South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[AdamG]

Just for fun - scratch out 2010 and insert 2012.

Eastern Sea (AKA South China Sea) December 2010: World War III starts over a desolate and worthless looking area in the western Pacific Ocean known as the Spratly Islands.

Strategically located between and claimed by Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei, the Spratly Islands are also claimed by distant neighbors China and Taiwan. Located in the middle of major shipping lanes with over-abundant commercial fishing possibilities, the Spratly Islands cause turmoil for an even greater reason: untapped oil and gas reserves.

http://thelastcolumnist.com/world/the-spratly-islands/

[davidbfpo]

A strange twist to Chinese diplomacy, initially for the Paracel Islands, as the BBC reports:

China is to begin running tourism cruises to a chain of disputed islands in the South China Sea by next month, state media reports.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22056661

An astute move, even more worrying if such a ship cruises into a hotly disputed area.

Incidentally this week IISS have a book launch on the disputes:http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/...-sea-disputes/

[Ray]

US floats nuclear subs option

The United States has indicated for the first time it would be willing to lease or sell a nuclear submarine to Australia in a move that will inflame tensions with China and force the Coalition to declare its policy on #bolstering regional defence.......

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s 2009 defence white paper, predicated on the potential threat posed by China, called for 12 submarines, much larger than the Collins class – around 4000 tonnes compared to the current 3050 tonnes......

Kokoda Foundation founder Ross Babbage, a proponent of the nuclear submarine option, said a smaller fleet of nuclear powered boats would serve Australia better than any available conventional submarine. “You would not need 12, you could probably get away with 9 or 10, they are much larger than a conventional sub, can carry more weapons and would have far greater range and endurance than a conventional sub,’’ he said.

“It would also be great step forward in terms of Australia’s interoperability with the United States.’’.....

Though the idea has been criticised as unworkable because Australia doesn’t have a nuclear industry to support a nuclear submarine fleet defence sources suggest the Australian fleet could be maintained at a US base in the Pacific Ocean or a US nuclear submarine base could be established in Australia........

http://www.afr.com/p/national/us_flo...3KjNwBLfFxpdeO


Dated, but indicative of the concern with which the shenanigans in the SCS is being watched.

[ganulv]

http://www.afr.com/p/national/us_flo...3KjNwBLfFxpdeO


Dated, but indicative of the concern with which the shenanigans in the SCS is being watched.

This would perhaps explain the Australian naval officer’s visit last year to the GD facility in my part of the world.

[davidbfpo]

A number of nations over time have expressed an interest in having nuclear submarines (SSN), I was not aware Australia had such an interest. The RAN has a big problem already with manning its existing submarines, which has been in the public domain for sometime.

There a number of non-submarine components needed for an effective SSN operation, the most expensive ones being a shipyard and a waste facility. Even the UK has struggled at times, especially storing waste.

IIRC the really difficult component is recruiting, training and retaining key crew members, probably reactor operators.

Switching continent and seas for a moment Brazil has expressed an interest, if not requirement for acquiring SSN(s) and have held talks recently with the UK on what it really means.

One could argue that the opening of new basing facilities to the USA in Australia is a far better, cheaper strategic option that SSNs.

[Bill Moore]

The situation remains tense.

Australia upgrading its submarine fleet

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...6651353513031/

Chinese Media Warn Philippines Of 'Counterstrike' If 'Provocations' Continue In South China Sea

http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-media...na-sea-1328649

Japan to take Phl's side in South China Sea dispute

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/20...na-sea-dispute

[ganulv]

That one is worth remembering.

Not to make light of a very serious situation, but I can’t let the opportunity to drag out the photo below slip by.

[Ray]

A lot of the "China threat" articles seem disturbingly generic. It would be easier to discuss the threat in specific terms: what specifically are we afraid the Chinese will do, and how specifically would those actions affect us?

Summed up by this quote from Helen Keller -

The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.

The so called 'disturbingly generic' 'China Threat' articles if read will indicate to the not so blind but with vision that they are not so generic as one would like to portray them to be.

I wonder if one could explain as to what the US aims to gain by 'spawning' 'generically disturbing' "China Threat" articles?

To believe that Nations on the periphery of China are blindly toeing the US party line on the 'China Threat' would be suggesting that they were but vassals of the US and such a suggestion would be insulting to their intelligence and nationhood.

I am sure such a suggestion is misconceived and disingenuous.

[Dayuhan]

The situation remains tense.

Chinese Media Warn Philippines Of 'Counterstrike' If 'Provocations' Continue In South China Sea

Japan to take Phl's side in South China Sea dispute

These stories are getting a lot of play here, naturally. The threat is of course nothing new; it's been repeated many times. That doesn't mean they won't go through with it, of course, especially if the domestic economy hits a rough patch and they think it expedient to whip up a bit of jingoism.

What exactly they will do remains, of course, open to question. Removing the Philippine garrison form Second Thomas Shoal (a few marines lodged in a wrecked freighter, notoriously the worst duty in the Philippine military) would be a logical choice; they could do it easily and it's not likely that there would be serious repercussions from the US or anyone else. If they want to go further, they could force the Philippines out of Pag-asa island, though that would be a bit more complex.

I'd guess that they could get away with either move without much in the way of repercussions. If it escalated to the point of shooting and a Philippine ship got sunk, that would complicate matters, but I still doubt that there would be much beyond a verbal response.

There is some hope about that Japan would assist in the event of conflict, but I think that's an illusion: Japan's constitution would not permit it, for one thing. The Japanese will provide some hardware (they have offered 12 patrol boats to the coast guard, but no military assets that I know of) and diplomatic support, but I wouldn't expect much more.