A SSN fleet "down under"
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.
davidbfpo
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
“A crying child will have milk to drink.”
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.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
Summed up by this quote from Helen Keller -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?
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.
Last edited by Ray; 06-30-2013 at 05:59 AM.
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.Originally Posted by Bill Moore
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.
Last edited by Dayuhan; 06-30-2013 at 06:11 AM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2...le-back-futureJapan’s constitution
Back to the future
Many Japanese who do not support Mr Abe’s right-wing views also favour revision, at least of article nine. This is what makes the constitution a pacifist one, for in it Japan renounces war as a sovereign right and even vows not to keep a standing army, air force or navy. Japan’s sense of itself as a pacifist nation remains extremely popular. But according to the constitution’s current interpretation, Japan may not even come to the aid of allies if they are attacked. Re-interpreting, rather than amending, the constitution would legitimise collective self-defence. Still, for many Japanese it rankles that Japan’s “self-defence forces”, formed in 1954 and among the world’s most sophisticated armed forces, cannot call themselves a standing army. There is broad support for changing the constitution, which has never been amended, so that they can. It is a matter of national pride as much as anything else.
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-co...s/1676582.htmlUS Commander Issues Stern Warning on S. China Sea Disputes
June 06, 2013
The top American military commander in the Pacific issued a stern warning to any country that might try to seize control of disputed areas in the South China Sea:
“We will oppose the change of status quo by force by anyone,” Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said during a visit to Malaysia on Wednesday. “We need to retain the status quo until we get to a code of conduct or a solution by party nations that is peacefully accepted.”
I don't think anyone knows what they will do, but most agree the risk of a misstep during times of heightened tensions in the region could result in a chain of events no one anticipated or desired. I get tired of hearing how old and great the Chinese culture is as though that is even relevant. As a world power they're new kids on the block and their foreign policy is very clumsy and amateurish. They're about two steps up from the North Koreans, which means they're still in the basement.
My irrational side at times suggests we should just sink their entire Navy since they only seem to it use it to intimidate developing nations, and I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to do, but of course that isn't practical and it ultimately won't achieve much but make the world a more dangerous place. But it is important to realize they're not as powerful as they think they are, it is important to the overall context. Someone is going to bite China back eventually, and then the nationalists and media throughout the region will more than likely spin the event beyond control of those who may have a more responsible approach. At that point buckle your chin strap, we'll all be in for a bumpy ride.
No country grudges China's rise in all spheres.
It is only when China uses that 'clout' to intimidate and illegally occupy areas that are traditionally not theirs, is when hackles are raised since it indicates hegemonic ambitions that is dangerous to regional peace, stability and harmony, and finally international peace.
Mealy mouthed homilies and pious platitudes by China and their international fanboys downplaying the realities and turning a blind eye towards such imperialist, colonial and hegemonic mindset and pursuits, if allowed to influence international realities, will finally end in a very tangled and dangerous world.
There are those who will criticise the US and their 'imperialist' attitudes of yore, to include those who claim to be Americans. They fail to realise that the US has evolved. No longer they proclaim such attitude in governance. Therefore, much reviled earlier, the US does appear very acceptable.
Such acceptability, to some and may appear to the uninitiated, as vassaldom, but it is not so. It is merely the convergence of mutual security interests.
There are no friends or enemies in international politics. There is merely national strategic interests!
And that is not selling oneself as a vassal!
It would, in such circumstances, be natural for all to assume China's missteps in translating their new found strength, as arrogance to recreate the days of imperial conquests and colonial expansionism, which in today's international environment, is passé!
Lebensraum is today a four letter word!
China and their supporters, need to grow up and realise that the world is a changed place from the days, when imperialism, colonialism and hegemonic aspirations were the order of the day.
Even Burkina Faso, purely on humanitarian grounds, cannot be taken over without international condemnation!
Last edited by Ray; 06-30-2013 at 09:14 AM.
Posted by Ray
There does seem to be some truth in this statement. We're morally terrified of repeating what is widely perceived to be our past sins to the point that we tend to view our foreign policy through an anachronistic perceptional lens that impedes our ability to act accordingly now and in the future.There are those who will criticize the US and their 'imperialist' attitudes of yore, to include those who claim to be Americans. They fail to realize that the US has evolved. No longer they proclaim such attitude in governance. Therefore, much reviled earlier, the US does appear very acceptable.
Most, if not all, have recognized the world has changed, but we have still failed to adapt in any major way. Our COINdista brothers have developed a very narrow view of the world's current security environment, and unfortunately this view (although fading) has diverted too much attention from a range of other challenges and deep thinking about how they should be approached.
Former SECDEF Gates was absolutely right when he said we need a balance of capabilities to include the ability to more effectively engage in the full spectrum of irregular warfare. As a nation we have always had security hobbyists who focus on a particular threat spectrum (cyber, space, nuclear, terrorism, internal instability, etc.), but as a collective we tend to see the world in bi-polar terms. Us against the Axis, us against the communists, us against terrorists, and then to miss that one threat doesn't displace another, it only fixates our attention and thinking. Fortunately our CJCS recognizes this complexity and the need to develop a comprehensive strategy and force to adequate shape and respond to the real world, not the just the portion of it we tend to myopically focus on. Without giving a specific example, it has been sadly entertaining to watch our security community discard the threats we were watching in the 90s and totally focus on Al-Qaeda, and now that state actors are making ripples again, you see a shift that suggests we should forget about Al-Qaeda and focus on a particular state actor. The reality is we have to address all threats that are a threat to our national interests. We can't choose just one and hope the others magically and hope all others will disappear. I think we delude ourselves when we base our strategic thinking on the priority of the day (priority logic). That means we can never move beyond the 5 meter knife fight.
I agree, but I'm not sure the Chinese really think they are all that strong, though they badly need to be seen as strong, both regionally and domestically. I do not think the Chinese have any intention of crossing the line into shooting with the Japanese, as the outcome of such an encounter could easily go badly for them. Even Vietnam has the capacity to bite back: they couldn't win a full scale war with China, but China wouldn't want a full scale war and getting spanked in a skirmish would be a very unattractive prospect for them. That's why the focus is on the Philippines, where China can act aggressively (domestically they would say "assertively") with essentially no risk.
The danger, of course, is that as the Chinese economy runs into reality, the government will rely more and more on jingoism and patriotism to keep the populace in line. That could easily create a position whee they feel that talking strong isn't enough, and they feel the need to do something. Where that would go is far from clear, bit my guess is that the target would be the Philippines and the scale would be calibrated to fall below any level that would elicit anything beyond a verbal response from the US.
I don't think the Chinese want a war: they have little to gain and a great deal to lose. At the same time, their perceived need to look strong and keep proving that they have "made China great again" may put them in a spot where they feel they must do something.
Has anyone criticized the US history of imperialism in any context relevant to this particular situation? Seems to me that the issue is not whether the US is or is not “acceptable”, but what the US is or is not willing to do. The US has embraced strategic ambiguity as a useful tool, but I do not think anybody in this picture really believes that the US would impose serious military or economic repercussions on China over a scuffle in the Spratlys. It’s possible that this assessment could be wrong… but I doubt it.
Certainly so, but since nobody has invoked the word or the concept, it seems a bit of a straw man. The Spratly, Paracel, and Senkaku islands are irrelevant from a lebensraum perspective, all of them combined wouldn’t sustain the population of one Shanghai city block. Have the Chinese said or done anything that suggests an intent or desire to acquire lebensraum through conquest?
Of course the last one in the door always wants it closed behind them.
Certainly one cannot take over other countries without international condemnation, not that the Chinese care much about international condemnation, unless it is backed up by action. The Chinese haven’t taken anyone over, though. What imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions would you assume that they have, and why?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
If I may remind you of this post (Post 575) of yours:
A Cherokee or a Najajo might have something to say about that. China expanded and treated its fringe minorities in pretty much the same way the US did, we just did it before adopting the "universal values" we recognized after our expansion was reasonably well settled.
The Chinese haven't taken over?Certainly one cannot take over other countries without international condemnation, not that the Chinese care much about international condemnation, unless it is backed up by action. The Chinese haven’t taken anyone over, though. What imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions would you assume that they have, and why?
What about the islands in the SCS?
Last edited by Ray; 07-01-2013 at 07:21 AM.
That's not criticism of the US imperial history, just an attempt to point out that China is acting as rising powers have always acted. More restrained than other rising powers of modern history, actually, though that's mainly, I suspect, because they feel they can get away with less. We should hope that rising China continues to be more restrained than, say, the US, Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union were in their days of rising, but there's not much moral high ground to ride while hoping.
I said "The Chinese haven't taken anyone over". They've seized a few disputed and uninhabitable rocks. That hardly seems in a league that could be compared to conquering Burkina Faso, or any other nation.
What imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions would you assume that they have, and why?
I don't think the attempt to gain unquestioned supremacy over these islands has anything to do with lebensraum, or even resources. More a matter of pride, I think.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
An interesting comment that conveniently avoids the historical timeline.
What was acceptable in Medieval days, would be acceptable in today's contemporary thought?
Would Inquisition be OK with you?
Appears so.
Hope that China is more restrained?
Actions speaks for itself!
False hope is a terrible thing, if its the only thing keeping you alive you'll be dead by dawn.
What is seizing a few disputed and uninhabitable rocks?I said "The Chinese haven't taken anyone over". They've seized a few disputed and uninhabitable rocks. That hardly seems in a league that could be compared to conquering Burkina Faso, or any other nation.
What imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions would you assume that they have, and why?
I don't think the attempt to gain unquestioned supremacy over these islands has anything to do with lebensraum, or even resources. More a matter of pride, I think.
Comparable to a loveable domestic pussy cat slurping a dish of milk illegal taken?
What in your opinion would constitute t imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions?
Making China the centre of the world? The Middle Kingdom?
Pride?
The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.
Yes, they do. A modern inquisition would be unacceptable. If China did what the US, Japan, Germany, or the Soviet Union did in their days of rising power, that would be totally unacceptable. If China acted as the US and Soviet Union did during the Cold War, that would be completely unacceptable. Since they haven't done any of those things, that's a bit of a moot point.
In actual quantitative terms, China has been more restrained than any of the above. That's demonstrable. We judge them by what they do, not by a few people's assumptions about intention.
False hope is thinking that port calls and joint military exercises will prevent the Chinese from seizing whatever shoal or rock they choose to seize... still, I don't expect anyone to be dead by dawn as a consequence of that false hope.
An imperial or colonial ambition would be the acquisition of colonies or the establishment of an empire. A hegemonic ambition would be more along the lines of what the US and the Soviets did in the developing world during the Cold War: removing governments that refused to subordinate themselves to the hegemon, installing and propping up compliant dictators, etc. If China chose to interfere in the domestic politics of SEA nations in the way that the US used to play around in Latin America only a few decades ago, that would be something to be concerned about.
I've never said that the SCS situation isn't something that warrants concern. It's just not a situation that's going to be helped by overreaction and bluster or by drawing lines in the sea that we aren't willing to enforce anyway. A bit of perspective is called for, and a bit less fear.
And fear... don't forget fear. Scared people do all manner of stupid things.
Last edited by Dayuhan; 07-01-2013 at 11:47 PM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
http://thediplomat.com/the-editor/20...ippines-japan/The Philippines and Japan’s charm offensives towards China appear to have failed as Beijing seeks to isolate both powers within the region.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
http://m.philstar.com/314190/show/e0...431ba50020b7/?MANILA, Philippines - A Chinese news network has reported that China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) is planning to seize the contested Pag-Asa Island in the Spratlys Group of Islands this year in what can be an explosive military confrontation.
Business and strategy news platform Qianzhan (Prospects) reported that Beijing condemned the Philippines' move to deploy Air Force and naval contingents to Pag-Asa Islands early this month and called the occupation illegal and "arrogant."
http://chinadailymail.com/2014/01/11...pines-in-2014/The following report is a translation from Chinese media. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily Mail.
Relying on US support, the Philippines is so arrogant as to announce in the New Year that it will increase its navy and air force deployment at Zhongye Island, a Chinese island that it has illegally occupied for years.
It will be an intolerable insult to China
According to experts, the Chinese navy has drawn a detailed combat plan to seize the island and the battle will be restricted within the South China Sea.
The battle is aimed at recovery of the island stolen by the Philippines from China.
There will be no invasion into Filipino territories.
A report in the Philippines Star confirmed the Philippines military buildup on the island.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
I wonder how we'll weasel our way out of backing the Filipinos on this one.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
We already have. The US has pretty consistently stated that it sees the Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal, etc as disputed territory, not part of the Philippines. Of course we also say that the disputes should be settled peacefully, but realistically I doubt the US response to a seizure of Kalayaan Island would go much beyond verbiage and a few arms sales to Manila. I don't see the US wanting to go to a military confrontation over the islands. Some kind of economic reprisal, possibly. I'm not sure what the options are on that side, would be interesting to see discussion from people who know more about it.
I actually don't expect this to happen yet, though it could, especially if the Chinese government feels a pressing need to rally some nationalist spirit by beating up someone who can't fight back. More likely we'll see some fishing boats seized and/or chased out, more harassment of oil exploration missions, possibly an ADIZ over the South China Sea. These threats have been tossed around before, usually through semi-official channels.
Last edited by Dayuhan; 01-15-2014 at 04:04 AM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan:
That is a pretty good analysis.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks