South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

I guess the question comes down to how much control the US actually needs to exercise over the South China Sea. After all, it is not our territorial water either.

Several interesting (to me, anyway) issues all touch this topic:

1. Spheres of influence: All major nations have spheres of influence. This is reasonable and smart. The questions and conflicts arise around issues of how large should any particular nation's sphere be, how they define their unique role within that sphere, where spheres overlap, how those who live within these spheres feel about that foreign intrusion of policy and presence, etc. We live in an age where the US has grown used to exercising a global sphere of influence, at least for certain issues. Other states that are rising in power are seeking to expand their own spheres of influence. Is ours too large, or are our expectations too extensive?? How do we deal with the overlaps that will naturally occur? This is an important, dynamic issue, and one we need to deal with logically. The most illogical position would be to assume that the status quo of the Cold War would endure as a new normal.

2. National interests. Closely related, but nations have interests, which is why they worry about spheres of influence. Sometimes these are shared with other nations, sometimes they are neutral, and sometimes they are in conflict. Knowing clearly what ones own true and vital interests are is important to keep one's own appetites in check. Appreciating the interests of others is equally important. I don't think the US does a very good job on either count in recent years. The largest contributor to US problems in this regard is the post-Cold War adoption of the belief that we make ourselves safer when we make others more like us, thereby making such conversions a vital interest. This is such a "born again Christian" approach to foreign policy. We are so excited about what we find to be so wonderful for ourselves, that we make a royal ass of ourselves by hard selling the same to everyone we deal with. As a counter I offer that "we make ourselves safer when we are perceived as the nation most dedicated to helping others to be more like themselves." This is the essence of the principles of liberty and self-governance our nation was founded upon.

3. Control vs. Influence. Control is in the eye of the person on the receiving end. I suspect we are perceived as a little to a lot too controlling just about everywhere.

4. Vulnerability. The US is so used to being big, rich, strong and powerful. But rising states adopting relatively low-cost counters to out big, rich, storng, powerful platforms make us feel vulnerable. We don't like that feeling. That is natural, the real question is what we do about it. Currently our approach is to simply spend more to make us even bigger, stronger and more powerful, even though it is no longer a reasonable cost validated by a true threat to do so. Like a gambler doubling down on losing hands in an effort to catch back up. Time to perhaps play a new game. Our national security is based on far more than just our military might, and to over spend building big, expensive, vulnerable platforms not only weakens other aspects of the equation; but if placed to the test and defeated, even in part, by smaller asymmetric means, we will lose so much credibility and influence that it could be a sea-change event. It has happened many times before, even in recent times. When Spain lost her Armada; when the French fleet was defeated at Trafalgar; when the Russian fleet was crushed by Japan; when Japan's fleet was crushed by the US; etc. Why would we push such a large, vulnerable target so deep into an opponents face so as to dare him to prove how vulnerable it truly is?

National leaders have recognized that the US is at a strategic turning point. They have directed a "pivot" of focus from Europe toward the Pacific. But I believe it is still only a half-step in the right direction. We have refocused our military, but we have not yet rebalanced and refocused our Ends-Ways-Means as a whole for engaging the world. The logical time to have launched such a major review was during the Clinton administration. It might have saved us a great deal of trouble if we had; but better late than never. This is not a Democrat issue or a Republican issue, as both sides of the aisle are equally culpable. Similarly, this is not a Defense vs State issue, as again, each are equally culpable. This is a national issue and an issue of national importance. It may well play out some day in the South China Sea, but it will affect us all.

How the US Navy deals with naval issues as we execute this pivot is far too important to leave to the Navy to decide. Same with our Air, Land, Space, Cyber and SOF forces. Each will see the problems through the lens of their own equities, and will overly push for solutions that make sense in that context. Time for a new, larger context to balance this all against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Dayuhan,

I heard a similiar comment on MSNBC from one of their many comical spokespersons when they tried, as you, to dismis this event as mere poaching. They, like you, simply embrace the anti-government, everyone is right, but our competitors and foes. If you want to simply be provocative, feel free to do so, but there is an ocean of difference between a rogue fishing ship poaching, and state sponsored intrusions that are supported by their Navy.

---

Chinese fishing boats do this all the time. They've been doing it for decades. There have been many, many incidents... boats get impounded, fishermen get arrested, the Chinese government presses for their release. If they have Navy (or in this case non-Navy) assets close enough, sometimes they push in. The basic message is - and has been - that they intend to fish anywhere they want. Does there have to be anything more?

The problem is that when people outside the region suddenly notice this long-running drama, they react as if it's something new, some upping of the ante, some new move that requires a response. In some quarters we hear opinions that suggest that anything but a chest-thumping showdown would be cowering defeat and anything less than hysteria is burying your head in the sand, as if there is no room between.

So we have it... this has been going on a long time. Sometimes it gets noticed by the world, sometimes not. Does it need a specific response, and if so from who? That's the question, no? I'm personally more worried about exaggerated responses than insufficient ones, because I think they'd do little or no good and potentially a lot of harm.

There's room for concern, but the moment our response shows fear - and no mistake, chest-thumping bluster is a sign of fear - we create more troubles than we solve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Fortunately, people who have to consider what this means to their security interests can't afford the luxury of burying their head in the sand.

---

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

---

No... it is rather like this: (I quote)

Quote:

---

(You) is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything (you) writes or publishes. I know (you) refers to a (supposed local knowledge), but we all know those (experiences) can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.

---

I think I'm bang on here.

Quote:

---

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

No... it is rather like this: (I quote)

(You) is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything (you) writes or publishes. I know (you) refers to a (supposed local knowledge), but we all know those (experiences) can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.

I think I'm bang on here.

---

And the other one is, well...you know...a Chinese. Draw your own conclusions.

There has been quite a lot of comment here and analysis elsewhere, albeit some months ago, regarding the use of non-naval ships in incidents in this maritime area. IIRC IISS published an Adelphi Paper on the growth in para-military / non-naval / law enforcement vessels in the Pacific; sometimes with very odd aspects, like US Coast Guard ships carrying Chinese law enforcement staff in the Bering Street area.

So this latest incident with Chinese maritime surveillance ships comes as no surprise.

One of the big issue in the South China Sea is the lack of information on whose ships are where and what are they doing.

Vietnam's maritime safety bureau or whatever it is called has several very modern, state of the art, Swedish built maritime surveillance aircraft and is one of the few countries that has the capability to gather and process the information. Incidentally the USCG has a few of them too.

I am 95% certain the aircraft sold isthe Saab 2000 MPA:http://www.saabgroup.com/Air/Airborn...Saab_2000_MPA/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Backwards Observer

And the other one is, well...you know...a Chinese. Draw your own conclusions.

---

That makes you right or makes you wrong?

Or half right and half wrong? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

That makes you right or makes you wrong?

Or half right and half wrong? ;)

---

As a crusty Brit-Aussie transplant Vietnam vet used to take pleasure in saying, "He's a wong, but he's all white." Har ####ing har...nice guy though.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Backwards Observer

Try and focus for a second, Ray, there's a good chap. This is from the post by Carl. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him:



Does this mean Carl is a Chinese?

The idea that I, as some internet nobody, even a half-Chinese one, am going to force war upon the world is intriguing.

At long last, Ray, have you no shame?

---

No not really.

You did raise some issue about war, or was I mistaken?

You will forgive me, but you to talk in riddles and forced cynical humour. For a simple soul like me, it is difficult to cut through the fog that you generate.

I think you did say you were Chinese or did I read you wrong. If so, a thousand pardons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

No not really.

I think you did say you were Chinese or did I read you wrong. If so, a thousand pardons.

---

That's great...sir. But I reckon I've had about all the "freedom of speech", and "We hold these Truths to be self-evident", I can stomach for the time being...

Quote:

---

war is inevitable within the next ten years

---

Backwards,

Your quote.

I can only read simple English and draw simple conclusions!

Quote:

---

While China has, over the past two decades, made impressive overall progress towards improving relations with its Southeast Asian neighbours, mounting tensions over these competing claims threaten to undermine its charm offensive. Following the aggressive manoeuvres by five Chinese vessels against the US ocean surveillance ship USNS Impeccable in March 2009 in the South China Sea, developments in those waters have attracted greater diplomatic and press attention. Many observers see China’s behaviour in the South China Sea as symptomatic of an increasingly ‘assertive’ diplomacy.

---

Quote:

---

The sovereignty disputes are about more than simply who owns particular features. They involve major themes of grand strategy and territorial defence, including the protection of sea lines of communication, energy, food and environmental security. They may also be linked to rising populist nationalism. The stakes are too high for imminent resolution; the rulers of states with maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea are convinced that compromise is not in their national interest. Rather, they (along with states without claims and non-state actors, such as energy companies) focus not so much on dispute resolution as on dispute management, with the aim of preventing conflict and preserving freedom of navigation and over-flight.

---

http://www.iiss.org/publications/sur...na-sea-debate/

Quote:

---

Throughout history, control of the seas has been a prerequisite for any country that wants to be considered a world power. China's military buildup has included a significant naval expansion. China now has 29 submarines armed with antiship cruise missiles, compared with just eight in 2002, according to Rand Corp

---

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0103211602.jpg

Quote:

---

The Chinese military embarked on a military modernization effort designed to blunt U.S. power in the Pacific by developing what U.S. military strategists dubbed "anti-access, area denial" technologies.

---

Quote:

---

In 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao unveiled a new military doctrine calling for the armed forces to undertake "new historic missions" to safeguard China's "national interests."

---

Quote:

---

China's technological advances have been accompanied by a shift in rhetoric by parts of its military. Hawkish Chinese military officers and analysts have long accused the U.S. of trying to contain China within the "first island chain" that includes Japan and the Philippines, both of which have mutual defense treaties with the U.S., and Taiwan, which the U.S. is bound by law to help defend. They now talk about pushing the U.S. back as far as Hawaii and enabling China's navy to operate freely in the western Pacific, the Indian Ocean and beyond.

"The U.S. has four major allies within the first island chain, and is trying to starve the Chinese dragon into a Chinese worm," Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, one of China's most outspoken military commentators, told a conference in September.

---

Quote:

---

The U.S. also is considering new land bases to disperse its forces throughout the region. President Barack Obama recently announced the U.S. would use new bases in Australia, including a major port in Darwin. Many of the bases aren't expected to have a permanent American presence, but in the event of a conflict, the U.S. would be able to base aircraft there.

---

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...582060996.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Backwards Observer

As a crusty Brit-Aussie transplant Vietnam vet used to take pleasure in saying, "He's a wong, but he's all white." Har ####ing har...nice guy though.:)

---

Good to see the sense of humour is intact.

Now what the Chinese going to do in the next ten years that we need to be afraid about?

Quote:

---

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

---

An interesting point.

Could it be that they have a sanctuary elsewhere where they can safely hotfoot to in case the situation gets too hot to handle?

I know this for sure that people with backup in life are very bold.

As per psychology, those who have no problems to fight for their existence, tend to be the ones with esoteric ideas and claims and great ones to display bravado! They, after all, have nothing to lose!

Pathetic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Backwards,

Your quote.

I can only read simple English and draw simple conclusions!

---

That's a negative, sir. Quoting Carl once again (sorry, Carl):

Quote:

---

I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.

---

Carl posits a war scenario in the above passage. Did you conclude that he has a special insight into CCP behaviour owing to any inherent Chineseness. The passage was indirectly referred to once and directly quoted in a response to you a second time.

My impression is that more than a few Americans view war with China as inevitable as they see it as an evil, expansionist state uninterested in co-existence. Do you infer anything Chinese about their views? Perhaps that is better left unanswered.



Your further statement:

Quote:

---

It will be a sad thing if you, as Chinese, force it on the world.

---

Well, not sure what to make of that, really. But, yes, I suppose it would be sad for me, whether as a Chinese, a White guy, or a ####ing half-breed to force war upon the world. I'll make sure to put it on my "things not to do list".

Don't worry about it, Ray, it's done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

http://www.iiss.org/publications/sur...na-sea-debate/

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0103211602.jpg

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...582060996.html

---

The yanks are not allies that can be relied upon.

Maybe not in my lifetime but certainly Hawaii will become contentious (like the Falklands is to the Brits now) and will be granted independence.

If the Russians want Alaska back they will probably get it.

The 'frontline states' had better get together and form a bulwark or they will get gobbled up piecemeal.

Oh yes, remembering MAD, they better get their own nukes and line them up and aimed and ready... and have the balls to use them.

Might as well give the US back to the Red Indians (I do not know what is the PC word for it, but I am told there is one!) Forgive me if I have erred!

Then none can grouse!

And there will be no Yell of 'Dollar Imperialism' as we use to hear in the earlier days!

And hearing them here with greater finesse than the old days!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Backwards Observer

That's a negative, sir. Quoting Carl once again (sorry, Carl):

Carl posits a war scenario in the above passage. Did you conclude that he has a special insight into CCP behaviour owing to any inherent Chineseness. The passage was indirectly referred to once and directly quoted in a response to you a second time.

My impression is that more than a few Americans view war with China as inevitable as they see it as an evil, expansionist state uninterested in co-existence. Do you infer anything Chinese about their views? Perhaps that is better left unanswered.

---

Wow! I'm being quoted as an authority. This is great. My mother won't be surprised but will my brother ever be impressed! Are my views really being used as representative of "more a few Americans"? On the off chance that they are, maybe I should explain something.

The passage you quoted, twice, could be viewed as a prediction of war I guess, if you are not a careful reader. That is my fault since I should write with the expectation that uncareful readers abound. What I should have written was "could" instead of "will", as in "J-20s could be flying around picking off American jets" rather than "J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets". That would be more clear and would more accurately reflect my opinion. After all us opinion leaders and makers bear a weighty responsibility. But in my defense, you could have J-20s picking off F-18Fs in situations well short of wars. American aircraft, mainly recce planes, used to get picked off regularly in the Cold War by many countries we weren't at war with, Russia and North Korea being two. Red China got three in 1967 or 1968 I believe.

But since my opinion carries such weight nowadays, I'll state what it is concerning chances of war with Red China in 10 years. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Things could run the gamut from an all out destroy both countries exchange of nukes to something like the navel (I used that word just for you BA) war we fought with France around the turn of the 18th to 19th centuries to Operation Praying Mantis to amity on the order of that we have with the Aussies.

One of the big reasons for the uncertainty is we don't have a clue what is going on in the upper reaches of the Chinese regime. So we have to try to divine things from actions. The actions of late have been a big naval buildup in the face of no threat, continuing aggressive and provocative actions at sea and a lot of very belligerent talk. Those things worry me.

There, the sage has spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Backwards Observer

That's a negative, sir. Quoting Carl once again (sorry, Carl):



Carl posits a war scenario in the above passage. Did you conclude that he has a special insight into CCP behaviour owing to any inherent Chineseness. The passage was indirectly referred to once and directly quoted in a response to you a second time.

My impression is that more than a few Americans view war with China as inevitable as they see it as an evil, expansionist state uninterested in co-existence. Do you infer anything Chinese about their views? Perhaps that is better left unanswered.

---

So you are piggybacking?

Passing the blame on others?

Why did you not explain it so in your post?

Was it convenient not to do so?

Quote:

---

Your further statement:



Well, not sure what to make of that, really. But, yes, I suppose it would be sad for me, whether as a Chinese, a White guy, or a ####ing half-breed to force war upon the world. I'll make sure to put it on my "things not to do list".

Don't worry about it, Ray, it's done.

---

There you go again.

Nothing upfront.

Neither here nor there.

Even the CCP believes in this type of approach!

So, you are a........?

It is not a life or death issue, but it is always good to know the truth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

Might as well give the US back to the Red Indians (I do not know what is the PC word for it, but I am told there is one!) Forgive me if I have erred!

---

The Indians I used to work with called themselves and other Indians, Indians, or they would use the name of the tribe they belonged to or tribal members. Who cares about PC? Besides, "The Native Americans are coming! The Native Americans are coming!" doesn't have nearly the dramatic impact of "The Indians are coming! The Indians are coming!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray

So you are piggybacking?

Passing the blame on others?

Why did you not explain it so in your post?

Was it convenient not to do so?








There you go again.

Nothing upfront.

Neither here nor there.

Even the CCP believes in this type of approach!

So, you are a........?

It is not a life or death issue, but it is always good to know the truth!

---

Geez, lighten up, Ray, you act like anything I say is actually important.:) Maybe you need to get out more. Come to think of it maybe I do too.:rolleyes: