South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Ray]

On the issue of the US going to war with China, one cannot predict its certainty. One can only hope that it never has to happen.

Trade with likely adversaries can always assist them and of that their is no doubt. Therefore, the trade has to be monitored and balanced. Assets like high technology and defence innovations should not be shared by the nation that is better off in these fields than the adversary.

However, trade with economic payoffs should always be engaged in.

Nuclear deterrence has its spinoff. However, nuclear deterrence alone is no failsafe answer. One has to have strategic depth and without that, nuclear deterrence is meaningless if the adversary has strategic depth.

[Backwards Observer]

On the issue of the US going to war with China, one cannot predict its certainty. One can only hope that it never has to happen.

Trade with likely adversaries can always assist them and of that their is no doubt. Therefore, the trade has to be monitored and balanced. Assets like high technology and defence innovations should not be shared by the nation that is better off in these fields than the adversary.

However, trade with economic payoffs should always be engaged in.

Nuclear deterrence has its spinoff. However, nuclear deterrence alone is no failsafe answer. One has to have strategic depth and without that, nuclear deterrence is meaningless if the adversary has strategic depth.

Well said, Ray. But you're wrong, war is inevitable within the next ten years and any nation conducting trade with an unspeakably evil force like China is a a direct party to that evil.

[Ray]

Well said, Ray. But you're wrong, war is inevitable within the next ten years and any nation conducting trade with an unspeakably evil force like China is a a direct party to that evil.

As a Chinese, if that is your reading, then we must gear up. You would know better what the CCP thinks.

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

Coexistence is not a four letter word as yet!

I have said trade is a must.

I have said no selling of high technology and that is all!

[Backwards Observer]

As a Chinese, if that is your reading, then we must gear up. You would know better what the CCP thinks.

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

Coexistence is not a four letter word as yet!

I have said trade is a must.

I have said no selling of high technology and that is all!

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:

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.

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?

[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. 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.

[Bob's World]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

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?

[JMA]

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.

[carl]

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?

If you mean to say you live closer to the South China Sea than others and because of that your opinions are more credible, say it straight out. In any event, it is a poor argument.

[Ray]

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.

[Backwards Observer]

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...

[Ray]

war is inevitable within the next ten years

Backwards,

Your quote.

I can only read simple English and draw simple conclusions!

[tequila]

Nuclear deterrence has its spinoff. However, nuclear deterrence alone is no failsafe answer. One has to have strategic depth and without that, nuclear deterrence is meaningless if the adversary has strategic depth.

Can you clarify what you mean by "strategic depth"?

[Ray]

Can you clarify what you mean by "strategic depth"?

Maybe this may help

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...egic-depth-910\

That apart, bareboned maybe this is it:

Strategic depth is a term in military literature that broadly refers to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants’ industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production.

[Ray]

All have withdrawn from the disputed area.

That there has been no confrontation before is because there was no clamorous demand by any party that the seas are there. It is only when China used military might as against Vietnam that the littoral nations realised that unless one took action, by default the Seas would be usurped by China in the similar fashion as they did to the 100 Yues territory.

The ships sent by the Chinese are said to be reconnaissance vessels. Are they civilian? Are they like the Russian trawlers which too were said to be civilian? Isn’t it a typical Communist way to cloak military activities under a civilian garb? You can fool people once, but you cannot fool them all the time!

Many countries do fish illegally in other’s waters. Call it poaching if you will. There is nothing new about that. However, when a nation, as did China against Vietnam, use military might, it does ring alarm bells. It is no longer poaching. It is asserting rights, even if those rights are most dubiously claimed.

There is no doubt that China wants to ‘show up’ the US as a nation that it is what they call ‘paper tiger’, or in other words, all gas and no go!

It is true that the US taxpayers’ money goes to ensure that other nations are not swamped, but then the US also gains from the spinoff. It proves to the smaller nations that are about to be swamped that the real McCoy still remains the US. True, it appears that these nations do not swoon over the US, but in many forums, they go the US way and indirectly indicate that the US is Mohammed Ali, the greatest that moves like a butterfly!

What makes it that the US perception that China and Iran are not a threat?

If the US is unduly getting hypersensitive, what is the threat to China, if one is to ask that question, with the manner in which she is militarising in such a hell fired hurry and aggressively planting their flag all over their neighbourhood? China is a large country and its neighbours are in no position to threaten China’s existence. So, where is the threat?

While countries may not agree with the US foreign policy, there is no nation that believes that the US military is out of proportion. The world, grudgingly if you will, accept the concept that the US is the ‘global policeman’ and none are in a position to challenge it and, if indeed if that be the case, they are nowhere close to have a military ‘out of proportion’ and in fact is woefully short.

It is true that the US is not keeping the sea lanes open. She is keeping the sea lanes open as per her strategic perspective. It could be, as per some, immoral, but then who is there to challenge her strategic aims, more so, when the same converges with most of the littoral nations. China has shot her bolt by her meaningless aggressiveness and the littoral nations are not impressed!

Indeed if many nations see that the US is being merely Don Quixote tilting against windmills, how come they are siding with the US? Indeed the US goes by her own strategic objectives, but is it US’ fault that their objectives converge with those of the littoral states?

The Chinese are entitled to pursue her strategic objective, but if that does not converge with theirs and instead with the US, are the littoral states wrong to side with the US?

If China is faced with ‘insecurity’ and wants to ‘come out’ and it does not converge with the security of the littoral state, then it is China’s problem and if the littoral states find some other country with which they find convergence, then so be it. No reason for China to cry foul since she, as it is , is fouling the waters!

It is a canard that India has a substantial navy and the British has a Navy beyond her requirement. India is developing her Navy and is still years behind. The British Navy has been withered so badly that one wonders if they have a Navy at all. They do not even have an operational aircraft carrier to safeguard her overseas territories. So, what exactly brought you to your inference unless it was to alarm and display that you are knowledgeable?

It is another bogus claim that China can be cut off from her maritime interest in Africa and the Middle East. What is Gwadar port in Pakistan and the port in Myanmar all about that China has built and the railways and road connecting them (or planned to be connected) to China? Cosmetic or that act is of an enduring and loveable soul like Mother Teresa? Let us not fool ourselves to prove a point that is bogus and contrived!

7th Fleet was parked in Manila? I thought it was being said by those who claim to be in Philippines that the Philippines was dead against any US presence in their country? How come Philippines has a change of heart? Very off and very convenient to sometimes say that the Philippines are dead against US presence and when convenient say that the US is swarming all over!!!!!!!

The US policy has changed. It is now peer to peer and not subordinate.

That is why we all love the US.