South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[carl]

I don't think any opinion stated here has any inherent credibility. I pointed out that one might expect those with the most to lose from a given threat or potential threat to be the ones most concerned about it. In this discussion, for whatever reason, that appears not to be the case.

I do suspect that those closest to the events in this case may have been following the situation more closely for a longer time than some others in the discussion, and that this may have something to do with the attitudes displayed, but that's only conjecture.

Slice it up as you like, it still is a suggestion that propinquity makes for better judgment, a poor argument in this case.

You may persist in saying there is no threat, but their perception of threat is more important than our ever so impartial assessment of threat, and they perceive a threat, justifiable or not. We do maintain significant military forces in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, and along their key commercial arteries in the Middle East... would we feel threatened if they had forces in similar proximity to our mainland and our vital commercial routes?

The US maintains an enormous Navy in the face of no threat. The Russians, British, French, Italians maintain significant navies in the face of no threat. Actual or aspiring major powers with extensive maritime trade maintain navies, threat or no threat. Been that way for centuries, why would it change now?

I persist in saying there is no threat to peacetime Chinese maritime trade posed by the USN because there is not a threat. None. The Chinese economy has not been hampered in the slightest by their having had a small navy in the past. Not a bit. But now you say they see threat. If that is so, they are wrong and their buildup of a big navy in the face of no threat is dangerous to all. It has been mentioned before that it is similar to the Germans building up a big navy before WW I in the face of no threat. That did not work out well for the world.

The various countries you name do indeed have small navies. And they are small in relation to the world. And except perhaps for the Russian navy which I know little about, none of those navies are built to challenge the USN. Not one, nor the Indian navy nor the Japanese. But the Red Chinese navy is. Why?

As I said many posts before, the buildup of forces wouldn't be all that worrying except it is combined with provocative actions and belligerent talk. That worries me.

And as I also said many post before, the USN grows and contracts depending upon the threat. Wars, cold & hot, it grows. Peace, greater and less, it shrinks. Plus we have relationships and responsibilities that go back generations. Plus we took over from the RN in keeping open the worlds sea lanes, including those to mainland China. All that means we need a few more ships than the other guys.

The Red Chinese are building big fleet in peace. That fleet is structured to fight the USN. They talk fight a lot and they keep bumping into other people's boats. It may not worry you but it does me.

[Dayuhan]

I persist in saying there is no threat to peacetime Chinese maritime trade posed by the USN because there is not a threat. None.

Now you've gone and put that little word "peacetime" into the picture. Of course there's no peacetime threat. Nobody's a threat to anyone in peacetime. Nations prepare for times when there is no peace - otherwise there would be no armies or navies - and they prepare for what they perceive to be potential threats.

The Chinese economy has not been hampered in the slightest by their having had a small navy in the past. Not a bit.

The US perceives Iran as a threat, because they believe Iran has the capacity to hamper the flow of vital resources through a critical waterway. We have not been hampered by that capacity in the past, but we see it as a potential threat in the future. The Chinese see that we have the capacity to cut them off from resources and markets that sustain them at any time of our choosing. If you were in their shoes, would you be comfortable with that?

none of those navies are built to challenge the USN. Not one, nor the Indian navy nor the Japanese. But the Red Chinese navy is. Why?

Possibly because they see us as a threat?

And as I also said many post before, the USN grows and contracts depending upon the threat. Wars, cold & hot, it grows. Peace, greater and less, it shrinks.

Even when shrunk it is very, very large.

Plus we have relationships and responsibilities that go back generations. Plus we took over from the RN in keeping open the worlds sea lanes, including those to mainland China. All that means we need a few more ships than the other guys.

From who, exactly have we been protecting the world's sea lanes?

We took on those responsibilities on our own, of our own volition. If some people prefer to take over the responsibility of protecting their own shipping, are we to tell them that they may not do that? If some see what we call "protecting" sea lanes as "controlling" sea lanes, would that not create a perception of vulnerability that others might not be comfortable with?

The Red Chinese are building big fleet in peace. That fleet is structured to fight the USN. They talk fight a lot and they keep bumping into other people's boats. It may not worry you but it does me.

What do you propose to do about it?

Is the factual accuracy of his reporting in dispute?

Hard to say, as the source document isn't public. It looks to me like what could be called the Michael Moore technique: pull a bunch of factoids that support your position out of context, discard all facts that don't support your position, slam them together in a hyped-up breathless style, tell the audience they must be very very afraid, and declare solemnly that everything you've said is verifiable and true. Works well when you're preaching to the choir.

Personally, I've never been much for joining choirs, left or right. I'm also inclined to be suspicious when someone tells me to be afraid. Personal thing I guess...

But you are right, we maintain the capacity to interfere with those who would interfere with freedom of navigation.

We also maintain the capacity to interfere with the other peoples navigation, any time we choose to do so. Just because we haven't used it doesn't mean we haven't got it.

When murderous police states want to some shoving, I get worried.

How many non-Chinese have been killed by China's government in the last decade? How many non-Americans have been killed by America's government in the last decade? Lots of people out there think we are murderers, and lots of people fear us. Most of them don't have the capacity to challenge those they fear. Some do.

It will be easier to get a grasp of the situation if we drop "Red Chinese", "Chicoms", "murderers", and deal with people who happen to be Chinese. Ok, we don't like their government. Lots of people don't like our government. That doesn't make it impossible to manage relations.

We may have had a coming out phase, maybe not. But if we did I don't remember us challenging the RN for control of the Atlantic.

Didn't the Monroe Doctrine involve staking out a sphere of influence and warning others to stay out of it?

Red China's dependence upon sea trade is not greater than anybody else on earth. If all sea trade were to stop tomorrow, I am sure the Japanese would perish first.

If you look at external trade as a percentage of GDP, China's will be close to the top of the list, due to a very underdeveloped domestic market. Possibly Saudi Arabia or other oil producing states would be higher. I'd guess not many.

If the Red Chinese are worried about that, the only way to assuage that worry is to control ALL of the worlds oceans, ALL the time. That will lead to a great big war if they try it.

You mean that would lead them to try to do what we already do. We wouldn't like to see them in that role, why would they like to see us in that role?

In any event, things are as they are. The Chinese have apparently decided that their security requires them to build a navy that can compete with ours on a peer basis in their coastal waters. If they want to do that, we can't stop them: they have the money and the technology, if they want to build the ships and aircraft, they will.

So what would you have us do about it? Preemptive war is tough with nukes in the picture. You want us to go out an build still more ships? Build until our carriers outnumber theirs 11 to 1, our cruisers outnumber theirs 22 to 0, our destroyers outnumber theirs 60 to 25... oh, wait, we're already there.

So do we build more and more, spend trillions on a race we don't need to be in? Is that something our economy can sustain? If we start from the premise that we must have absolute superiority to everyone, everywhere, all the time, we have to ask if that premise is consistent with our economic condition. Maybe we need to recognize that the premise is neither necessary nor economically sustainable, accept that we will have a peer competitor in one part of the world, and deal with it. It's not as if we have to sail into the China Sea and fight China there; in the unlikely event of conflict we have a whole range of options that don't require that.

So after all the angst and anguish, what exactly would you have us do?

[Bob's World]

Strategic Inertia.

A policy in motion tends to stay in motion.

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

[Ray]

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...e-in-spratlys-

[Ray]

[Dayuhan]

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:



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]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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...adise-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:



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?