South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Ray]

Undoubtedly so. The point you're not addressing is that according to the USGS - the agency that informs the US Government on matters pertaining to oil and gas reserves - the quantity of such reserves to be had in SE Asia is extremely limited, despite the repetitious exaggerations in media reports. Hence it is difficult to believe that anyone making decisions in the US sees the SCS as a potential energy "gold mine", or that energy resources are a major factor drawing US attention to the reason. That's true precisely because oil is important, and one seeks oil where your scientists say it is, not where the newspapers say it is.



So why should the potential presence of very small amounts of oil in an area tht is in actual point of fact outside the US sphere of influence be a major factor in US policy?

Again, there just isn't that much oil there.
.


Do you see the oil majors flocking to SE Asia?



I'll be more specific: if (when) trouble resumes in the ME, that region will be restored to the disproportionately high weighting in US deployments that it has had for the last few decades. Yes, there will still be forces elsewhere, just as there will still be forces in the ME after the discussed "shift to the Pacific". I thought that obvious; apparently I was wrong.



Take that up with JMA sometime, just for our amusement.



It seems a habitual state.



I see nothing in Admiral Willard's statement that commits the US to protect any nation.



OBL was, alas for him, devoid of nukes. The Chinese are not, nor have they attacked America or Americans. We do a lot of business with them. We disagree on a number of things, as we do with others elsewhere, but not not on anything sufficiently compelling to provoke violence.

I have noticed on a number of threads pertaining to China that there are a few people around who seem to believe that anyone who fails to cast China as an absolute enemy that must be challenged and confronted at every possible opportunity is therefore apologizing for China or taking a pro-Chinese line. That seems a strange opinion to me, but people are strange (Jim Morrison said so, and I believe him), and of course they are entitled to whatever opinions they like, just as others are free to put forth contrasting opinions.

1. You tend to selectively pick and chose what I write for your replies. An ingenuous mode to appear relevant. Do take the whole issue and then discuss.

Read what I have written on Oil and it being a political, social and even a military weapon.

Also read how and why sanctions by the League of Nations on Italy did not work. And why it workled elsewhere.

Read also why in Venezuela, apart from other nations subjected to the US 'wrath', the US is hell bent to get rid of Chavez!

Then apply it to the present. Check Iran for starters and why US has forced others to cut down, if not cease using Iranian oil and gas.

2. You conveniently interpret statements (that I append with links) to suit your convenience. It is most amusing that you expect Admiral Willard to state that the Pacific Fleet is to committed to protect Nation A or B. I have never heard such a preposterous mission aim during peacetime. Most amusing to say the least. I am also delighted to learn that you find the Admiral's testimony redundant and incorrect. TO imagine he is paid to command a Pacific Command after what you have told us!

Next you will expect NATO to state that they are to protect specific Nations!

Indeed you bewilder. If bewilderment is my habitual state as far as your post is concerned, I am not surprised. If a person has a one point agenda and has blinkers on and a tunnel vision, what else can the other person be but bewildered since elaborate explanation and with links does not elicit a reply that is laced with logic and instead it forces itself with selective picking and an exuberance in an Oraclish pontification!

[Ray]

Ken White,

No comments on the remainder since you are merely doing shadow boxing.

Let me explain what I mean by using this part of your post:

No, I do not. You're quite wrong. The nominal 50% of the nation's populace that is less well educated than the other 50% are not in that situation due to choice; they are mostly there due to the fact that system failed them. I criticize that system, not the people who suffer due to its failures.

BTW, do not make the mistake of believing that the Sarahs and Joes, that unfortunate 50% less well educated are incompetent boobs. They are not. They may not be as sophisticated as some or as erudite but they aren't stupid. Joe for example was far more correct on the economy than was Obama.

The failure of the education system is the universal excuse for not being capable of imbibing the education or not wanting to be educated it being a drag!

Those who want to be educated find ways and means to do so, inspite of all odds. It is applicable in the US, in India and all over the world. There are many cases in point that indicate this.

Well Sarah Palin and Joe are not incompetent boobs in their fields of expertise. Never said that.

However, it is bewildering, yes bewildering, that you claim that Joe the Plumber "was far more correct on the economy than was Obama.'

If what you say is correct that Joe understand world economy, international politics, geo strategy, geo politics better (or a little less sharper) than Clinton and Panetta, then why do US parents waste time and money by sending children to college, when High School equips them as educated marvels!

You may have a poor opinion about US education, but my folks right from childhood to college have had US education and I daresay they are of same genre as the marvelous example of bubbling intellect of Joe the Plumbers.

I have met many Americans, to include military officers, and I daresay they came out to be a poor example of US education. In fact, they were rather knowledgeable and did display intellectual acumen.

Lemme tell you something, RSM to Brigadier, last time I was politically correct you were probably not yet weaned.

Another of the usual hyperboles that are meaningless and trite, more so when you don't know anything about me.

[Ray]

Pentagon officials are reluctant to talk publicly about potential conflict with China. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Beijing isn't an explicit enemy. During a visit to China last month, Michele Flournoy, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, told a top general in the People's Liberation Army that "the U.S. does not seek to contain China," and that "we do not view China as an adversary," she recalled in a later briefing.

Nevertheless, U.S. military officials often talk about preparing for a conflict in the Pacific—without mentioning who they might be fighting. The situation resembles a Harry Potter novel in which the characters refuse to utter the name of their adversary, says Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon. "You can't say China's a threat," he says. "You can't say China's a competitor."

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

[Ray]

Panetta urges more US Naval access to Vietnam harbor
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ietnam-harbor/


China warns US from 'muddying waters' in South China Sea

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/c.../1/198849.html

US and Philippines stage South China Sea military drill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17836762


Panetta open to military relations with Burma
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...ns-with-burma/

[Ken White]

No comments on the remainder since you are merely doing shadow boxing.

Amazing -- that mirrors my thoughts about most of your diatribes.

Another of the usual hyperboles that are meaningless and trite, more so when you don't know anything about me.

Nor you of me, thus your "politically correct" comment was at the very least, unnecessary -- it certainly lends nothing to discussion. As you note, trite comments breed trite responses...

[Ray]

Amazing -- that mirrors my thoughts about most of your diatribes.Nor you of me, thus your "politically correct" comment was at the very least, unnecessary -- it certainly lends nothing to discussion. As you note, trite comments breed trite responses...

And your views on Joe the Plumber who is better than Obama, Ms Clinton and Panetta, whereby all those mentioned in Govt are actually redundant and pales in comparison to the intellect of Joe the Plumbers!

I am amazed at how the Americans love the mediocre. I remember during the election of Obama, he was lampooned as being only 'an intellectual'!

That is where the cultures are different. We respect intellectuals since all cannot be intellectuals and we rejoice their effort.

[carl]

What I've read is that those who do not totally support you or Carl in the 'China is totally e-vul' mantra is that she is evil but no more totally than any other nation, that she does deserve respect due to size and capabilities and that she may not be benign but that fear is not necessary -- or desirable (complicates thinking and planning...).

Near as I can figure...no not near, I can't figure that sentence out at all.

But anyway as far as China being totally evil, I will clarify. The ChiComs are almost totally evil. They used to be totally evil but they moved up a step when they allowed some of the ordinary Chinese to have a bit of private business and property. So the Red Chinese are almost totally evil since I use ChiComs and Red Chinese interchangeably. And I always try to say Red China, not China, because Red China means a bunch of poor saps who are enslaved by the ChiComs. (I think I understand what I just said.)

[Ray]

Just to put things in the correct perspective, I have no problems if China thrashes the living daylights of every neighbour of theirs in the South China Sea.

However, what one wants to know is the US equation with China over the squabbles out there.

The China apologists and China champions trifle the issue as a mere lovers’ tiff, but the events indicate it to be more serious.

It was said that the naval exercises are but routine. And yet, surprisingly, the US undertook the same with Vietnam too! And Vietnam is no friend of the US.

Panetta wants US ships being allowed to dock in Vietnam. Whatever for? One shows the flag for good reasons and not merely for victualling, more so, when there is no dearth of friendly ports around and many supply ships at the beck and call.

Why this aggressive posture, if all is supposed to be well and hunky dory with Chinese forays into the South China Sea?

Why this flurry of military posturing all over if all is but routine?

That is what no one is addressing, even though they give the impression that they are 'in the know' of everything.

And to believe that Admiral Willard, the Commander Pacific is expected to state in no uncertain terms which are the countries he is to protect! ound:

It will be the day when any nation officially declares any country as 'the enemy' during peacetime and state that 'Nation A, B and C' are to be protected!

How can one debate with a person with such a mindset that defies diplomatic niceties?

[Ken White]

And your views on Joe the Plumber who is better than Obama, Ms Clinton and Panetta, whereby all those mentioned in Govt are actually redundant and pales in comparison to the intellect of Joe the Plumbers!

It's totally superfluous of me to point out that I said nothing near that. You're indulging in way above and beyond hyperbole...

I did say Joe's grasp of economics was better than that of Obama -- in that Obama is a Keynesian and Joe, like me, thinks income redistribution is insidiously evil (and yes, that's purposely redundant...).

I am amazed at how the Americans love the mediocre. I remember during the election of Obama, he was lampooned as being only 'an intellectual'!

It's not that most of us love the mediocre, it's just that we realize that most people are, in fact, mediocre and we can accept that.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "The Lord must love the common man -- he made so many of them."

That is where the cultures are different. We respect intellectuals since all cannot be intellectuals and we rejoice their effort.

Not all that different -- we respect true intellectuals, we just strongly reject poseurs and pseudo intellectuals -- with whom we seem unusually afflicted nowadays...

[Ray]

It's totally superfluous of me to point out that I said nothing near that. You're indulging in way above and beyond hyperbole...

I did say Joe's grasp of economics was better than that of Obama -- in that Obama is a Keynesian and Joe, like me, thinks income redistribution is insidiously evil (and yes, that's purposely redundant...).It's not that most of us love the mediocre, it's just that we realize that most people are, in fact, mediocre and we can accept that.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "The Lord must love the common man -- he made so many of them."Not all that different -- we respect true intellectuals, we just strongly reject poseurs and pseudo intellectuals -- with whom we seem unusually afflicted nowadays...

Your comment - Joe, like me, thinks income redistribution is insidiously evil - is a statement and it has no inputs enunciated by you that it is brilliant to pale Obama's Keynesian ideals.To my mind, it is the Joe type of economic thought that has run the US down and made it an economic hostage to China. Self interest without a thought of the Nation and its health! Compare that with China, the country and its ideals that you and Dayuhan champion, and their nationalism to sacrifice to be Wold's #!!

It is like saying - I am the new Messiah and if you don't accept that, you are a dolt and damned!

I will confess, that there is a cultural divide and maybe I do not understand why you rejoice mediocrity when when rejoice in applauding excellence.

Like Abraham Lincoln we too rejoice and love the common man. That is why we have all those populist slogan of the Govt being for the Am Admi (common man). However, we are prudent enough to realise it is better to leave it to those who are intellectually superior to chart the course of the State.

If the common man was such a super Joe and knew everything that the Leaders of the country did not know, then what a Communist had told me would be right.

He has said, like you are saying, that the common man (peasant and workers like Joe the Plumber) knew everything and not the intellectuals.

I merely told him (he was a scientist and more educated than me) that if his statement was true, then the Moon was giving light and it was not that it was reflecting the sunlight since the peasants and workers believed that it was the moon that was giving light!

With due respect to you, I would like to think that it is Obama, Clintons, Panettas who are better equipped to run the ship of the State that all the Joes, Plumbers or otherwise, or even the hockey mom who sees Russia through her window.

What was the 'true intellectual' that Lincoln have in mind. I think it is subjective. Did he give out some parameters to judge by?

I wish the US well. I have lived under Communist rule for 30 plus years (and it was not a genuine one since the federal structure was a brake to their antics) and I sincerely hope that you are not subjected to it, even though it will be a delight to you because Joe the Plumber will decide everything for you including your lifestyle and give you a 'New' American Dream.

The expats will thank their stars and change their tune!

And please don't mistake me to be a US Propaganda machine either. I speak through experience and having lived through a 'benign' Communist rule.

Good luck to you and your friends.

[Dayuhan]

1. You tend to selectively pick and chose what I write for your replies. An ingenuous mode to appear relevant. Do take the whole issue and then discuss.

Given the length of your replies, I've little choice but to pick and choose.

Read what I have written on Oil and it being a political, social and even a military weapon.

I have never said that oil is not a political, social, and military weapon. The question, which you seem unwilling to address, is whether reliable figures indicate that SCS energy reserves are significant enough to use as a weapon. The cited figures indicate that the reserves are not of great consequence and would not justify large and expensive commitments.

Read also why in Venezuela, apart from other nations subjected to the US 'wrath', the US is hell bent to get rid of Chavez!

Then apply it to the present. Check Iran for starters and why US has forced others to cut down, if not cease using Iranian oil and gas.

I don't think the US has tried all that hard to get rid of poor Hugo, nor do I see any great "wrath"... mild and occasional irritation would be more like it. Be that as it may, Venezueala and Iran are significant because of the size of their reserves and their status as actual or potential exporters.

Observe the figures:

Venezueala, proven reserves: 211bbl

Iran, proven reserves: 137bbl (potentially much larger, as no modern exploration has been done for decades).

All of SE Asia, including undisputed areas outside SCS, discovered + estimated undiscovered: 21.6bbl

Source for Venezuela and Iran figures is Oil & Gas Journal, SE Asia figures from USGS.

Then you have to address the question of whether or not these areas can export or sustain exports, a function of local demand and local demand growth. What you'll find (feel free to look) is that SE Asia has both much smaller reserves than places like Venezuela and Iran and much greater demand and demand growth, meaning that the region is unlikely ever to be a significant exporter.

Now can we drop the irrelevant point that oil is important (as we all know) and that people will fight over large reserves (as we all know), and address the question of whether or not the SCS has enough oil, let alone exportable surplus, for the US to be interested in fighting over?

2. You conveniently interpret statements (that I append with links) to suit your convenience. It is most amusing that you expect Admiral Willard to state that the Pacific Fleet is to committed to protect Nation A or B. I have never heard such a preposterous mission aim during peacetime. Most amusing to say the least. I am also delighted to learn that you find the Admiral's testimony redundant and incorrect. TO imagine he is paid to command a Pacific Command after what you have told us!

I didn't say the statement was redundant and incorrect, I said that it involved no commitment to protect anyone. We seem to agree on that, so I don't see what's to dispute.

I think it most unlikely that the US will offer anyone in SE Asia protection in exchange for access to oil, because the oil reserves involved are not sufficient to justify the cost and risk of the protection.

[Dayuhan]

You may have a poor opinion about US education, but my folks right from childhood to college have had US education and I daresay they are of same genre as the marvelous example of bubbling intellect of Joe the Plumbers.

I have met many Americans, to include military officers, and I daresay they came out to be a poor example of US education. In fact, they were rather knowledgeable and did display intellectual acumen.

I think you miss the point on the US educational crisis. Nobody is saying that you can't get a good education in the US, and nobody is saying that all Americans are poorly educated. It's a bit more complex than that.

It's true that on the basic level proficiency in math, reading, and other basic skills is declining. Geography and history are poorly taught if they are taught at all, except for those who choose to specialize in those fields, leaving average Americans without the needed tools to develop even the most rudimentary understanding of the world and its affairs. The US does produce excellent geographers and historians, but the average American lacks even the most basic competence in these fields.

Don't even get me started on languages.

I think US education fails badly in teaching critical thought. One measure of this is the expanded acceptance of various conspiracy theories and fringe ideologies, which are always an indication that large numbers of people are not thinking critically.

Most important, though, US education has de-linked itself from economic needs. American colleges crank out vast numbers of graduates in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. They are reasonably well educated, but the economy cannot absorb them. Meanwhile, enrollment in technical and scientific courses is plummeting, and we don't graduate a fraction of the number of engineers, physicists, chemists, computer scientists, etc that the nation needs to sustain its competitiveness in a technologically advanced world. The ones we produce are very good, but we aren't producing nearly enough of them, and the numbers are getting smaller all the time.

It's not just the sciences, either. US manufacturers consistently report inability to fill positions for skilled technical workers. Even at 8%+ unemployment, Americans don't want to be machinists or precision welders.

The disconnect between our educational focus and the actual needs of the economy is a real threat, and IMO a greater threat than the Chinese.

[Dayuhan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...tOV_story.html

The only thing new here is this:

...he said the Philippines was particularly interested in acquiring a land-based radar that could enable it to monitor the wide expanses of the South China Sea....

Rick Fisher, an Asian security expert at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Alexandria, said a powerful land-based radar could be used jointly by the Philippines, the United States and other allies to quickly detect Chinese military movements in the region.

The Philippines was previously hinting that F16s and modern naval vessels would be nice, hints that were markedly not gratified. This request makes a good deal more sense: it could be jointly operated without a contentious troop presence, the information gathered would be of use to both sides, and it wouldn't require enormous training and maintenance expenses, unlike ships and aircraft. Of course it would also be an immediate target if hostilities broke out, but that's unavoidable. The Chinese would object (they always do) but it's less provocative than arms transfers.

The US used to operate a large radar station on top of Mt Sto. Tomas, just outside Baguio, 2000m+ peak overlooking the SCS. Wonder if that site will be used again...

[Ray]

Rick Fisher, an Asian security expert at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Alexandria, said a powerful land-based radar could be used jointly by the Philippines, the United States and other allies to quickly detect Chinese military movements in the region.

An ideal via media so as to not upset those in Philippines who are not excited about the US coming to Philippines aid.

[Dayuhan]

An ideal via media so as to not upset those in Philippines who are not excited about the US coming to Philippines aid.

I'm not sure any of this is about "the US coming to Philippines aid".

There's been a great deal of rhetoric between the Philippines and the US in the last few weeks, as you'd expect with Panetta coming here and Aquino going there. If you look beyond the words, though, marked questions remain about the extent to which the US is coming to anyone's aid. There's a lot of shadow boxing going on, though it might better be called shadow play, in the Wayang Kulit sense.

Cutting through the talk and getting to the substance, what stands out is that despite considerable prompting from the Philippine side, no arms deals emerged. Despite much talk on the Philippine military modernization, the only actual major purchasing has been the 2 retired USCG cutters and 8 multipurpose helicopters from Poland... not exactly an overwhelming buildup. The US has notably not offered anything that would be peer-competitive even with ASEAN neighbors, let alone China.

The Philippines has made very unspecific offers of port and airfield access and suggested "rotational deployments" of troops, but the extent to which any of these will be pursued if the US doesn't provide any hardware remains unknown. Troop deployments outside Western Mindanao remain a politically volatile issue locally and have not been discussed much in the local media. No specific suggestions have been made as to where these troops would be, how many there would be, or how long they would stay.

Some in the Philippines believe that the US does not want the Philippines to develop an independent defense capability because a vulnerable Philippines is more likely to be levered into new basing agreements. There may or may not be something to this. The Philippine side is still making proposals to the US and has not yet announced a major non-US arms purchase, though there's been discussion of frigates from Italy and jet trainers from Italy or S. Korea.

In short, despite all the rhetoric of unity, the actions strongly suggest that everybody's pursuing their own perceived interests, which is not a surprise.

Not at all surprising in a conflict area where all parties wish to appear strong, assertive, and full of nationalist pride, but nobody actually wants to fight.

[Ray]

Well, if it is all a charade, then hand over what China wants.

There will be no fight and instead all peace.

But mankind is odd.

Funny that they hold nationalism high when actually it is but an instrument of asking for a fight!

[Dayuhan]

Well, if it is all a charade, then hand over what China wants.

Nobody wants to hand anything over, nobody wants to renounce a claim... but nobody wants to fight, either. That doesn't mean they won't fight. Shots have been fired out there before and probably will be again. So far after the shooting everybody's retired to their respective corners and shouted a lot, and I'd expect that to continue.

When you look at the SCS issues you have to start with perspective: this has been going on for decades, and it's likely to go on for a few more. Tension has been worse before than it is now. It's likely to heat up again at some point. There's no immediate "solution": nobody in the picture is going to back down. Realistically it just has to be accepted that there is going to be continuous tension and occasional confrontation for quite a while: it's a problem to be managed, not a problem to be solved. There's really no call for over-assertive intervention or an attempt to settle the disputes, which is likely to make things worse.

Certainly the Chinese have an interest in rattling the saber right now: public discontent is high, the economy is showing some uneasy signs, and rallying a bit of nationalism is in the regime's interest. Would the leaders try to kick off an escalation that could have serious economic repercussions for them? I doubt it: they aren't superhuman, but they are pragmatic, and they don't seem the type to go breaking their own rice bowl.

[Ray]

Panetta and Ms Clinton was running around the mulberry bush?!

All hot air and hogwash.

Just posturing and playing to the galleries!

I am sure the US taxpayer will not be amused!

[Dayuhan]

Just posturing and playing to the galleries!

I am sure the US taxpayer will not be amused!

Posturing, bluff and the other levels of gamesmanship are an integral part of diplomacy. Taxpayers might reflect that it's a whole lot cheaper than fighting.

[JMA]

Nobody wants to hand anything over, nobody wants to renounce a claim... but nobody wants to fight, either.

LOL... see what I mean... who are these nobody's you choose to speak so authoritatively on their behalf?

YOu can't help yourself can you?