our own volition now, than have one delivered to us in the form of a sunk aircraft carrier or the loss of several top end fighters on some needless dust-up in the near future. It was US policy to recognize China as one of 4 "policemen" to work with the US post WWII in lieu of the failed League of Nations to help provide security in our respective regions (UK and Russia being the other two). That did not happen then, but it is no reason some similar role could not be recognized in the near future. We must understand the past, not cling to it; and we must have a vision to see to what best secures our interests in a stable future. Picking a fight with China over issues that are existential critical interests to them, but merely policy desirements of our own is worse than illogical, it is professional malpractice.

The President of the US told us to look to the Pacific, as our future lies there. I have no problem with that. He did not concurrently tell us to turn our clocks back 60 years and switch off our brains.

The US will ultimately come to new agreements with China that many in the region will not like. Hopefully we will be timely enough to make such bargains on terms we still possess the influence to shape. Some may call those agreements "disloyal" to countries we have protected and helped elevate in the post WWII era that might come up a bit short in such bargains. But America's principal loyalty must be to the US and to US citizens. To compromise those in favor of the governments and populaces of some foreign land is appeasement of the worst kind. Ideally we will continue to be able to be all things to all people, but that is simplistic and unrealistic.

It is time America developed a Pacific strategy that focused on American interests first. Anything else that places our nation at unnecessary risk or that incurs unnecessary costs (both that can be borne by those they affect most if they must be borne at all) is a very bad idea. Sadly, it is a very bad idea that has a great deal of inertia and support behind it.

Ray
05-28-2012, 05:02 PM
Bob

It is a natural human instinct to be the Top Gun. Survival of the Fittest, so to say. That feeling is hardly irrational. If it were an irrational stimulus, then gaining the maximum medals in the Olympics or winning the European Football would be exercises in irrationality, which may actually be the case, and yet it is attitude that drives homo sapiens to be the Head Honcho! Or else, why not go to the Himalayan tops, shed all materialism and mediate to achieve the Sublime. It has been done and it is still done, but then such souls do not represent the majority of the peoples of the world.

What is this American Dream that is so tomtomed about? Would it not be wonderful to live merely on social securities and handouts? Why is Tiger Woods wanting to get back to be No 1? He has proved his point. Why is he not satisfied to quietly fade out?


By that logic you have given, China should be satisfied with its large Empire and not aspire for more. And yet it does.

Therefore, whether the US power has ebbed or not, to abdicate its prime position may not quite be what is routine in social psychology.

For instance, what was the necessity to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan? True many people died in the 9/11 assault. Well, given the logic, one could have taken the philosophical view that many more die on the US highways every year and so it was no big deal! But that is not how it was viewed. It was viewed as it would be viewed in social psychology – avenge! And every US taxpayer was all for it! And a whole lot of taxpayer money was lost in an abysmal pit of war!

It is a sucker’s game. No country would like to lose its pristine position.

The US is doing it globally and China is doing it regionally.

I would not like to believe that one should get cautious about ‘redlines’. Redlines are to be challenged. Call it brinkmanship, if you will. Take it to its limit and see who blinks first. Hunkering down will only allow the other side to bully one further into submission.

If US is to 'respect' Chinese Redlines, don't you think China should respect US Redlines? It takes two hands to clap!

If one is worried that its aircraft carrier is sunk or top end fighters destroyed, why have them. Save the money so wasted or keep them in the museum.

One does not pick up fights, but when one is thrown the gauntlet, one should have the courage to pick up the gauntlet.

The US President has not said that American throw their brains in the garbage can. In fact, he (Obama) is a pacifist compared to Regan or Bush. If it were Regan or Bush, China would have been put in their place.

By the logic of not being a hegemon, don’t you think the US should stop Drone attacks on Pakistan. Have a dialogue with Pakistan and hand over Afghanistan to them? That would be the ideal solution.

Bob's World
05-28-2012, 06:44 PM
So, we place our red lines on the very borders of our competitors? Is India prepared to submit to the US applying such a red line to them? Is India prepared to beg permission of the US to venture into the Indian Ocean??

No, such lines must be Suitable, Acceptable and Feasible; and our current postures run increasingly afoul on each of those criteria. It is time for the US to re-balance, refocus, and to develop new policies and strategies for the world as it actually exists around us, not a world as we wish existed based on some romantic vision of our Cold War experience.

As to the US being #1, for now that is a role that no one can take us down from escept ourselves. We hasten that day in the future by over extending our reach in the here and now. Time for others to crack out their own wallets and man their own bastions and to prepare once again to treat powerful neighbors with appropriate respect so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts. In the past it was sound US strategy to allow allies to act in such ways, and to live or die with the consequences as they fought the wars they brought upon themselves. Certainly, the US came in in time to secure our own interests, but only after others had expended much of themselves against each other first. To presume that the US should be first to fight the wars of others is unrealistic, illogical, and quite frankly, un-American.

On this Memorial day where we honor those who fell in such conflicts, let us also celebrate the millions who did not due to policies of wise constraint applied in generations past that delayed American intervention.

In my experience smaller friends make better decisions when they appreciate that they are fully responsible for the consequences of their actions. A return to such responsibility serves us all better than assumptions that American blood and treasure will be the first spent in actions not of our making and far from our true vital interests.

Ray
05-29-2012, 03:25 AM
So, we place our red lines on the very borders of our competitors? Is India prepared to submit to the US applying such a red line to them? Is India prepared to beg permission of the US to venture into the Indian Ocean??

US has already placed many a redline on India. What's new?

Check why Op Parakrama was abortive.

Check why the Kargil Op went the way it did and the reason why India did not escalate the issue into a full blown war.

Oil import from Iran.

Abandoning the Iran - Pakistan - India oil and gas pipeline.

Isolation of Myanmar.



No, such lines must be Suitable, Acceptable and Feasible; and our current postures run increasingly afoul on each of those criteria. It is time for the US to re-balance, refocus, and to develop new policies and strategies for the world as it actually exists around us, not a world as we wish existed based on some romantic vision of our Cold War experience.

What is the new Vision, policies, strategies beyond the Cold War do you suggest that the US should follow?

Ideal would be the return to the Monroe Doctrine and isolation.


As to the US being #1, for now that is a role that no one can take us down from escept ourselves. We hasten that day in the future by over extending our reach in the here and now. Time for others to crack out their own wallets and man their own bastions and to prepare once again to treat powerful neighbors with appropriate respect so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts. In the past it was sound US strategy to allow allies to act in such ways, and to live or die with the consequences as they fought the wars they brought upon themselves. Certainly, the US came in in time to secure our own interests, but only after others had expended much of themselves against each other first. To presume that the US should be first to fight the wars of others is unrealistic, illogical, and quite frankly, un-American.

To be #1, the US should not over extend itself? In other words, the US is merely capable of being a military force that is #1 in a static mode – a sort of ‘threat in being’ and when it acts to enforce its policy ‘by other means’, it get over extended and cannot quite rise to the demands of its desired role or global strategy?

In the Cold War, it was a formidable force but I wonder if it was because it was merely static and never tested!

If lesser nations were to be cowed down by powerful regional countries, then those lesser nations might as well abdicate their governance and become vassals. There are many nations around who have the wallet to buy war matériels, but then as they don’t have the technology, they have to pay extortionist prices and so are baulked!

9/11 comes to mind. Why did Bush take on such a huge, formidable and worldwide force like the AQ and it multiple derivatives? And why has the world joined that War? After all, there are many countries which joined have had no attacks by the AQ and its derivative. eg Japan to name one. Why are they fighting the US' War?

No one is suggesting the US fight others’ wars or have US presence on their sovereign territory. However, if it were not in line with the US strategic interests, why is the US making its presence felt in South Korea, Japan, Philippines (to some extent), Australia and Singapore (two warships are permanently stationed or to be stationed). Japan is not too pleased with the US presence and yet the US is there. The US, by that logic, should stay in Hawaii and East of that and not even Guam!


On this Memorial day where we honor those who fell in such conflicts, let us also celebrate the millions who did not due to policies of wise constraint applied in generations past that delayed American intervention.

It is befitting to honour the martyrs. In India, we appreciate the way the US and UK honour their brave soldiers, and lament that we don’t emulate this wonderful gesture.

But then, the martyrs would not have been martyrs if the Govts of that time exhibited ‘wise’ constraints and not go out to war. Many lives would have been saved. The issue is that it is easy to judge on hindsight and not when the event is brewing and boiling over.

Neville Chamberlain comes to mind. He too wanted to save lives and not go to war. His appeasement foreign policy, and in particular his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany and consequences therefore resulting in a worse catastrophe i.e. WW II proved that Peace at All Cost and turning the Nelson's eye or emulating an ostrich is signing aw warrant to pay a heavier price later.


In my experience smaller friends make better decisions when they appreciate that they are fully responsible for the consequences of their actions. A return to such responsibility serves us all better than assumptions that American blood and treasure will be the first spent in actions not of our making and far from our true vital interests.

No nation wants to go to war for the sake of going to war. All nations, big or small, understand the consequences and prefer to defer war as the last straw that broke the camel’s back!

carl
05-29-2012, 04:26 AM
So, we place our red lines on the very borders of our competitors?

Why yes we do, or should. If that competitor is bordered by a peaceful nation which the competitor invades to conquer, I would say yes very definitely that is where the red line goes. I believe that is where we placed a red line in 1991.


Time for others to crack out their own wallets and man their own bastions and to prepare once again to treat powerful neighbors with appropriate respect so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

Now this is an interesting statement. What is "appropriate respect"? Who determines what it is? I don't believe there is an internationally agreed upon definition of that term. I think it depends mostly upon the disposition of the powerful neighbor. If unlucky enough to be next to Red China, it means something very different than if you are lucky enough to be next to the US. It seems to me that what you are saying is simply that the law of the jungle prevails. I realize that life is often like that but it is not something to aspire to, it results in too much fighting.

carl
05-29-2012, 04:47 AM
It was US policy to recognize China as one of 4 "policemen" to work with the US post WWII in lieu of the failed League of Nations to help provide security in our respective regions (UK and Russia being the other two). That did not happen then, but it is no reason some similar role could not be recognized in the near future.

This is another interesting statement. That 4 policemen thing was mostly the result of FDR's dreamy eyed misapprehension of the nature of the USSR and the strength of China. It could never have worked, didn't work, because one of the "policemen" was the most murderous regime in the history of the world, or maybe not-the USSR and Red China are neck and neck in that competition. People don't like being policed by psychopathic killers. That is the same reason it won't happen now. People wouldn't like being "policed" by the most murderous regime in the history of the world, or maybe not-Red China and the USSR being neck and neck in that competition.


Picking a fight with China over issues that are existential critical interests to them, but merely policy desirements of our own is worse than illogical, it is professional malpractice.

Since this discussion is about the South China Sea, I assume that is what you are talking about. If that is what you are talking about, your statement makes no sense. Red China has done quite well, very well in fact over the history of its existence with the status of the South China Sea being as it is now. It is obviously not an existential problem for them. It is just something they want.

carl
05-29-2012, 05:14 AM
Recently China went on record regarding her "core interests" as she defines them; and yet much like Generals Willoughby and MacArthur in 1950, the West ignores clear expressions of red lines, purpose and intent. If I were to categorize China's posture it would be one of "strategic defense," but after so long being compressed within a posture forced upon her by others, I can see why so many see China simply shrugging her shoulders of compromises forced upon her by others, and seeking to stand up tall once again as a nation to seem "offensive" in nature.

The South China Sea is one of several regions of the world where several sphere's of influence overlap. Given the potential benefits of control over that region it is logical that competition will occur. The sooner we work to establish a reasonable distribution of the wealth from and the influence over that region the better. Otherwise such competition can only lead to conflict, warfare, and potentially war. Such a war benefits no one, but China is clear, that if given no other options, once the time is right they will exercise whatever is necessary to secure their core interests.

China is actually far less obtuse than the US when it comes to defining core interests and spheres of influence. The US seems to act as if global hegemony is some enduring right, rather than fleeting coincidence; and that our sphere of influence is, and should remain the entire globe up to the 12-mile limits and borders of Russia and China. Why else do we bandy about odd (and expensive) concepts such as "A2/AD" and Air-Sea Warfare, or somehow come to interpret a simple recognition of the importance of the far East to our national economy as a call to "contain" a rising China?

Chinese government officials have been declaring on different occasions that Taiwan, Tibet, South China Sea and Yellow Sea are national core interests. Agree or disagree, but I caution that to simply ignore is the same brand of foolishness that brought China and America to war 60 + years ago in Korea.

China is a coiled spring. She has tolerated arms sales to Taiwan because she had no choice but to do so. That does not mean that such sales do not cross a clearly marked red-line on her part. If the US continues to cross that line there will come a day when China feels she is in position to respond in kind to what she sees as an act of war against her. Better we recognize that now, rather than continuing to push dated policies that act as if China' position on such matters is irrelevant.

And these, are the most interesting statements of all. Taken together they mean give Red China what is wants if we know what is good for us. (Come to think of it, that is exactly what the ChiComs say too.) Granted, deferring to Red Chinese desires will simplify the formulation of American foreign policy-as long as we keep paying our long distance phone bills-but it leads to another problem. What if having waved a tearful but mature farewell to Taiwan, Tibet, South China Sea and the Yellow Sea, Red China decides it want more? When you yield to the demands of a thug, you ensure absolutely there will be more demands, and the ChiComs are world class all time thugs.


The sooner we work to establish a reasonable distribution of the wealth from and the influence over that region the better.

This sentence by itself isn't interesting, just disturbing, a little creepy even. It conjures up an image of the Americans sitting down with the most murderous regime in the history of the world, or not etc. etc., and divying up portions of the world, countries populated by real people. It seems on the face of it wrong, un-American even.

Ray
05-29-2012, 05:20 AM
DFA slams Chinese report on agreement on Unclos | Inquirer Global Nation

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has disputed a report posted on the website of the Chinese Embassy in Manila that claims that both the Philippines and China agree that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) “cannot be utilized as a legal ground to claim territorial sovereignty.”....

Last month, the foreign office temporarily stopped diplomatic meetings with the Chinese embassy, charging the Chinese diplomats with relaying inaccurate information to Beijing.

The DFA had accused Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing of wrongfully conveying a nonexistent agreement of a pullout of all vessels in the Panatag Shoal area.....

“I said…there was no agreement. That’s why we are in a stalemate. They were harping that we didn’t honor an agreement. I felt I should clarify that with the Chinese government, it seems that report was not accurate,” Del Rosario told a recent DFA press briefing.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/38203/dfa-slams-chinese-report-on-agreement-on-unclos

An attempt by China to obfuscate the issue so as to indicate All Quiet on the Panatag Shoal area?

Neat!

Bob's World
05-29-2012, 12:28 PM
[


It is interesting to note the increase in the funding from what the US gave for fighting AQ elements and what it is now giving.

The AQ threat continues to be there or has it gone?

If there is still the AQ threat, then it requires no elaboration as to why the US has increased the aid.

It is also worth noting that the Philippines are offering the United States greater access to its airfields and may open new areas for U.S. soldiers to use.

Don't confuse the arguent made at home to validate the money with the purpose the money was spent to advance. This clearly has little to do with AQ.

Bob's World
05-29-2012, 12:39 PM
Carl,

You live in a simple world where things are black and white; good and evil; us and them. You define that world solely from the perch of your own perspectives, agendas and aspriations. That works for you, but I live in a world where nothing is that simple.

To simply ignore the Chinese perspective is crazy. To simply agree with their perspective is crazy as well.

Try this. Study China for a few days, and then attempt to write a post from the perspective of the Chinese version of yourself, born and raised and equally as sure of the rightness of his country as you are of yours. For every one of you there are a dozen of such counterparts. Worth remembering as you go up to their door acting like you own the place and looking for a fight.

Ray
05-29-2012, 02:14 PM
Don't confuse the arguent made at home to validate the money with the purpose the money was spent to advance. This clearly has little to do with AQ.

Thank you.

I am not confused. It is you who has not understood what I was stating.

It is just the point I was making.

The increase in aid indicates that the US is concerned about China's hegemonic pursuit in SCS in general and the threat to Philippines in particular.

And the Philippines allowing greater access to airfields and areas for bases indicates that the Chinese forays into areas claimed by China is paramount in their threat perception.

Ray
05-29-2012, 02:25 PM
Try this. Study China for a few days, and then attempt to write a post from the perspective of the Chinese version of yourself, born and raised and equally as sure of the rightness of his country as you are of yours. For every one of you there are a dozen of such counterparts. Worth remembering as you go up to their door acting like you own the place and looking for a fight.

I think this is applicable for any country on the globe.

Try to see their way and I would add, superimpose on that the way you see the world and your interests and see how you should approach the issue.

No country should go up to the door acting as if they own the place and looking for a fight......not even China!

Bob's World
05-29-2012, 03:21 PM
Thank you.

I am not confused. It is you who has not understood what I was stating.

It is just the point I was making.

The increase in aid indicates that the US is concerned about China's hegemonic pursuit in SCS in general and the threat to Philippines in particular.

And the Philippines allowing greater access to airfields and areas for bases indicates that the Chinese forays into areas claimed by China is paramount in their threat perception.

This has always been true, there is no change of US policy here, only a change of Filipino willingness to welcome conventional security forces due to their own growing concerns over China.

US policy is much closer to what Carl advocates than to what I advocate. I merely state my own opinion here, and my opinion is that the majority opinion is based on a shaky foundation and far more likely to result in unnecessary warfare with China than it is to prevent or prevail over the necessary conflicts that might well someday arise. I recognize I could be wrong, but this is a forum to discuss these things, not to all sit around deluding ourselves with happy group think. We'll leave that for the various think tanks, political parties, military HQs, and others who sit in monoculture groups, staring at problems through a set of corporate approved lenses.

carl
05-29-2012, 05:00 PM
Carl,

You live in a simple world where things are black and white; good and evil; us and them. You define that world solely from the perch of your own perspectives, agendas and aspriations. That works for you, but I live in a world where nothing is that simple.

To simply ignore the Chinese perspective is crazy. To simply agree with their perspective is crazy as well.

Try this. Study China for a few days, and then attempt to write a post from the perspective of the Chinese version of yourself, born and raised and equally as sure of the rightness of his country as you are of yours. For every one of you there are a dozen of such counterparts. Worth remembering as you go up to their door acting like you own the place and looking for a fight.

Bob:

Responding that I am a simple and unsophisticated fellow but that you are a sophisticated fellow and that if I study hard I may become a sophisticated fellow too was not something I expected. It was not a useful response but it was a response.

Ray
05-29-2012, 05:10 PM
This has always been true, there is no change of US policy here, only a change of Filipino willingness to welcome conventional security forces due to their own growing concerns over China.

US policy is much closer to what Carl advocates than to what I advocate. I merely state my own opinion here, and my opinion is that the majority opinion is based on a shaky foundation and far more likely to result in unnecessary warfare with China than it is to prevent or prevail over the necessary conflicts that might well someday arise. I recognize I could be wrong, but this is a forum to discuss these things, not to all sit around deluding ourselves with happy group think. We'll leave that for the various think tanks, political parties, military HQs, and others who sit in monoculture groups, staring at problems through a set of corporate approved lenses.

Given what I was reading from those who claimed to know Philippines, I was wondering if what I was reading in the media and think tank papers were wrong.

The fact that the US has made a substantial increase in the aid to Philippines and the fact that the Filipinos are spooked to welcome the US back, does indicate that the media and the think tanks are right that China is now #1 threat and that the US is not poodlefaking in the SCS with routine naval exercises and deployment and rotation of troops or shoring up Guam!

Bob's World
05-29-2012, 05:29 PM
Bob:

Responding that I am a simple and unsophisticated fellow but that you are a sophisticated fellow and that if I study hard I may become a sophisticated fellow too was not something I expected. It was not a useful response but it was a response.

That's not what I said. But it is a black and white interpretation of what I said. :)

carl
05-29-2012, 05:49 PM
That's not what I said. But it is a black and white interpretation of what I said. :)

Ahh...just so. (Thank you Scott Turow, who writes real good books by the way)

Dayuhan
05-31-2012, 08:04 AM
It is interesting to note the increase in the funding from what the US gave for fighting AQ elements and what it is now giving.

Actually the current figure is still well below that of 2003, when the so-called "AQ elements" were a major concern for the US. That figure gradually declined and has now bumped up again. In absolute terms it hardly matters, 12 million or 50, it's tiny either way and completely irrelevant to the Philippine level of preparedness vs. China. What does $28 million buy in US military equipment?

If you want to know what the aid is about, look at what is actually being supplied. The F-16s and OHP-class frigates that the Philippines were asking about were not provided. The only large items were 2 old Coast Guard cutters with much of their weaponry removed. Has anything been given or promised that would mean anything in a conflict with China? Hardly. Do you see air defense systems or SSMs in the package? No. It's a molehill, not a mountain.


The AQ threat continues to be there or has it gone?

If there is still the AQ threat, then it requires no elaboration as to why the US has increased the aid.

There was never an "AQ threat" in the first place. There was a fairly rapacious group of nominally Islamist bandits operating primarily on Basilan and Jolo that had once had links to AQ, links that were almost entirely dormant by the time the US got involved in fighting them. There was (and is) a secessionist insurgency on Mindanao that has some links to AQ and international Islamist groups, but the US has stayed out of that fight, though US-supplied equipment has been involved.

Why the US chose to get involved in a fight that has so little to do with AQ or Islamist terror overall is another question, one best suited to another thread, but it's unlikely that China has much to do with it. Do you really think the Chinese care about 600 SF guys running around Zamboanga, Basilan, and Jolo? It's neither a threat nor a deterrent.


It is also worth noting that the Philippines are offering the United States greater access to its airfields and may open new areas for U.S. soldiers to use.

What’s actually been offered is a bit of a mystery: many reports say this or that was offered, but there’s little really credible information on whether these were bargaining chips that weren’t picked up, and if any deal has been struck, it hasn’t been announced locally. Given local political sensitivities it’s likely that troop presences would have to be transient and in fairly small numbers. The extent to which airfield access would be useful to the US in anything but an extreme situation or for the occasional refueling stop is open to question: there are few purely military airfields in the Philippines, most are shared with civilian traffic and are minimally secured.

If the sum of the upgrades in US/Philippine military cooperation amount to $28 million in aid increases, a few more exercises, an occasional Marine deployment, and more frequent ship/aircraft visits, what does that amount to? Mostly show, I’d say. It’s not likely to deter anything, which of course both sides would know. By timing the recent Scarborough Shoal incident to coincide with the Balikatan exercise, the Chinese sent a fairly clear message that the conduct of such exercises and the presence of US forces is not going to prevent such incidents.


Given what I was reading from those who claimed to know Philippines, I was wondering if what I was reading in the media and think tank papers were wrong.

The fact that the US has made a substantial increase in the aid to Philippines and the fact that the Filipinos are spooked to welcome the US back, does indicate that the media and the think tanks are right that China is now #1 threat and that the US is not poodlefaking in the SCS with routine naval exercises and deployment and rotation of troops or shoring up Guam!

If “The Filipinos” collectively are “spooked to welcome the US back”, why has the government not publicly announced any such deal… if indeed any such deal has been made?

The notion of a “#1 threat” perceived universally by “The Philippines” is simply not consistent with the reality on the ground here, as anyone who’s been observing traditional and social media in the Philippines over time knows. Even though the Scarborough standoff remains ongoing, it’s no longer the story du jour, coverage has faded and it’s no longer getting much more than the occasional cursory mention.

Again, you have to look at what exactly is being threatened. The Chinese are threatening to take over some fishing grounds and some potential energy resources. There’s no public perception of a threat to “gobble up” or “enslave” the Philippines (to use some terms that have appeared on threads here), and if you look at both public and government perceptions across the board there’s a lot more preoccupation with domestic affairs. It’s by no means certain that all the talk over the last few months is actually going to lead to anything much: talk is cheap, and common. Certainly Philippine politicians used the recent incident as an opportunity for some nationalist crowing, and tried to use it as a lever to pull some more hardware out of the US (an effort that seems to have failed). Whether the excitement will last or not remains to be seen.


Thank you.

I am not confused. It is you who has not understood what I was stating.

It is just the point I was making.

The increase in aid indicates that the US is concerned about China's hegemonic pursuit in SCS in general and the threat to Philippines in particular.

And the Philippines allowing greater access to airfields and areas for bases indicates that the Chinese forays into areas claimed by China is paramount in their threat perception.

No “areas for bases” have been offered, or even discussed.

If the US really expected increased aid to have an impact on “China’s hegemonic pursuits” or on any perceived threat to the Philippines, wouldn’t they have to provide a lot more than $28 million to make any meaningful difference? Again, take away the rhetoric and look at what material is actually being provided.

Of course you’ll see what you choose to see, but I think you’re looking at only a small part of the available information, and making conclusions based primarily on pre-positioned assumptions.

I do not entirely agree with RC Jones' recommendations, though I do appreciate his more nuanced approach. Clearly the US has to recognize that China is and will continue to be a presence in the SCS, Yellow Sea, and other regional waters. There's little point in trying to use bluff, bluster, and threat to try to force the Chinese to back down on claims; it's never wise to make threats you aren't willing to back up with action.

Treating China - and everyone else - with respect makes sense. Deference - toward China or toward anyone else - should IMO be avoided. The current approach to territorial disputes involving marine areas - we are not taking sides in the disputes but we'd like to see them resolve peacefully and in accordance with appropriate international laws and conventions - makes sense to me, though it will never be a point of agreement. I don't think there should be an absolute commitment to military intervention in any circumstance, but I have no problem with a position stating that actual aggression against a neighboring state (as opposed to pushing and shoving in disputed territory) could be met with a full range of economic and military response... nothing wrong with keeping them guessing about what might or might not be done.

I do not personally think the US should predictably defer to Chinese sensibilities over arms sales to Taiwan. That needn't be a territorial red line, just a clear indication that we reserve the right to do what business we choose with whom we choose, when we choose. Selling arms isn't aid, it's business, and the Chinese do plenty of it. So do we.

In short, I don't think the US should be predictable. Respect is fine, deference is not. Absolute commitments are overly restrictive; open options keep everyone guessing. Occasionally challenging a Chinese "red line" just to show we will not be bossed around makes sense. Throwing our red lines up against theirs across the board makes - to me at least - less sense.

The reality is that there is going to be tension and jockeying in the SCS for a long time, just as there has been for the last few decades (this didn't start this year). It doesn't require an exaggerated response and it's not going to be settled any time soon. Appropriate response has to be presented in accordance with conditions at any given time, and overreaction is to be avoided.

Ray
05-31-2012, 01:55 PM
US to renew naval power in Asia-Pacific: Panetta

by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) May 29, 2012

The United States will renew its naval power across the Asia-Pacific region and stay "vigilant" in the face of China's growing military, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday.....

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_to_renew_naval_power_in_Asia-Pacific_Panetta_999.html

Dayuhan
06-01-2012, 12:57 AM
[B]US to renew naval power in Asia-Pacific: Panetta[/B

From the above...


Panetta encouraged the new naval officers to forge stronger security ties with China even as he vowed the United States would not let down its guard.

"We need you to strengthen defense ties with China. China's military is growing and modernizing. We must be vigilant. We must be strong. We must be prepared to confront any challenge," he said.

Overall, an epic collection of platitudes, which of course is what you expect from a speech.

The idea of a shift to the Pacific is of course much discussed, but what it will actually come down to in practice remains to be seen. So far not much. There's a lot of construction on Guam, but that's not a shift to the Pacific, it's a shift away from Okinawa. Other than that, all we have to go on is some very general words, with no real shift in force structure or policy. That may or may not change. We'll see.

Realistically, despite all the talk of the Pacific, I expect the Middle East to retain a significant US naval and air presence. It's where the oil comes from, and that matters. There are also a lot more countries that are willing to host a significant US military presence, something that's lacking in much of the Pacific.

Ray
06-01-2012, 07:45 AM
From the above...



Overall, an epic collection of platitudes, which of course is what you expect from a speech.

The idea of a shift to the Pacific is of course much discussed, but what it will actually come down to in practice remains to be seen. So far not much. There's a lot of construction on Guam, but that's not a shift to the Pacific, it's a shift away from Okinawa. Other than that, all we have to go on is some very general words, with no real shift in force structure or policy. That may or may not change. We'll see.

Realistically, despite all the talk of the Pacific, I expect the Middle East to retain a significant US naval and air presence. It's where the oil comes from, and that matters. There are also a lot more countries that are willing to host a significant US military presence, something that's lacking in much of the Pacific.

I find that at many threads you take a strident Chinese line. I am sure you have good reasons to do so and indeed that is wonderful.

However, what is interesting is that you rubbish everything that does not suit your line of thinking without any substance being offered why you do so.

If everything said by others is platitudes or garbage, one wonders if the Chinese alone have inherited the earth.

Could you substantiate what you have said with some links or some cognisable facts rather that assuming the role of an Oracle?

If oil is what will hold the US attention in the Middle East, what makes you feel that the SCS is not a gold mine in oil?

Could it not be that the US is backing horses that would be grateful to share the spoils with the US for 'protecting' them from the Chinese ogre?

taong hindi kakilala

Ray
06-01-2012, 07:59 AM
Panetta leaving on 9-day trip to Asia

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta leaves Wednesday on a nine-day trip to Asia to bring allies there up to speed on the United States' new Pacific-orientated defense strategy.

"Basically the core of what we are trying to do with the swing through Asia, is to give a comprehensive account to partners and everyone in the region about what the rebalance to the Asia/Pacific will mean in practice," a senior defense official said while briefing reporters about the trip.''

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/30/panetta-leaving-on-9-day-trip-to-asia/


I take it that he is not wasting the US taxpayers money for an expensive jamboree just to spew pious platitude.

Dayuhan
06-01-2012, 10:03 AM
If everything said by others is platitudes or garbage, one wonders if the Chinese alone have inherited the earth.

Politicians speak in platitudes, in the US, in China, and in most other places. Speeches rarely warrant much attention until you see how - or if - they are translated into actions.


If oil is what will hold the US attention in the Middle East, what makes you feel that the SCS is not a gold mine in oil?

The USGS estimates (2010) that discovered and undiscovered oil reserves in all of Southeast Asia, only a fraction of which are within the SCS, are 21.6bbl:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3015/pdf/FS10-3015.pdf

Proven reserves in Libya alone are over 76bbl, more than 3 times as much. Iraq's are 112bbl, though they are now claiming new exploration has raised that much higher. The GCC overall has 469bbl of proven reserves. Weigh that up against 21.6bbl including undiscovered reserves, much of which is not within the contested area, and tell me where the "gold mine" is, and where the naval resources are likely to go if oil is a concern.

Gas reserves in the SCS appear to be a bit larger, but the US doesn't exactly need more gas, being in the midst of a glut that's driven prices so low that producers are shutting wells down.


Could it not be that the US is backing horses that would be grateful to share the spoils with the US for 'protecting' them from the Chinese ogre?

Has the US offered anyone protection? If so, who? As referenced above, are the supposed "spoils" even worth all that much?


taong hindi kakilala

That would translate to "a person unknown to you". To whom do you refer?

If you meant "person who knows nothing", that would be "taong walang alam", for future reference.

Dayuhan
06-01-2012, 10:16 AM
And just in case anyone thinks the recent incidents mark a unique spike in regional conflict, a bit of history...

http://205.254.135.7/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=SCS

Military Clashes in the South China Sea* Since 1970 (to 2002)

1974 China, Vietnam

China seized the Paracels from Vietnam, with 18 of its troops killed in clashes on one of the islands.

1988 China, Vietnam

Chinese and Vietnamese navies clashed at Johnson Reef in the Spratlys. Several Vietnamese boats were sunk and over 70 sailors killed.

1992 China, Vietnam

Vietnam accused China of landing troops on Da Luc Reef. China seized almost 20 Vietnamese cargo ships transporting goods from Hong Kong from June - September.

1994 China, Vietnam

China and Vietnam had naval confrontations within Vietnam's internationally recognized territorial waters over Vietnam's Tu Chinh oil exploration blocks 133, 134, and 135. Chinese claim the area as part of their Wan' Bei-21 (WAB-21) block.

1995 China, Philippines

China occupied Philippine-claimed Mischief Reef. Philippine military evicted the Chinese in March and destroyed Chinese markers.

1995 Taiwan, Vietnam

Taiwanese artillery fired on a Vietnamese supply ship.

1996 China, Philippines

In January, Chinese vessels engaged in a 90-minute gun battle with a Philippine navy gunboat near the island of Capone, off the west coast of Luzon, north of Manila.

1997 China, Philippines

The Philippine navy ordered a Chinese speedboat and two fishing boats to leave Scarborough Shoal in April; the Philippine navy later removed Chinese markers and raised its flag. China sent three warships to survey the Philippine-occupied islands of Panata and Kota.

1998 Philippines, Vietnam

In January, Vietnamese soldiers fired on a Philippine fishing boat near Tennent (Pigeon) Reef.

1999 China, Philippines

In May, a Chinese fishing boat was sunk in a collision with Philippine warship. In July, another Chinese fishing boat was sunk in a collision with a Philippine warship.

1999 China, Philippines

In May, Chinese warships were accused of harassing a Philippine navy vessel after it ran aground near the Spratlys.

1999 Philippines, Vietnam

In October, Vietnamese troops fired upon a Philippine air force plane on reconnaissance in the Spratlys.

1999 Malaysia, Philippines

In October, Philippine defense sources reported that 2 Malaysian fighter planes and 2 Philippine air force surveillance planes nearly engaged over a Malaysian-occupied reef in the Spratlys. The Malaysian Defense Ministry stated that it was not a stand-off.

2000 China, Philippines

In May, Philippine troops opened fire on Chinese fishermen, killing one and arresting 7.

2001 China, Philippines

During first three months, the Filipino navy boarded 14 Chinese flagged boats, confiscated their catches, and ejected vessels out of contested portions of the Spratlys.

2001 China, Philippines

In March, the Philippines sent a gunboat to Scarborough Shoal to, "to ward off any attempt by China to erect structures on the rock".

2002 Philippines, Vietnam

In August, Vietnamese troops fired warning shots at Filipino military reconnaissance planes circling over the Spratlys.


Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...

Ray
06-01-2012, 03:08 PM
Politicians speak in platitudes, in the US, in China, and in most other places. Speeches rarely warrant much attention until you see how - or if - they are translated into actions.

How droll.

Generalisation and rubbishing everything seems to be your signature whenever stumped!

International interaction or actions don't happen overnight just because some people think that it is otherwise a Punch and Judy show.

Eg OBL dead or alive the US President had promised. Now, how many years ago was that?

And how many years did it take to do so after painstaking work by all concerned including the US Administration?

Of course, those who see everything that does not give instant result and to their satisfaction as platitudes and waffle, and in the interim, would be quick to rubbish all and be pleased as Punch with the line that it is all blubbering and drivel.

One has to understand that Statecraft is not Instant Coffee!

It is a very tiresome and even thankless process.

But then one has to be a part such a process to realise the heartbreaks and agony that goes into the same.

I wonder if people have noticed how those who are running a Country grey so fast.



The USGS estimates (2010) that discovered and undiscovered oil reserves in all of Southeast Asia, only a fraction of which are within the SCS, are 21.6bbl:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3015/pdf/FS10-3015.pdf

Proven reserves in Libya alone are over 76bbl, more than 3 times as much. Iraq's are 112bbl, though they are now claiming new exploration has raised that much higher. The GCC overall has 469bbl of proven reserves. Weigh that up against 21.6bbl including undiscovered reserves, much of which is not within the contested area, and tell me where the "gold mine" is, and where the naval resources are likely to go if oil is a concern.

Gas reserves in the SCS appear to be a bit larger, but the US doesn't exactly need more gas, being in the midst of a glut that's driven prices so low that producers are shutting wells down.

The line of argument that policies or action of a Govt/Nation is solely confined to the current situation is amazing!

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are the IC's most authoritative written judgments on national security issues. NIEs usually provide information on the likely course of future events and highlight the implications for U.S. policymakers.

The keyword is FUTURE!

Why is the US extracting oil and gas from Shale?

I believe the production cost of a barrel of shale oil was US$95 per barrel. The economics is dependent on the price of oil (Standard).

The US industry suffered losses during the last major investment into oil shale in the early 1980s, when a subsequent collapse in the oil price left the projects uneconomical.

So the requirement of oil and gas never is less!




Has the US offered anyone protection? If so, who? As referenced above, are the supposed "spoils" even worth all that much?

Would it mean that it is the belief that the US Navy is roaming the Pacific just because it has nothing worthwhile to do and requires to burn up fuel so that there is a shortage of gas and the prices skyrocket in the international market?

As of 2011, I believe the US Pacific Fleet consists of the Third and Seventh Fleets, Naval Air Force, Pacific; Commander, Naval Surface Forces Pacific; Naval Submarine Force, Pacific.

Here is the Task for the Pacific Command from the horses mouth. Nothing could be more authentic, even though you feel that everything other than what you feel is meaningless prattle.

STATEMENT OF
ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD, U.S. NAVY
COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND
BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
ON U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND POSTURE
28 FEBRUARY 2012


Seven major security challenges confront the U.S. across this region, which encompasses half of the earth’s surface, including:

 Defense of the homeland, U.S. territories and compact states in the
Pacific.

 The need to continuously manage and optimize U.S. alliances and
strengthen regional partnerships, in particular, advancing the relationship
with India.

 The threat posed by the DPRK’s nuclear aspirations, proliferation,
provocations, and potential to cause regional instability.

 China’s military modernization – in particular its active development of
capabilities in the cyber and space domains - and the questions all these
emerging military capabilities raise among China’s neighbors about its
current and long-term intentions

 Three nuclear armed states, including Russia, China, and India, and North Korea’s nuclear aspirations, together with the threat of WMD proliferation

 Numerous transnational threats, ranging from proliferation, trafficking of
narcotics and persons, and piracy, to persistent natural and manmade
disasters

 Challenges to freedom of access to, and security within, maritime and air domains, and space and cyberspace, by both state and non-state actors.

http://armed- services.senate.gov/statemnt/2012/02%20February/Willard%2002-28-12.pdf

Should I say more?

Or is the good Admiral also pandering to pious and meaningless platitudes?

Ray
06-01-2012, 03:33 PM
And just in case anyone thinks the recent incidents mark a unique spike in regional conflict, a bit of history...


It is unique given the current geopolitical and geostrategic situation.

Hilary Clinton and Panneta are not the jetsetting lot who are roaming the globe for kicks!

Of late, they seem to be hyperactive!

Ken White
06-01-2012, 05:03 PM
Hilary Clinton and Panneta are not the jetsetting lot who are roaming the globe for kicks!

Of late, they seem to be hyperactive!On the first item, I wouldn't bet on that. :rolleyes:

On the second, you can expect that to increase markedly as we near the election in November. After which it will drop precipitously... :D

carl
06-01-2012, 07:10 PM
On the second, you can expect that to increase markedly as we near the election in November. After which it will drop precipitously... :D

There may be some truth to that, but as far as influencing the election, it won't. Most Americans know little if anything about Red Chinese designs on the South China Sea. What election interest there is in foreign policy has to do with Afghanistan and the ever noble Israel. So if Clinton and company are jetting about more than normal and it does have to do with the South China Sea, it is a wasted effort as far as the elections go. They know that so if they are jetting about more than normal, it is for another reason. Tourism maybe, but I don't think Mrs. Clinton worries about getting a tan anymore.

Ken White
06-01-2012, 10:38 PM
There may be some truth to that, but as far as influencing the election, it won't.The point was that an upcoming election breeds hyperactivity in the political classes, all elements not just defense and foreign affairs types (though they rise to the forefront 'cause those are definitely the Presidents bailiwick...). It does not, as you write, really influence many people but it does give credence to any Administration that is busy, busy, busy -- "...working for all Americans and a stable world" and trying to establish a reputation for 'toughness.' :rolleyes:

Note the amount of effort going into looking busy without actually doing much.
Most Americans know little if anything about Red Chinese designs on the South China Sea.And what they do know is hyped to make things look terribobble -- our system demands terribobbleness to keep the money spigots turned on. Both budget bucks from Congress and contributions from the hoi polloi. Well, from the worry wart segment of the polloi, anyway. :D
... So if Clinton and company are jetting about more than normal and it does have to do with the South China Sea, it is a wasted effort as far as the elections go.It doesn't, or only peripherally so -- it's not about China, it's all about looking busy until November. :wry:

Little to nothing they do is going to faze the Chinese much.
They know that so if they are jetting about more than normal, it is for another reason.Always possible, I suppose but after watching both parties in the electoral cycle for a number of years, one starts to see a pattern. One that has very little to do with defense or diplomacy. On a related note, it is surprising just how many American foreign relations 'crises' or 'problems' crop up in the summers of Presidential election years ;)

ganulv
06-01-2012, 11:51 PM
I don't think Mrs. Clinton worries about getting a tan anymore.

Thank you for that image, carl. :wry:

carl
06-02-2012, 12:31 AM
Thank you for that image, carl. :wry:

A wise diplomat uses all the tools at her disposal. It is for the good of the country.

Dayuhan
06-02-2012, 01:44 AM
The line of argument that policies or action of a Govt/Nation is solely confined to the current situation is amazing!

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are the IC's most authoritative written judgments on national security issues. NIEs usually provide information on the likely course of future events and highlight the implications for U.S. policymakers.

The keyword is FUTURE!

Why is the US extracting oil and gas from Shale?

I believe the production cost of a barrel of shale oil was US$95 per barrel. The economics is dependent on the price of oil (Standard).

The US industry suffered losses during the last major investment into oil shale in the early 1980s, when a subsequent collapse in the oil price left the projects uneconomical.

So the requirement of oil and gas never is less!

Of course the requirements are never less. The point is simply that the US has an abundance of gas (it's been described as "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas") and is thus less concerned with foreign gas supplies than with foreign oil supplies.

The whole idea that the SCS is rich in oil and gas reserves has become a mantra, mindlessly repeated without question or analysis. The media love the idea because it raises the prospect of conflict: everybody knows that conflict is "all about oil".

So the question remains: how much oil and gas is really there, by credible estimates? If you looked at the link referenced above, you'll see that, as I pointed out, estimated discovered and undiscovered oil reserves for all of SE Asia, not just the SCS, are a miniscule fraction of the proven reserves in the GCC.

There's a bit more gas in SE Asia than oil but the disparity remains. Estimated discovered and undiscovered gas reserves for all of SE Asia (again, much of this is not in or near the SCS) are 299tcf, per the same USGS report. That's about 1/3 of the proven reserves in Qatar alone. US recoverable reserve estimates are up to 2543tcf.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no tangible evidence that the SCS is or is likely to be anybody's energy "gold mine", to use your phrase. That's why I said above that no matter how much we talk of a shift to the Pacific, the Middle East is likely to continue being an equally large focus of naval attention, maybe a larger focus, for years to come. Policies shift every few years. Where the oil is doesn't shift, and it ain't in SE Asia.

Even if the SCS energy reserves are developed, that oil and gas is goong to be consumed locally, where demand is large and growing, not in the US... and from the US perspective, it doesn't matter at all whether that oil and gas is pumped and used by China, the Philippines, or Vietnam.

The whole SCS energy non-issue is a classic example of a molehill being hyped into a mountain. That's not a "pro-Chinese" or "pro-US" perspective, it's just a feeble attempt to bring some rationality into the conversation.


Would it mean that it is the belief that the US Navy is roaming the Pacific just because it has nothing worthwhile to do and requires to burn up fuel so that there is a shortage of gas and the prices skyrocket in the international market?

Trying to stay with the point, the US has not committed itself to protecting anyone in SE Asia, and certainly isn't like to exchange such a commitment for access to resources that aren't even all that remarkable. The idea that the US is going to protect the SE Asian nations in exchange for access to energy reserves just doesn't hold up to examination. The reserves aren't that exciting and no commitment of protection has been made... so what's to talk about, beyond speculation?

I'm honestly not all that interested in the statements or travels of officials. Lots of talk, but they are always talking. We won't know what any of it means until and unless actual policy changes or force redeployments are made. Until (and unless) that happens, any assessment of where the talk is going remains highly speculative at best.

Dayuhan
06-02-2012, 03:15 AM
Useful article on ASEAN and China:

http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/05/30/is-china-trying-to-split-asean/

Ray
06-02-2012, 06:00 AM
On the first item, I wouldn't bet on that. :rolleyes:

On the second, you can expect that to increase markedly as we near the election in November. After which it will drop precipitously... :D

I wonder what will be the effect on the US election when the 'educated' are as 'educated' as Sarah Palin, the hockey mom, and believe it or not, the Vice Presidential candidate (sic!) whose foreign policy acumen lies in the fact that she see Russia through her window or Joe the Plumber, who is good at his job, but Foreign Policy?

Ray
06-02-2012, 07:36 AM
Of course the requirements are never less. The point is simply that the US has an abundance of gas (it's been described as "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas") and is thus less concerned with foreign gas supplies than with foreign oil supplies.

The whole idea that the SCS is rich in oil and gas reserves has become a mantra, mindlessly repeated without question or analysis. The media love the idea because it raises the prospect of conflict: everybody knows that conflict is "all about oil".

So the question remains: how much oil and gas is really there, by credible estimates? If you looked at the link referenced above, you'll see that, as I pointed out, estimated discovered and undiscovered oil reserves for all of SE Asia, not just the SCS, are a miniscule fraction of the proven reserves in the GCC.

There's a bit more gas in SE Asia than oil but the disparity remains. Estimated discovered and undiscovered gas reserves for all of SE Asia (again, much of this is not in or near the SCS) are 299tcf, per the same USGS report. That's about 1/3 of the proven reserves in Qatar alone. US recoverable reserve estimates are up to 2543tcf.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no tangible evidence that the SCS is or is likely to be anybody's energy "gold mine", to use your phrase. That's why I said above that no matter how much we talk of a shift to the Pacific, the Middle East is likely to continue being an equally large focus of naval attention, maybe a larger focus, for years to come. Policies shift every few years. Where the oil is doesn't shift, and it ain't in SE Asia.

Even if the SCS energy reserves are developed, that oil and gas is goong to be consumed locally, where demand is large and growing, not in the US... and from the US perspective, it doesn't matter at all whether that oil and gas is pumped and used by China, the Philippines, or Vietnam.

The whole SCS energy non-issue is a classic example of a molehill being hyped into a mountain. That's not a "pro-Chinese" or "pro-US" perspective, it's just a feeble attempt to bring some rationality into the conversation.

US Energy import

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/annual-US-crude-oil-imports-1997-2011.jpg

Abundance or otherwise, the US still requires to import.

Again it is most odd that, for the sake of proving a point, one trots out disingenuous arguments. For instance this one of yours:


no matter how much we talk of a shift to the Pacific, the Middle East is likely to continue being an equally large focus of naval attention, maybe a larger focus, for years to come. Policies shift every few years. Where the oil is doesn't shift, and it ain't in SE Asia.

Anyone who has an iota of understanding strategy (in any field) requires no reminder that one does not put all of one’s eggs in one basket.

As an aide memoir this may help:



When first assuming office as President in early 2001, George W. Bush’s top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction (or any of the other goals he has espoused since 9/11); rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from foreign suppliers to markets in the United States. In the year preceding his assumption of office, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electric-power blackouts in California. In addition, U.S. oil imports had just risen over 50 percent of total U.S. consumption for the first time in American history, provoking great anxiety about the security of America’s long-term energy supply. For these and other reasons, Bush asserted that addressing the nation’s "energy crisis" was his most important task as President.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4458.htm

There is no guarantee that this will not happen again!

And given the way the Arab Spring is throwing up Islamic political forces to head Govts, what is the guarantee that it will be hunky dory for the US or for the West?

One should not forget that even if hypothetically speaking US is flush with oil for her own use, the US cannot let the West sink or else where will be the “Coalition of the Willing’, when the chips are down?

Or will there never the again be requirement of the “Coalition of the Willing’?

That the Caspian basin or CAR or SCS is rich in oil maybe a media mantra, but surely it cannot be their figment of imagination or is it? The media does base their articles on some facts or don’t they? Even if it were catalyst for conflicts, is it being suggested that the Govts of the world are so stupid as to base their policies on media report? It is so outlandish a suggestion that one does not know if it were out of a deficiency of comprehension of the process of policy making or being totally naïve.

One does not really have to remind one of what is 'strategic reserves'. Suffice it to say that one does not depletes one's own resources when one finds the item available in the world market!

In so far as to who uses the oil of SCS this may help in understanding the US’ attitude towards global energy (from the earlier link)


= The implications of all of the above are unmistakable: in its pursuit of ever-growing supplies of imported petroleum, the United States is intruding ever more assertively into the internal affairs of the oil-supplying nations and, in the process, exposing itself to an ever-increasing risk of involvement in local and regional conflict situations. This reality has already influenced U.S. relations with the major oil-producing nations and is sure to have an even greater impact in the future……

an energy plan that calls for increased reliance on the Persian Gulf countries and on other suppliers located in areas of recurring turmoil will not be able to overcome every conceivable threat to American energy interests through economic and diplomatic efforts alone. At some point, it may prove impossible to ensure access to a particular source of oil without the use of military force.….

What we have, therefore, is a two-pronged strategy that effectively governs U.S. policy toward much of the world. One arm of this strategy is aimed at securing more oil from the rest of the world; the other is aimed at enhancing America’s capacity to intervene in exactly such locales. And while these two objectives have arisen from different sets of concerns, one energy-driven and the other security-driven, they have merged into a single, integrated design for American world dominance in the 21st Century. And it is this combination of strategies, more than anything else, that will govern America’s international behavior in the decades ahead





:
Trying to stay with the point, the US has not committed itself to protecting anyone in SE Asia, and certainly isn't like to exchange such a commitment for access to resources that aren't even all that remarkable. The idea that the US is going to protect the SE Asian nations in exchange for access to energy reserves just doesn't hold up to examination. The reserves aren't that exciting and no commitment of protection has been made... so what's to talk about, beyond speculation?

I'm honestly not all that interested in the statements or travels of officials. Lots of talk, but they are always talking. We won't know what any of it means until and unless actual policy changes or force redeployments are made. Until (and unless) that happens, any assessment of where the talk is going remains highly speculative at best.
That is the most extraordinary statement –

, the US has not committed itself to protecting anyone in SE Asia

Are you suggesting that you lay down the policies for the US?

Are you suggesting that Admiral ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND is daft to testify
BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND POSTURE when he states:

 The need to continuously manage and optimize U.S. alliances and strengthen regional partnerships, in particular, advancing the relationship with India.

 China’s military modernization – in particular its active development of capabilities in the cyber and space domains – and the questions all these emerging military capabilities raise among China’s neighbors about its current and long-term intentions

And are the Senate Committee and the Govt constituted to merely hear fairy tales, having nothing better to do?

You do project the US governance instruments in real poor light.

It is your prerogative to find the travels and statements of the US leaders as puerile and justifiably so since it is not your tax money they are burning to keep the US and the US interest safe.

What really astonishes me is that two ‘wars’ against rag tag lots (Iraq and Afghanistan) has done such wonders as to Americans wanting peace at all cost and being ever ready to abandon their pristine role that they had charted ever since WWII and have lost all their bravado, brouhaha and gung ho!

The meek shall inherit the Earth.

China is going about it with its meek aggressiveness.

Ray
06-02-2012, 10:14 AM
A clarification

NO country is altruistic.

Therefore, to project that China is ever so good and others including the US are negatively aggressive, it appears to be purely motivated and agenda driven, for reason best known to such folks.

Dayuhan
06-02-2012, 10:35 AM
All this talk of oil and gas misses the point completely. According to the USGS (link provided above), SE Asian reserve estimates are extremely modest. Even if developed, there's simply not enough there for significant exports to the US or anywhere else... in fact even if these resources were fully developed, given the rate at which consumption in that region is growing, the region would still have to import. It's not as if there's nothing there, but it is in no sense of the word a "gold mine", and it's in no way significant enough for the US to go to war over. If you don't believe that, look carefully at the reserve estimates published by USGS, do some research on the percentage of reserves that are typically recoverable, and compare to other energy-producing areas.

Chinese estimates are higher, but they have not published any data to support those estimates or anything that indicates how those estimates were derived, and it's unlikely that the US would base its planning on Chinese estimates, especially when they are wildly inconsistent with those of its own specialists.


That the Caspian basin or CAR or SCS is rich in oil maybe a media mantra, but surely it cannot be their figment of imagination or is it? The media does base their articles on some facts or don’t they?

News media often handle facts very loosely indeed. In this case the media say one thing about SE Asian oil reserves, the USGS says another. Who are you going to believe, the newsman or the geologist?


Even if it were catalyst for conflicts, is it being suggested that the Govts of the world are so stupid as to base their policies on media report?

I do not think any government would base its assessment of energy reserves on media reports. I think the US government is probably basing its assessment of SE Asian energy reserves on what it hears from USGS. That's why I don't think US involvement in the region is driven by a desire to get the energy: because the US agency that informs the government doesn't seem to think reserves are all that large.

That's also why I think that despite all the talk of a shift to the Pacific, you're going to see the Navy hustling back to the Middle East if trouble stirs up over there, which it inevitably does. Take away all the talk, look at the numbers. There are energy reserves in a number of places, but SE Asia is way down the list. That's not to say the US has no interest, but the interest is not driven by a desire to get energy, and any talk of an energy "gold mine" for the US is way off base.



That is the most extraordinary statement –


Are you suggesting that you lay down the policies for the US?

Certainly not. It was a simple statement of fact. The US has not committed itself to protect anyone in SE Asia, and it has not committed itself to protect Taiwan. The preference seems to be to maintain a level of strategic ambiguity, leaving everyone in the picture wondering what the US would or would not do in the event of conflict.

I don't think that's an unreasonable policy, as it allows the US to put a response together according to the needs of any given time, unburdened by previous commitment.


What really astonishes me is that two ‘wars’ against rag tag lots (Iraq and Afghanistan) has done such wonders as to Americans wanting peace at all cost and being ever ready to abandon their pristine role that they had charted ever since WWII and have lost all their bravado, brouhaha and gung ho!

The Vietnamese, the Filipinos, and a whole lot of others would tell you that the US role since WW2 has been anything but "pristine". I think the US is trying to accept reality and straighten out its act a bit... no perfection there of course, but there never is.

Why would one not want peace? Certainly not at all cost, but what unacceptable cost looms in the SCS? There's a bit of simmering going on and the situation bares watching, but I don't see how it calls for strutting confrontation, bombastic saber-rattling, or any other form of posturing. We've worked through far riskier situations and there's no reason this can't be worked through as well.

Ken White
06-02-2012, 04:52 PM
I wonder what will be the effect on the US election when the 'educated' are as 'educated' as Sarah Palin, the hockey mom, and believe it or not, the Vice Presidential candidate (sic!) whose foreign policy acumen lies in the fact that she see Russia through her window or Joe the Plumber, who is good at his job, but Foreign Policy?That's why Jedburgh, Dayuhan and I all criticized the pathetic US educational system which in 60 years has gone from being one of the best in the world to one that is atrocious and is failing.

A significant problem is that many of the 'educated' in this country are not really educated, they are instead indoctrinated, convinced of their own rectitude, have degrees in something studies -- and fail to understand their own ignorance.

All why I say that there a lot of little old retired NKVD / MVD/ KGB guys watching CNN over their Vodka in Ekaterineburg who get a lot of chuckles from Sarah and Joe. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams... :o

However, the saving grace is that while we collectively get a lot of things wrong, we seem, mostly, to get the big ones about right. We may or may not continue to do so. We'll see.

I will note that it is sort of incongruous of you to state the US is super smart and has grand and great designs on the one hand while dismissing Hanlon's Razor (never attribute to malice that which is engendered by stupidity...) and on the other, to realize that the flaws you mention above are prevalent. Can't have it both ways. Or can we... ;)

Ken White
06-02-2012, 05:08 PM
A clarification

NO country is altruistic.

Therefore, to project that China is ever so good and others including the US are negatively aggressive, it appears to be purely motivated and agenda driven, for reason best known to such folks.I have not seen anyone here who is doing that? If you believe you have seen that, could it be that your agenda drives your perception? :confused: :wry:

What I've read is that those who do not totally support you or Carl in the 'China is totally e-vul' mantra is that she is evil but no more totally than any other nation, that she does deserve respect due to size and capabilities and that she may not be benign but that fear is not necessary -- or desirable (complicates thinking and planning...). Most seem to me to state the US certainly pursues its own interests and the while doing so it may maintain a fiction of innocence -- but all nations do that. All as you say, none are altruistic nor are many innocent.

No two, three or more of the largest nations are going to be either of those things while none are likely to be totally ill intentioned and that accords generally, IMO, with what appears on this board...

Ray
06-02-2012, 05:19 PM
All this talk of oil and gas misses the point completely. According to the USGS (link provided above), SE Asian reserve estimates are extremely modest. Even if developed, there's simply not enough there for significant exports to the US or anywhere else... in fact even if these resources were fully developed, given the rate at which consumption in that region is growing, the region would still have to import. It's not as if there's nothing there, but it is in no sense of the word a "gold mine", and it's in no way significant enough for the US to go to war over. If you don't believe that, look carefully at the reserve estimates published by USGS, do some research on the percentage of reserves that are typically recoverable, and compare to other energy-producing areas.

Chinese estimates are higher, but they have not published any data to support those estimates or anything that indicates how those estimates were derived, and it's unlikely that the US would base its planning on Chinese estimates, especially when they are wildly inconsistent with those of its own specialists.



All this talk about oil and gas does not miss the point at all.

Without going into the obvious, there is no doubt that Crude Oil has had profound impact on the world civilization than any single natural resource in recorded history


Oil is a finite item. It impinges on the ‘health’ of the world, socially, economically and even politically.


Therefore, the desire of powerful nations to acquire areas where there is potential oil or, at least, be a cognisable influencing factor. Hence, it is not merely having abundance available domestically, but also be able to influence the oil industry and the markets by regulating the oil supply to the world and thereby deciding on the price of oil and thus the calculus of the world economies. The US’ influence on the OPEC to increase oil production to tide over economic problems requires no elaboration.

The country that can influence the countries that produce oil and also influence the market, thus, also can influence the calculus of world economics. It makes Oil a powerful weapon to shape the destiny of the world.

The discovery of oil beyond the Middle East and known oil producing countries may not affect the US consumption demand as is current, but to leave it out of the US’ Sphere of Influence’ would weaken the hold that the US has on the destiny and development of the world, the world development being highly dependent on the use of oil.

Before, the facts in the above paragraph be perfunctorily in an Oracle like fashion be dismissed, it would be worth noting that the US has been hard at it to overthrow Chavez and the problems of Nigeria is not that the tribals have gone wild! It may not be known but Nigeria has some very highly educated and competent people. I refrain from commenting on the underlying rationale about the Arab Spring because it is too simplistic to believe that democracy has suddenly visited obscurantist Arabs when historically since Islam came into being in ancient times, democracy was never even thought of and instead oppressive Sultans and regimes ruled them, mostly under the laws of the Sharia!


It all boils down to the fact that oil is a political weapon.

Therefore, oil is not only a functionary in the well being of the population of a single country, but also that of the world, the comity of nations being interdependent on the economic well being.

The sum total being that the nation that can influence the trade of oil and can control it is but the arbiter of international political and economic equations.

An interesting fact is that Oil is not only used as a political weapon internationally as it is being done against Iran currently to Iran’s economic and social discomfort, but it has been done to influence domestic politics of other nations too!


In 2000, Gore was the de facto incumbent. The economy was still OK, but oil prices had definitely risen in the 12 months before the election. It was an open secret that the Arab countries -- led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- did not want Gore as president and they played a role in keeping oil prices high. (Remember in the summer of 2000 as prices rose the Clinton administration even moved to sell off some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?)
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/29/125155.shtml

Even though oil is a political weapon as has been and is being demonstrated that it was always a political weapon is summarised thus:


The concept of oil as a weapon first appeared in 1935-1936 when the League of Nations considered using oil sanctions against Mussolini's Italy. The League could not use the oil embargo against Italy because it was not able to stop the supply from third-country sellers.
The U.S. used oil sanctions for the first time against Japan in 1941. The reason for the embargo was Japan's occupation of China. The measure was effective, but only because Japan's oil supply routes were vulnerable, and more importantly, 80% of the oil in Japan was coming from the United States. Roger Stern argues in his research paper "Oil Market and United States National Security"that the Pearl Harbor attack was a countermeasure to the oil weapon.
The real danger to the US national security is not the oil, but the power of oil cartels over the market. The manipulation of supply and prices is more dangerous than all fears related to the scarcity of oil. We hypothesize that threats do arise in the oil market, not from the oil weapon but from the cartel's management of abundance. The opposite to the fears: the oil weapon seems an implausible threat when the economic, geographic, and military attributes of prospective user and victim are considered.
(Paraphrased from http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Oil-as-a-weapon.php)

Iran is in dire straits because of the embargo put on world nations not to import Iranian oil.

That is why oil has become the concern of governments, a vital ingredient of their politics and a crucial factor in the political and diplomatic strategies.

Hence SCS oil or oil anywhere is of import to the US, if it is to ‘influence’ its production and hence control the international market. And it if falls into Chinese hands, US’ influence on the calculus of world economics will take a toss and its influence as a global power would be cast asunder.

An interesting side note that I found was that the American with only about 5% of the total world population and 28% of global GDP in 2006 consumes about 25% of the world’s total oil production and 40% of the world’s gasoline production.



News media often handle facts very loosely indeed. In this case the media say one thing about SE Asian oil reserves, the USGS says another. Who are you going to believe, the newsman or the geologist?

I would believe only the oil companies who have invested in the oilfields and the pipelines to Europe because rarely do businessmen fall under the category of ‘A Fool and his money are soon parted’.


I do not think any government would base its assessment of energy reserves on media reports. I think the US government is probably basing its assessment of SE Asian energy reserves on what it hears from USGS. That's why I don't think US involvement in the region is driven by a desire to get the energy: because the US agency that informs the government doesn't seem to think reserves are all that large.

That's also why I think that despite all the talk of a shift to the Pacific, you're going to see the Navy hustling back to the Middle East if trouble stirs up over there, which it inevitably does. Take away all the talk, look at the numbers. There are energy reserves in a number of places, but SE Asia is way down the list. That's not to say the US has no interest, but the interest is not driven by a desire to get energy, and any talk of an energy "gold mine" for the US is way off base.

Why the US is interested in the SCS, I have tried to give my point of view above.

I, for one, don’t subscribe to your view that - ‘ that despite all the talk of a shift to the Pacific, you're going to see the Navy hustling back to the Middle East if trouble stirs up over there, which it inevitably does.

Correct me if I am wrong, when the Iraq War took place, did the Pacific Command of the Third and Seventh Fleets steam off to Iraq?

If they didn’t, then I wonder what greater catastrophe would make them steam off to the Middle East and leave a void in the Pacific.

Unlike you, I do have faith in the US military and the US Govt and like to believe that they are competent.

Ray
06-02-2012, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Ray
That is the most extraordinary statement –


Are you suggesting that you lay down the policies for the US?

Certainly not. It was a simple statement of fact. The US has not committed itself to protect anyone in SE Asia, and it has not committed itself to protect Taiwan. The preference seems to be to maintain a level of strategic ambiguity, leaving everyone in the picture wondering what the US would or would not do in the event of conflict.

I don't think that's an unreasonable policy, as it allows the US to put a response together according to the needs of any given time, unburdened by previous commitment.

You leave me bewildered.

You had stated


Trying to stay with the point, the US has not committed itself to protecting anyone in SE Asia

And that runs contrary to what the person entrusted to protect US interests in the Pacific, ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD has stated:


 The need to continuously manage and optimize U.S. alliances and strengthen regional partnerships, in particular, advancing the relationship with India.

 China’s military modernization – in particular its active development of capabilities in the cyber and space domains – and the questions all these emerging military capabilities raise among China’s neighbors about its current and long-term intentions

So who is right.?

You, an expat in the Philippines or the US Admiral who is entrusted to shape the US destiny in the Pacific?



The Vietnamese, the Filipinos, and a whole lot of others would tell you that the US role since WW2 has been anything but "pristine". I think the US is trying to accept reality and straighten out its act a bit... no perfection there of course, but there never is.

Why would one not want peace? Certainly not at all cost, but what unacceptable cost looms in the SCS? There's a bit of simmering going on and the situation bares watching, but I don't see how it calls for strutting confrontation, bombastic saber-rattling, or any other form of posturing. We've worked through far riskier situations and there's no reason this can't be worked through as well.

In this very forum I was told that one of the US instincts is that the desire for ‘revenge’ or word to that effect when I wondered if the US is to pull out before it has achieved it aims, why did the US come to Afghanistan in the first place! In other words, it was conveyed that no one can fool around with the US.

Even the US Presidents have categorically stated that they will hunt down anyone who works against the US and its citizens.

Rhetoric?

I wonder; more so, since they got OBL finally when the sceptics thought it was all gas (hot air) and no go!

Ray
06-02-2012, 05:35 PM
That's why Jedburgh, Dayuhan and I all criticized the pathetic US educational system which in 60 years has gone from being one of the best in the world to one that is atrocious and is failing.

A significant problem is that many of the 'educated' in this country are not really educated, they are instead indoctrinated, convinced of their own rectitude, have degrees in something studies -- and fail to understand their own ignorance.

All why I say that there a lot of little old retired NKVD / MVD/ KGB guys watching CNN over their Vodka in Ekaterineburg who get a lot of chuckles from Sarah and Joe. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams... :o

However, the saving grace is that while we collectively get a lot of things wrong, we seem, mostly, to get the big ones about right. We may or may not continue to do so. We'll see.

I will note that it is sort of incongruous of you to state the US is super smart and has grand and great designs on the one hand while dismissing Hanlon's Razor (never attribute to malice that which is engendered by stupidity...) and on the other, to realize that the flaws you mention above are prevalent. Can't have it both ways. Or can we... ;)

'If US education standards are so poor as you claim, then whatever the US Administration is doing in the Asia Pacific region will have no effect.

Therefore, how does all these activities affect the US election as you were trying to suggest?

It is not incongruous at all as to what I was saying about the US policies being very focused.

Like it or not, neither Obama, Ms Clinton, Panneta and others appear to be of the same genre as Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber.

And if you will forgive me, there are many US posters here too and they would hardly be classified to be of the genre of Sarah Palin, let alone Joe the Plumber.

Therefore, I do not subscribe to the theory that US education across the board is pathetic as you wish to convey.
You do injustice to many, sir!

Ray
06-02-2012, 05:36 PM
I have not seen anyone here who is doing that? If you believe you have seen that, could it be that your agenda drives your perception? :confused: :wry:

What I've read is that those who do not totally support you or Carl in the 'China is totally e-vul' mantra is that she is evil but no more totally than any other nation, that she does deserve respect due to size and capabilities and that she may not be benign but that fear is not necessary -- or desirable (complicates thinking and planning...). Most seem to me to state the US certainly pursues its own interests and the while doing so it may maintain a fiction of innocence -- but all nations do that. All as you say, none are altruistic nor are many innocent.

No two, three or more of the largest nations are going to be either of those things while none are likely to be totally ill intentioned and that accords generally, IMO, with what appears on this board...

Sir,

You are too good a man to notice these issues!

One has to have an eye for detail!

Some see a glass half full and some see it as half empty.

So, who is right?

It is not I alone who feels so.

Observe this comment:


A previous comment of yours in a thread about cyber-espionage demonstrated that you have a poor understanding of information security concepts. Combine that with your reflexive apologizing for China, and I’m not sure your opinion alone on this matter is worth a damn.

Post #4
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=136495#post136495

Ray
06-02-2012, 06:44 PM
I have not seen anyone here who is doing that? If you believe you have seen that, could it be that your agenda drives your perception? :confused: :wry:

What I've read is that those who do not totally support you or Carl in the 'China is totally e-vul' mantra is that she is evil but no more totally than any other nation, that she does deserve respect due to size and capabilities and that she may not be benign but that fear is not necessary -- or desirable (complicates thinking and planning...). Most seem to me to state the US certainly pursues its own interests and the while doing so it may maintain a fiction of innocence -- but all nations do that. All as you say, none are altruistic nor are many innocent.

No two, three or more of the largest nations are going to be either of those things while none are likely to be totally ill intentioned and that accords generally, IMO, with what appears on this board...

NO country is evil.

Each country is pursuing their agenda.

Could you tell us as to why is the US acting like a Big Brother in the SCS?

Let China solve it with other Asians, right?

On the one hand, posters like you want bask in being the head honcho and on the other hand, you want to be politically correct and oh la la la.

Why are you in Afghanistan or why did you invade Iraq if people like you fee that you are ever so benign and are not interested in global geostrategy or geopolitics?

You claim that all things happening in the SCS is election oriented and then you claim US education is tripe and that people who are educated are actually illiterates suggesting that they have no idea of foreign issues or policies!

One cannot be hypocrites depending on the flavour of the moment!

Dayuhan
06-02-2012, 10:15 PM
Without going into the obvious, there is no doubt that Crude Oil has had profound impact on the world civilization than any single natural resource in recorded history

Undoubtedly so. The point you're not addressing is that according to the USGS - the agency that informs the US Government on matters pertaining to oil and gas reserves - the quantity of such reserves to be had in SE Asia is extremely limited, despite the repetitious exaggerations in media reports. Hence it is difficult to believe that anyone making decisions in the US sees the SCS as a potential energy "gold mine", or that energy resources are a major factor drawing US attention to the reason. That's true precisely because oil is important, and one seeks oil where your scientists say it is, not where the newspapers say it is.


The discovery of oil beyond the Middle East and known oil producing countries may not affect the US consumption demand as is current, but to leave it out of the US’ Sphere of Influence’ would weaken the hold that the US has on the destiny and development of the world, the world development being highly dependent on the use of oil.

So why should the potential presence of very small amounts of oil in an area tht is in actual point of fact outside the US sphere of influence be a major factor in US policy?

Again, there just isn't that much oil there.
.

I would believe only the oil companies who have invested in the oilfields and the pipelines to Europe

Do you see the oil majors flocking to SE Asia?


I, for one, don’t subscribe to your view that - ‘ that despite all the talk of a shift to the Pacific, you're going to see the Navy hustling back to the Middle East if trouble stirs up over there, which it inevitably does.

Correct me if I am wrong, when the Iraq War took place, did the Pacific Command of the Third and Seventh Fleets steam off to Iraq?

If they didn’t, then I wonder what greater catastrophe would make them steam off to the Middle East and leave a void in the Pacific.

I'll be more specific: if (when) trouble resumes in the ME, that region will be restored to the disproportionately high weighting in US deployments that it has had for the last few decades. Yes, there will still be forces elsewhere, just as there will still be forces in the ME after the discussed "shift to the Pacific". I thought that obvious; apparently I was wrong.


Unlike you, I do have faith in the US military and the US Govt and like to believe that they are competent.

Take that up with JMA sometime, just for our amusement.


You leave me bewildered.

It seems a habitual state.


You had stated

And that runs contrary to what the person entrusted to protect US interests in the Pacific, ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD has stated:

So who is right.?

I see nothing in Admiral Willard's statement that commits the US to protect any nation.


Even the US Presidents have categorically stated that they will hunt down anyone who works against the US and its citizens.

Rhetoric?

I wonder; more so, since they got OBL finally when the sceptics thought it was all gas (hot air) and no go!

OBL was, alas for him, devoid of nukes. The Chinese are not, nor have they attacked America or Americans. We do a lot of business with them. We disagree on a number of things, as we do with others elsewhere, but not not on anything sufficiently compelling to provoke violence.

I have noticed on a number of threads pertaining to China that there are a few people around who seem to believe that anyone who fails to cast China as an absolute enemy that must be challenged and confronted at every possible opportunity is therefore apologizing for China or taking a pro-Chinese line. That seems a strange opinion to me, but people are strange (Jim Morrison said so, and I believe him), and of course they are entitled to whatever opinions they like, just as others are free to put forth contrasting opinions.

Bob's World
06-03-2012, 12:24 AM
Dayuhan,

I was surfing radio channels on the way to work the other day, and on one channel the commentator were accusing anyone who did not agree completely with Israeli policies and US support to them as being "anti semitic." I thought I must be mistaken, so I listened a while and it became clear I had heard right the first time.

There seems to be a great deal of "conform or be labeled in some hateful way" going on. I take that as a metric of how irrational many of those positions are becoming. Sad.

Ken White
06-03-2012, 12:50 AM
'If US education standards are so poor as you claim, then whatever the US Administration is doing in the Asia Pacific region will have no effect.Umm. No. They will have an effect, just not a well designed, well planned and competently executed effect. Unintended consequences are an effect. Some effects will be intended, some will not be but they will occur and the level of education in the US has little to do with that; it's mostly a function of our somewhat chaotic political system and the fact that we pay little real attention to international affairs until crises occur -- our focus, unfortunately, is inward...
Therefore, how does all these activities affect the US election as you were trying to suggest?I believe I said it was an attempt to affect the election (you may have noted I agreed with Carl that it likely wouldn't make much difference) and that by generating 'problems' which the Administration is 'working mightily to solve.'
It is not incongruous at all as to what I was saying about the US policies being very focused.

Like it or not, neither Obama, Ms Clinton, Panneta and others appear to be of the same genre as Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber.Nope, different genres. The first three may be a little sharper (or appear to be) than the last two -- or they may just have better staff and advisors. ;)
And if you will forgive me, there are many US posters here too and they would hardly be classified to be of the genre of Sarah Palin, let alone Joe the Plumber.

Therefore, I do not subscribe to the theory that US education across the board is pathetic as you wish to convey.[quote]Your choice. I live here, you read a lot... ;)[quote]
You do injustice to many, sir!No, I do not. You're quite wrong. The nominal 50% of the nation's populace that is less well educated than the other 50% are not in that situation due to choice; they are mostly there due to the fact that system failed them. I criticize that system, not the people who suffer due to its failures.

BTW, do not make the mistake of believing that the Sarahs and Joes, that unfortunate 50% less well educated are incompetent boobs. They are not. They may not be as sophisticated as some or as erudite but they aren't stupid. Joe for example was far more correct on the economy than was Obama. ;)

ganulv
06-03-2012, 01:10 AM
Therefore, I do not subscribe to the theory that US education across the board is pathetic as you wish to convey.

Control of public education in the United States is localized and so by definition variable. There are certainly some excellent public schools in the United States but access to them is a crapshoot. (My home state runs a residential secondary school for promising students (http://www.ncssm.edu/) in response to this fact. There aren’t many slots and it’s rather late in the game at that point, but hey, it’s something.) So U.S. education isn’t across-the-board pathetic, just generally so (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED526954&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED526954).

Ken White
06-03-2012, 01:34 AM
NO country is evil.Is that your statement or is purported to be one of mine? Dunno. What I do know is that they are all a mix of good and evil and that which factor is on top varies from time to time and according to one's perspective... :wry:
Each country is pursuing their agenda.Well, yeah...
Could you tell us as to why is the US acting like a Big Brother in the SCS?Uh, because it's in our perceived interest at this time to do so?
Let China solve it with other Asians, right?If you wish -- not what I said or believe.
On the one hand, posters like you want bask in being the head honcho and on the other hand, you want to be politically correct and oh la la la.Lemme tell you something, RSM to Brigadier, last time I was politically correct you were probably not yet weaned. ;)

Head Honcho? Bask in that? -- pain in the tail and we don't do it very well. So no, I don't bask in it; bring back the Pax Britannica, I say. Most Americans, I think would agree. However, most also agree one has to do what one has to do (I just wish we were better at sorting what must be done versus what can be done... :rolleyes: ). That, in essence is what I contend in this thread; just that we can do things stupidly or not, our call and it must be oen that we make, not what is necessarily best for others though that is certainly a consideration.
Why are you in Afghanistan or why did you invade Iraq if people like you fee that you are ever so benign and are not interested in global geostrategy or geopolitics?You're getting confused. I am possibly one the most far from benign persons with whom you have ever exchanged words. I have no problem with violence and no problem with the US -- or India, any nation -- taking care of their interests. I simply think that taking care of those interest wisely instead of precipitously make sense.

I happen to be interested in geostrategy and global politics as many in the US are. Fortunately or unfortunately, most American aren't all that much interested -- just as I suspect most Indians are less concerned about those matters than you happen to be. Our experiences define us.
You claim that all things happening in the SCS is election oriented...That is incorrect -- I said the hyperactivity (your word...) of SecDef and SecState and its attendant publicity was directed at the election. I admit that I should have caveated that by saying much of the activity -- the Shangri La Conference and some of the other items have been planned for years. So their attendance was foreordained and serves a purpose -- the flurry of publicity about that attendance though is aimed at 'look what we're doing.'
and then you claim US education is tripe...Yes, I surely did -- I firmly believe that, too...

Are there exceptions? Of course but we as a nation have definitely regressed in educating our children. The Colleges and Universities do better but even they are not what they once were.
and that people who are educated are actually illiterates suggesting that they have no idea of foreign issues or policies!Wrong again -- didn't say or imply that. Here's what I said:

""A significant problem is that many of the 'educated' in this country are not really educated, they are instead indoctrinated, convinced of their own rectitude, have degrees in something studies -- and fail to understand their own ignorance.""

Note I did NOT say or imply that anyone you and I discussed in this thread was among the number of not really educated or failed to understand their own ignorance -- that I di so was your incorrect assumption. You also missed the fact that I placed part of the blame for many of the failures of our education system where I believe it belongs:

""All why I say that there a lot of little old retired NKVD / MVD/ KGB guys watching CNN over their Vodka in Ekaterineburg who get a lot of chuckles from Sarah and Joe. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.""

Not only did they succeed in infiltrating and corrupting western educational systems, they also succeeded in finding all the fault lines on the Maps created by former Colonial Powers and instigating long lasting troubles (See, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir et.al.)

One cannot be hypocrites depending on the flavour of the moment!True that. None here. Read and quote more carefully and thus avoid standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions...

As an aside re: your question on why Afghanistan and Iraq; in both cases because four previous Presidents had failed to adequately respond to probes and minor attacks emanating form the ME and had thus unintentionally encouraged escalation in those efforts. G. W. Bush did what need to be done -- and then, being a nice guy and deciding it was in our interest, stayed longer in both nations than we really needed to -- but that's another thread.

Dayuhan
06-03-2012, 02:05 AM
I believe I said it was an attempt to affect the election (you may have noted I agreed with Carl that it likely wouldn't make much difference) and that by generating 'problems' which the Administration is 'working mightily to solve.

It probably won't make much difference, but it does solve a problem for the administration's campaign. Americans are generally unaware of foreign policy details, but they do notice some broad strokes. As a general rule they want leaders to appear assertive, strong and tough. In today's specific environment, they also want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration then has the problem of trying to appear tough and assertive while engaged in what many will perceive as a retreat.

Enter the shift to the Pacific. China is a bully! We will deploy 60% of our fleet to the Pacific! Of course those looking at the fine print know that we are actually taking great pains to avoid confronting China or committing ourselves to support any of those who feel threatened by China. Those tuned in to detail will also note that the 60% shift is proposed "by 2020", by which time Obama will be out of office and policies will be (naturally) realigned to meet the needs of that day, which may or may not involve Pacific deployments.

In short, there's not a lot of substance to it so far, but it's going to provide some beautiful assertive Presidential-sounding quotes for the upcoming campaign. No, we're not retreating from Afghanistan, we're realigning forces to meet the needs and challenges of the brilliant future to which I and only I can lead you!

I'm actually not anti-Obama, but politics are what they are.


So U.S. education isn’t across-the-board pathetic, just generally so (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED526954&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED526954).



To get back on my personal panic-stricken hysteria hobbyhorse, proficiency in math and reading is only the tip of the iceberg. What's even more worrisome is the loss of competitiveness, self-discipline, work ethic, and the "soft skills" like showing up on time, accepting supervision, working in groups, etc. That's not all about the schools, parenting is also a big issue, but it's a real problem. An entitlement society where people don't want to study demanding fields where some answers are wrong is going to be poorly equipped to survive in a really competitive world.

As I said elsewhere, a society where astrologers outnumber astronomers 100 to 1 doesn't need to look across the ocean for threats.

Ray
06-03-2012, 09:05 AM
Dayuhan,

I was surfing radio channels on the way to work the other day, and on one channel the commentator were accusing anyone who did not agree completely with Israeli policies and US support to them as being "anti semitic." I thought I must be mistaken, so I listened a while and it became clear I had heard right the first time.

There seems to be a great deal of "conform or be labeled in some hateful way" going on. I take that as a metric of how irrational many of those positions are becoming. Sad.

Nothing to be sad about, if I may console you.

One may make a statesmen, but one has to justify it to be believable.

One cannot be Sir Oracle as some have been!

That 'I said so and Period'!

In Punjabi that attitude is Main Dasiya.

I cannot be clubbed in the category since not only I explain but also gives links to justify.

Others merely state that they know all and the US is made up of low IQ people even in Govt and are mere bumbling dolts

Now, I wonder if that is right. If so, one wonders if the US voter also is as cretinous as is being made out to be.

Be apologetic and champion of China.

But prove that they are right and others are wrong.

Why escape this and go beating about the Bush and state others are wrong and are misunderstanding.

If indeed other are wrong and misunderstanding the Chinese, let us know how.

ganulv
06-03-2012, 01:56 PM
To get back on my personal panic-stricken hysteria hobbyhorse, proficiency in math and reading is only the tip of the iceberg. What's even more worrisome is the loss of competitiveness, self-discipline, work ethic, and the "soft skills" like showing up on time, accepting supervision, working in groups, etc. That's not all about the schools, parenting is also a big issue, but it's a real problem. An entitlement society where people don't want to study demanding fields where some answers are wrong is going to be poorly equipped to survive in a really competitive world.

As I said elsewhere, a society where astrologers outnumber astronomers 100 to 1 doesn't need to look across the ocean for threats.




http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/epic-fail-photos-parenting-fails-fork-you.jpg

Ray
06-03-2012, 02:07 PM
Undoubtedly so. The point you're not addressing is that according to the USGS - the agency that informs the US Government on matters pertaining to oil and gas reserves - the quantity of such reserves to be had in SE Asia is extremely limited, despite the repetitious exaggerations in media reports. Hence it is difficult to believe that anyone making decisions in the US sees the SCS as a potential energy "gold mine", or that energy resources are a major factor drawing US attention to the reason. That's true precisely because oil is important, and one seeks oil where your scientists say it is, not where the newspapers say it is.



So why should the potential presence of very small amounts of oil in an area tht is in actual point of fact outside the US sphere of influence be a major factor in US policy?

Again, there just isn't that much oil there.
.


Do you see the oil majors flocking to SE Asia?



I'll be more specific: if (when) trouble resumes in the ME, that region will be restored to the disproportionately high weighting in US deployments that it has had for the last few decades. Yes, there will still be forces elsewhere, just as there will still be forces in the ME after the discussed "shift to the Pacific". I thought that obvious; apparently I was wrong.



Take that up with JMA sometime, just for our amusement.



It seems a habitual state.



I see nothing in Admiral Willard's statement that commits the US to protect any nation.



OBL was, alas for him, devoid of nukes. The Chinese are not, nor have they attacked America or Americans. We do a lot of business with them. We disagree on a number of things, as we do with others elsewhere, but not not on anything sufficiently compelling to provoke violence.

I have noticed on a number of threads pertaining to China that there are a few people around who seem to believe that anyone who fails to cast China as an absolute enemy that must be challenged and confronted at every possible opportunity is therefore apologizing for China or taking a pro-Chinese line. That seems a strange opinion to me, but people are strange (Jim Morrison said so, and I believe him), and of course they are entitled to whatever opinions they like, just as others are free to put forth contrasting opinions.

1. You tend to selectively pick and chose what I write for your replies. An ingenuous mode to appear relevant. Do take the whole issue and then discuss.

Read what I have written on Oil and it being a political, social and even a military weapon.

Also read how and why sanctions by the League of Nations on Italy did not work. And why it workled elsewhere.

Read also why in Venezuela, apart from other nations subjected to the US 'wrath', the US is hell bent to get rid of Chavez!

Then apply it to the present. Check Iran for starters and why US has forced others to cut down, if not cease using Iranian oil and gas.

2. You conveniently interpret statements (that I append with links) to suit your convenience. It is most amusing that you expect Admiral Willard to state that the Pacific Fleet is to committed to protect Nation A or B. I have never heard such a preposterous mission aim during peacetime. Most amusing to say the least. I am also delighted to learn that you find the Admiral's testimony redundant and incorrect. TO imagine he is paid to command a Pacific Command after what you have told us!

Next you will expect NATO to state that they are to protect specific Nations!

Indeed you bewilder. If bewilderment is my habitual state as far as your post is concerned, I am not surprised. If a person has a one point agenda and has blinkers on and a tunnel vision, what else can the other person be but bewildered since elaborate explanation and with links does not elicit a reply that is laced with logic and instead it forces itself with selective picking and an exuberance in an Oraclish pontification!

Ray
06-03-2012, 02:44 PM
Ken White,

No comments on the remainder since you are merely doing shadow boxing.

Let me explain what I mean by using this part of your post:


No, I do not. You're quite wrong. The nominal 50% of the nation's populace that is less well educated than the other 50% are not in that situation due to choice; they are mostly there due to the fact that system failed them. I criticize that system, not the people who suffer due to its failures.

BTW, do not make the mistake of believing that the Sarahs and Joes, that unfortunate 50% less well educated are incompetent boobs. They are not. They may not be as sophisticated as some or as erudite but they aren't stupid. Joe for example was far more correct on the economy than was Obama.

The failure of the education system is the universal excuse for not being capable of imbibing the education or not wanting to be educated it being a drag!

Those who want to be educated find ways and means to do so, inspite of all odds. It is applicable in the US, in India and all over the world. There are many cases in point that indicate this.

Well Sarah Palin and Joe are not incompetent boobs in their fields of expertise. Never said that.

However, it is bewildering, yes bewildering, that you claim that Joe the Plumber "was far more correct on the economy than was Obama.'

If what you say is correct that Joe understand world economy, international politics, geo strategy, geo politics better (or a little less sharper) than Clinton and Panetta, then why do US parents waste time and money by sending children to college, when High School equips them as educated marvels!

You may have a poor opinion about US education, but my folks right from childhood to college have had US education and I daresay they are of same genre as the marvelous example of bubbling intellect of Joe the Plumbers.

I have met many Americans, to include military officers, and I daresay they came out to be a poor example of US education. In fact, they were rather knowledgeable and did display intellectual acumen.


Lemme tell you something, RSM to Brigadier, last time I was politically correct you were probably not yet weaned.

Another of the usual hyperboles that are meaningless and trite, more so when you don't know anything about me.

Ray
06-03-2012, 03:04 PM
Pentagon officials are reluctant to talk publicly about potential conflict with China. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Beijing isn't an explicit enemy. During a visit to China last month, Michele Flournoy, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, told a top general in the People's Liberation Army that "the U.S. does not seek to contain China," and that "we do not view China as an adversary," she recalled in a later briefing.

Nevertheless, U.S. military officials often talk about preparing for a conflict in the Pacific—without mentioning who they might be fighting. The situation resembles a Harry Potter novel in which the characters refuse to utter the name of their adversary, says Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon. "You can't say China's a threat," he says. "You can't say China's a competitor."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204397704577074631582060996.html

Ray
06-03-2012, 03:29 PM
Panetta urges more US Naval access to Vietnam harbor
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/03/panetta-urges-for-more-us-naval-access-to-vietnam-harbor/


China warns US from 'muddying waters' in South China Sea

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/china-warns-us-on-south-china-sea-dispute/1/198849.html

US and Philippines stage South China Sea military drill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17836762


Panetta open to military relations with Burma
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57446000/panetta-open-to-military-relations-with-burma/

Ken White
06-03-2012, 04:27 PM
No comments on the remainder since you are merely doing shadow boxing.Amazing -- that mirrors my thoughts about most of your diatribes.:wry:
Another of the usual hyperboles that are meaningless and trite, more so when you don't know anything about me.Nor you of me, thus your "politically correct" comment was at the very least, unnecessary -- it certainly lends nothing to discussion. As you note, trite comments breed trite responses...

Ray
06-03-2012, 05:10 PM
Amazing -- that mirrors my thoughts about most of your diatribes.:wry:Nor you of me, thus your "politically correct" comment was at the very least, unnecessary -- it certainly lends nothing to discussion. As you note, trite comments breed trite responses...

And your views on Joe the Plumber who is better than Obama, Ms Clinton and Panetta, whereby all those mentioned in Govt are actually redundant and pales in comparison to the intellect of Joe the Plumbers!

I am amazed at how the Americans love the mediocre. I remember during the election of Obama, he was lampooned as being only 'an intellectual'!

That is where the cultures are different. We respect intellectuals since all cannot be intellectuals and we rejoice their effort.

carl
06-03-2012, 05:14 PM
What I've read is that those who do not totally support you or Carl in the 'China is totally e-vul' mantra is that she is evil but no more totally than any other nation, that she does deserve respect due to size and capabilities and that she may not be benign but that fear is not necessary -- or desirable (complicates thinking and planning...).

Near as I can figure...no not near, I can't figure that sentence out at all.

But anyway as far as China being totally evil, I will clarify. The ChiComs are almost totally evil. They used to be totally evil but they moved up a step when they allowed some of the ordinary Chinese to have a bit of private business and property. So the Red Chinese are almost totally evil since I use ChiComs and Red Chinese interchangeably. And I always try to say Red China, not China, because Red China means a bunch of poor saps who are enslaved by the ChiComs. (I think I understand what I just said.)

Ray
06-03-2012, 05:29 PM
Just to put things in the correct perspective, I have no problems if China thrashes the living daylights of every neighbour of theirs in the South China Sea.

However, what one wants to know is the US equation with China over the squabbles out there.

The China apologists and China champions trifle the issue as a mere lovers’ tiff, but the events indicate it to be more serious.

It was said that the naval exercises are but routine. And yet, surprisingly, the US undertook the same with Vietnam too! And Vietnam is no friend of the US.

Panetta wants US ships being allowed to dock in Vietnam. Whatever for? One shows the flag for good reasons and not merely for victualling, more so, when there is no dearth of friendly ports around and many supply ships at the beck and call.

Why this aggressive posture, if all is supposed to be well and hunky dory with Chinese forays into the South China Sea?

Why this flurry of military posturing all over if all is but routine?

That is what no one is addressing, even though they give the impression that they are 'in the know' of everything.

And to believe that Admiral Willard, the Commander Pacific is expected to state in no uncertain terms which are the countries he is to protect! :) :pound:

It will be the day when any nation officially declares any country as 'the enemy' during peacetime and state that 'Nation A, B and C' are to be protected!

How can one debate with a person with such a mindset that defies diplomatic niceties?

Ken White
06-03-2012, 05:37 PM
And your views on Joe the Plumber who is better than Obama, Ms Clinton and Panetta, whereby all those mentioned in Govt are actually redundant and pales in comparison to the intellect of Joe the Plumbers!It's totally superfluous of me to point out that I said nothing near that. You're indulging in way above and beyond hyperbole... :rolleyes:

I did say Joe's grasp of economics was better than that of Obama -- in that Obama is a Keynesian and Joe, like me, thinks income redistribution is insidiously evil (and yes, that's purposely redundant...).
I am amazed at how the Americans love the mediocre. I remember during the election of Obama, he was lampooned as being only 'an intellectual'!It's not that most of us love the mediocre, it's just that we realize that most people are, in fact, mediocre and we can accept that. ;)

As Abraham Lincoln said, "The Lord must love the common man -- he made so many of them."
That is where the cultures are different. We respect intellectuals since all cannot be intellectuals and we rejoice their effort.Not all that different -- we respect true intellectuals, we just strongly reject poseurs and pseudo intellectuals -- with whom we seem unusually afflicted nowadays...

Ray
06-03-2012, 05:55 PM
It's totally superfluous of me to point out that I said nothing near that. You're indulging in way above and beyond hyperbole... :rolleyes:

I did say Joe's grasp of economics was better than that of Obama -- in that Obama is a Keynesian and Joe, like me, thinks income redistribution is insidiously evil (and yes, that's purposely redundant...).It's not that most of us love the mediocre, it's just that we realize that most people are, in fact, mediocre and we can accept that. ;)

As Abraham Lincoln said, "The Lord must love the common man -- he made so many of them."Not all that different -- we respect true intellectuals, we just strongly reject poseurs and pseudo intellectuals -- with whom we seem unusually afflicted nowadays...

Your comment - Joe, like me, thinks income redistribution is insidiously evil - is a statement and it has no inputs enunciated by you that it is brilliant to pale Obama's Keynesian ideals.To my mind, it is the Joe type of economic thought that has run the US down and made it an economic hostage to China. Self interest without a thought of the Nation and its health! Compare that with China, the country and its ideals that you and Dayuhan champion, and their nationalism to sacrifice to be Wold's #!!

It is like saying - I am the new Messiah and if you don't accept that, you are a dolt and damned!

I will confess, that there is a cultural divide and maybe I do not understand why you rejoice mediocrity when when rejoice in applauding excellence.

Like Abraham Lincoln we too rejoice and love the common man. That is why we have all those populist slogan of the Govt being for the Am Admi (common man). However, we are prudent enough to realise it is better to leave it to those who are intellectually superior to chart the course of the State.

If the common man was such a super Joe and knew everything that the Leaders of the country did not know, then what a Communist had told me would be right.

He has said, like you are saying, that the common man (peasant and workers like Joe the Plumber) knew everything and not the intellectuals.

I merely told him (he was a scientist and more educated than me) that if his statement was true, then the Moon was giving light and it was not that it was reflecting the sunlight since the peasants and workers believed that it was the moon that was giving light!

With due respect to you, I would like to think that it is Obama, Clintons, Panettas who are better equipped to run the ship of the State that all the Joes, Plumbers or otherwise, or even the hockey mom who sees Russia through her window.

What was the 'true intellectual' that Lincoln have in mind. I think it is subjective. Did he give out some parameters to judge by?

I wish the US well. I have lived under Communist rule for 30 plus years (and it was not a genuine one since the federal structure was a brake to their antics) and I sincerely hope that you are not subjected to it, even though it will be a delight to you because Joe the Plumber will decide everything for you including your lifestyle and give you a 'New' American Dream.

The expats will thank their stars and change their tune!

And please don't mistake me to be a US Propaganda machine either. I speak through experience and having lived through a 'benign' Communist rule.

Good luck to you and your friends.

Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 01:08 AM
1. You tend to selectively pick and chose what I write for your replies. An ingenuous mode to appear relevant. Do take the whole issue and then discuss.

Given the length of your replies, I've little choice but to pick and choose.


Read what I have written on Oil and it being a political, social and even a military weapon.

I have never said that oil is not a political, social, and military weapon. The question, which you seem unwilling to address, is whether reliable figures indicate that SCS energy reserves are significant enough to use as a weapon. The cited figures indicate that the reserves are not of great consequence and would not justify large and expensive commitments.


Read also why in Venezuela, apart from other nations subjected to the US 'wrath', the US is hell bent to get rid of Chavez!

Then apply it to the present. Check Iran for starters and why US has forced others to cut down, if not cease using Iranian oil and gas.

I don't think the US has tried all that hard to get rid of poor Hugo, nor do I see any great "wrath"... mild and occasional irritation would be more like it. Be that as it may, Venezueala and Iran are significant because of the size of their reserves and their status as actual or potential exporters.

Observe the figures:

Venezueala, proven reserves: 211bbl

Iran, proven reserves: 137bbl (potentially much larger, as no modern exploration has been done for decades).

All of SE Asia, including undisputed areas outside SCS, discovered + estimated undiscovered: 21.6bbl

Source for Venezuela and Iran figures is Oil & Gas Journal, SE Asia figures from USGS.

Then you have to address the question of whether or not these areas can export or sustain exports, a function of local demand and local demand growth. What you'll find (feel free to look) is that SE Asia has both much smaller reserves than places like Venezuela and Iran and much greater demand and demand growth, meaning that the region is unlikely ever to be a significant exporter.

Now can we drop the irrelevant point that oil is important (as we all know) and that people will fight over large reserves (as we all know), and address the question of whether or not the SCS has enough oil, let alone exportable surplus, for the US to be interested in fighting over?


2. You conveniently interpret statements (that I append with links) to suit your convenience. It is most amusing that you expect Admiral Willard to state that the Pacific Fleet is to committed to protect Nation A or B. I have never heard such a preposterous mission aim during peacetime. Most amusing to say the least. I am also delighted to learn that you find the Admiral's testimony redundant and incorrect. TO imagine he is paid to command a Pacific Command after what you have told us!

I didn't say the statement was redundant and incorrect, I said that it involved no commitment to protect anyone. We seem to agree on that, so I don't see what's to dispute.

I think it most unlikely that the US will offer anyone in SE Asia protection in exchange for access to oil, because the oil reserves involved are not sufficient to justify the cost and risk of the protection.

Dayuhan
06-04-2012, 01:41 AM
You may have a poor opinion about US education, but my folks right from childhood to college have had US education and I daresay they are of same genre as the marvelous example of bubbling intellect of Joe the Plumbers.

I have met many Americans, to include military officers, and I daresay they came out to be a poor example of US education. In fact, they were rather knowledgeable and did display intellectual acumen.

I think you miss the point on the US educational crisis. Nobody is saying that you can't get a good education in the US, and nobody is saying that all Americans are poorly educated. It's a bit more complex than that.

It's true that on the basic level proficiency in math, reading, and other basic skills is declining. Geography and history are poorly taught if they are taught at all, except for those who choose to specialize in those fields, leaving average Americans without the needed tools to develop even the most rudimentary understanding of the world and its affairs. The US does produce excellent geographers and historians, but the average American lacks even the most basic competence in these fields.

Don't even get me started on languages.

I think US education fails badly in teaching critical thought. One measure of this is the expanded acceptance of various conspiracy theories and fringe ideologies, which are always an indication that large numbers of people are not thinking critically.

Most important, though, US education has de-linked itself from economic needs. American colleges crank out vast numbers of graduates in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. They are reasonably well educated, but the economy cannot absorb them. Meanwhile, enrollment in technical and scientific courses is plummeting, and we don't graduate a fraction of the number of engineers, physicists, chemists, computer scientists, etc that the nation needs to sustain its competitiveness in a technologically advanced world. The ones we produce are very good, but we aren't producing nearly enough of them, and the numbers are getting smaller all the time.

It's not just the sciences, either. US manufacturers consistently report inability to fill positions for skilled technical workers. Even at 8%+ unemployment, Americans don't want to be machinists or precision welders.

The disconnect between our educational focus and the actual needs of the economy is a real threat, and IMO a greater threat than the Chinese.

Dayuhan
06-09-2012, 02:39 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/philippine-president-aquino-seeks-us-military-aid/2012/06/08/gJQAUEwtOV_story.html

The only thing new here is this:


...he said the Philippines was particularly interested in acquiring a land-based radar that could enable it to monitor the wide expanses of the South China Sea....

Rick Fisher, an Asian security expert at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Alexandria, said a powerful land-based radar could be used jointly by the Philippines, the United States and other allies to quickly detect Chinese military movements in the region.

The Philippines was previously hinting that F16s and modern naval vessels would be nice, hints that were markedly not gratified. This request makes a good deal more sense: it could be jointly operated without a contentious troop presence, the information gathered would be of use to both sides, and it wouldn't require enormous training and maintenance expenses, unlike ships and aircraft. Of course it would also be an immediate target if hostilities broke out, but that's unavoidable. The Chinese would object (they always do) but it's less provocative than arms transfers.

The US used to operate a large radar station on top of Mt Sto. Tomas, just outside Baguio, 2000m+ peak overlooking the SCS. Wonder if that site will be used again...

Ray
06-09-2012, 08:06 AM
Rick Fisher, an Asian security expert at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Alexandria, said a powerful land-based radar could be used jointly by the Philippines, the United States and other allies to quickly detect Chinese military movements in the region.

An ideal via media so as to not upset those in Philippines who are not excited about the US coming to Philippines aid.

Dayuhan
06-09-2012, 09:32 AM
An ideal via media so as to not upset those in Philippines who are not excited about the US coming to Philippines aid.

I'm not sure any of this is about "the US coming to Philippines aid".

There's been a great deal of rhetoric between the Philippines and the US in the last few weeks, as you'd expect with Panetta coming here and Aquino going there. If you look beyond the words, though, marked questions remain about the extent to which the US is coming to anyone's aid. There's a lot of shadow boxing going on, though it might better be called shadow play, in the Wayang Kulit sense.

Cutting through the talk and getting to the substance, what stands out is that despite considerable prompting from the Philippine side, no arms deals emerged. Despite much talk on the Philippine military modernization, the only actual major purchasing has been the 2 retired USCG cutters and 8 multipurpose helicopters from Poland... not exactly an overwhelming buildup. The US has notably not offered anything that would be peer-competitive even with ASEAN neighbors, let alone China.

The Philippines has made very unspecific offers of port and airfield access and suggested "rotational deployments" of troops, but the extent to which any of these will be pursued if the US doesn't provide any hardware remains unknown. Troop deployments outside Western Mindanao remain a politically volatile issue locally and have not been discussed much in the local media. No specific suggestions have been made as to where these troops would be, how many there would be, or how long they would stay.

Some in the Philippines believe that the US does not want the Philippines to develop an independent defense capability because a vulnerable Philippines is more likely to be levered into new basing agreements. There may or may not be something to this. The Philippine side is still making proposals to the US and has not yet announced a major non-US arms purchase, though there's been discussion of frigates from Italy and jet trainers from Italy or S. Korea.

In short, despite all the rhetoric of unity, the actions strongly suggest that everybody's pursuing their own perceived interests, which is not a surprise.

Not at all surprising in a conflict area where all parties wish to appear strong, assertive, and full of nationalist pride, but nobody actually wants to fight.

Ray
06-09-2012, 05:59 PM
Well, if it is all a charade, then hand over what China wants.

There will be no fight and instead all peace.

But mankind is odd.

Funny that they hold nationalism high when actually it is but an instrument of asking for a fight!

Dayuhan
06-09-2012, 10:50 PM
Well, if it is all a charade, then hand over what China wants.

Nobody wants to hand anything over, nobody wants to renounce a claim... but nobody wants to fight, either. That doesn't mean they won't fight. Shots have been fired out there before and probably will be again. So far after the shooting everybody's retired to their respective corners and shouted a lot, and I'd expect that to continue.

When you look at the SCS issues you have to start with perspective: this has been going on for decades, and it's likely to go on for a few more. Tension has been worse before than it is now. It's likely to heat up again at some point. There's no immediate "solution": nobody in the picture is going to back down. Realistically it just has to be accepted that there is going to be continuous tension and occasional confrontation for quite a while: it's a problem to be managed, not a problem to be solved. There's really no call for over-assertive intervention or an attempt to settle the disputes, which is likely to make things worse.

Certainly the Chinese have an interest in rattling the saber right now: public discontent is high, the economy is showing some uneasy signs, and rallying a bit of nationalism is in the regime's interest. Would the leaders try to kick off an escalation that could have serious economic repercussions for them? I doubt it: they aren't superhuman, but they are pragmatic, and they don't seem the type to go breaking their own rice bowl.

Ray
06-10-2012, 10:52 AM
Panetta and Ms Clinton was running around the mulberry bush?!

All hot air and hogwash.

Just posturing and playing to the galleries!

I am sure the US taxpayer will not be amused!

Dayuhan
06-10-2012, 11:53 AM
Just posturing and playing to the galleries!

I am sure the US taxpayer will not be amused!

Posturing, bluff and the other levels of gamesmanship are an integral part of diplomacy. Taxpayers might reflect that it's a whole lot cheaper than fighting.

JMA
06-10-2012, 04:03 PM
Nobody wants to hand anything over, nobody wants to renounce a claim... but nobody wants to fight, either.

LOL... see what I mean... who are these nobody's you choose to speak so authoritatively on their behalf?

YOu can't help yourself can you?

JMA
06-10-2012, 04:10 PM
Panetta and Ms Clinton was running around the mulberry bush?!

All hot air and hogwash.

Just posturing and playing to the galleries!

I am sure the US taxpayer will not be amused!

Posturing and bluff only work if the target of the exercise actually believes what is threatened will be carried out.

Does any sane person think the US (certainly this administration) are prepared to put their 'muscle' where their mouth is with regard to China?

All this is in an election year remember and the scum... err... I mean politicians are saying what they think the voters want to hear.

Ray
06-10-2012, 06:37 PM
Posturing and bluff only work if the target of the exercise actually believes what is threatened will be carried out.

Does any sane person think the US (certainly this administration) are prepared to put their 'muscle' where their mouth is with regard to China?

All this is in an election year remember and the scum... err... I mean politicians are saying what they think the voters want to hear.

I wonder if the US is putting its money where their mouth is.

But this much I understand is that they are upto something rather 'nasty'!

Joint exercise of Indian and S Korean naval warships in Busan


http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/joint-exerciseindians-korean-naval-warships-in-busan/15667/

What the dickens is India doing that far out?

davidbfpo
06-10-2012, 09:38 PM
Ray,

The clues to the deployment are in the linked article:
Following the completion of the joint exercise (with Korea), the Indian fleet will sail for Tokyo in Japan. The ships have already paid port calls at Singapore and Vietnam. On their return journey from Japan, they would also be visiting Shanghai in China and Malaysia.

This is a typical naval cruise, "waving the flag" and telling the audience that India has arrived. I assume this is the first such long distance cruise to the area.

Remember when the Soviet Navy sailed past Singapore during a Commonwealth Summit in 1971? It caused quite a media and diplomatic furore.

Dayuhan
06-10-2012, 11:14 PM
LOL... see what I mean... who are these nobody's you choose to speak so authoritatively on their behalf?

That was an observation based on 30+ years of observing this little drama at fairly close range, not speaking on anyone's behalf. It doesn't seem like a terribly contentious observation: it's hard to reach any other conclusion based on events over time. Of course if you reach the conclusion before observing the events, anything is possible.


Posturing and bluff only work if the target of the exercise actually believes what is threatened will be carried out.

Does any sane person think the US (certainly this administration) are prepared to put their 'muscle' where their mouth is with regard to China?

All this is in an election year remember and the scum... err... I mean politicians are saying what they think the voters want to hear.

The US isn't the only one bluffing and posturing. The Chinese and all other parties are doing the same thing. The Chinese also play to their domestic gallery... nothing like whipping up a bit of nationalist pride to distract from corruption scandals, growing disparities in income distribution, etc.

Nobody seems terribly eager to put muscle behind the mouth, nobody's making specific threats, and nobody is showing any visible interest in calling anyone's bluffs, so the status quo remains. I don't see any advantage for the US in trying to upset it.


I wonder if the US is putting its money where their mouth is.

The US has a very big mouth and a shortage of money, so they will never fully put their money where their mouth is. It's always interesting to observe the extent to which rhetoric is supported by action. In this case we have a lot of theatrical sound bites with no visible change in underlying policy. That suggests that the administration sees existing policy as adequate, which it largely has been. Existing policy has not resolved the disputes in the SCS, but those disputes are not within the capacity of the US to resolve, and I see little to be gained by wading aggressively into that particular mess.

Ray
06-12-2012, 04:12 AM
Ray,

The clues to the deployment are in the linked article:

This is a typical naval cruise, "waving the flag" and telling the audience that India has arrived. I assume this is the first such long distance cruise to the area.

Remember when the Soviet Navy sailed past Singapore during a Commonwealth Summit in 1971? It caused quite a media and diplomatic furore.

That is true.

The Indian Navy should have also called on a South Korean port to show the flag.

But they are holding a naval exercise.

Now that is what makes the issue a little mysterious.

The 5 June 2012 Press release by the Govt of India adds to concern.


India and Japan to Conduct First Ever Naval Exercise

The Indian Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force will conduct their first ever bilateral exercise during the visit of four Indian Navy ships to Japan from 5-9 June, 2012 as part of the scheduled Overseas Fleet Deployment. The exercise will be conducted off the coast of Japan on 09-10 June, 2012.

The conduct of bilateral naval exercises between both countries was decided during the visit of the Defence Minister Shri AK Antony to Japan in November, 2011. Both Navies will also conduct routine passage exercises (PASSEX) during the visit of Japanese ships to Indian ports this year.

The engagement between the Navies of India and Japan is part of the overall defence cooperation between both countries. Defence exchanges between India and Japan presently comprise annual Defence Minister level meetings, Defence Policy dialogue at Defence Secretary level and Army and Naval Staff Talks.
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=84688


So the Indian Navy is showing the flag elsewhere, but are undertaking naval exercises with US' two staunch allies in the Pacific region.

Interestingly, I heard/saw on TV when Admiral Raja Menon (Retd) was being interviewed that the Indian Navy are to have 47 new naval vessels apart from the leased nuclear submarine and the one she is building.

It appears that India is keen to show her presence in the Oceans for good reasons.

Ray
06-14-2012, 02:35 AM
Though could be another thread.

A could know point in this context of the SCS, Indian Ocean etc.


Navy spreading its wings far and wide with warship deployments


NEW DELHI: In keeping with its steadily growing blue-water capabilities, the Navy is now all set to dispatch four warships on an overseas deployment to the Horn of Africa, Red Sea and the western Mediterranean, even as four of its other warships entered the Shanghai port in China on Wednesday.

The long deployments towards the east and west come at a time when Indian warships are also headed towards Seychelles, Mauritius and the Maldives to help them in surveillance of their Exclusive Economic Zones as well as conduct anti-piracy patrols.

Simultaneously, stealth frigate INS Tabar is conducting anti-piracy patrols and escort duties in the Gulf of Aden, while the spanking new INS Teg is currently in the Red Sea on way to India from Russia. ``Such long-range deployments, covering the Indian Ocean region (IOR) and beyond, bear testimony to the blue-water capabilities and operational readiness of the Navy,'' said an officer.

The four warships headed for the Horn of Africa — INS Mumbai, INS Trishul, INS Aditya and INS Gomti — are under the command of Western Fleet commander Rear Admiral A R Karve. The four Eastern Fleet warships on the ongoing deployment to South China Sea and North-West Pacific — INS Rana, INS Shivalik, INS Karmukh and INS Shakti — are led by Rear Admiral P Ajit Kumar.


More at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Navy-spreading-its-wings-far-and-wide-with-warship-deployments/articleshow/14108207.cms

Ray
06-15-2012, 03:14 PM
A legal analysis in support of Vietnam's position regarding the Paracel & Spratley Islands

http://trankinhnghi2.blogspot.in/2012/06/legal-analysis-in-support-of-viet-nams.html

Why the East Sea became the South China Sea?

http://trankinhnghi2.blogspot.in/2012/06/why-east-sea-became-south-china-sea.html

davidbfpo
06-21-2012, 10:01 AM
Hat tip to Lowy Institute for the pointer to an interactive map of incidents and more:http://www.cnas.org/flashpoints

Included is a January 2012 paper on the Chinese perspective:http://www.cnas.org/flashpoints/bulletin/bulletin-1-studying-south-china-sea-chinese-perspective

davidbfpo
06-25-2012, 05:40 PM
Today Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma, Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee & Chief of Naval Staff, spoke at IISS in London, on 'Metamorphosis of Matters Maritime: An Indian Perspective'.

Link:http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addresses/metamorphosis-of-matters-maritime-an-indian-perspective/

In his speech I noted a few points:
It may surprise some to know that our anti-piracy operations have thus far been coordinated trilaterally with the Chinese and Japanese and very recently this initiative has included the South Korean navy.

Then:
The growing scope and complexity of ‘Combined Exercises’ such as those of ‘MALABAR’ with the United States Navy, ‘VARUNA’ with the French, ‘KONKAN’ with the Royal Navy, ‘INDRA’ with the Russians, ‘SIMBEX’ with the Singaporeans and ‘IBSAMAR’ with the South African and Brazilian Navies all contribute towards our cooperative engagement initiatives. As I speak to you, some of our ships are on their way back from a deployment to the South and East China Seas while some others are on their way to the Mediterranean.

This did surprise me:
a retaliatory strike capability that is credible and invulnerable is an imperative. The Indian Navy is poised to complete the triad

Ray
06-29-2012, 05:47 AM
New carrier role in Pacific: fight illegal fishing

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/06/navy-illegal-fishing-carl-vinson-pacific-062112/

Ray
07-04-2012, 06:51 PM
China warns US, Philippines, Vietnam on 'military provocations'

"The determination and will of China's military to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity is unwavering."

Geng's remarks came as the United States launched the largest-ever "Rim of the Pacific" naval exercises in Hawaii, involving 22 nations, including the US, India, Russia, Australia and the Philippines.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/36052/china-warns-us-philippines-vietnam-on-military-provocations

It is obvious that such a huge exercise with so many nations 'ganging up' against China, as China see it, would really put the shivers into China!

What is the US up to?

davidbfpo
07-04-2012, 10:05 PM
Ray,

Even I from afar know that this exercise is a bi-annual event, so hardly a surprise to China and others. Those involved are:
Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, the UK and the USA

China has been an observer in the past.

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIMPAC

Better still this 'ganging up' exercise is in Hawaii, a long way from the South China Sea, so hardly fits:
would really put the shivers into China!

Yes China may want to remind everyone of its stance on her rights in the SCS.

Dayuhan
07-04-2012, 10:28 PM
It is obvious that such a huge exercise with so many nations 'ganging up' against China, as China see it, would really put the shivers into China!

What is the US up to?

Nothing very unusual. The exercise is held on a regular basis. of course after announcing a pivot to the Pacific it had to be ratcheted up a bit, but it's nothing fundamentally out of the ordinary. of course the Chinese will issue the ritual denunciations, but I doubt they are shivering.

Ray
07-05-2012, 05:59 PM
China has been an observer in the past.

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIMPAC


That is why this is interesting.


Beaman acknowledged that China was not invited, but hastened to add, "We continually seek to improve our military-to-military relationship with China. (But) Right now, as I suggested earlier, that effort toward that mil-to-mil effort -- that effort is taking place at the strategic level. And so we do look forward to when we have the opportunity for more military-to-military engagements at the operational and tactical level, which would take place in a RIMPAC exercise or an exercise of this nature. But unfortunately, that is not where the relationship is right now."

Why leave them out when they were always there?

Not pleasant signals really, especially since they are not like some others not participants but merely observers.

Is it a political/diplomatic/ strategic message or a snub?

What would be the consequences is what one is interested in.

China, is very sensitive about all these things. Losing face.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/RIMPAC_Participant_Nations.png/400px-RIMPAC_Participant_Nations.png
Regular RIMPAC participants (dark blue) and usual observers (light blue).

Ray
07-05-2012, 06:08 PM
I doubt they are shivering.

OK, not shivering.

But quaking in anger at losing face in front of weaklings of the Pacific Rim they were trying to intimidate.

Dayuhan
07-08-2012, 09:17 AM
OK, not shivering.

But quaking in anger at losing face in front of weaklings of the Pacific Rim they were trying to intimidate.

I don't think they're quaking in anger, either... how do they lose face from the US holding a slightly larger than usual version of a regular exercise? Nobody's really getting all that upset or obsessive over this stuff.

Another look at the ASEAN/US/China balance... can't say I agree with all of it, but overall a reasonable summary of where the parties sit going into the upcoming meeting:

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/booming-se-asia-quandary-over-u-china-rivalry-071127183.html

Ray
07-08-2012, 06:36 PM
I don't think they're quaking in anger, either... how do they lose face from the US holding a slightly larger than usual version of a regular exercise? Nobody's really getting all that upset or obsessive over this stuff.

Another look at the ASEAN/US/China balance... can't say I agree with all of it, but overall a reasonable summary of where the parties sit going into the upcoming meeting:

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/booming-se-asia-quandary-over-u-china-rivalry-071127183.html

i would not know the reality, but this is what is being said in the US.


Inside China: China upset over RIMPAC snub

As China ratchets up military tensions with almost all of its neighbors in the Western Pacific, the United States is hosting its largest multinational maritime exercise and has excluded China from joining the maneuvers near Hawaii called Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC).

Beijing is not happy about it.

“The United States is using this exercise to show off its military strength, seeking military alliances in order to contain the military rise of another country in the region. Such [a] scheme is so thoroughly exposed now,” the official People’s Daily stated Saturday. The newspaper is the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party.

“It is obvious that the purpose of the U.S. calling in these many allies to conduct joint exercises is to exert pressure onto certain neighboring countries through military drills, as well as to [examine] the combat readiness of the U.S. military,” the newspaper said.

It appears that what particularly angered the Chinese was the invitation to and participation by Russia and India in this year’s 22-nation exercises, which began Friday.......

I wonder would this be what has upset China apart from not being invited to join the exercise as it has been doing all along when Russia or India were not invited?


First-time RIMPAC participant Russia also is running a brisk arms trade with many Asian and Pacific countries that have open confrontations with China on territorial disputes.

Also participating in the exercise for the first time is India. China is engaged a decades-long border dispute with India, which increasingly sees itself as a key maritime player in the Indian and Pacific oceans as a counterbalance to China’s growing military presence. India is arming itself rapidly and has become the world’s largest weapons-importing country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/inside-china-china-upset-over-rimpac-snub/

All said and done it is quite an insult that there is this deviation wherein they are not invited as was the form and instead Russia and India (with which China has issues) are being invited!

Dayuhan
07-09-2012, 01:15 AM
I wonder would this be what has upset China apart from not being invited to join the exercise as it has been doing all along when Russia or India were not invited?

Has China been a previous participant? I think they've had observer status a few times, but I'm not aware of them ever having actually joined the exercise.

Certainly there's a bit of messaging going on, but I doubt that anyone on the Chinese side is really all that upset about it, though they will of course issue the usual public complaints. Unless they were totally witless - and they're not - they'd have presumably anticipated such moves, which are typical of a situation where everyone wants to look tough and look like they have allies, but where nobody wants to fight. Expect a lot more of the same.

I expect that the Chinese will also be watching closely and will see what they can learn by doing so.

Ray
07-09-2012, 07:26 PM
This is what was said by a Chinese poster in another forum.

Who said that China is not participating?

We are participating as the enemy! ;)

Dayuhan
07-14-2012, 02:16 AM
ASEAN rallies together... not.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/southeast-asian-summit-breaks-acrimony-065618388.html


ASEAN talks fail over China territorial dispute

Days of heated diplomacy at Southeast Asian talks ended in failure Friday as deep splits over China prevented the ASEAN grouping from issuing its customary joint statement for the first time.

Foreign ministers from the 10-member bloc have been wrangling since Monday to hammer out a diplomatic communique, which has held up progress on a separate code of conduct aimed at soothing tension in the flashpoint South China Sea.

China claims sovereignty over nearly all of the resource-rich sea, which is home to vital shipping lanes, but ASEAN members the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei have competing claims in the area.

The long-stalled code of conduct, strongly supported by the United States, is seen as a way of reducing the chances of a spat over fishing, shipping rights or oil and gas exploration tipping into an armed conflict.


"I think it would be fair to say that tempers in some of the private meetings have run hot. There have been some very tense back and forths," one US official said.

To make a longs story short, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand don't give a hot round one about the South China Sea and are very much aware of their commercial relationships with China. The Philippines and Vietnam want support against China. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore are in between. Consensus is not likely.

Dayuhan
07-14-2012, 05:25 AM
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/44041/chinese-warship-stuck-on-ph-reef


Chinese warship stuck on PH reef

A Chinese warship has run aground on a reef off Palawan while patrolling contested waters in the West Philippine Sea, an Australian newspaper reported on Friday...

Dayuhan
07-25-2012, 09:00 AM
Good summary of the players and the issues:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/north-east-asia/229-stirring-up-the-south-china-sea-ii-regional-responses.pdf

carl
07-27-2012, 03:06 PM
This is an interesting article and shows how the Red Chinese use fishermen and paramilitary nautical units as the thin end of a wedge when engaging in territorial expansion.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/26/china_s_military_moment

It also suggests that those Kilo subs the Viets are acquiring may be more important than we think.

JMA
07-27-2012, 05:06 PM
This is an interesting article and shows how the Red Chinese use fishermen and paramilitary nautical units as the thin end of a wedge when engaging in territorial expansion.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/26/china_s_military_moment

It also suggests that those Kilo subs the Viets are acquiring may be more important than we think.

Carl, the question must be asked... who are they kidding?

I mean are there really people out there too dumb to read their play?

carl
07-27-2012, 06:07 PM
I mean are there really people out there too dumb to read their play?

Not very many, almost none probably. But there are many who don't want to see. The sight is a little scary so it is more soothing not to look.

I re-read the article and noticed it contained this "Nor should we overlook honor as a motive animating Beijing's actions." That makes the sight even scarier because in the context of the article "honor" means getting some back, revenge for the slights of the last 120 years. That brings some pretty powerful emotions into play.

JMA
07-27-2012, 08:04 PM
Not very many, almost none probably. But there are many who don't want to see. The sight is a little scary so it is more soothing not to look.

I re-read the article and noticed it contained this "Nor should we overlook honor as a motive animating Beijing's actions." That makes the sight even scarier because in the context of the article "honor" means getting some back, revenge for the slights of the last 120 years. That brings some pretty powerful emotions into play.

Well if its revenge they are after the Japanese are in for a rocky ride down the line.

Dayuhan
07-27-2012, 11:25 PM
This is an interesting article and shows how the Red Chinese use fishermen and paramilitary nautical units as the thin end of a wedge when engaging in territorial expansion.

This citation echoes something I've said repeatedly here:


Expectations are sky-high among the Chinese populace. Having regularly described their maritime territorial claims as a matter of indisputable sovereignty, having staked their own and the country's reputation on wresting away control of contested expanses, and having roused popular sentiment with visions of seafaring grandeur, Chinese leaders will walk back their claims at their peril. They must deliver -- one way or another.

This is why a blustering US response with implicit threats (that we aren't prepared to back) and an implicit demand that the Chines back down are such a bad idea. The Chinese will have to respond in kind: it's politically impossible for them to be seen backing down. At the same time, we push about the only button that can get the Chinese populace to rally behind their government. Where's the advantage in that?

Realistically, this problem isn't going away any time soon, and there's no immediate policy that's going to change the situation on the water. Saber-rattling bluster won't help and will probably make things worse. That doesn't mean anyone has to walk away and concede the issue, it just means there's no quick easy solution.


It also suggests that those Kilo subs the Viets are acquiring may be more important than we think.

Not so easy to confront a fishing fleet with a submarine.

I read something not long ago expressing concern over a proliferation of submarines in the SCS and the practicality of their use. Apparently the depth of the water confines operations to fairly limited spaces and there was concern over collisions and unplanned encounters. I'll try to find it again, it sounded plausible but I don't know enough about submarines to have an opinion.

What the Vietnamese are doing that works as an economic area denial strategy is installing a network of shore-based SSMs and SAMs that cover waters in the EEZ. I personally think the Philippines should adopt that strategy rather than pouring huge sums into ships and aircraft that would probably not survive the first day of an actual conflict, but WTFDIK?

carl
07-28-2012, 01:44 AM
This citation echoes something I've said repeatedly here:

This is why a blustering US response with implicit threats (that we aren't prepared to back) and an implicit demand that the Chines back down are such a bad idea. The Chinese will have to respond in kind: it's politically impossible for them to be seen backing down. At the same time, we push about the only button that can get the Chinese populace to rally behind their government. Where's the advantage in that?

Realistically, this problem isn't going away any time soon, and there's no immediate policy that's going to change the situation on the water. Saber-rattling bluster won't help and will probably make things worse. That doesn't mean anyone has to walk away and concede the issue, it just means there's no quick easy solution.

You do say that all the time. But I always reply that the Red Chinese gov whipped up most of that sentiment and, being the masters of a very strong police state, they can tone it down.

One man's blustering response is another man's reasoned statement that things will be only allowed to go so far. We have to make sure that the line is clear and if that results in a hysterical reaction by the populace (I don't think it would) then that is what will be. And it will be mostly because a captive population has been relentlessly propagandized since 1949.

You are right that there is not quick easy solution.


Not so easy to confront a fishing fleet with a submarine.

Not so easy, unless you surface and night and blast them with machine gun fire then disappear. The Vietnamese will play as rough as anybody I'll bet. But there are better ways than using a sub, though I bet the sub guys can come up with all sorts of fun ways to use the boat.


I read something not long ago expressing concern over a proliferation of submarines in the SCS and the practicality of their use. Apparently the depth of the water confines operations to fairly limited spaces and there was concern over collisions and unplanned encounters. I'll try to find it again, it sounded plausible but I don't know enough about submarines to have an opinion.

Good observation. I don't know about the actual conditions in the South China Sea either but the physical configuration of the place makes a big difference. I did read that some people opined that the Vietnamese erred by buying Kilos because they are fairly large and the French Scorpene (?) would have been a better choice because it was smaller.

But in any event those Kilos seem to cause the Red Chinese some concern.


What the Vietnamese are doing that works as an economic area denial strategy is installing a network of shore-based SSMs and SAMs that cover waters in the EEZ. I personally think the Philippines should adopt that strategy rather than pouring huge sums into ships and aircraft that would probably not survive the first day of an actual conflict, but WTFDIK?

I didn't know the Vietnamese were doing that. It seems sensible. There will have to be some kind of aircraft flying about out there though. There has to be a recon capability to give those missiles targets.

Dayuhan
07-28-2012, 04:15 AM
You do say that all the time. But I always reply that the Red Chinese gov whipped up most of that sentiment and, being the masters of a very strong police state, they can tone it down.

I think you're missing the reasons why they whip it up, and why they can't afford to tone it down. I think you miss it because you seem to see the Chinese populace as a suppressed and passive mass that poses no threat to the government. That's a long way from reality: the Chinese government is a lot more worried about its own people than they are about anything the US will do.

There are a lot of pissed off people in China. They are pissed off at the rampant corruption, at the flaunting of huge wealth by people they actually see, about huge and growing disparities in wealth. With economic growth looking to settle back to less stratospheric levels, more people will be more pissed off.

The Chinese do respect the government for having made China strong again, for making it a credible global force for the first time in Chinese memory. With the economy going into a potential rough patch, that nationalism is something the government needs. They have to keep it fired up, it keeps helps distract the populace from things the government doesn't want them thinking about. They really aren't in a position to tone down the nationalism, and they certainly aren't in a position where they can afford to publicly back down on regional issues.


One man's blustering response is another man's reasoned statement that things will be only allowed to go so far. We have to make sure that the line is clear and if that results in a hysterical reaction by the populace (I don't think it would) then that is what will be. And it will be mostly because a captive population has been relentlessly propagandized since 1949.

On what basis does the US go around declaring what it will and will not allow in the South China Sea? That's even assuming that we have a clear line that we are willing to enforce, which of course we don't.


Not so easy, unless you surface and night and blast them with machine gun fire then disappear. The Vietnamese will play as rough as anybody I'll bet. But there are better ways than using a sub, though I bet the sub guys can come up with all sorts of fun ways to use the boat.

I think the subs, like the land-based missiles, are primarily a deterrent, though with a greater range than the land-based missiles.

The Chinese do not want a major fight in the South China Sea, at all. That would be devastating to them no matter what the outcome: virtually all of their trade passes through the sea and if it were closed to commercial shipping for even a short time the impact would be huge.

The Vietnamese know they can't fight a full-scale naval/air war against China, but they also know they don't have to: they just have to pose enough threat that such a war would be very unattractive... after all, the Chinese haven't that much to gain. The most likely conflict would be in the form of a naval skirmish, and the Vietnamese have got that base covered fairly well. There's a solid chance that if the Chinese got into a limited skirmish with the Vietnamese the outcome could be equivocal, and the Chinese could even suffer a bit of a bloody nose (losing ships or aircraft). That might be militarily insignificant, but it would be politically devastating.

That's one reason why if the Chinese do decide to push for a skirmish it will be with the Philippines, which has no capability at all.

What we've seen and what I think we'll continue to see, is pushing and provocation right up to the point where shooting looks possible, then backing down. Of course that's a risky game, and somebody could easily miscalculate and set something off, but that's what we've got. I don't see where in this picture the US can draw a credible "line" that it would have the capacity and will to enforce.


Good observation. I don't know about the actual conditions in the South China Sea either but the physical configuration of the place makes a big difference. I did read that some people opined that the Vietnamese erred by buying Kilos because they are fairly large and the French Scorpene (?) would have been a better choice because it was smaller.

The contention was that the subsea geography forces submarines into limited areas and limited corridors, making ASW easier and raising the possibility of accidental encounters or even collisions. Again, I haven't the knowledge to take a position on that, but the argument seemed at least superficially credible.


But in any event those Kilos seem to cause the Red Chinese some concern.

Probably so, for the reasons stated above.


I didn't know the Vietnamese were doing that. It seems sensible. There will have to be some kind of aircraft flying about out there though. There has to be a recon capability to give those missiles targets.

Most of the missiles I believe work with shore-based radar, though in the event of actual conflict some other power - can't imagine who - might easily step in and provide the Vietnamese with detailed intel on whose ships are where.

I've read that Vietnam is buying the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, a joint India/Russia project, Ray might no more about that. They already have a number of Russian-built systems deployed, enough to provide a reasonable deterrent to anyone thinking of slapping them around.

Ray
07-28-2012, 11:13 AM
You do say that all the time. But I always reply that the Red Chinese gov whipped up most of that sentiment and, being the masters of a very strong police state, they can tone it down.

That is so obvious.

They whip up issues and then act so coy!

And they do have many sympathizers the world over, who remind me of Mahatma Gandhi - peace at all cost! In India there are many such people, mostly our Communist cadres!

Brahmos is not for sale; at least from India.

However, what is worrisome is that notwithstanding what is officially stated, US may not be very accommodating to allow the Chinese to do what she wants in SCS.

But then I could be wrong! For all what one knows and given what I learn here, the US may just curl up and lick its wounds with so many campaigns that have not been really very successful!

Who knows?

Dayuhan
07-28-2012, 11:43 AM
Brahmos is not for sale; at least from India.

Reports like this:

http://www.indiandefence.com/forums/indian-strategic-forces/11247-india-sell-brahmos-missile-vietnam.html

were rampant last year, but hard to know how credible they are. Can't believe everything you read online.

A Russia/Vietnam joint venture building a version of the SS-N-25 Switchblade has been announced, and Russia has sold Vietnam a couple of the Bastion anti-ship missile systems, along with many older models.

Therre's also been some talk of the Russians moving back into Cam Ranh Bay, though in what numbers and role is far from clear, seems mostly talk (if not just rumor) so far.

It will be interesting to see how relations between the bear and the dragon proceed if all this heats up and the Russians emerge as a supporter of the Vietnamese.


However, what is worrisome is that notwithstanding what is officially stated, US may not be very accommodating to allow the Chinese to do what she wants in SCS.

But then I could be wrong! For all what one knows and given what I learn here, the US may just curl up and lick its wounds with so many campaigns that have not been really very successful!

I don't think the Chinese are planning to take any single step that would be aggressive enough for the US to make a response to. They seem more after a gradual assimilation of bits and pieces, without actual conflict if possible. It will be going on for quite a while, and there will doubtless be twists and turns.

davidbfpo
07-28-2012, 12:10 PM
Dayuhan and others raise the issue of Sino-Russian relations, which we have not given serious thought to:
It will be interesting to see how relations between the bear and the dragon proceed if all this heats up and the Russians emerge as a supporter of the Vietnamese.

Why would the Russians side with Vietnam? Surely there is far more to gain with PRC, apart from buying old Russian weapon systems and offering port facilities Vietnam has IMO little to offer.

Dayuhan
07-28-2012, 01:09 PM
Dayuhan and others raise the issue of Sino-Russian relations, which we have not given serious thought to:

Why would the Russians side with Vietnam? Surely there is far more to gain with PRC, apart from buying old Russian weapon systems and offering port facilities Vietnam has IMO little to offer.

India and Vietnam, both considered potential rivals to China, are major buyers of Russian military hardware, and it's not only old systems. Russia needs the sales, not only for the money but to keep production lines open and to achieve economies of scale for its own purchases, especially with fewer sales going to the Middle East. How the Chinese feel about that is hard to say, not much public discussion. That in itself is odd; if the US was selling 6 submarines to Vietnam the Chinese would be howling about it.

It's always very difficult to know what's really going on with Russia/China relations. Certainly there's a great deal of trade going on and everything looks friendly on the surface. There's a long history of tension between them, though, and several potential flash points. The Chinese are pouring investment is and trying to build influence in Kazakhstan and other oil-producing Central Asian states, and the Russians have to see that as a challenge in a traditional sphere of influence. There are reports of concern that Eastern Siberia is increasingly becoming economically an adjunct to China. Possibly the Russians see influence in Vietnam and India as a potential counterweight to China down the line, in the event things don't stay so friendly?

All speculative of course. I personally think in the medium to long term Russia-China conflict is more likely than Russia-US conflict, but all such ideas are... well, speculative again.

carl
07-28-2012, 01:54 PM
I think you're missing the reasons why they whip it up, and why they can't afford to tone it down. I think you miss it because you seem to see the Chinese populace as a suppressed and passive mass that poses no threat to the government. That's a long way from reality: the Chinese government is a lot more worried about its own people than they are about anything the US will do.

There are a lot of pissed off people in China. They are pissed off at the rampant corruption, at the flaunting of huge wealth by people they actually see, about huge and growing disparities in wealth. With economic growth looking to settle back to less stratospheric levels, more people will be more pissed off.

The Chinese do respect the government for having made China strong again, for making it a credible global force for the first time in Chinese memory. With the economy going into a potential rough patch, that nationalism is something the government needs. They have to keep it fired up, it keeps helps distract the populace from things the government doesn't want them thinking about. They really aren't in a position to tone down the nationalism, and they certainly aren't in a position where they can afford to publicly back down on regional issues.

You have stated the crux of our differing views, the degree to which the Red Chinese gov's actions are dictated by the desires of the population. My reading of history since 1949 shows decades of unimaginable suffering inflicted by the gov upon the people. They didn't much care what the people thought and the people, God love 'em (because the gov viewed them as livestock), couldn't do a damn thing to help themselves. So I view with much skepticism your contention that the Chinese people will rise against the Red Chinese gov because they haven't directed the PLAN to be forceful enough against the Vietnamese and the Filipinos.

Two things strike about the position you say the Red Chinese gov is in. The first is as if a master continually eggs on a dog to attack a neighbor and then keeps shouting to the neighbor to keep moving the property line back or he won't be able to control the dog.

The second thing is if what you say is true, the Red Chinese have placed themselves in a similar position to the Pak Army/ISI in that they have created something they can't control that will ultimately destroy their country because war is inevitable. And it is inevitable because people eventually stop backing up. However, I don't think what you say is true.


On what basis does the US go around declaring what it will and will not allow in the South China Sea? That's even assuming that we have a clear line that we are willing to enforce, which of course we don't.

We've gone over this numerous times. The same basis the has motivated the actions of the RN and the USN over the last hundreds of years, freedom of navigation on the high seas.


The Chinese do not want a major fight in the South China Sea, at all. That would be devastating to them no matter what the outcome: virtually all of their trade passes through the sea and if it were closed to commercial shipping for even a short time the impact would be huge.

Absolutely. Sun Tzu said that. They want it without having to fight. There are two sure ways to avoid a fight. They can stop wanting it, or the rest of the world can give them what they want. The first way maintains the status quo, which is pretty good, no fighting lots of people getting rich. The second way is a bad precedent for freedom of navigation, thereby worldwide prosperity; and it bodes ill for anybody near or not so near to Red China who wants to do anything at all without first clearing it with the Central Committee.

So the problem for the rest of the world is maintaining the status quo until they stop wanting it. Hard problem. In my view one of the first things to be realized when dealing with a problem like this is to understand the nature of the antagonist. The Red Chinese are murderous thugs and when dealing with thugs you don't appease them or they come at you again faster for more.


The Vietnamese know they can't fight a full-scale naval/air war against China, but they also know they don't have to: they just have to pose enough threat that such a war would be very unattractive... after all, the Chinese haven't that much to gain. The most likely conflict would be in the form of a naval skirmish, and the Vietnamese have got that base covered fairly well. There's a solid chance that if the Chinese got into a limited skirmish with the Vietnamese the outcome could be equivocal, and the Chinese could even suffer a bit of a bloody nose (losing ships or aircraft). That might be militarily insignificant, but it would be politically devastating.

Sound reasoning...if. I am not sure the Viets have the capability you ascribe to them. The Kilos won't be ready for years.


That's one reason why if the Chinese do decide to push for a skirmish it will be with the Philippines, which has no capability at all.

Very true. And ultimately, the Philippines and Vietnam will depend on us to back them up.


What we've seen and what I think we'll continue to see, is pushing and provocation right up to the point where shooting looks possible, then backing down. Of course that's a risky game, and somebody could easily miscalculate and set something off, but that's what we've got. I don't see where in this picture the US can draw a credible "line" that it would have the capacity and will to enforce.

Our line is freedom of navigation maintained, the South China Sea remains international waters, territorial disputes resolved via international negotiation not fait accomplis (sic) pulled off by fisherman, shacks on stilts and PLAN frigates cruising around 3000 yards away. I think we have the will to do this and have started putting pieces in place already, however clumsily. I fear sometimes though we might be a bit wobbly on the fisherman/shack side.


The contention was that the subsea geography forces submarines into limited areas and limited corridors, making ASW easier and raising the possibility of accidental encounters or even collisions. Again, I haven't the knowledge to take a position on that, but the argument seemed at least superficially credible.

I caution you Dayuhan, submarines and everything about them is completely fascinating. If you plunge into that subject it may be a long time before you surface.


Most of the missiles I believe work with shore-based radar, though in the event of actual conflict some other power - can't imagine who - might easily step in and provide the Vietnamese with detailed intel on whose ships are where.

Unless you get real high tech and real expensive, radars are line of sight. There are only a few countries with over the horizon radars and neither Vietnam nor the Philippines are one of them. Anti-ship missiles will almost certainly need aircraft, somebody's or others, for targeting.


I've read that Vietnam is buying the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, a joint India/Russia project, Ray might no more about that. They already have a number of Russian-built systems deployed, enough to provide a reasonable deterrent to anyone thinking of slapping them around.

But are those systems, like the Kilos, operational yet? That is the main point of the article, until they get operational, there is a time of greater danger.

carl
07-28-2012, 02:07 PM
That in itself is odd; if the US was selling 6 submarines to Vietnam the Chinese would be howling about it.

That is a great point! Why indeed. Boy does that open up possibilities along the deep dark conspiracy theory, deals within deals line. I never thought of that before nor have I read anyplace else anything about why Red China isn't livid about that.

As far as Russia goes though, except for selling arms I count them out. It is a criminal state and afflicted with an insoluble demographic decline. They won't be a factor.

Dayuhan
07-29-2012, 01:16 AM
You have stated the crux of our differing views, the degree to which the Red Chinese gov's actions are dictated by the desires of the population. My reading of history since 1949 shows decades of unimaginable suffering inflicted by the gov upon the people. They didn't much care what the people thought and the people, God love 'em (because the gov viewed them as livestock), couldn't do a damn thing to help themselves.

You may have noticed that things have changed a bit in China over the last 20 years. The most visible change is in economic progress, but in order to achieve that change other things have changed as well. There's a huge cadre of mid level managerial and professional workers that wasn't there before: they're educated, connected, and aware. A lot more people have traveled, and a lot more are online. A much higher percentage of the population is urban. People are much more connected and information is a lot harder to control. Expectations are much higher and awareness of corruption is omnipresent (corruption seems more an issue than repression for many). The government has kept a lid on that by delivering constantly expanding prosperity, but they can't sustain the rate of expansion forever and the expectations will keep rising. Actions aren't "dictated" by the need to keep the populace under control, but that need is an ever-present influence.

In short, the same economic expansion that worries outsiders has created an enormous problem for the Chinese Government. They cannot afford another Tiananmen: they couldn't keep it bottled up, and they know it.


So I view with much skepticism your contention that the Chinese people will rise against the Red Chinese gov because they haven't directed the PLAN to be forceful enough against the Vietnamese and the Filipinos.

That's an extreme exaggeration of what I said. Obviously nationalist pride isn't the only factor involved. It remains the case, though, that the Chinese Government do rely (like many other governments) on whipping up nationalism, conjuring external threats, and directing anger outward, and that they clearly believe that they cannot afford to be seen backing down or looking weak.


The second thing is if what you say is true, the Red Chinese have placed themselves in a similar position to the Pak Army/ISI in that they have created something they can't control that will ultimately destroy their country because war is inevitable. And it is inevitable because people eventually stop backing up. However, I don't think what you say is true.

War doesn't become inevitable when nobody is willing to back down. In this case nobody wants to back down, but nobody wants to fight either. So they shadow-box, they maneuver, they push as far as they can without provoking actual conflicts. That's a risky business of course, and an armed flareup is always possible. It's unlikely that such a flareup would escalate to war, simply because nobody in the picture wants a war.


We've gone over this numerous times. The same basis the has motivated the actions of the RN and the USN over the last hundreds of years, freedom of navigation on the high seas.

Nobody has restricted or proposed to restrict freedom of navigation. The issue isn't freedom of navigation, the issue is the rights of various claimants to exploit fisheries and potentially other resources. How does the US justify telling others where they can or cannot fish, or explore for oil and gas?


Absolutely. Sun Tzu said that. They want it without having to fight. There are two sure ways to avoid a fight. They can stop wanting it, or the rest of the world can give them what they want. The first way maintains the status quo, which is pretty good, no fighting lots of people getting rich. The second way is a bad precedent for freedom of navigation, thereby worldwide prosperity; and it bodes ill for anybody near or not so near to Red China who wants to do anything at all without first clearing it with the Central Committee.

Neither extreme is likely, and there's lots of room in between. Realistically, what we're likely to see for the medium-term future is a continuation of the status quo, which is somewhat unsettled but within tolerable limits. I don't see how it's in the interests of the US to try and alter that status quo or dictate a resolution.


Sound reasoning...if. I am not sure the Viets have the capability you ascribe to them. The Kilos won't be ready for years.


They have the capacity, even without the submarines. The submarines would extend that capacity over a wider area. The Vietnamese could do real damage in a skirmish near their own shores, and they wouldn't be likely to engage in one at any distance. Not saying they'd win a war, but the Chinese aren't likely to want to take a bite at them, because they can and will bite back.


Very true. And ultimately, the Philippines and Vietnam will depend on us to back them up.

The Vietnamese are not going to depend on the US for anything. Of course they'll do what they can to build relations, as they do with Russia, India, and others, but they won't be depending on the US. Realistically, the US isn't going to go into conflict over fishing rights or energy exploration rights, and the Chinese are going to keep things below that threshold.


Our line is freedom of navigation maintained, the South China Sea remains international waters, territorial disputes resolved via international negotiation not fait accomplis (sic) pulled off by fisherman, shacks on stilts and PLAN frigates cruising around 3000 yards away. I think we have the will to do this and have started putting pieces in place already, however clumsily. I fear sometimes though we might be a bit wobbly on the fisherman/shack side.

Nobody is challenging freedom of navigation, and the US is not going to police fishermen and oil exploration. People will simply have different opinions on what territory belongs to who, and that disagreement will be in place for some time. The US is not in a position to force the Chinese to accept international arbitration of territorial disputes.


That is a great point! Why indeed. Boy does that open up possibilities along the deep dark conspiracy theory, deals within deals line. I never thought of that before nor have I read anyplace else anything about why Red China isn't livid about that.

I would not want to speculate on anything going on between Russia and China. I'm sure they do not trust each other, and for good reason. Vietnam and India ar both traditional customers for Russian arms; possibly the Chinese don't make an issue of it because they know it wouldn't do any good. We'll see what happens.


As far as Russia goes though, except for selling arms I count them out. It is a criminal state and afflicted with an insoluble demographic decline. They won't be a factor.

The Chinese have criminality and demographic issues of their own. Russia is not the empire it once was, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't fight over their territory or what they perceive as their sphere of influence... and of course they remain a nuclear power. No way to know how things will emerge on that front, and no way to influence developments either... sit back and watch.

Bill Moore
07-29-2012, 04:03 AM
Posted by davidbfpo


Why would the Russians side with Vietnam? Surely there is far more to gain with PRC, apart from buying old Russian weapon systems and offering port facilities Vietnam has IMO little to offer.

Their interests are security, economic, and political. The interest in establishing access in Vietnam is its strategic location, just like the naval bases they're pursuing in Cuba and the Seychelles. It isn't a threat to us or China necessarily, but suspect it will definitely increase the risk of rising tensions between the emerging powers in the region. Russia trades with China, and China values their economic relationship since they need access to Russia's oil and gas. Interesting developments all around.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-27/russia-seeks-naval-supply-bases-in-cold-war-allies-cuba-vietnam


Russia is in talks to set up naval bases in former Cold War allies Cuba and Vietnam as President Vladimir Putin undertakes the country’s biggest military overhaul since the Soviet era.

“We are working on establishing navy bases outside Russia,” Vice-Admiral Viktor Chirkov, the navy’s commander-in- chief since May, said in an interview with the state-run RIA Novosti news service and confirmed by the navy. “We aim to set up resupply bases in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam.”

http://english.cntv.cn/program/asiatoday/20120728/110216.shtml


Russia and Vietnam have agreed to further strengthen their energy cooperation. The agreement was reached Friday when Russian President Vladimir Putin met his Vietnamese counterpart Truong Tan Sang in Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi.

Vladimir Putin said, "With Russia’s participation, Vietnam’s first nuclear energy plant will be built. Of course during the building of this very important and great object we will use the very highest technology. The Russian government is providing credit to Vietnam. The total value of the credit is 10 billion US dollars."

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/12/17/russia-and-apec-2012-imaginary-engagement/


Finally, throughout its 13 years of APEC membership, Russia has failed to clearly outline the economic interests it wishes to pursue with its regional APEC partners. Nor has it utilised numerous APEC opportunities to articulate its strategic trade vision. This is well indicated by its limited participation, and lack of submissions, to APEC committees and groups, including an indifference toward the agendas of important APEC fora such as the Economic Committee and the Committee on Trade and Investment. The only APEC forum with which Russia has recorded engagement is the Counter-Terrorism Task Force, further indicating that Russia’s participation seems not to be driven by economic considerations.

Consequently, Russia will likely focus on a number of more narrowly defined initiatives in drafting the 2012 APEC agenda. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s remarks in Honolulu and a recent APEC meeting in St.Petersburg suggest the topics of interest will be energy, transport and food security. Russia apparently sees APEC as an opportunity to assert its role as a premier energy supplier, a transport ‘bridge’ between the Asia Pacific and Europe and a competitive food exporter to the region. This self-perception is not new and rests partly on domestic assumptions that the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Northern Sea Route will be feasible alternatives for commercial cargo travelling between the Asia Pacific and Europe. In order to fulfil at least some of these ambitions, huge investment in the physical infrastructure of Russia’s Far East is required. Translating these complex and mostly unilateral interests into the APEC language of concerted multilateralism will require a lot of creativity.

Ray
07-29-2012, 06:05 AM
India and Vietnam, both considered potential rivals to China, are major buyers of Russian military hardware

As far as India is concerned, Russian hardware is history.

Dayuhan
08-03-2012, 06:02 AM
Foreign Affairs on the impending Chinese leadership transition:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137802/christopher-k-johnson/chinas-leaders-head-to-the-beach?page=show

Relevant paragraph:


On the South China Sea, for example, Beijing's approach is drifting "from maintaining stability to safeguarding sovereignty," as the well-connected Chinese academic Jin Canrong recently argued in People's Daily. The last time the sea became a flashpoint, in 2009-10, the leadership stepped in to remind the country's hawks that defending sovereignty was important but ultimately subordinate to focusing on economic development. With politics now in command, it is unlikely that anyone will risk looking soft on defending China's "core interests" by calling for restraint.

The bit about politics and the need to not appear soft sounds almost American, in a not entirely reassuring way...

Dayuhan
08-03-2012, 06:18 AM
As far as India is concerned, Russian hardware is history.

Interesting... are these incorrect then?

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?catid=3&id=6377&h=Indian%20Force%20Opts%20More%20Su-30MKI%20Despite%20Problems


These 42 new Su-30 MKI will be delivered over four years, beginning 2014.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110204/162455171.html


The IAF has awarded the MiG corporation a $900 million contract to upgrade all of its 69 operational MiG-29s.

Again, these projects would seem of value to the Russians not only for the money they bring in, but for their ability to keep the production lines for these aircraft open, active, and able to supply their own air force.

I'd also thought that India just took delivery of a Russian-built submarine and was expecting another... and aren't the Russians heavily involved in the Brahmos and PAK-FA programs?

All just stuff off the internet of course, and possibly not trustworthy...