A new slant on RIMPAC Naval politics/The Fight To Control The South China Sea [Archive]

Aktungbby

07-25-14, 01:44 AM

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf) Of particular interest is the Chinese development and testing in the Gobi desert ot the (Dong-Feng/ East Wind) DF21 D ASBM missile designed to takeout ships at sea within a considerable range of 2000 miles. Clearly, as with the Kaiser's Imperial fleet development prior to WWI, a specific 'potential' enemy, the U.S. and its allies is the intended target.
"An apparent test of the missile was made against a carrier target in the Gobi desert in January" 2013.http://www.military.com/video/forces/military-foreign-forces/china-sinks-us-carrier-df-21d-missile-test/3161588772001/ (http://www.military.com/video/forces/military-foreign-forces/china-sinks-us-carrier-df-21d-missile-test/3161588772001/)
"A Russian Military Analysis report of the DF-21D has concluded that the only way to successfully counter it would be through electronic counter measures. Conventional interceptions of high-speed objectives have worked in the past, with the Russian report citing the 2008 interception of a malfunctioning satellite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost) by a U.S. cruiser, but in that situation the warship had extensive knowledge of its location and trajectory. Against an attack from the Mach 10 DF-21D without knowing the missile's launch point, the U.S. Navy's only way to evade it would be through electronic countermeasures.
The emergence of the DF-21D has some analysts claiming that the "carrier killer" missiles have rendered the American use of aircraft carriers obsolete, as they are too vulnerable in the face of the new weapon and not worth the expense. Military leaders in the U.S. Navy and Air Force, however, do not see it as a "game changer" to completely count carriers out. Firstly, there are questions on whether it has even entered operational service. Chinese publications said it was deployed in 2010 and U.S. officials reported it reached IOC that same year. Even so, being deployed does not mean it is combat-ready, and the Xinhua News Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency) reported that the DF-21D was “still in the research stage” and not yet operational as of July 2011. Secondly, the missile may not be able to single-handedly destroy its target. The warhead is believed to be enough to inflict a "mission kill" to make a carrier unable to conduct flight operations, while other missiles would follow to actually destroy the ship. Thirdly, there is the problem of finding its target. The DF-21D has a range estimated between 1,035 to 1,726 miles-Since upgraded-so a carrier battle group would need to be located through other means before launching. Over the horizon radars could detect ships, but their exact locations could be off by miles. Chinese recon satellites would be able to look for and locate a battle group. Recon aircraft and submarines could also look for them, but they are vulnerable to the carrier's defenses. Finally, the missile may have a hard time hitting its target. To hit ships moving at 34 mph (30 kn), the DF-21D has radar and optical sensors for tracking. These are supposed to make it accurate, but the missile has not yet been tested against a moving target, let alone ones at sea against clutter and countermeasures. The "kill chain" of the missile requires processing and constantly updating data of a carrier's location, preparing the launch, programming information, and then firing it. How often this is trained is not known, and the U.S. military's Air-Sea Battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirSea_Battle) concept involves disrupting an enemy's kill chain. Some U.S. analysts believe that the DF-21D doesn't fly any faster than Mach 5." In an offset war such as the two submarine based world wars waged against superior naval forces (England), the cheap solution to an expensive problem is always paramount-as with the Stinger against the Hind helicopter etc. The Chinese, lacking the number of marine 'platforms' of their 'potential' RIMPAC opponent(s), are embracing the cheap $olution...time to quit kidding ourselves(and helping!); the clock is:Kaleun_Los: ticking.http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/510294f0eab8ea182f000000-400-300/df21.jpghttp://static3.businessinsider.com/image/510294ab6bb3f78f5000001a-400-300/carrier-124813_copy1-(1).jpg from satellite image:oops:"a common line from China's national defense doctrine before the country acquired an aircraft carrier of its own — namely that carriers are an offensive weapon while anti-ship missiles are defensive. "It can be used like a stick to hit the dog intruding on our backyard, but it can never be used to attack the house where the dog comes from," You're supposed to "walk softly with a big stick"...and that ain't happenin' :/\\!!

Oberon

07-25-14, 05:53 AM

Well, it makes sense really, the Chinese want to be able to exert the same sort of military power in the western pacific that the US exerts in the entire pacific.
Namely the Chinese want a sword to be able to hang over Taiwan, not that they'll actually want to invade Taiwan, because that would wreck the place and ruin the whole point of taking it, but they want to be able to put themselves in a position where they can credibly threaten Taiwan with invasion to the point that Taiwan would have little choice but to back down (not that Taiwan actually would) and also to have the power to push back against other nations territorial claims, nations such as South Korea, Japan and the Philippines.

Now, Chinas current weaponry is primarily defensive, since although it can (in theory) target US carriers, it has nothing to replace the US dominance on the water with, aside from one, old, second hand aircraft carrier.
By 2022 they should have about three carriers in the style of the Liaoning (I prefer the Admiral Shi Lang, which was what they were originally going to call the Liaoning), with plans to build other home-grown designs by the mid-2020s. The US has 19 carriers, 19 vs 3 is a number that even the most die-hard Communist Admiral is going to flinch at, and with Japan slowly remilitarising, I wouldn't worry too much about the US in the Pacific until the mid 2030s. Then the hegemony will be challenged, and by that time it will have been almost a century of unchallenged US dominance in the Pacific.

Aktungbby

08-07-14, 11:46 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/artyom-lukin/world-war-iii_b_5646641.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/artyom-lukin/world-war-iii_b_5646641.html) Precisely my thinking; and relevent to this thread as well... OBERON:The US has 19 carriers, 19 vs 3 is a number that even the most die-hard Communist Admiral is going to flinch at, and with Japan slowly remilitarising, I wouldn't worry too much about the US in the Pacific until the mid 2030s. Then the hegemony will be challenged, and by that time it will have been almost a century of unchallenged US dominance in the Pacific. From the article: VLADIVOSTOK -- If the next world war is to happen, it will most likely be in Asia and feature a clash between the incumbent hegemon, the United States, and the principal challenger, China. The good news is China does not want war now and in the foreseeable future, primarily because Beijing knows too well that the odds are not on its side. But if we look ahead 20 years from now, in 2034, the circumstances will have shifted significantly.
NOT NOW
There are three reasons war is unlikely anytime soon.
First, despite the double-digit annual growth in its defense budgets, China's military still significantly lags behind the U.S.' It will take China 15 to 20 years to attain parity or near-parity with the U.S.-Japan allied forces in the East Asian littoral. One things for certain: it's a' comin' They're not 'rattlin' the sabre' yet! but they're sure forging it! :hmmm:

Oberon

08-07-14, 12:49 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/artyom-lukin/world-war-iii_b_5646641.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/artyom-lukin/world-war-iii_b_5646641.html) Precisely my thinking; and relevent to this thread as well... From the article: One things for certain: it's a' comin' They're not 'rattlin' the sabre' yet! but they're sure forging it! :hmmm:

Well, because the US and Western Europe have been very quiet in their arms manufacturing sector over the last three decades... :03:

Aktungbby

10-25-14, 09:45 PM

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/chinas-nuclear-subs-alter-global.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericanPower+(American+Power (http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/chinas-nuclear-subs-alter-global.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericanPower+(American+Power )) "The question is when do we really start worrying about China's challenge to American strategic preeminence? Back in the late-1990s, lots of policy and scholarly work pumped up the China challenge, but it's only now that Beijing's truly giving the U.S. a run for its money. Recall, just a week or so ago folks were getting all fired up about China's GDP numbers surpassing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/china-gdp-tops-us_n_5951374.html) America's, although some might have been over-stating the case (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08/hold-on-china-u-s-still-world-s-top-economy-by-main-benchmark.html) (by using purchasing power parity).
Still, China is growing and competing against America for global military and economic leadership. The day of reckoning won't be anytime soon, and fortunes can change, but it pays to look at more micro-economic foundations of power, particularly in the military realm."
One Sunday morning last December, China’s defense ministry summoned military attachés from several embassies to its monolithic Beijing headquarters.
To the foreigners’ surprise, the Chinese said that one of their nuclear-powered submarines would soon pass through the Strait of Malacca, a passage between Malaysia and Indonesia that carries much of world trade, say people briefed on the meeting. "“This is a trump card that makes our motherland proud and our adversaries terrified,” China’s navy chief, Adm. Wu Shengli, wrote of the country’s missile-sub fleet in a Communist Party magazine in December. “It is a strategic force symbolizing great-power status and supporting national security.”
Two days later, a Chinese attack sub—a so-called hunter-killer, designed to seek out and destroy enemy vessels—slipped through the strait above water and disappeared. It resurfaced near Sri Lanka and then in the Persian Gulf, say people familiar with its movements, before returning through the strait in February—the first known voyage of a Chinese sub to the Indian Ocean.
The message was clear: China had fulfilled its four-decade quest to join the elite club of countries with nuclear subs that can ply the high seas. The defense ministry summoned attachés again to disclose another Chinese deployment to the Indian Ocean in September—this time a diesel-powered sub, which stopped off in Sri Lanka.
China’s increasingly potent and active sub force represents the rising power’s most significant military challenge yet for the region. Its expanding undersea fleet not only bolsters China’s nuclear arsenal but also enhances the country’s capacity to enforce its territorial claims (http://online.wsj.com/articles/asian-nations-fears-of-war-elevated-as-china-flexes-muscle-study-finds-1405361047) and thwart U.S. intervention.
China is expected to pass another milestone this year when it sets a different type of sub to sea—a “boomer,” carrying fully armed nuclear missiles for the first time—says the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, or ONI.

China is hardly hiding its new boomers. Tourists could clearly see three of them at a base opposite a resort recently in China’s Hainan province. On the beach, rented Jet Skis were accompanied by guides to make sure riders didn’t stray too close.
These boomers’ missiles have the range to hit Hawaii and Alaska from East Asia and the continental U.S. from the mid-Pacific, the ONI says.
“This is a trump card that makes our motherland proud and our adversaries terrified,” China’s navy chief, Adm. Wu Shengli, wrote of the country’s missile-sub fleet in a Communist Party magazine in December. “It is a strategic force symbolizing great-power status and supporting national security.”
To naval commanders from other countries, the Chinese nuclear sub’s nonstop Indian Ocean voyage was especially striking, proving that it has the endurance to reach the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s headquarters in Hawaii.
“They were very clear with respect to messaging,” says Vice Adm. Robert Thomas, a former submariner who commands the U.S. Seventh Fleet, “to say that, ‘We’re a professional navy, we’re a professional submarine force, and we’re global. We’re no longer just a coastal-water submarine force.’ ”
In recent years, public attention has focused on China’s expanding military arsenal, including its first aircraft carrier (http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324469304578140832227759230) and stealth fighter (http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703808704576061674166905408). But subs are more strategically potent weapons: A single one can project power far from China and deter other countries simply by its presence.
China’s nuclear attack subs, in particular, are integral to what Washington sees as an emerging strategy to prevent the U.S. from intervening in a conflict over Taiwan, or with Japan and the Philippines—both U.S. allies locked in territorial disputes with Beijing.
And even a few functional Chinese boomers compel the U.S. to plan for a theoretical Chinese nuclear-missile strike from the sea. China’s boomer patrols will make it one of only three countries—alongside the U.S. and Russia—that can launch atomic weapons from sea, air and land.
“I think they’ve watched the U.S. submarine force and its ability to operate globally for many, many years—and the potential influence that can have in various places around the globe,” says Adm. Thomas, “and they’ve decided to go after that model.”
China's nuclear-sub deployments, some naval experts say, may become the opening gambits of an undersea contest in Asia that echoes the cat-and-mouse game between U.S. and Soviet subs during the Cold War—a history popularized by Tom Clancy's 1984 novel "The Hunt for Red October."

"Back then, each side sent boomers to lurk at sea, ready to fire missiles at the other’s territory. Each dispatched nuclear hunter-killers to track the other’s boomers and be ready to destroy them.
The collapse of the Soviet Union ended that tournament. But today, as China increases its undersea firepower, the U.S. and its allies are boosting their submarine and anti-sub forces in Asia to counter it.
Neither China nor the U.S. wants a Cold War rerun. Their economies are too interdependent, and today’s market-minded China doesn’t seek global revolution or military parity with the U.S.:up: :hmmm:
Chinese officials say their subs don’t threaten other countries and are part of a program to protect China’s territory and expanding global interests. Chinese defense officials told foreign attachés that the subs entering the Indian Ocean would assist antipiracy patrols off Somalia, say people briefed on the meetings".... ... ...UH HUH! :hmmm: http://online.wsj.com/articles/chinas-submarine-fleet-adds-nuclear-strike-capability-altering-strategic-balance-undersea-1414164738? (http://online.wsj.com/articles/chinas-submarine-fleet-adds-nuclear-strike-capability-altering-strategic-balance-undersea-1414164738?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories)http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-AC962_CSUBSc_NS_20141024143929.jpg

THE CHOKE POINTS OF CHINA"S SUBMARINE FORCE https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/wsjgraphics.ntlkrzfr/3/6/3.png

ikalugin

10-25-14, 09:50 PM

No project 955?

Also it isn't like Russian Navy is going to compete with the US any time soon in the NA (UK and France should be capable of projecting sufficient naval presence there), so the pivot to the Pacific is quite logical. With said pivot I doupt that China would be capable of providing a force competetive to that of the US due to the fact that US has 3 allies fleets there (with a submarine component) - ROK, Japan, Australia.

Von Tonner

03-08-15, 06:56 AM

According to the below analysis the USA is still way way ahead of the current capabilities of the Chinese sub fleet even with them continuing to increase their year on year defence budget by double digits

Long may this last as it is comfort to all in the free world. I am extremely mindful of the fact that the % going towards the US Defence budget from the hardworking US citizenry is also ensuring my relative safety on the other side of the world.

In his statement, (to the to the U.S. House Seapower and Projections Forces subcommittee on the status of the Chinese navy) "Admiral Mulloy acknowledged that U.S. submarines remain superior to Chinese ones. But, his remark about China producing some "fairly amazing" submarines mischaracterizes and overplays the Chinese underwater force, particularly its nuclear submarines. Relatively speaking, and given the qualitative difference between the U.S. and Chinese nuclear submarine force in particular, if the latest Chinese submarines are "fairly amazing" then the latest U.S. Virginia class submarines could only be described as "phenomenal."

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/china-sub-fleet-grows-still-us-wake

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f26/jat9/sub_zpsipgusbt8.jpg (http://s44.photobucket.com/user/jat9/media/sub_zpsipgusbt8.jpg.html)

Aktungbby

03-08-15, 07:00 AM

AHEM: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616) post 11 :D

Von Tonner

03-08-15, 07:15 AM

AHEM: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616) post 11 :D

Dont know how I missed that Aktungbby :oops: Thanks for the heads up:)

Jimbuna

03-08-15, 07:23 AM

Threads merged.

Aktungbby

04-17-15, 12:18 PM

me:03:[/B]]One things for certain: it's a' comin' They're not 'rattlin' the sabre'yet! but they're sure forging it! http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32331964 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32331964) Nothing like a 10, 000 ft runway built on a reef in the middle of the 'Cow's Lick' of Chinese expansion. It's capable of accommodating military aircraft...and like Midway in WWII, is in reality a 'carrier you cannot sink' this one will bear monitoring. The slow trudge of Sino-dominance in the Western Pacific is well underway. http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82381000/png/_82381083_spratlys_subifierycross.png http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82385000/jpg/_82385129_spratlys_satellite.jpg

Onkel Neal

05-21-15, 04:47 PM

http://shanghaiist.com/2015/05/21/china_warns_us_spy_plane.php

The Chinese navy warned a U.S. surveillance aircraft to turn away eight times yesterday as it approached disputed airspace above a chain of artificial islands in the South China Sea where China is constructing military installations.
CNN was on board the P8-A Poseidon for its surveillance mission directed at observing Chinese activity in the disputed area and more broadly signaling that the U.S. does not recognize China's territorial claims in the region. This marks the first time that the Pentagon has allowed a news team to tag along on an operation in the South China Sea. They have also declassified video taken by the surveillance operation, as well as the audio of the communications with Chinese navy, in order to raise awareness about Chinese military build-up on the man-made islands that is causing the U.S. and neighboring nations to feel a bit uneasy.

And what a mission to be on! Predictably, China was not terribly welcoming to the American spy plane. As the P8 approached Fiery Cross Reef, an island made by China some 600 miles off the coast, a voice in English crackled through the radio: "This is the Chinese navy ... This is the Chinese navy ... Please go away ... to avoid misunderstanding."

All eight such warnings were rebuffed, with the American pilots responding that they were flying through international airspace.

That wasn't quite the answer the Chinese were looking for. Unable to take the hint, the frustrated Chinese radio operator finally said in exasperation: "This is the Chinese navy ... You go!"

http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/shang_shanghaiist/p-8a-poseidon_009.jpg

Onkel Neal

05-21-15, 04:53 PM

The video that accompanies the article tells it all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=_lBCRCnOUVk

How long until somene gets killed over this BS? :nope:

Onkel Neal

05-21-15, 05:01 PM

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/look-how-quickly-china-is-building-its-island-bases-out-1691571576

The reality is that under the UN's Law and Sea Convention, an island, even a small one, gets 12 nautical miles out to sea of territory to call its own and another 200 miles in any direction of mineral and fishing rights. You can imagine that if China has a string of these reefs-turned-sea-base-islands, they can claim a continuous swath of control ranging over hundreds of miles. With proven oil reserves measured in the billions of barrels and trillions of cubic feat of natural gas, China's man-made island chain also could end up greatly offsetting its ferocious appetite for energy, the vast amount of which the Chinese are relegated to importing.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--9qvATfGy--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/gtwuvbmnw59ni4ths992.png

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ma0FCj17--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/gjbdu7o5hte2nmy9hevp.jpg

Aktungbby

05-21-15, 05:06 PM

ahem: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616) POST #17:D me:03:[/B]]One things for certain: it's a' comin' They're not 'rattlin' the sabre'yet! but they're sure forging it! http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32331964 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32331964) Nothing like a 10, 000 ft runway built on a reef in the middle of the 'Cow's Lick' of Chinese expansion. It's capable of accommodating military aircraft...and like Midway in WWII, is in reality a 'carrier you cannot sink' this one will bear monitoring. The slow trudge of Sino-dominance in the Western Pacific is well underway.

Jimbuna

05-22-15, 06:05 AM

The video that accompanies the article tells it all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=_lBCRCnOUVk

How long until somene gets killed over this BS? :nope:

My thoughts exactly....the closer to their homeland meaning their boldness will become greater.

This area will fast become a no-fly zone at this rate and it was quite concerning to learn that civilian flightpaths are practically right above them.

Onkel Neal

05-28-15, 11:21 PM

The Fight To Control The South China Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmWWVtcOWxc

Plus, threads merged, thanks Aktung. :up:

Aktungbby

05-29-15, 01:25 AM

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2015/05/13/china-spratly-island.jpg?itok=Mi9Qm15RAn aerial photo taken though a glass window of a Philippine military plane shows the alleged on-going land reclamation by China on mischief reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, west of Palawan, Philippines, May 11, 2015.
"The U.S., which said that the man-made islands cannot be recognized as sovereign Chinese territory, may be expecting that any possible deployments of military units in the region would impact the Chinese aggression. However, the move could also backfire if China decides to double down its efforts in defiance of the U.S., the Journal reported.
“The risk of this is that China may use such deployments as a reason to try to challenge or confront U.S. forces,” Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at the Australian National University, told Reuters.
Meanwhile, Chinese embassy spokesman Zhu Haiquan told Reuters that China had “indisputable sovereignty” over the Spratly Islands, and that the country’s construction in the area was “reasonable, justified and lawful.”
China has expanded the artificial islands in the Spratly Islands to 2,000 acres of land, which is significantly up from 500 acres last year, according to a February estimate (http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-expands-island-construction-in-disputed-south-china-sea-1424290852) by experts who studied the images released by IHS Jane’s, a defense intelligence provider." http://www.ibtimes.com/us-military-mulls-sending-planes-navy-ships-counter-chinese-expansion-south-china-sea-1919959 (http://www.ibtimes.com/us-military-mulls-sending-planes-navy-ships-counter-chinese-expansion-south-china-sea-1919959) It is well past time to forge a pact with Viet-Nam, Japan, Brunei and Malaysia and put an extremely forceful halt to this expansion.

Onkel Neal

05-29-15, 08:06 AM

China’s Military Blueprint: Bigger Navy, Bigger Global Role (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/26/chinas-military-blueprint-bigger-navy-bigger-global-role/)

China laid out its military strategy in its first-ever defense white paper, promising not to hit first, but vowing to strike back hard if attacked in a world full of what it sees as potential threats.

The paper, released by China’s State Council, the chief administrative body of the Chinese government, is especially noteworthy at a time of heightened tensions with the United States over China’s aggressive behavior in disputed areas of the South China Sea. On Monday, Chinese state media spoke of war with the United States as “inevitable” if the United States keeps pressing Beijing on its illegal activities; in the United States, meanwhile, the consensus over accommodating China’s rise seems to have given way to a more hawkish stance on the need to contain the rising Asian giant.

China’s new white paper provides plenty of points of continuity with past strategies, especially with Mao Zedong’s doctrine of “active defense,” known in the United States as the Billy Martin school of conflict management. (“I never threw the first punch; I threw the second four.”)

https://foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/plan.jpg

mapuc

05-30-15, 06:44 PM

Yesterday in the Danish news paper, I read this
"Make no mistake about it: the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law admits it"
Said by the Minister of defense Ash Carter

It was about this growing tension between USA and China.

Markus

Onkel Neal

05-30-15, 07:44 PM

Yeah, this has the potential to be B.A.D.

China isn't putting all that money and effort into those islands to be told no. :hmmm:

Building of Islands Is Debated, but China and U.S. Skirt Conflict at Talks
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/world/asia/building-of-islands-is-debated-but-china-and-us-skirt-conflict-at-talks.html?_r=0

It was an unexpectedly direct exchange: With nearly every significant Asian defense official gathered in a single room, a senior Chinese military officer on Saturday defended his country’s island-building spree in the South China Sea and rebuked Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter for saying it threatened the region’s stability.

If anything, “the region has been peaceful and stable just because of China’s great restraint,” said Senior Col. Zhou Bo, the Chinese officer.

mapuc

05-30-15, 08:11 PM

Now the Ruskies have something to say

http://rt.com/news/263533-rusia-multinational-navy-drills/

Antonov also said he was concerned about stability in the region, naming the US as the main destabilizing factor. He said that Washington's policies have been aimed against Russia and China: "We are concerned by US policies in the region, especially since every day it becomes increasingly focused on a systemic containment of Russia and China."

Markus

Aktungbby

05-30-15, 08:20 PM

We seriously need to revisit T. Roosevelt 101: send 'em out and see who really wants to enforce what. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016126.jpgJust one Iowa led battle-group is impressive;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Battle_Group_Alpha_%28Midway%2C_Iowa%29_underway%2 C_1987.jpg/1024px-Battle_Group_Alpha_%28Midway%2C_Iowa%29_underway%2 C_1987.jpg

Commander Wallace

06-04-15, 08:00 AM

Tom Clancy wrote a great number of novels such as The hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, The Sum of all fears and many others. These novels evolved into screenplays which became the basis for the highly acclaimed movies of the same name. Tom also wrote a book titled simply " SSN " detailing a Sino / U.S scenario or war over the Sprately Islands which are supposed to have huge deposits of untapped oil.

It's Ironic That Tom, who was in Insurance before writing his novels foresaw the Sprately Island dispute many years before it has actually happened.

Hopefully these disputes can all be resolved amicably

Aktungbby

06-04-15, 09:46 AM

Hopefully these disputes can all be resolved amicably Not going to happen unfortunately...China is using a tried and true format as when they invaded the sovereign nation of Tibet; claiming territory once held in antiquity (Quing Dynasty?!!!). No one responded then and they're counting on the same here. Think marching into the Rhineland as A. Hitler did to reclaim Alsace/Lorraine-post Versailles, and kick it up to 1,401,586,609 Chinese people from a resource poor nation, 1/7 of the worlds population (7,324,782,225 =-), all looking for China's "place in the sun" as the Kaiser put it prior to WWI....Personally at this point the Chinese delegation to the UN should be removed from the Security Council and forced to do the 'Perp walk' in handcuffs; they hate a 'loss of face' worst of all. Basically "first Tibert and then the world"; Time to boot up and stop it in it's tracks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate)

Onkel Neal

06-28-15, 10:26 AM

China says changing position on sea dispute would shame ancestors (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/27/us-southchinasea-china-idUSKBN0P708U20150627)

Changing position on China's claims over the South China Sea would shame its ancestors, while not facing up to infringements of Chinese sovereignty there would shame its children, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Saturday.

China has become increasingly assertive in the South China Sea, building artificial islands in areas over which the Philippines and other countries have rival claims, sparking alarm regionally and in Washington.

"One thousand years ago China was a large sea-faring nation. So of course China was the first country to discover, use and administer the Nansha Islands," Wang said, using the Chinese term for the Spratly Islands, which together with the Paracel Islands form the bulk of China's claims.

Aktungbby

06-28-15, 11:50 AM

That's right up there with Mussolini trying to 'rebuild the Roman empire'...in Ethiopia. And Keeping the Confederate battle flag flying in the US perhaps(heritage???) Hey, when you're guilty, you're guilty IMHO:D “The Fascist movement, under the authoritative dictator Benito Mussolini, saw in many ways an ideological return to the ways of Ancient Rome and all for which it stood. Facism revived consciousness of the ancient glories of Italy, of the Roman Empire...continuation of this tradition by...the Fascisti struggle for a new Imperial Rome.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War) That exposed the weakness of the League of Nations at the time. War crimes, mustard gas , castration of prisoners, this war had it had it all. Fair enough, the Sinos can have anything that doesn't have oil. Their ancestors were not interested in oil.:x We really need to slap 'em up along side their ears though and free Tibet first. This latest aggression is movement against perceived economic weakness in the West coupled with a serious case of 'victory fever' over the absorption of Tibet which has gone unchallenged. First strike will be against the Three Gorges Dam...Dambuster style; and we'll reclaim Hong Kong...(allright re-lease for another 99 years) and keep Formosa. The question really becomes one of: do we deal with Putin first; a man with a mission, hopelessly trying to recapture the glories of the Soviet Empire in Ukraine. Which at some point will re-include Russia's loss-of-face in Afghanistan (and a lot of dead ancestors)...again. Bottom line: are we still fighting WWI post-colonial crap or is it WWIII.

ikalugin

06-28-15, 04:10 PM

War, war never changes.

However your post implies that you could ocupy areas of PRC. What kind of military force would such an action require? At what kind of cost? What I am saying is that unless PRC implodes it would still grow up as a viable challenger in Asia-Pacific area, simply because it's economic power would allow it to.

And this is b/c USA has to project power globaly and not in that specific region, EU states though wealthy are divided and individually are loosing meaningfull ability to project power into Asia-Pacific.

Aktungbby

06-28-15, 05:10 PM

This latest aggression is movement against perceived economic weakness in the West
Precisely! That's why China and Russia are rattling sabres now. Formosa and Hong Kong are not tough areas to encompass (Naval) and certainly do not have entirely pro-Beijing leanings to begin with. As with ol' Adolf marching into the Rhineland, we're being tested. Let's hope we don't make the same non-proactive response of postwar 1939 Britain and France and not let more Tibets go unanswered. Sooner is better than later as history, miserably, has proven. Formosa would force the Sino response as the Doolittle Tokyo raid did the Japanese in WWII...imho. The political and legal statuses of Taiwan are contentious issues. The People's Republic of China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) (PRC) claims that the Republic of China government is illegitimate, referring to it as the "Taiwan Authority". The ROC, however, with its own constitution, independently elected president and armed forces, continues to view itself as a sovereign state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state). The present territory of the state has never been controlled by the PRC. Internationally, there is controversy on whether the ROC still exists as a state or a defunct state per international law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law) due to the loss of membership/recognition in the United Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) and lack of wide diplomatic recognition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_recognition). In a poll of Taiwanese aged 20 and older taken by the TVBS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVBS) in March 2009, a majority of 64% opted for the status quo, while 19% favored independence and 5% unification. In an impending confrontation Formosa is the #1 big chink in Sino armor, politics and 'face saving-wise'. And for all their present land grabbing shows their temerity in really pushing hard for now... Bully's are all alike-never satisfied...and 1/7 of the world's population is hungry and bullish!

ikalugin

06-29-15, 01:36 AM

I think that it is a matter of perspective. Ie recent expansion of NATO and coup in Kiev are bad, bad things from our stand point - threats that require reaction. Thus Russian actions are not driven by perceived weakness and lack of deterence, but by perceived threat, thus increasing deterence measures leads to escalation and not balance.

Going to war against Russia or the PRC would be most unwise, as both countries have significant nuclear arsenals (ie US does not enjoy nuclear monopoly of the WW2). This is the only real existential threat US has ever really faced.
Morever a war against either of the countries, even should it stay conventional, would imply significant coasts.

The war in both cases (more so in case of the PRC) would be impossible without decisive US comitment.

Aktungbby

06-29-15, 09:27 AM

would imply significant coasts.
I thoroughly agree with your analysis; both Hong Kong and Formosa (Taiwan) are significantly off the coast of China. :up: I do not believe any one would revert to nukes; this is warfare/haggling for economic resources, not national survival-and nobody's that stupid...yet.:timeout: The commitment would most certainly be critical against mainland China as our allies: Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Brunei, India and Viet Nam, all major players, would need to know we would stand the distance. They are the principle "frogs around this pond". The situation map> borrowed from the Chinese minisub thread (thanks Harvs) throws considerable light on the situation.http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2015/06/29/1227419/643287-909a5556-1ded-11e5-b3d7-dcd53e0ab2bf.jpg With recent Chinese submarine forays into the Indian Ocean...significant coasts indeed!

ikalugin

06-29-15, 10:08 AM

If this is a shooting war (and blockade of PRC would result in a shooting war), then PRC would deploy area denial assets, which have sufficient range to deny USN operations in the area... Unless USN is ready to take the risks. Which would mean that it would loose a number of surface ships, probably carrier included.

You couldn't just pressure a regional power into doing things by using military force threats and expect no resistance. If pressure is sufficient (ie an all out war with ocupation of Taiwan), then PRC would engage US bases in the region and may shift to tactical nukes.

Morever balance in the region is shifting, at the moment PRC has sort of parity with other regional players (ie Japan and ROK) and something one could count as a possible conventional superiority. This would change over time, as PRC naval build up goes on. If we take the estimates by globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-mod.htm) then things are not looking rosy for the USN to conduct any meaningfull power projection in there even in near future.
The air/naval bases in that southern area further improve the PRC control of the area, further increasing costs of USN power projection in there.

Note that ROK and Japan strongly dislike each other for historic reasons. India and others are unlikely to commit, unless they were directly hit by PRC first. Hence allies in that war should not be taken for granted.

A war with PRC would also imply the need of Russia to be the Western ally, as otherwise blockade of PRC is not possible.

Onkel Neal

07-01-15, 02:13 PM

Which is why I cannot see any way out of this. China will try to enforce their idea of sovereignty and dictate to the other countries in the region regarding trade and navigation of this important sea lane. When push comes to shove, either China will have to back down and allow other nations the use of these sea lanes, as International law has always prescribed, or Japan and the US will have to concede and accept this. If the US decides to use military force to back China down, we will end up in another Korean-style war, at least initially. Somewhere down the line, like you say, someone will get fancy with tactical nukes and we will be undergoing our first nuclear exchange. Putin loves to bring up the topic of nukes. I know our current President will be cautious, but he's soon to be replaced, and anyone else is going to be more hawkish than him. So, China may get a surprise when they realize what they've brought on themselves.

Found some really good images of the progress they've made constructing these islands.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/south-china-sea/

mapuc

07-01-15, 03:15 PM

I have a bad feeling about this. I do hope they, the countries who are involved in this hot issue,-will find some agreement on which all parties can agree on.

Markus

Aktungbby

07-01-15, 03:46 PM

"Border skirmishes continued throughout the 1980s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_1979-1990), including a significant skirmish in April 1984 and a naval battle over the Spratly Islands in 1988 known as the Johnson South Reef Skirmish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish)." Actually, looking again at who holds what in the Spratleys, (my above post-tnx again Harvs:up:) I don't see as great a problem as previously. the Ft Apache aspect is obvious. The correct US Position is to have the 'client allies' deal with it as in fact they have previously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War) The Sino plan simply can't operate long-term with attrition against genuine resistance at sea; already demonstrated especially by Viet Nam. India and Japan would also probably be big players too. The Monkeys fist grasp exceeds their reach here.

Onkel Neal

07-01-15, 06:11 PM

I have a bad feeling about this. I do hope they, the countries who are involved in this hot issue,-will find some agreement on which all parties can agree on.

Markus

Me too, buddy. I'm not extremely optimistic....looks like too many trains on the same track.

mapuc

07-08-15, 08:27 PM

Discovery News had made this video

What if China & Japan went to war

https://testtube.com/testtubenews/what-if-china-japan-went-to-war/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=dnewssocial&utm_campaign=owned

Recent territorial tension between China and Japan have resurfaced. So we were wondering, what would happen if China and Japan went to war

My thought about this.

You can not predict how a war will proceed, after it has started.

As I wrote on their FB-page
"I think it will end with a nuclear exchange between USA and China"

Markus

Aktungbby

07-20-15, 09:42 PM

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/20/us-pacific-fleet-chief-joins-surveillance-of-south-china-sea.html (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/20/us-pacific-fleet-chief-joins-surveillance-of-south-china-sea.html) http://images.military.com/media/news/people/scott-swift-600x400.jpgThe new U.S. commander of the Pacific Fleet joined a seven-hour surveillance flight over the South China Sea on board one of America's newest spy planes, a move over the weekend that will likely annoy China.
Addressing those concerns, Swift said he was "very satisfied with the resources that I have available to me as the Pacific Fleet commander," adding, "we are ready and prepared to respond to any contingency that the president may suggest would be necessary."
The U.S., Swift stressed, doesn't take sides but would press ahead with operations to ensure freedom of navigation in disputed waters and elsewhere. :hmmm:

ikalugin

07-21-15, 04:46 AM

With the joint Russian-Chinese exercise next month in the Sea of Japan...

Jimbuna

07-21-15, 12:20 PM

Interesting times approach :hmm2:

Onkel Neal

08-10-15, 07:32 AM

Two interesting, contrasting articles

China hits back at U.S. criticism over South China Sea 'restrictions' (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/us-southchinasea-china-idUSKCN0QF0ZT20150810)

China committed to uphold peace, stability in S. China Sea (http://english.eastday.com/auto/eastday/topnews/u1ai8498520.html)

Aktungbby

08-10-15, 11:23 AM

I'm beginning to wonder if all of this isn't to develop a 'bargaining-chip' for the formal reacquisition of Taiwan/Formosa which is the big objective over all. Present Formosa is a 'big cork' in their bottle. The other big problem is that all conflict takes place in time; China is in no hurry which is at odds with Western culture. We, in the West, like to settle things more quickly than 50 years+ down the line. The Sino power establishment understands it has no equivalent navy capable of head to head conflict at sea, yet, and is biding its time to develop its military infrastructure to maintain what it is continuing since the illegal acquisition of Tibet...over 50 years ago:hmmm:

Aktungbby

08-25-15, 01:34 PM

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/15/china-russia-navy-joint-sea-2015-asia-pivot-blowback/ (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/15/china-russia-navy-joint-sea-2015-asia-pivot-blowback/) On May 11, nine ships from the Russian Navy and China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) kicked off (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-china-russia-military-idUSKBN0NL16F20150430) 10 days of combined exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, for their first joint naval war games in European waters. What does this nautical confab, dubbed “Joint Sea 2015,” entail? “Maritime defense, maritime replenishment, escort actions, joint operations to safeguard navigation security as well as real weapon firing drill,” according to (http://news.usni.org/2015/04/30/chinese-and-russian-navies-to-conduct-first-ever-mediterranean-surface-exercises-in-may) Sr. Col. Geng Yansheng, a spokesman for China’s Defense Ministry. The aim of the exercises is to “further deepen friendly and practical interaction between the two countries,” maintained (http://tass.ru/en/russia/793463) the Russian Defense Ministry. Moscow added that the drills “are not aimed against any third country.”:timeout:

Onkel Neal

10-14-15, 03:05 PM

Here we go....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34529863

China has been worrying its neighbours - and the US - by enlarging the series of tiny islands, reports the BBC's China analyst Michael Bristow.

Washington believes Beijing is constructing military facilities, designed to reinforce its disputed claim to most of the region - a major shipping zone.

The row began when US officials said they were considering sending warships inside the 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as territory around the Spratlys.

That sparked strong words from China, with Ms Hua warning: "We will never allow any country to violate China's territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly Islands, in the name of protecting freedom of navigation and overflight."

On Tuesday, US Defence Secretary Ash Carter expressed "strong concerns" over island-building, and defended Washington's plans.
"Make no mistake, the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as we do around the world, and the South China Sea will not be an exception," he said at a news conference with the Australian foreign and defence ministers.

"We will do that in the time and places of our choosing," he added, according to Reuters news agency.

Aktungbby

10-14-15, 03:12 PM

FIRST TIBET; THEN THE WORLD!:x

ikalugin

10-14-15, 03:55 PM

On serious note, the balance of power is changing in the region. Though it is not as obvious in that islands scenario, it is much more obvious in the Taiwan one, primarily due to the BM build up by PRC.

mapuc

10-14-15, 06:06 PM

ikalugin

10-15-15, 05:53 AM

Does anyone know anything about the Chinese BMEWS? I can't seem to find any data on the current status of the system, except the old and now non operational 7010 radar.

ikalugin

10-15-15, 07:10 AM

Can easily imagine a situation where America has sent a warship inside China's 12 nautical miles limit(forgot what the real word is), to say to China- We do not recognize your "claim" and this minor psychological naval battle could very well go out of control.

Markus
That happened a number of times in the Soviet days. Prefered course of action was ramming the offenders to push them out of the territorial waters.

mapuc

10-26-15, 05:41 PM

Latest from CNN about this

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/south-china-sea-islands-u-s-destroyer/index.html

The ship could make the pass as soon as Monday night, barring any unforeseen circumstances, a U.S. military source told CNN. There will be air cover as well as reconnaissance in the air, flying in international airspace, the source said.
The aircraft will watch the ship and be there, if needed, to record and deal with any problems. The Chinese have not been informed, the source said, adding that no trouble is expected

Markus

Onkel Neal

10-26-15, 05:46 PM

Yup, game on, China :doh:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/26/us-southchinasea-usa-idUSKCN0SK2AC20151026

mapuc

10-26-15, 05:55 PM

ikalugin

10-27-15, 01:55 AM

Raising power, established power. Someone said peloponesian wars?

Onkel Neal

10-27-15, 09:20 AM

I think the Chinese will make some diplomatically protest and nothing more. I don't think they are in any way interested in escalating this-For once I hope I'm right and not wrong.

Military they will send some vessel to "see" what the Americans do and they will send some air assets

Markus

Well, reports say the Chinese took no retaliatory action. So what now? Repeat in six months? I think the US/Japan/S. Korea should begin excavating their own man-made islands in the South China Sea :arrgh!:

Aktungbby

10-27-15, 11:07 AM

Raising power, established power. Someone said peloponesian wars? Indeed: Aegospotamii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegospotami) of the Pacific
It all will come down to Fomosa, our trump card in their 'gandu' and ....
http://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/694/animated-submarine-image-0003.gifThis is retaliation for???? : "Chinese navy ships entered U.S. territorial waters off Alaska in September, coming within 12 miles of the coastline during President Barack Obama's visit (http://cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/obama-climate-speech-alaska/) to the state, U.S. officials told CNN at the time.
The officials emphasized that China's actions were consistent with "innocent passage" under international maritime law." Apparently the Chinese bastards have privileges we do not. They don't allow us the same twelve mile limit 'innocent passage'. Perhaps they're just better than we are! The sabers are definitely rattling; we need to resolve this swiftly and decisively on our short time-span vs China's 50 year long-term plan....appeasement and delay solves nothing. Throw in the industrial/hacking spying and the Yaun devaluation to afflict our economy: we are clearly at war already.

ikalugin

10-27-15, 12:09 PM

Well, if you look at the balance of power it is shifting, it appears that US could no longer (for example) establish air dominance over Taiwan. I wonder where it would get by 2020 and 2025 and 2030.

That said, we are not doing all that stellar either, we only get 450 newly built (2007-2020, hard sighned contracts and already built aircraft) T10 (aka Flanker) series (Su30SM, Su34, Su35S and few Su30M2s) in our Armed Forces (split between RuASF and MA of RuN), plus modernised legacy aircraft. Not sure if it is adequate :(

Aktungbby

10-27-15, 01:18 PM

it appears that US could no longer (for example) establish air dominance over Taiwan.
Precisely! http://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/694/animated-submarine-image-0003.gif :lurk:I never said over! Aircraft tend to be tactical...this is a strategic problem...navies are strategic; and right now our strategic is (a tad) better than theirs; time IMHO to throw their timing off and free Tibet while were at it. Not responding over 50 years ago 'appeasement and delay solves nothing' probably due to racism and disregard for 'brown people's sovereignty has set this current problem in motion. We saw the same naval confrontation buildup in 1914; nothing new here, including enlightenment and/or the lack therof! The Sino-aggrandizement of global resources (greed) will not stop of its own accord.

ikalugin

10-27-15, 02:05 PM

US has an overall strategic advantage in both conventional and nuclear arms.

The problem is that the conventional advantage is no longer great enough to assure complete US domination, provided the war is short/local due to nukes and begins with PRC holding the initiative.

mapuc

10-27-15, 03:49 PM

I believe the Chinese are doing its best to complete their work on these island and they are going to use every "democratically bureaucracy step" they can to prevent USA and other countries nearby to from stopping them fulfilling their goal.

Markus

Kptlt. Neuerburg

11-01-15, 10:34 AM

Here's one artists take on what's happening in the South China Sea. http://jollyjack.deviantart.com/art/South-China-Sea-568680977

Aktungbby

11-01-15, 11:04 AM

http://img10.deviantart.net/2e09/i/2015/300/7/7/south_china_sea_by_jollyjack-d9ekt1t.jpgOf course little did Britain realize when the 99 year lease was up: China's long-term strategy was "today Hong Kong tomorrow the world"! Whether Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan, Syria/Israel or the present Chinese expansion, post-colonial collapse cleanup is a major US endless drudgery and were not really very good at it. NOTE: China has just revoked it's one baby policy(boys preferred). Two are now permissible to correct the gender(wife-shortage) imbalance: Just great!....1,000,000,000+ Sino baby-makers expanding the population...in a world of dwindling resources:dead:

Aktungbby

02-06-16, 03:57 PM

Risking another attack by N. Korea on our Music thread:O:: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/495d344a0d10421e9baa8ee77029cfbd/Article_2016-02-05-AS--NKorea-Rockets%20vs%20Missiles/id-cc1374508794420082a515f1abb1e0ae (http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/495d344a0d10421e9baa8ee77029cfbd/Article_2016-02-05-AS--NKorea-Rockets%20vs%20Missiles/id-cc1374508794420082a515f1abb1e0ae) Japan has deployed PAC-3 missile batteries in the heart of Tokyohttp://hosted2.ap.org/CBImages/?media=photo&contentId=1a3aa099865c90068f0f6a7067005da8&fmt=jpg&Role=Preview&reldt=2016-02-05T08:26:29GMT&authToken=eNoNyLsNgDAMBcCJLD3L8a%2fIMFYgUjpKCg8PV1 7f7zTRxBjswgACsF5nckkVMilMF%2bW%2fFBubrBzmgF4VfZ5J bAxXHvoB640TJQ%3d%3d to shoot down any incoming rocket debris. South Korea is reportedly mobilizing two Aegis-equipped destroyers. The U.S. is already gunning to punish Pyongyang for what it says will be a ballistic missile test in the guise of a space launch....other experts who spoke to The Associated Press say the devil is in the details.
The distinction between a rocket used to lift a satellite into space and a long-range ballistic missile is highly technical but of crucial importance to understanding North Korea's motives and capabilities and in forming a realistic and effective strategy to deal with them. It is also crucial to understand the limitations of what space rocket launches contribute to the North's ability to develop military-use missiles.
According to some, that isn't necessarily very much.
"A real ICBM is a weapon system that has to hit a given target on the other side of the world, being launched at any condition with the push of a button almost instantly," said Markus Schiller, a prominent expert on North Korean missile technology and founder of Munich-based ST Analytics. "Just launching a small satellite carrier every other year, which uses different technology than required for a real ICBM, does not get you much closer to this goal."
"They gain experience by launching a large rocket like Unha," said Schiller. "But this is just one minor of so many steps required for a real ICBM, and the Unha is definitely designed as a satellite launcher."
David Wright, co-director and senior scientist with the Global Security Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, also warned against quickly dismissing Pyongyang's space launches as a smoke screen.

Jimbuna

02-17-16, 10:33 AM

A little over five hours ago:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2382020&postcount=6

Mr Quatro

02-17-16, 11:26 AM

A little over 51 and 1/2 years ago the USN and USA had to make a quick decision: http://www.ussturnerjoy.org/ship-history/

The USS Turner Joy joined the USS Kitty Hawk task group for operations in the Philippine Sea, followed by a cruise through the South China Sea to Japan. In late July, Turner Joy, while attached to the USS Ticonderoga carrier group, began making “Desoto” patrols off the coast of Vietnam. These were intelligence collection patrols intended to intercept North Vietnamese Army communications and relay them to South Vietnamese forces.

On the afternoon of August 2nd, USS Maddox (DD 731), under the command of CDR H. L. Ogier, which was engaged in a similar patrol in the Gulf of Tonkin, reported being attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. Maddox returned fire. Ronald G. Stalsberg, a gunners mate in mount 51 puts it this way, “Turret one fired the first shots of the battles in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the first shots fired in anger by the U.S. Navy in the Vietnam War.” As she engaged the torpedo boats she reported up the chain of command and called for assistance. Turner Joy, under the command of Commander Robert C. Barnhart, responded, as did four F-8 Crusaders flying off of USS Ticonderoga. Maddox scored hits on the torpedo boats and the F-8s strafed them, leaving one of them dead in the water and sinking. By the time Turner Joy reached Maddox, the surviving torpedo boats had fled, and both ships were ordered out of the Gulf of Tonkin.

On August 3rd, they were ordered back to the Gulf, under the operational control of CAPT John J. Herrick (Commander of Task Group 72.1), to continue their Desoto patrols in company and to “show the flag” in international waters off the coast of North Vietnam. What happened next has been in dispute since that day.

At about 8PM local time on August 4th, in rough weather and heavy seas, both Maddox and Turner Joy, based on radar and sonar contacts, reported a number of what appeared to be small, high-speed surface craft approaching, but at extreme range. As a precaution, the two destroyers, once again, called Ticonderoga for air support.

By nightfall, radar and sonar plots suggested that North Vietnamese small craft were converging on the two American warships from the west and south. Turner Joy reported that she sighted one or two torpedo wakes, then rang up full speed, maneuvered radically to evade torpedoes, and began firing her 5” guns at the unidentified radar returns.

Over the next three and a half hours, Maddox, Turner Joy, and planes from Ticonderoga fired at the suspected hostile craft and reported that at least two were sunk by direct hits and another two severely damaged, and that the remaining boats retired rapidly to the north. In an after action report, CAPT Herrick, the officer in tactical command, who observed both the August 2nd and August 4th actions from the combat information center in USS Maddox stated, “Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken.” He further stated, “Entire action leaves many doubts except for apparent ambush at beginning. Suggest thorough reconnaissance in daylight by aircraft.” When asked for clarification of his reports he said, “My sources of information were from radar scopes, radio circuits and displayed and evaluated information from the CIC of the USS Maddox. I had no opportunity to visually sight by unaided human eye any of the action. However, it is my opinion that certainly a PT boat action did take place.” Interestingly, the statement of Commander Barnhart, Turner Joy’s CO, was somewhat less emphatic: “During the alleged action with the torpedo boats on the night of 4 August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin, I was conning the ship. Until I can find a suitable period of time to reflect on the overall engagement, the only evidence I actually saw that would indicate “something” was being hit with our 5″/54 gunfire was a column of black smoke rising from the surface of the water. When I attempted to come around to close the smoke, another surface contact was reported to be closing the Turner Joy from astern. This target was taken under fire also but nothing visually was sighted by me to indicate it was hit. By the time I was able to maneuver the ship around to investigate the column of black smoke previously sighted, it had disappeared from my view. As a general statement, I believe we were attacked by an unknown number of torpedo boats for reasons as set forth in previous messages.”

The reconnaissance Herrick suggested was conducted the next day, and did not locate any debris from a surface gun engagement. No oil slicks, no floating debris, no destroyed ships hulks. Commander Ogier, Maddox’s CO was unequivocal. “I believed at the time that the Maddox was under attack by PT boats. Later I doubted that so many torpedoes could have been fired and have missed. I am now convinced that the torpedo attacks did take place.”

Statements from Turner Joy crewmembers after the engagement were unanimous in their firm belief that they had been attacked. Typical of these is the one from Seaman Dennis Plzak, “I am a radarman seaman and was manning the surface search radar on the night of August 4, 1964. I picked up several small contacts (three to five) on my scope approximately twelve miles away and tracked them into short range. I wasn’t sure of them being genuine contacts until they were in short range. I have spent many hours on the surface search and I evaluate them as definite contacts. It appeared to me that there was a definite plan used by the craft. At one time I held clearly three contacts, one directly astern of us and two moving in and out. Could not tell size of contacts due to short range scale. I saw one contact being hit by burst from our mounts approximately four times and then completely disappear from the scope. I definitely evaluate I held three contacts on my scope.”

Boatswains Mate third class Donald Sharkey was equally adamant. “I saw on 4 August 1964 at about 2300, a PT Boat while engaged in a night gunnery engagement against surface contacts. My station is Mount 32 as 3″/50 second loader. I saw flare off starboard side of ship so was watching same looking for contact. At this time a PT boat came between the ship and the flare bearing about one hundred degrees relative. The outline of this contact was clearly seen by me and was definitely a PT boat.”

However none of the statements mentioned secondary explosions, oil slicks or post explosion fires, all of which you would expect to see if you hit a torpedo boat with a 5” shell.

Whether or not the North Vietnamese attacked the two ships on August 4th remains a mystery. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson commented privately: “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.” John Prados, head of the National Security Archive’s Vietnam and Intelligence Documentation Projects, in his essay The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 40 Years Later, called it “a complex weaving of fiction from threads of fact.”

The North Vietnamese deny it categorically. In 1995, in a meeting with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, retired Vietnamese Defense Minister Vo Nguyen Giap denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on August 4, while admitting to the attack on August 2.

It could well have been that high seas and the “freak weather conditions” mentioned by CAPT Herrick and for which the Gulf of Tonkin is famous, caused “sea return” which an inexperienced or adrenalin charged radar operator classified as legitimate contacts. Unlike the engagement on the 2nd, the action of the 4th was marked by frequent fading of radar contacts and their subsequent reappearance. And fire control systems on both ships had great difficulty locking on for any significant length of time.

But if you read the statements of her captain and crew, they have absolutely no doubt that they were attacked, and in view of the events two days earlier, decided to take aggressive action. No amount of Monday morning quarterbacking will change that.

In any event, the engagements of August 2nd and 4th came to be known as the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” and prompted retaliation from the United States. President Johnson ordered Operation Pierce Arrow and the next day, August 5th, Ticonderoga, joined by USS Constellation, launched 64 sorties against the bases and oil dumps that supported the North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In the course of those raids, the U.S. lost two planes to anti-aircraft fire, killing LTJG Richard C. Sather, pilot of an A1 Skyraider. The second aircraft was an A-4 Skyhawk piloted by LTJG Everett Alvarez Jr. who became the first U.S. prisoner of war in Vietnam.

That same day, August 5th, in a speech at Syracuse University titled The Communist Challenge in Southeast Asia, President Johnson said, “The Gulf of Tonkin may be distant, but none can be detached about what has happened there. Aggression–deliberate, willful, and systematic aggression–has unmasked its face to the entire world. The world remembers-the world must never forget–that aggression unchallenged is aggression unleashed.” His remarks are ironically compatible with Admiral Joy’s conviction that “only the ‘imminent threat of application of our military power’ would compel Communist governments throughout the world to ‘negotiate seriously.’

He wrote that the ‘greatest single influence on the Korean armistice negotiations
was the failure of the United States to take punitive action against China following its entry into the conflict.”

Most importantly the Gulf of Tonkin Incident prompted Congress to pass and President Johnson to sign the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, the legal foundation for increased American involvement in the Vietnam War.

Honestly I tried to edit it, but I just couldn't resist ...
Least we should forget is the major reason I posted it :yep:
I hope we don't rush into this one. :hmmm:

ikalugin

02-17-16, 11:31 AM

Meanwhile RuASF and Naval/Army Aviation grow.

http://www.globalaffairs.ru/global-processes/Poligon-buduschego-17997

By 2020.
- Up to 130 long range bombers (16 Tu160s, 50 Tu95MS, up to 70 Tu22M3).
- Up to 820 fighters (12 T-50, 100 Su35S, 200 Su30SM, 20 Su30M2, 100 Su27SM/SM3, 120 non modernised Su27S and Su33, 150 modernised MiG31s, 36 MiG35, 50 MiG29SMT, 24 MiG29KR/KUBR).
- Up to 350 recon and strike aircraft (up to 150 Su34s, up to 200 modernised Su24M and Su24MR).
- Up to 180 attack aircraft (Su25SM/Su25UB).

2010-present day:
Contracted: 387 newly built combat fixed wing aircraft.
Completed: 234 newly built combat fixed wing aircraft.
Contracted: 450 newly built combat helicopters.
Completed: over 250 newly built combat helicopters.

Aktungbby

02-18-16, 01:12 PM

Four U.S. F-22 stealth fighters fly over Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, Feb. 17, 2016.http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5129fa499ce98b00500b66e40230aa8912a87d49/c=726-0-4373-2742&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/WiresImages/2016/02/16/923b16bdb1b4ac08900f6a7067006c32.jpg "It has become clear that we cannot break North Korea's will to develop nuclear weapons through existing means and goodwill," she said. "It's time to find a fundamental solution for bringing practical change in North Korea and to show courage in putting that into action." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/17/us-jets-fly-over-s-korea/80489196/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/17/us-jets-fly-over-s-korea/80489196/)

Aktungbby

02-20-16, 11:03 AM

Apparently the Chinese bastards have privileges we do not. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-accuses-us-militarizing-south-china-sea-37048956 (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-accuses-us-militarizing-south-china-sea-37048956) "
China on Friday accused the U.S. of militarizing the South China Sea, just days after it was revealed Beijing had deployed surface-to-air missiles on an island in the hotly disputed area.http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/19/article-urn:publicid:ap.org:09c5c0308d7949a39a2596766334fe 79-2jx7zbGN5p8d4bda47c286646ebb-829_634x474.jpg
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters that patrols by U.S. military aircraft and Navy vessels, along with joint exercises involving regional partners were the true reason why concerns were growing over peace and stability.
"The above actions have escalated tensions in the South China Sea, and that's the real militarization of the South China Sea," Hong said.:x
U.S. and Taiwanese officials this week confirmed commercial satellite images showing the missiles placed on Woody Island in the disputed Paracel chain.
China has not denied the appearance of the missiles, but says it is entitled to defend its territory and points to the construction of lighthouses, weather stations and other infrastructure undertaken to provide more "public goods and services to the international community."
See! no problems; they're helping the international community....AHEM Vietnam, which along with Taiwan also claims the Paracels, issued a diplomatic note to the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi on Friday to demand a stop to what it called "China's infringement of Vietnam's sovereignty" over the islands....The Philippines, which claims waters and features east of Woody island, on Friday said it was "gravely concerned" by reports of the missile deployments. Although not one of the six governments with claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. says it has a national interest in the region's stability and freedom of navigation and overflight in and above what are some of the world's busiest sea lanes. I see it now; Like the Romans we will go to war sooner or later in the classic guise of helping our downtrodden allies...:ping::ping::ping: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3454309/China-accuses-US-militarizing-South-China-Sea.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3454309/China-accuses-US-militarizing-South-China-Sea.html) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/19/article-urn:publicid:ap.org:09c5c0308d7949a39a2596766334fe 79-2jx7zbGN5p8d4bda47c28664815f-550_634x462.jpgMORE BS from Beijing: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/31/c_135061650.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/31/c_135061650.htm) Sending a warship to another country's territorial waters without notice is hardly the right thing to do, regardless protocols and codes.
The Saturday maneuvers of a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer 12 nautical miles off Zhongjian Dao, Xisha Islands, was "deliberate provocation", according to China's Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun.

It also drew angry outcry from Chinese on the Internet, with many comments much more radical than the official response. The Chinese people have every reason to feel offended. Since the 1970s, the U.S. has asserted its maritime power through the Freedom of Navigation program. It has been accustomed to hegemony and power politics, but the times have changed. Compromising sovereignty and security of another country under the name of freedom has lost its facade.

Also since the 1970s, countries including the Philippines and Vietnam have invaded and occupied islands and reefs in Chinese waters, bringing about the current disputes.. So much for 'innocent passage' beyond a twelve mile limit??!!-they can; we can't.!??

Aktungbby

04-09-16, 01:51 PM

The fight that might kill us all: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/166031942b254ebfa8c4311c653797e8/fishing-amid-territorial-disputes-south-china-sea (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/166031942b254ebfa8c4311c653797e8/fishing-amid-territorial-disputes-south-china-sea) http://binaryapi.ap.org/9d059373c8f3417f8f0f0d9dd3ec0c75/460x.jpg<Who's Coast is it? As Asian countries jostle for territory in the South China Sea, one Filipino fisherman is taking a stand. He has faced down Chinese coast guard rifles, and even engaged in a stone-throwing duel with the Chinese last month that shattered two windows on his outrigger.
"They'll say, 'Out, out of Scarborough,'" Renato Etac says, referring to Scarborough Shoal, a rocky outcropping claimed by both the Philippines and China. He yells back, "Where is the document that shows Scarborough is Chinese property?"

At one level, the territorial disputes in the South China Sea are a battle of wills between American and Chinese battleships and planes. At another level, they are cat-and-mouse chases between the coast guards of several countries and foreign fishermen, and among the fishing boats themselves.

Indonesia seized a Chinese fishing boat last month and arrested eight fishermen, only to have a Chinese coast guard vessel ram the fishing boat as it was being towed, allowing it to escape.
Vietnam's coast guard chased away more than 100 Chinese boats over a two-week period, its state media reported this week, and made a rare seizure of a Chinese ship carrying 100,000 liters (26,400 gallons) of diesel oil, reportedly for sale to fishing boats in the area.
Throw in earlier this month off Argentina and I call it WWIII http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0ca3857f56b74c118ac2f63b3aa1d05f/argentine-navy-sinks-illegal-fishing-boat-chinese-flag (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0ca3857f56b74c118ac2f63b3aa1d05f/argentine-navy-sinks-illegal-fishing-boat-chinese-flag) Argentina's navy announced Tuesday that it used gunfire to sink a boat Chinese-flagged boat that was fishing illegally in national waters. China's government said it expressed its serious concern to Argentina and called for an investigation
The navy statement said the boat was intercepted Monday off the coast of Puerto Madryn, about 907 miles (1,460 kilometers) south of Buenos Aires.

The statement said the boat did not heed warning calls and instead tried to ram an Argentine naval vessel. Sailors then shot holes in different parts of the fishing boat, causing it to sink, the navy said.
The Falkland Island War aside(nobody's a saint:O:) YEAY [

Onkel Neal

04-30-16, 11:20 AM

http://img10.deviantart.net/2e09/i/2015/300/7/7/south_china_sea_by_jollyjack-d9ekt1t.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/29/china-blocks-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-from-hong-kong-port.html

China blocked a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier from arriving at a port in Hong Kong as tensions ratcheted up over disputed islands in the South China Sea, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed Friday.

The USS John C. Stennis and escort ships had planned to visit the port next week, Stars & Stripes reports. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not explain why it denied the request.

"We have a long track record of successful port visits to Hong Kong, including with the current visit of the USS Blue Ridge, and we expect that will continue,” Cmdr. Bill Urban told Fox News. The USS Blue Ridge is a Navy command ship.

China claims virtually all of the strategically vital South China Sea and has tried to shore up its control by building islands on coral reefs complete with airstrips, harbors and radar stations.

Jimbuna

05-01-16, 07:51 AM

I suspect the current POTUS reaction will be almost identical to other area hotspots during his tenure which in all fairness amount to very little.

Now if Trump were to be the next POTUS, would we see the creation of islands cropping up next to those the Chinese are creating? :)

mapuc

05-01-16, 12:29 PM

My best guess is Trump would build walls around each of these Chinese island and thereafter demand The Chinese to pay what they cost.

Back to business thinking of another thread

If this should develop into some kind of Conflict between Chinese and USA, Japan and maybe some other country in that area, I could very well imagine, NK trying to do something "not so clever" against SK.

Markus

Commander Wallace

07-12-16, 06:48 AM

An International Tribunal has ruled China does not have any rights to justify it's claims to an important strategic and economic waterway. China has positioned advanced weaponry on man made Islands as garrisons. China has laid claims to a great deal of the South China Sea and has tried to set up exclusion and identification zones.

The ruling was strongly in favor of Philippines claims.

" Quote "
Some $5 trillion in commerce, roughly one third of global trade, flow through the waters of the South China Sea every year, while its fisheries account for 12 percent of the global catch and significant oil and gas reserves are thought to exist under the sea floor. Yet the waters are some of the most fiercely disputed in the world, with claims to various parts staked by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan.

The United States has already conducted several “freedom of navigation” exercises in the South China Sea, sending warships within 12 nautical miles of islands, reefs and rocks controlled by China and other claimants. It is also rebuilding military ties with the Philippines. China cites this as evidence that it is President Obama’s actions — not its island-building – that are responsible for militarizing the region.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/beijing-remains-angry-defiant-and-defensive-as-key-south-china-sea-tribunal-ruling-looms/2016/07/12/11100f48-4771-11e6-8dac-0c6e4accc5b1_story.html

Aktungbby

07-12-16, 10:16 AM

Moderator: please move to the 'appropriate' thread:D http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214616)

Skybird

07-12-16, 10:58 AM

Ten years ago I thought that China would stick to its somewhat non-expansive tradition of foreign policies and would not militarily expand. I ruled out a chance for a major US-China war, therefore.

However, back then I made one mistake: I did not take into account their claim for historically claimed grounds and territories, that is so absurd to me like Italy claiming territories on the grounds of the widest expansion of Imperial Rome. I thus failed to take such a thinking into account.

Today I think that there will be a next great international war, a real major one, within this century, and that the waterways near China and the ressources in the disputed sea areas will be the reason for it. The major battlefields will be the seas, but the cyberspace as well.

And I fear the US is not on the right way to win it. It gets outnumbered, technology gaps narrow down, and the Americans for my taste base far too much on the WWII concpetion of aircraft carriers. But their untouchability I compare to that of the German U-Boats in the late stage of WWII when they were no longer the hunters, but the hunted. Militaries tend to plan the next war in the fashion they had won the last war, and that all too often is the recipe for getting defeated. In other words: aircraft carriers today are more political weapons and weapons for striking against weak and inferior enemies - not a power of your own strength and calibre.

I would not be surprised if autonomous drones as weapon platforms play the decisive role in such a war. There may be ethical implicaitons - but in military logic making drones autonomous is the logical and necessary next step.

Hope is that China continues to become a High-Tech nation - and by that becoming as vulnerable and dependent as Western high tech nations are, so that just a few swift blows to the economic infrastructure can spell decisive desaster. A heavyweight boxing fight, so to speak, where just one blow can knock the other out. You rarely have that in lighter weight classes.

Until then, other things, namely the crisis of debts and paper currencies, will continue to have a forming effect on how that war will be fought, and how well or ill prepared the US will be.

I assume that by then Europe will be militarily so impotent that it will play no role in a China-America war. Thinking about British and French navies.

Hope I am already dead when that war happens. When the end of your life knocks on your door, last thing you want needing to witness, is such a disaster.

Jimbuna

07-12-16, 11:09 AM

As has already been explained to the world by China, they would not and do not recognise the decision...

"China's territorial sovereignty and marine rights in the South China Sea will not be affected by the so-called Philippines South China Sea ruling in any way," said Chinese President Xi Jinping.
He said China was "determined to maintain peace and stability" and was committed to resolving disputes "through negotiations based on respects to historical facts and according to international laws".
China's state news agency Xinhua said that "as the panel has no jurisdiction, its decision is naturally null and void".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-36771749

So what next, similar sanctions as those used against Russia over Crimea?

Oberon

07-12-16, 11:30 AM

Here's a bit of disturbing reading from the Chinese News Service three years ago:

http://info.wenweipo.com/index.php?action-viewnews-itemid-62404

But since only a handful of people here can read Mandarin (and I'm not one of them), here's a summary:

http://www.ibtimes.com/china-engage-six-inevitable-wars-involving-us-japan-india-more-according-pro-government-chinese

mapuc

07-12-16, 04:24 PM

When I heard this earlier today and the Chinese response I couldn't help thinking

If an ordinary person gets some injunction he or she better follow them or those. If your are a country a superpower like China you can decline these injunction and keep on with your business.

When will the other countries in that area draw a line in the sand/water and say enough back down ?

Of course they will not do this if they hadn't USA backing them up.

The Future of American politics will decide how much USA will engage in that area-That is - What will the next President of USA prioritize what foreign policy concerns
Markus

Skybird

07-12-16, 07:02 PM

What they should or want do - and what they can do, are two different things, mapuc.

We are talking about a major scale war between two of the three most powerful military powers on this planet. Plus additional powers.

And yes, if things slide very badly, it can turn into a nuclear exchange.

Oberon

07-12-16, 07:21 PM

It's a tricky one, because they clearly want to flex their muscles in the Eastern Pacific, but they're still racing to catch up with the US in terms of naval power, which limits quite a bit of their territorial ambitions, particularly in regards to Taiwan and the South China Sea.
At some point there will come a time when the PLAN will be ready to take on the USN, I doubt it'll be this side of 2020, but it is going to happen.
By this point Japan will have militarised, and it will be racing to produce a nuclear weapon, it won't take Japan long to make one, it has the facilities in place, and at this point things start to get very complicated and the likelihood of nuclear war gets very near to 1, because although the US might be reluctant to go nuclear on events on the other side of the Pacific, to the Japanese it's on their doorstep and they are under no pretenses that given half the chance the PRC would flatten Japan and feel no remorse about it.
At this point, if Japan and the PRC exchange, then depending on who fired first, the US may well decide to switch to tactical weapons to hit PLAN fleets and facilities, the PRC will probably retaliate by nuking Hawaii, and we're vaulting up the escalation ladder towards a bad conclusion.

There are a lot of factors, and to be honest the scenario above is a bad case scenario (although they seem to be the rage in 2016) and the PRC may well decide to bring Taiwan in through a less militaristic approach, because to be honest, invading Taiwan will not be an easy task for the PRC, not even on the other side of 2020, and the last thing the PRC wants to do is to capture a burning wreck of an island which will sink their economy to try to fix it. If they can take Taiwan with all of its economy intact then that will be much better for them, and it's a route they're far more likely to try to take, unless...of course...someone pushes them into a corner.

If the Chinese economy should tank, if some kind of trade war breaks out which China loses, it may decide to take the military option in order to provide a war for the people to rally around, or the ruling government may be replaced by one that is more willing to use military force to solve the Taiwan issue. Either way, pushing China into a corner....not wise.

I think that if given the option not to go to war, then they would choose it, but if there is more to gain through war, then China will go to war.

Aktungbby

07-13-16, 12:43 PM

JUST to clarify the present situation:x::woot:http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-OW482_backgr_4_20160712132040.jpg

Onkel Neal

07-16-16, 03:57 PM

The judges have spoken: China has no legal basis for its claims to sovereignty over the South China Sea. China's "nine-dash line" territorial claims, which cover most of the South China Sea, will not be recognised under international law.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/07/china-cares-south-china-sea-160714105126859.html

Aktungbby

07-16-16, 04:28 PM

^MY god! your citing from Aljazeera...and driving a truck! (that's not Nice!):k_confused:MODERATOR!:O: oh wait a sec.... The views expressed in this article are the author's own (Salvatore Babones http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/profile/mritems/Images/2016/6/4/a122dc5f5cbd4973989cafe8a29f368a_6.jpg) and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.:know: http://www.aljazeera.com/profile/salvatore-babones.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/profile/salvatore-babones.html) of particular interest for China's big island push imho: It doesn't take an advanced degree in mathematics to figure out that if budget commitments are growing at double-digit rates (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-idUSKCN0SD04B20151019) while the economy is growing at single-digit rates, something has to give. (every other country's fishing rights!!??:ping:) That something is the fiscal deficit. China is going into debt - in a serious way. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/01/china-economic-crisis-coming-160111090000623.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/01/china-economic-crisis-coming-160111090000623.html) OH god! now I'm quoting Al Jazeera too!:woot:

Jimbuna

07-17-16, 07:42 AM

I think the fundamental question that must now be asked is....who and what is anyone going to do about it?

Aktungbby

07-17-16, 10:37 AM

I think the fundamental question that must now be asked is....who and what is anyone going to do about it?

I suspect that the cork in the Chinese bottle will be Taiwan and the US will go in at some point in its customary style; In the guise of a 'coalition', actually an old Roman political ploy-tactic, with VietNam as a very strong ally. She has defeated China previously and is a barrier to the south. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2419335#post2419335 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2419335#post2419335) All the nations in the region from Japan and South Korea around to an increasingly aggressive India, wealthy Brunei, form a necessary geographic barrier to Sino expansion... Not unlike England's own unique geographical position astride the European continent and the major navigable river outlets to the North Sea and beyond.

Jimbuna

07-18-16, 02:32 PM

Not under Obamas watch and I suspect Clintons either but Trump....anything could happen.

Mr Quatro

07-19-16, 10:14 AM

Not under Obamas watch and I suspect Clintons either but Trump....anything could happen.

China is not in love with Clinton:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-china-idUSKCN0ZR2MN

In 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provoked outrage in Beijing when she pushed the South China Sea to the top of the regional and U.S. security agendas.

Combined with her tough line on human rights and role in leading President Barack Obama's Asia "rebalancing", Clinton is well-known in China - but not well liked.

While presidential rival Donald Trump has irritated Beijing with comments such as comparing the U.S. trade deficit with China to rape, he is largely an unknown quantity, a person who even privately officials shrug their shoulders over.

"Clinton will be a difficult partner," one senior Chinese diplomatic source told Reuters, having just admitted to not knowing much about Trump or what he stands for.

Aktungbby

12-18-16, 11:54 AM

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2016/12/16/104172744-1000w_q95.530x298.jpg?v=1481927397
The Chinese government has previously accused the U.S. of overdramatizing the situation in the South China Sea as a pretext to build up defenses of the U.S. and its allies in the region.
The U.S. has denied those accusations, arguing earlier this year that China has heightened tension in the region (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-report-decries-beijings-sea-tactics-1463182533) by reclaiming more than 3,200 acres of land in parts of the South China Sea over the previous two years and using “coercive tactics short of armed conflict” to assert power in the region.
The U.S. regularly sends ships and surveillance aircraft through the South China Sea on what the Pentagon describes as “freedom-of-navigation operations,” designed to signal that the waters should remain open to all.
At times, those operations have led to tension with the Chinese military, which regularly intercepts U.S. planes and ships, sometimes in a way the Pentagon has deemed unsafe or unprofessional. But the Chinese seizure this week of U.S. equipment marks an escalation the U.S. military so far hasn’t seen.
The Bowditch was about to recover the glider when a Chinese Dalang III class Chinese warship approached within 500 yards of the Bowditch, launched a small vessel and snatched the drone out of the water, the Pentagon said. The Pentagon said the drone is known as an “ocean glider” and valued at approximately $150,000, one of many the U.S. Navy uses around the world to collect bathymetric data from the sea, along with data on the water’s salinity, temperature and current flow. Bright yellow and about 5 to 10 feet long, the drones often move slowly and autonomously to gather data about the ocean for weeks or months before U.S. Navy ships retrieve them. "The UUV was lawfully conducting a military survey in the waters of the South China Sea," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"It's a sovereign immune vessel, clearly marked in English not to be removed from the water - that it was U.S. property," the official said. https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-RG720_USCHIN_M_20161216191354.jpg
The boat brought the device back to the Chinese warship, which then headed away.
The Bowditch contacted the Chinese vessel by radio and demanded the return of the glider. The Chinese ship acknowledged the radio transmission but ignored the request to return it, the Pentagon said.
China’s Defense Ministry says it will return the U.S. Navy underwater drone it captured operating in international waters in the South China Sea, after it seized the device to ensure the “safe navigation of passing ships.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/17/china-returns-us-drone-after-explaining-seizure/95555610/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/17/china-returns-us-drone-after-explaining-seizure/95555610/) Shades of VP Dan Quail(he couldn't spell either)
"China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters - rips it out of water and takes it to China in unprecedented act," Trump said in an early morning tweet.
Trump originally misspelled “unprecedented” as "unpresidented" but later deleted the tweet and reposted. Well we got our drone back....they need to confiscate his tweeter! his misuse of it has been...unpresidented:03:

mapuc

12-18-16, 12:52 PM

Three question popped up in my head when I heard about this

1. Why did the Chinese steal this underwater drone ?
Could it be,
2. This drone came close to something which the Chinese didn't want others to see ?
or
3. They are just curious in how this drone is constructed and want to "borrow" some ideas

Markus

Jimbuna

12-19-16, 01:51 PM

Most likely reason is that they (Chinese) want to stamp their authority on an area that is being hotly contested.

ikalugin

12-22-16, 02:51 PM

On the positive note - we sighned some documents with Japan over Kurils, easing the tensions.

mapuc

01-30-17, 03:34 PM

Latest development

China is stepping up preparedness for a possible military conflict with the US as the Donald Trump presidency has increased the risk of hostilities breaking out, state media and military observers said. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2065799/china-steps-preparedness-possible-military-conflict-us

Markus

Jimbuna

01-31-17, 07:57 PM

^ At the present time that contest would look like David v Goliath.

ikalugin

02-08-17, 12:46 AM

David won.

Jimbuna

02-08-17, 06:41 AM

Yes 'David'...a common enough name in the USA

mapuc

02-08-17, 05:00 PM

In this case both David and Goliath will lose the fight. As I understand, from reading and after have heard military expert, a war between two superpower-will generate only two losing countries.

And from these political expert on eastern/China
Politically and economically, China is the one who who would lose most in this, if there should be a war. Furthermore a third problem could be a problem for the regime in China if they lose a war-the People would probably make riots and other things like we saw in Argentina after the Falkland war.

The question is how far will China try to go in this diplomatically affair, will they back down if USA/Trump draw a line in the sand and say no further or will China try to test USA's decisiveness once again(here I'm thinking about Syria and Assad) ?

Or will none of them back down and use nuke if necessary ??

I hope not I hope they will find a peaceful solution.

Markus

ikalugin

02-09-17, 07:29 AM

Yes 'David'...a common enough name in the USA
Not bad, I assumed that "David" was PRC due to their obvious comparative weakness.

Jimbuna

02-09-17, 07:34 AM

Not bad, I assumed that "David" was PRC due to their obvious comparative weakness.

In the simplest terms.....PRC are currently no match for the USA.

ikalugin

02-09-17, 03:48 PM

In the simplest terms.....PRC are currently no match for the USA.
This really depends for a scenario. Despite comparative weakness PRC can "win" (as in achieve their objectives within the planned time window) in a war, where US is a beligent.

Jimbuna

02-10-17, 05:55 AM

Well, let us hope the outcome is never put to the test....the current POTUS is yet to be fully understood/predictable on the worlds stage and the potential consequences could be very alarming.

ikalugin

02-12-17, 07:38 AM

Well, let us hope the outcome is never put to the test....the current POTUS is yet to be fully understood/predictable on the worlds stage and the potential consequences could be very alarming.
With the deterioration of the power of nuclear deterence I don't think that the next large war is really avoidable.

Mr Quatro

02-13-17, 03:15 PM

With the deterioration of the power of nuclear deterence I don't think that the next large war is really avoidable.

I doubt if there will be a really big war before there is a small war ... :hmmm:

It is written that there will be wars and rumors of war, but the end is not yet in sight and then later on it is written, "People will say peace, peace and then sudden destruction will come on them"

Aktungbby

05-04-17, 11:40 AM

The murderer of his own half-brother and uncle, ol' Kim Jong-Un is feeling the noose tighten....??!! In addition he is a thief.
SEOUL—North Korea slammed China’s “insincerity and betrayal” in a commentary published late Wednesday, calling statements in the official Chinese media “an undisguised threat” to Pyongyang, as it sought to stave off pressure from Beijing on its nuclear and missile programs.
“China should no longer try to test the limits of the DPRK’s patience,” North Korea said in the commentary published by the official Korean Central News Agency, using the acronym for its formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. “China had better ponder over the grave consequences to be entailed by its reckless act of chopping down the pillar of the DPRK-China relations.”
The commentary, which was attributed to a person identified only as Kim Chol, comes as China seeks to get North Korea to curb its weapons programs, amid pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump (https://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-leaders-are-drawn-into-u-s-push-on-north-korea-1493658383) and other United Nations members. North Korea’s latest statements referred to recent articles in two official Chinese publications, the People’s Daily and the Global Times, that apparently alluded to the possibility of Beijing confronting North Korea militarily, or ending friendly ties between the two neighbors and Cold War allies, if it didn’t halt its weapons programs.
The commentary also referred to Chinese press statements about North Korea’s weapons programs threatening China’s northeast, which borders North Korea, and about how Pyongyang’s actions were giving the U.S. an excuse to deploy more strategic assets to the region. The article said that the U.S. military buildup in Asia was aimed at China, not North Korea.
China’s hardening line on North Korea, the commentary said, showed that Beijing was “dancing to the tune of the U.S.,” and that China was exercising “big-power chauvinism” that meant “the dignity and vital rights of the DPRK should be sacrificed for the interests of China.”
Last month, Mr. Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where Mr. Trump says that he offered China more favorable trade terms (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-he-offered-china-better-trade-terms-in-exchange-for-help-on-north-korea-1492027556) in exchange for help on confronting the threat from North Korea.
In February, China said that it would suspend coal imports from North Korea (https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-puts-heat-on-u-s-with-north-korea-coal-crackdown-1487607797) until the end of the year, potentially depriving Pyongyang of a key source of revenue, a move that Mr. Trump has pointed to as a sign of China’s willingness to turn the screws on North Korea.
Mr. Trump has said that China holds the key to halting the North Korean weapons programs, citing the two countries’ close economic and historical ties.
Beijing in return has said its leverage is limited and has pressed the U.S. to enter into unconditional talks with Pyongyang (https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-presses-for-tougher-global-action-on-north-korea-1493393307).
China and North Korea have enjoyed friendly ties since the years immediately following World War II, when Communist parties in both countries took power and fought in one another’s wars. The two countries have described their ties as being as close as that of “lips and teeth.”
In recent decades, however, bilateral ties have become increasingly strained, as China opened its economy while North Korea grew more isolated and pursued a nuclear-weapons program that antagonized the region.
Wednesday’s article wasn’t the first time North Korea took rhetorical aim at China. In February, North Korea published a similar broadside (https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-mocks-china-for-dancing-to-u-s-tune-1487852124), though in that case the commentary took a softer tone and didn’t call out Beijing by name, referring to China only as “a neighboring country, which often claims itself to be a ‘friendly neighbor.’ ” Money is the 'sinews of war' and an economic attack is always preliminary: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/world/asia/treasury-imposes-sanctions-on-north-korea.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/world/asia/treasury-imposes-sanctions-on-north-korea.html?_r=0)With private cybersecurity firms linking North Korea (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/northkorea/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) to recent computer attacks that absconded with at least $81 million (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/business/dealbook/swift-global-bank-network-attack.html), the Treasury Department (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/treasury_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) moved on Wednesday to choke off Pyongyang’s remaining access to the global financial system, designating the country a “primary” money launderer.
The Treasury, employing sanctions techniques that helped pressure Iran to give up much of its nuclear program (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), said it would seek to impose what are known as secondary sanctions against the reclusive communist country. That means that it could cut off from the American financial system any bank or company that conducts banking transactions with Pyongyang.
As a practical matter, that would largely affect Chinese banks, which facilitate North Korea’s financial transactions with Beijing, its largest trading partner. It could also affect some institutions in the nominally autonomous Chinese regions of Macau and Hong Kong, as well as in Singapore, where Pyongyang has often gone to hide the true nature of its banking activities, and to pay for missiles, nuclear fuel and the huge infrastructure it has built around those programs.
The designation, officials said, was in the works long before evidence emerged linking the country’s aggressive hackers to the bank thefts, which involved stealing the credentials that banks use to access theSwift (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/business/dealbook/details-emerge-on-global-bank-heists-by-hackers.html) system (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/business/dealbook/details-emerge-on-global-bank-heists-by-hackers.html), a global network that thousands of financial firms use to authorize payments from one account to another.
In interviews, administration officials said they were still sorting through the evidence that North Korea was involved, and left open the possibility that the thieves deliberately left evidence implicating the country to throw investigators off their trail. It could be months, the officials said, before they reach any conclusions, and in the end the perpetrators of the attack may not be definitively known...

Mr Quatro

12-12-17, 03:57 PM

^Did you put that in the wrong thread, Aktungbby ?

It is your thread, right? What about that little Chinese man made island in the South Pacific? How about a whole port now?

https://www.ft.com/content/e150ef0c-de37-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c

Sri Lanka has formally handed over its southern port of Hambantota to China on a 99-year lease, which government critics have denounced as an erosion of the country’s sovereignty.

The $1.3bn port was opened seven years ago using debt from Chinese state-controlled entities. But it has since struggled under heavy losses, making it impossible for Colombo to repay its debts.

Aktungbby

12-14-17, 12:53 PM

https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2017/11/19/11192017_51-zbs67bwl--sx329-8201_c1-0-2933-1710_s885x516.jpg?eec8478d47a9962f84c4ba518909630c f76acba0 (https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/11192017_51-zbs67bwl-sx329-8201jpg/) But Michael Fabey’s disturbing new book makes plain that China (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/) is now a muscular presence in its part of the world, and with clear ambitions to expand its role.
Mr. Fabey, a veteran defense writer, maintains thatChina (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/) and the U.S. are engaged in a “warm war” for naval dominance in the Pacific that we have “been losing.
The crux of the crisis is China (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/)’s claim of territorial sea rights far beyond those set by international conventions. The issue is complex. For centuries most maritime powers accepted that sovereign territory extended three nautical miles off the shoreline — the range of cannon shot.
After several changes, in 1982 the United Nations formalized “Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), which give coastal nations control over sea resources up to 200 nautical miles from its shores. (The U.S. did not sign the treaty, but recognizes EEZs in practice.)
Ignoring the international protocol,China (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/) has claimed expanded sea areas by constructing artificial islands as far as 600 miles from its own shores.
The work is centered around the Spratly Islands, 14 sandy outcrops ranging in area from one to 100 acres, spreading the South China Sea.
With Spratly ownership claimed by half a dozen other nations — all closer than China — Peking simply “built” its own island on an outcropping of coral, 14 miles long and four wide, almost completely submerged at high tide.
Chinese engineers dredged up coral and sand to create 86,000 square feet of dry land — enough to accommodate a military airstrip, rocket launchers and support troops. Other such “faux islands” are rising from the sea in the area. Adm. Harry Harris, U.S. naval commander in the Pacific, calls the islands the “Great Wall of Sand.”
Fishing and oil exploration by outsiders are forbidden within EEZs, but the treaty gives the “right of free passage” to all nations during peace. The Chinese, however, claim the rules forbid passage to “military operations,” which includes electronic signals gathering and reconnaissance — which the U.S. has long considered essential to prevent surprise attacks.
The Navy routinely ignores such warnings and insists on asserting its “right of passage” through contested areas. In 2003, the USS Cowpens, a cruiser, was forced to stop dead in the water to avoid ramming an harassing Chinese vessel. (The Navy calls such a stop a “crashback.” Hence Mr. Fabey’s title.)
Perhaps more dangerous is Chinese harassment of U.S. reconnaissance flights, its planes routinely coming within yards of contact. In 2001 a Chinese pilot collided with a U.S. reconnaissance plane. He crashed and died; the American craft made an emergency landing.
But the Chinese are buttressing their navy, building an aircraft carrier (replacing an obsolete ship the Soviets donated years ago) and developing dozens of vessels equipped with missiles.
Fortunately, the U.S. Navy is countering China (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/)’s ambitions with new technologies that modernize the missiles that are our dominant sea weapons. And despite the Chinese encroachments, Mr. Fabey’s description of the new weaponry — active and under development — warrants optimism. Some items:
• The electromagnetic rail gun, which uses electricity rather than gunpowder. Magnetic fields created by high electrical currents accelerate a sliding metal conductor between two to launch projectiles at speeds of up to 5,600 mph. The range is over 100 miles. The non-explosive solid projectile, essentially a chunk of steel, has such kinetic energy that “getting hit by one is like being hit by a small asteroid.”
• High-energy laser beams that counter incoming missiles by burning holes in their skins and causing thermal damage to their interiors. Another more powerful laser (30 kilowatts of power, versus 10) “can bore a hole through two inches of steel.” An even more powerful version should disable a battle ship or carrier.
• The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LFASM) has an electro-optical terminal seeker which can match a ship’s imagery to a target database. Thus the missile can sort out a target vessel within a well-defended group of enemy vessels. Modifications in the works can propel a thousand pound warhead against a moving vessel at a range of 1,000 miles.
There is much more. Consider the Zumwalt-class destroyer, whose slope-sided superstructure bears close resemblance to the old Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia. Its profile makes the Zumwalt the naval equivalent of a stealth aircraft.
But the ever-present danger: a young pilot, whether American or Chinese, panics during a close-by flight and fires the shot that starts a war.
China (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/)’s “wall of sand” is a danger that must not be taken lightly... As I pointed out earlier in this thread Not going to happen unfortunately...China is using a tried and true format as when they invaded the sovereign nation of Tibet; claiming territory once held in antiquity (Quing Dynasty?!!!). No one responded then and they're counting on the same here. Think marching into the Rhineland as A. Hitler did to reclaim Alsace/Lorraine-post Versailles, and kick it up to 1,401,586,609 Chinese people from a resource poor nation, 1/7 of the worlds population (7,324,782,225 =-), all looking for China's "place in the sun" as the Kaiser put it prior to WWI....Personally at this point the Chinese delegation to the UN should be removed from the Security Council and forced to do the 'Perp walk' in handcuffs; they hate a 'loss of face' worst of all. Basically "first Tibert and then the world"; Time to boot up and stop it in it's tracks IN SHORT: We made mistake one over 50 years ago by not responding to China's eastward land expansion for Tibet's raw materials, probably in a racist fog over not caring about little brown people which afflicts American thinking and are now challenged at sea by China's westward expansion into international waters even as they use the 'little fat man' and his nuclear threat in N. Korea to their political advantage to divert attention. I seriously doubt if the US under worthless "Let's maka deal" Trump and America's SEATO allies are going to put a stop to this.

Aktungbby

12-22-17, 11:45 AM

The ' Yellow peril' is more perilous!:O: Not content with their single birth doctrine, taking over the Spratley Islands of the South China Sea and general global domination....it seem that expectant Sino-mamas can visit Saipan in the Marianas Islands visa free for 45 days and are doing so to confer right of U.S. birth citizenship on their offspring. Talk about 'voting with your feet here'! The United States is putting the word out to Chinese travel agencies: Stop allowing pregnant Chinese woman to visit the Northern Mariana Islands to give birth.
Why would the USA care? Because any child born in this string of 15 islands between the Philippines and Hawaii is eligible for U.S. citizenship, and in the past two years, the number of women delivering babies here has jumped dramatically.
Eloy Inos, the islands' governor, told the Saipan Tribune that immigration agents had sent home about 20 "birth tourists" in the past three to four months because of "documentation problems. Chinese tourist traffic to the islands in the first seven months of this year already matched arrivals for all of 2012, with the figure for July alone rising 49% to 11,177. Overall births in the Northern Marianas have been falling, but the Marianas Variety newspaper reports that births to ethnic Chinese rose 175% between 2010 and 2012 and last year outnumbered those of any other ethnicity. That means that 71 percent of babies born in Saipan are American-born Chinese, known in China as ABCs. :hmmm:
Many of the pregnant women arrive to avoid China's retribution, fines or worse that come with the Communist country's one-child policy. The Northern Marianas are a convenient refuge because Chinese can visit the islands for up to 45 days without a visa under an exemption to U.S. immigration rules intended to foster tourism.
And because it is one of a handful of official U.S. territories (Puerto Rico is another), children born in the Northern Marianas (a US territory since WWII) are eligible for U.S. citizenship.
Chinese tourist traffic of all kinds is now big business for the Northern Marianas. Northern Marianas officials are eager to head off the birth tourism problem to make sure it does not prompt the USA to revoke the visa waiver for Chinese tourists, something no competing U.S. destination can offer. Nearby Guam is seeking a similar waiver to compete.
Today, Saipan, the largest island, receives about eight charter flights a week from the Chinese cities of Guangzhou, Shanghai and Beijing with Wuhan and other cities set for connections too. And many businesses cater specifically to the maternity traffic.
The operator of one Saipan guesthouse told Radio Free Asia that she hosted 50 Chinese mothers last year, charging them $11,000 for accommodations, travel, translation help and some medical care, though most also incurred around $10,000 in other medical bills.
Birth tourism causes other problems too.
Inos said the Commonwealth Health Center, the only hospital on Saipan, may require tourists to provide a security deposit to combat the problem of bills left unpaid. Another proposal would raise the price of issuing birth certificates to certain types of visitors to as much as $50,000 from $20." :o http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/843799.shtml (http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/843799.shtml)

Aktungbby

01-19-18, 02:46 PM

even as they use the 'little fat man' and his nuclear threat in N. Korea to their political advantage to divert attention. I seriously doubt if the US under worthless "Let's maka deal" Trump and America's SEATO allies are going to put a stop to this. U.S. officials identified and gathered information about the movement of the cargo ships, which are owned or managed by Chinese companies, using satellite imagery and other intelligence means. The evidence was presented to a United Nations sanctions committee, the Wall Street Journal reported (https://www.wsj.com/articles/six-chinese-ships-covertly-aided-north-korea-the-u-s-was-watching-1516296799?mod=djemalertNEWS) Thursday.

After the U.S. presented the information to the U.N., it asked the body to formally declare a total of 10 cargo ships as sanctions violators. China pushed back on the request, but it did permit (https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-resists-u-s-efforts-to-blacklist-ships-through-u-n-1514567476) the U.N. to blacklist four ships, excluding the six vessels tracked by the U.S., that don’t have connections to Chinese companies.
According to declassified intelligence reports, photos and maps given to the U.N. and reviewed by the Journal, the ships picked up illegal cargo, primarily coal, in North Korea and either transported it to Russia and Vietnam, or transferred it to other ships while at sea.
Some of the vessels disguised their locations by turning off their Automatic Identification Systems, which show a ship’s location...Corporate records and shipping databases were used to determine the six ships are owned by Chinese companies registered in Hong Kong. Chinese nationals invest in the companies, and they have used addresses in China. The Chinese government has investigated at least four of the six cargo ships and officials have questioned several of their owners and managers. At least one of the vessel’s managers has been arrested, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The 'great game' is well underway and China flouts the embargo sanctions in support of its criminal puppet regime. WSJ: The effort identified the ships by name and tracked their movements. The ships either entered ports in North Korea and transported what U.S. officials concluded was illicit cargo to Russia and Vietnam or made ship-to-ship transfers at sea.
According to the U.S., which presented the information to a U.N. sanctions committee, the ships also made extensive maneuvers designed to disguise their violations of the U.N. sanctions. In August, the Security Council banned North Korean exports of coal, iron ore, lead and seafood, which have generated an estimated $1 billion a year in hard currency for North Korea.
Just as switching off the AIS beacon can disguise a ship’s movements, a vessel can advertise its location by switching on the transmission device, much like turning on a flashlight in a darkened room. Both techniques were essential for the Glory Hope 1 as it carried out its mission, according to the analysis submitted by the U.S. to the U.N. sanctions committee.
The ship’s crew activated the AIS tracking device as the Glory Hope 1 approached the Chinese port of Lianyungang on Aug. 15. Instead of entering the port, the vessel “loitered” offshore, information provided to the U.N. shows. https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-XB243_backgr_16U_20180118095531.jpg
The U.S. suggested the stop was meant to make it look as if the Glory Hope 1 had gone there to take on Chinese cargo. For more than a week, the ship hugged the Chinese coast until it approached Cam Pha, Vietnam, where its tracker was turned off again.
A U.S. satellite photo provided to the U.N. sanctions committee shows the ship anchored and being unloaded Aug. 26 near the Vietnamese port.
The U.S. said the Chinese-owned Glory Hope 1 was violating the U.N.’s complete ban on North Korean coal exports (https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-security-council-approves-new-sanctions-on-north-korea-1501971177) within days after it was passed in August. (Note: Coal from N. Korea is the backbone of the regimes hard- currency source when not conducting international banktheft, incl Bitcoin transfers by wire. 2 B used for nuclear weapon development.....)
The vessel crossed the Yellow Sea near North Korea under a Panamanian flag, entered North Korea’s Taedong River and then turned into the North Korean port of Songnim, according to the information presented to the U.N https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-XA847_0116CS_P_20180117142445.jpg<satellite pics or it didn't happen?!!) China’s foreign ministry said Beijing abides fully with Security Council resolutions and deals with violations in accordance with the law. “Any measure taken by the Security Council should be based upon conclusive evidence and facts,” the ministry told the Journal in a written statement. :hmmm: :o :x :zzz: :nope:
RIGHT :/\\!! :damn:

ikalugin

01-21-18, 07:05 AM

I just think that both Russia and PRC do not care enough to make extra (ie compared to non DPRK related smugling) effort to stop DPRK related smugling operation.

Mr Quatro

04-28-18, 04:35 PM

How much do we owe China anyway @ five (5) billion dollars each island the USA is helping China get ready for war. :yep:

The Paracel Islands are a chain of some 130 tiny features. China will likely building up dozens into islands with airports, missile facilities and ports.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/e3e0d417cf22f2fcd94457549bc0c672-730x430.png?x71037

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/missiles-and-planes-make-chinas-south-china-sea-island-bases-an-effective-update-of-the-maginot-line.html

China is spending about $5 billion to create and fortify each large man-made island in the South China Sea. This is for five-square-kilometer military bases. The bases often have 1-2 mile long airport runways and ports. These are larger than aircraft carrier runways. This means planes can launch with full loads of fuel and weapons. This allows planes to operate with longer ranges.

Jimbuna

06-02-18, 07:36 AM

China is deploying missiles in the disputed South China Sea to intimidate and coerce its neighbours, US Defence Secretary James Mattis has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44340439

Nothing beats stating the obvious :o

Mr Quatro

09-21-18, 12:28 PM

China’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S.’

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-sea-navy.html

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2018/09/13/chinasea-map/6d8daa6c5e28eefb551c4760920e3ab1b60e4ce3/0913-for-CHINASEAmap-600.jpg

Look how close they are to the Philippines :o

Jimbuna

09-22-18, 07:23 AM

The reality is that governments with overlapping territorial claims — representing Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei — lack the firepower to challenge China. The United States has long fashioned itself as a keeper of peace in the Western Pacific. But it’s a risky proposition to provoke conflict over a scattering of rocks in the South China Sea, analysts say.

Just about sums it up for me.

Aktungbby

02-07-19, 12:43 PM

NEVERMIND THE TAKEOVER OF OF TIBET AND THE USURPATION OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA....THERE MAY BE WORSE PROBLEMS:
China stands accused of a gruesome trade in human organs. It’s difficult to prove, because the victims’ bodies are disposed of and the only witnesses are the doctors, police and prison guards involved. Even so, the evidence supports a damning verdict.
The charge is that many prisoners of conscience—Falun Gong members, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and “underground” Christians—have been subjected to medical testing and had their organs forcibly removed. Those organs have fed an enormous trade in organ transplants.

Patients in China—including foreigners—are promised matching organs within days. Former Canadian politician and prosecutor David Kilgour, lawyer David Matas, American journalist Ethan Gutmann and a team of researchers have confirmed this by posing to Chinese hospitals as patients. Dr. Huang Jiefu, China’s former vice minister for health and chairman of its organ-transplant committee, ordered two spare livers as backups for a 2005 medical operation. They were delivered the next morning. In most advanced Western countries, patients wait months or even years for transplants.
In 2016 Messrs. Kilgour, Matas and Gutmann published a report, “Bloody Harvest/the Slaughter: An Update,” building on research that dates back to 2006. In this latest version, the authors estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are transplanted each year in Chinese hospitals.
Where are the organs coming from? China claims it has the “largest voluntary organ donation system in Asia” and stopped using prisoners in 2015. But the country has no tradition of voluntary organ donation.
In 2010 China’s official number of voluntary donors was 34. In 2018 China still had only about 6,000 official organ donors, who are said to donate more than 18,000 organs. Yet the “Bloody Harvest” researchers find that figure is “easily surpassed by just a few hospitals.” Tianjin First Center alone performs more than 6,000 transplants a year, and the report’s authors “verified and confirmed 712 hospitals which carry out liver and kidney transplants.” Dr. Huang claims China will perform the most transplants in the world by 2020—more than America’s 40,000 a year.

China’s figures don’t add up. To provide healthy, matching organs within days to patients at hundreds of hospitals, using only several thousand voluntary donors a year means there must be an additional, involuntary source of organs.
Death-row inmates cannot account for all of these. China executes more people than the rest of the world combined, but still only about a few thousand a year. Besides, Chinese law requires prisoners sentenced to death to be executed within seven days—not enough time to match their organs to patients and have them ready on demand, as is China’s practice.
That led the investigators to conclude that prisoners of conscience are the source of most of the mystery organs. The evidence is varied: Former prisoners of conscience have testified repeatedly that they were subjected to blood tests and unusual medical examinations in prison. The report claims the test results were then added to a database of living sources of organs, enabling transplants on demand—when a patient needs an organ, a prisoner of conscience from the list is harvested.
Falun Gong, a spiritual movement the Chinese government considers subversive, has been persecuted since a crackdown in 1999. In 2006 Chinese-speaking researchers posed as organ buyers and directly asked if organs from Falun Gong practitioners could be arranged for transplant. Hospitals throughout China confirmed they had such organs available, no problem.
The stories are brutal. Dr. Enver Tohti, a former surgeon from Xinjiang, testified in the British, Irish and European parliaments to removing organs from a prisoner forcibly in 1995. “We had been told to wait behind a hill, and come into the field as soon as we’d hear the gunshot,” he recalled. “A moment later there were gunshots. Not one, but many. We rushed into the field. An armed police officer approached us and told me where to go. He led us closer, then pointed to a body, saying, ‘This is the one.’ By then our chief surgeon appeared from nowhere and told me to remove the liver and two kidneys.” According to Dr. Tohti, the man’s wound was not necessarily fatal. But Dr. Tohti went ahead and removed the liver and kidneys while the man’s heart was still beating.
Experts around the world have testified to China’s crimes. Israel, Taiwan and Spain have banned “organ tourism” to China. United Nations rapporteurs have called China to account for the sources of their organs but received no response.
The Independent Tribunal Into Forced Organ Harvesting From Prisoners of Conscience in China is looking into the matter. Sir Geoffrey Nice, who prosecuted Slobodan Milosevic, chairs the panel of jurists and experts. On Dec. 10, they issued a rare interim judgment: The panel is “certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China, forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practised for a substantial period of time, involving a very substantial number of victims” by the state.
The interim judgment was issued in the hope that it might “save innocents from harm.” If China has a response, I’d like to hear it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nightmare-of-human-organ-harvesting-in-china-11549411056 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nightmare-of-human-organ-harvesting-in-china-11549411056) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_ China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_ China)
Ethan Gutmann interviewed dozens of former Chinese prisoners, including sixteen Falun Gong practitioners who recalled undergoing unusual medical tests while in detention. Gutmann says some of these tests were likely routine examinations, and some may have been designed to screen for the SARS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS) virus. However, in several cases, the medical tests described were exclusively aimed at assessing the health of internal organs.
One man, Wang Xiaohua, was imprisoned in a labor camp in Yunnan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunnan) in 2001 when he and twenty other Falun Gong detainees were taken to a hospital. They had large quantities of blood drawn, in addition to urine samples, abdominal x-rays, and electrocardiogram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocardiogram). Hospital staff did not tend to physical injuries they had suffered in custody. This pattern was repeated in several other interviews. Qu Yangyao, a 30-something Chinese refugee, was taken from a labor camp to a hospital in 2000 along with two other Falun Gong practitioners. She says that hospital staff drew large volumes of blood, conducted chest x-rays and probed the prisoners’ organs. There was “no hammer on the knee, no feeling for lymph nodes, no examination of ears or mouth or genitals—the doctor checked her retail organs and nothing else,” HEY NUTHIN' GETS WASTED IN CHINA! THE STATE OWNS YOU....PART FOR PART! :Kaleun_Sick:AS A ''MAN OF MANY PARTS IN MY OWN RIGHT'':O:....EVEN THE NAZIS NEVER DREAMED UP ANYTHING ON THIS SCALE!

Aktungbby

03-29-20, 05:02 PM

Well the corona virus is now pandemic and it might be a good thing for the world's peace since China, in order to save face is blamin the US for causing anyhow. Ever since advancing into Tibet unchallenged in 1959under the guise of Qing Dynasty ruleand the most recent expansion into suzerainty of the South China sea over the objections all the boardering nations: China’s “New Silk Road” aims to improve trade between Asia and Europe, but the growing influence of Beijing and its tactics around debt have got hawks in Washington worried. They argue that China is using its wealth to buy influence across the world – and are preparing for a decades-long fight for economic supremacy and influence. Is the programme as much a threat as some US hawks believe?
The One Belt One Road initiative, or the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is the name given to a Chinese government megaproject to improve trade and economic growth between the countries of Asia and Europe, primarily through infrastructure investments. It is the largest infrastructure project envisioned in modern times.
First proposed by Premier Xi Jinping in 2013, the initiative will involve countries hosting some 68% of the world’s population and 40% of global GDP. The final investment cost is expected to stand at between $4 trillion and $8 trillion.
The “belt” refers primarily to connecting countries on the traditional Silk Road route from Asia to Europe. An example of this would be the direct rail freight route between Chongqing, China and Dusseldorf, Germany which passes through Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus and Poland.
The “road” refers to countries connected by the “Maritime Silk Road”, an oceanic trade route that encompasses south Asia, Oceania, east Africa and southern Europe.Although this ambitious initiative by China has the potential to benefit the countries in which it invests, it has proved controversial in participating counties. The main criticism involves the amount of debt China has piled on poorer counties in an attempt to embed these developing nations in its sphere of influence. Critics argue that this borrowing trap will be used to exert significant leverage on participating counties and their leaders when they inevitably find themselves in financial distress.
It is no co-incidence that industries targeted in cyber-attacks are in sectors central to the Asian nation’s technology strategy as laid out in Premier Li Keqiang’s Made in China 2025 (MIC 2025) plan, unveiled in 2015. The policy targets many fields including robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), smart appliances and electric vehicles. The CrowdStrike report suggests that, while making positive diplomatic noises in trade discussions, cyber-espionage by China has now increased significantly.
This supports fears that Huawei, the world’s largest manufacturer of telecoms equipment, could spy on behalf of the Chinese government if its components were used in telecoms networks. The company is now banned from bidding for US government contracts; New Zealand and Australia have blocked local telecoms operators from using its equipment in their fifth-generation networks – and Germany is mulling a similar ban. In the UK, BT Group has removed Huawei components from a system it is developing for the emergency services and GCHQ is looking into the issue. Nevertheless, Huawei executives argue the company obeys regulations in all countries in which it operates.
Military build-up
There are some concerns that there is a military aspect too. In December, the New York Times reported that it had reviewed a confidential plan about China’s military projects in Pakistan under BRI. According to the proposal, a special economic zone will be created to produce fighter jets, while navigation systems and other military hardware will be jointly built at factories in Pakistan. China was “for the first time explicitly tying a Belt and Road proposal to its military ambitions,” the newspaper concluded.
As well as this military aspect, there are worries that participating countries will make themselves too reliant on China. While many of the countries benefiting from the BRI are in dire need of infrastructure and modernisation, China supplies almost all the workers to carry out the projects, which limits the scope for local involvement, creating tensions with “excluded” younger host-country populations. This has caused some to argue that the BRI could even end up creating infrastructure networks for extreme and radicalised organisations in unstable countries.
China and the US are in the midst of a struggle for dominance. China insists that BRI is benign, but it is likely to continue to build tensions with the US. Coming at a time when the “America First” policy is resulting in the US becoming increasingly isolationist, the BRI is a threat to the West as it increases the “soft power” of China in a number of strategically important countries. However, these countries are starting to conclude that that the BRI is not a magic pot of gold – and it is likely to come with a significant sting in the tail. This is a welcome development everywhere but Beijing. https://www.charles-stanley.co.uk/group/cs-live/china%E2%80%99s-belt-and-road-initiative-threat-west (https://www.charles-stanley.co.uk/group/cs-live/china%E2%80%99s-belt-and-road-initiative-threat-west) In short we are in a cold war with China and as it has tipped it's POKER-hand holding the US responsible for Wuhan virus to save face on an international level.https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/d903f83/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F9b%2F73%2 F170d0e8b46d3a020396a39a3076a%2F7-hajo-de-reijger-the-netherlands.jpg SUCH BOLD-FACE MISREPRESENTATION CAN ONLY BE ACCOUNTED FOR AGAINST THE PERCIEVED LOSS OF GLOBAL SILKROAD LOSS-OF-FACE AND INFLUENCE. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/chinese-officials-blame-us-army-for-coronavirus-67267 (https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/chinese-officials-blame-us-army-for-coronavirus-67267) The statements might simply be a distraction from criticisms about how China has handled the outbreak. Li Wenliang (https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/outrage-and-grief-follow-death-of-coronavirus-whistleblower-67077), a Chinese doctor who had tried to raise awareness about the virus in the early stages, was punished by the government and forced to say his concerns were an “illegal rumor.” Li contracted the virus himself while treating a patient in January and died on February 7. Critics claim that had these concerns been taken seriously at the time, it could have curbed the severity of the outbreak.
The unfounded claims could also be a response to US officials (https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=speech&id=1332) who have referred to SARS-CoV-2 as the “China virus” or “Wuhan virus,” (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/politics/wuhan-virus.html?searchResultPosition=1) according to the Times, terms that Lijian denounced as “highly irresponsible” at a March 4 press conference.
“The conspiracy theories are a new, low front in what they clearly perceive as a global competition over the narrative of this crisis,” Julian Gewirtz, an Academy Scholar at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, tells the Times. http://search.earthlink.net/search?q=china+blames+the+US+for++virus&area=earthlink-ws&abtli=0&abtcgid=87 (http://search.earthlink.net/search?q=china+blames+the+US+for++virus&area=earthlink-ws&abtli=0&abtcgid=87) Nuthin (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/world/asia/coronavirus-china-conspiracy-theory.html) new: a regime controlling truth and altering facts to support it's illusion of infallibility.....

Aktungbby

04-17-20, 10:31 AM

https://assets.amuniversal.com/10996fe032590138e86b005056a9545d

mapuc

10-14-20, 06:01 PM

I don't know the mentality of the Chinese, so I can't say if this is something to worry about or it's how the leaders speak to their military.

During an inspection of the People's Liberation Army Marine Corps in Chaozhou City, Xinhua said Xi told the soldiers to "maintain a state of high alert" and called on them to be "absolutely loyal, absolutely pure, and absolutely reliable."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/14/asia/xi-jinping-taiwan-us-esper-intl-hnk/index.html

Markus

Jimbuna

10-15-20, 05:00 AM

Sabre rattling in my estimation. The only entity those soldiers will be fighting any time soon is probably COVID.

Cajun Kaleun

10-15-20, 10:19 PM

They could mean India. They have had a lot of border skirmishes lately.

Jimbuna

10-16-20, 03:49 AM

Could well be, the area has been a source of great rivalry between the two for a long time now.

https://i.postimg.cc/wMp3T0fL/hhhhh.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Aktungbby

12-23-20, 02:40 PM

"Money is the sinews of war" and Canada has seen fit to
preempt the sino-lust for everyone else's mineral deposits https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/SHANDONG-GOLD-MINING-CO--6497385/news/Shandong-Gold-Mining-Canada-Vetoes-China-Gold-Deal-in-Arctic-32070864/ Canada blocked Chinese state-owned Shandong Gold Mining Co. from buying a gold mine in the Canadian Arctic as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces growing pressure to curb Beijing's rising influence in the country and the polar region.
Monday's decision was the second time Mr. Trudeau has vetoed a China-led deal since coming to power in late 2015, backtracking in part on his Liberal administration's initial policy goal of developing closer economic ties with China.
The move could worsen relations between the two countries, which are already strained over Canada's role in the arrest of senior Huawei Technologies Co. executive Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of Huawei's founder, in Vancouver in 2018 over the company's alleged violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
China subsequently detained two Canadians for allegedly violating national-security laws, which Mr. Trudeau has described as retaliation for Ms. Meng's arrest.
Shandong, one of the world's largest gold miners, had proposed buying TMAC Resources Inc., which owns a mine almost 120 miles north of the Arctic Circle, for roughly $150 million.
But former Canadian national security and military officials came out against the deal. They argued that it would give China too much access to the Arctic, a sensitive region where China has been investing because of its growing importance as a shipping route and a source of valuable minerals.
Under Canadian law, the government must review any acquisition by a foreign state-owned enterprise and can block it to protect national security, a term that is left undefined in law to give officials some flexibility on how to use the veto.
Although it doesn't have any oversight authority on acquisitions in Canada, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee also was tracking developments on the proposed TMAC deal.
TMAC said late Monday that the government had completed its review and blocked the deal from going ahead. "TMAC and Shandong are in discussions regarding termination of the transaction," the Canadian company said.
A spokesman for the Canadian minister in charge of investment policy confirmed the transaction was vetoed, but declined to comment further. Shandong didn't respond to an email seeking comment. A representative for the Chinese embassy in Ottawa didn't respond to a request for comment.
The first time Mr. Trudeau's government vetoed a Chinese deal was in 2018. Canada blocked the proposed acquisition of Toronto-based Aecon Group Inc. by CCCC International Holding Ltd., citing national security concerns.
Monday's decision reflects a quickening recalibration of the Trudeau administration's stance toward Beijing. Former diplomats and foreign-policy analysts have said it has focused for too long on protecting commercial interests -- from food exporters to miners and financial services -- and failed to take account of China's more aggressive global role under the leadership of President Xi Jinping.
"Everyone needs to be a little wiser in understanding the tools that the Chinese government is willing to use that go outside the bounds of the normal rules that we are used to working amongst with like-minded allies, " Mr. Trudeau said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal earlier this month.
His foreign minister, François-Philippe Champagne, has also promised a new policy on China but warned about adopting the more bellicose approach that some of Mr. Trudeau's political rivals seek. "Let's not fall into the temptation of tough and irresponsible rhetoric that will generate no tangible results," he said.
An end to the extradition case involving Ms. Meng, the Huawei executive, could provide Canada space to harden its approach to China.
Lawyers for Ms. Meng have spoken to U.S. Justice Department officials in recent weeks about an agreement in which she would be required to admit to some of the allegations against her, the Journal previously reported. In exchange, prosecutors would agree to potentially defer and later drop charges if she cooperated, according to people familiar with the matter.
A deal involving Ms. Meng could pave the way for China to return the two men, Michael Kovrig, Canadian diplomat who was on leave, and businessman Michael Spavor, who have been in custody for more than two years, and is said to be a factor motivating the U.S.-led talks. Mr. Trudeau has declined to comment on a possible deal. China's' interest in the Artic Sea's minerals is hand-tipping. Right of ''innocent passage' ain't so innocent when it comes to Chinese global domination of the planet. They should be barred from the Artic in accordance with their own 'style' regarding their 'claimed' suizerainity South China Sea and we'll see if there one rule for China and another for the rest of the overpopulated planet. :ping::ping::ping: The real shooting will start when they invade Taiwan!

Aktungbby

06-26-21, 11:28 AM

in today's paper:China pressured Ukraine into withdrawing its support for a call for more scrutiny of human rights in China's western region of Xinjiang by threatening to withhold Chinese-made Covid-19 ( recently considered only 50% effective, but 'better than nothing' when used in pandemi-ravaged Brazil) vaccines destined for Ukraine unless it did so, diplomats said Friday...Now that's what I call... Diplomatic Immunity :nope::x:dead::rotfl2:! EDIT It is worth noting that Europe, India and Saudi Arabia have banned travelers innoculated with any of the five Chinese vaccines. Biden, having proferred 500+ million of vaccine doses to less 'privileged countries' could do well to enhance his "America is back!" stance and make up the deficit to Ukraine with a superior product... :hmmm::know::()1: That would B diplomatic immunity on a higher plane!:arrgh!:

Aktungbby

06-28-21, 11:12 AM

Case in point in today's WSJ: at least 10 of 26 doctors in Indonesia had recieved both doses of the vaccine in June from Sinovac Biotech Ltd. and died anyway. Over a 5 month period, at leas 20 doctors who were fully inoculated have also died, accounting for 20% of of total fatalities among doctors during that time span. Around 90% of Indonesia's 160,000 doctors are inoculated with Sinovac's shots so the overall % is actually small...:o In Brazil, the efficacy preventing infections was rated at 50% and reduces severe infections. In Chile, the vaccine was effective..two weeks after the second jab...:hmmm:Bottom line: the Sinovac jab does reduce mortality and on hard hit Java many health care workers who were inoculated developed mild cases and recovered quickly. 60 doctors had died in the surge of Dec-Jan when the vaccination was starting. Only 26 have died in June? As one health official put it: "It really can't be said that Sinovac isn't ideal. " Methinks that's putting it dramatically! :shifty::roll::hmph:

Aktungbby

03-10-22, 12:37 PM

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has inaugurated a new era of political competition but not a new cold war. The American people and their leaders need to prepare for a new kind of geopolitical competition—more intense, more dangerous and more aggressive than anything since World War II. Bismarck, Metternich and Louis XIV’s world of unrestrained power to achieve national objectives is back. And while the immediate threat is Russia, the more formidable one is China.

Throughout the Cold War, the great powers employed direct forces in only a handful of instances. Korea was the only conventional engagement from either bloc. The Soviets conducted limited actions within the Eastern bloc, most notably in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. intervention in Vietnam were both distinctly unconventional wars. American operations in Grenada and Panama, like Soviet deployments throughout Africa and the Middle East, were limited in scope and intensity. By contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a massive conventional offensive, with its military component supporting maximal political goals—the Ukrainian regime’s destruction and replacement with a puppet government and likely the annexation of southern Ukraine. Russia seems unlikely to achieve its maximalist political goals without an open-ended force commitment, one that could push Russian society to the breaking point. The Kremlin may shift tack, seeking a settlement that gives it preference in or control over southern Ukraine and some guarantee against Ukrainian membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Regardless of the outcome, Moscow’s actions demonstrate that force is the final arbiter between nations. Force is particularly viable in situations where states are beyond a clear security agreement. Taiwan is the clearest state in this circumstance. Like Ukraine, it is affiliated with American security structures but formally outside them. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan has no strategic depth. Also unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is crucial to the global economic order—its semiconductor production sustains high-technology production internationally. That last consideration speaks directly to Taiwan’s defense: A ruinous war around the island would trigger economic effects that make the Ukraine crisis look like a daily stock-market dip. Nevertheless, with great-power force having been resurrected as a governing norm in international affairs, we should expect its increased use. This is particularly crucial when considering Beijing’s interests and actions. China, or more specifically Xi Jinping’s Chinese Communist Party, has made its long-term intentions toward Taiwan clear. Mr. Xi sees a reclaimed Taiwan as the crown jewel in his legacy, the best way to solidify his role as the man responsible for reviving China as a great power and setting it on the path to global dominance. Even if NATO proves diffident in Ukraine, we can expect a strong Western defense of Taiwan because of the latter’s economic importance and centrality in America’s Indo-Pacific defense posture. Even so, we can expect Mr. Xi’s China to modify its calculus, recognizing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine might have a desensitizing effect and make an attack on Taiwan less shocking than it would otherwise be.

The broader question is of the organization of Eurasian security. One would expect the Russian invasion to formalize the return to traditional great-power politics, what theorists of international relations call “multipolarity,” a system in which multiple political and military centers of gravity exist. Russia, China and the U.S.—and perhaps Europe, depending on the Ukraine question’s settlement—can be expected, so the argument goes, to secure their own “spheres of influence,” dominating specific regions of the world and ceding others. The world, we will hear, is returning to the 19th century, albeit absent that era’s overwhelmingly Eurocentric geostrategic rhythm. This prediction is alluring and wrong. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has little impact on Chinese incentives, and China remains the crucial actor. The Communist Party under Mr. Xi—and perhaps since Deng Xiaoping, depending on how politically sophisticated it is—drew a unique lesson from the Soviet collapse. The Soviets failed not because they didn’t integrate capitalist insights into their economy, but because they never went far enough in their external expansion.

Soviet Russia failed to grasp that it couldn’t coexist with any other power. The only way for an imperial dictatorship like the U.S.S.R. or Nazi Germany to survive is through absolute domination. Soviet leaders after Stalin progressively lost sight of this reality, and by Leonid Brezhnev’s death in 1982 they had become reactive to an increasingly assertive Western military-strategic approach.

The world has many dictatorships—the Kim family’s in North Korea, the increasingly kleptocratic Iranian theocracy and the Castro regime in Cuba, to cite obvious examples. But none of these are nearly big and powerful enough to be structurally disruptive in the way the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were—or China is today. Some sort of external economic dependence is inevitable, even if only on an autarkic bloc. And that bloc, Chinese leaders realized, is naturally brittle. Internal dissent can be managed only if the world at large is properly ordered. Hence the Communist Party’s drive for absolute dominance.

Assuming Russia’s collapse is not imminent, China will use Russia’s increasing isolation to transform Moscow into a petrochemical satellite, taking advantage of Western sanctions to secure Russian energy flows indefinitely. In turn, China hopes that Russia, humbled or emboldened by its Ukraine adventure—and with or without Mr. Putin at the helm—will occupy Western attention as Beijing gobbles up the choicest Pacific possessions and extends its economic and diplomatic tendrils into the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe. Far from accepting independent Russian action, China is counting on Russian failure to accelerate the satisfaction of its boundless appetite.

That will create two blocs, not three. On the one side will stand the U.S. and its allies, on the other China and its affiliates and satellites. War between the two is all but inevitable. The U.S. must take note: Triangulation against China is impossible with Russia in an abject state of economic dependence. The large strategic issue in the Ukraine war is the possibility of China’s domination of Eurasia.

Mr. Cropsey is founder and president of the Yorktown Institute. He served as a naval officer and as a deputy undersecretary of the Navy.:hmmm: :Kaleun_Salute: If ever! We owe Vlad the Bastard one though; NATO's tepid act is swiftly unifying itself. Chairmman Xi is reconsidering his recently stated "friendship with no limits" relationship with Vlad the Bastard who obligingly held off the attack till after the Olymics were done!. In a speech on this date in 1983, President Reagan dubbed the Soviets the "evil empire" ... now proven beyond doubt. If Ukraine is the left shoe; the right shoe Taiwan is bound to drop sooner or later...Both Putin and Xi are anxious to secure their respective legacies by destroying the old 'World order'. However, I note that even China is not immediately venturing into the "black hole of Kabul...vacated by both Russia and the United States.:hmmm:

Aktungbby

06-21-23, 12:36 PM

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3224588/chinese-premier-li-qiang-arrives-germany-first-state-visit-solidify-relations-amid-more-chaos-and Having failed to place a base in the Atlantic near our own Thule Base on Greenland(thankyou Denmark) the Chinkaderos are now sucking up to Germany in pursuit of global hegemony!!?? https://img.i-scmp.com/cdn cgi/image/fit=contain,width=1098,format=auto/sites/default/files/styles/1200x800/public/d8/images/canvas/2023/06/19/c9f75b4d-74d2-4481-8762-48489715e154_354bdbc4.jpg?itok=rf__IkW3&v=1687160061 Chinese Premier Li Qiang arrived in Berlin on Sunday for a series of government and business talks aimed at “properly handling differences” and furthering ties with Germany, according to Chinese state media. The No 2 Chinese official will meet German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and attend the China-Germany Economic and Technical Cooperation Forum in his first state visit since taking office in March, according to state news agency Xinhua. He will also meet German business leaders during the trip and visit companies in Bavaria – the largest state in Germany and home to global brands such as sportswear manufacturer Adidas, insurance giant Allianz and carmaker Audi Members of of Mountain Rifles fired a black-powder salute:salute: in Munich on Tuesdayhttp://wsj-bcdn.newsmemory.com/eebrowser/ipad/html5.check.22033014/ajax-request.php?val=Image_0.jpg&action=loadImage&type=Image&pSetup=wallstreetjournal&issue=20230621&crc=wsj_20230621_a009_p2jw172000_7_a00900_1_______ _xa2023_w-or9.pdf.0&edition=The%20Wall%20Street%20Journal&paperImage=wallstreetjournal&mtime=56D53C50 It being Tiu's day(the traditional German god of war)....couldn't they have been a little more...direct??!:arrgh!:

Aktungbby

07-05-23, 11:23 AM

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/opinion-china-is-in-default-on-a-trillion-dollars-in-debt-to-us-bondholders-will-the-us-force-repayment/ Every country should pay its sovereign debt. Default, we are told, is not an option.

But has anyone told China?

The United States pays interest on approximately $850 billion in debt held by the People’s Republic of China. China, however, is currently in default on its sovereign debt held by American bondholders.

Successive U.S. administrations have chosen to sidestep this fact, allowing business and trade with China to proceed as normal. Now that the relationship with China has soured and the People’s Republic of China has become the greatest adversarial threat to the U.S. and Western security, policymakers should revisit this appalling failure of justice.

Some history is in order. Before 1949, the government of the Republic of China (ROC) issued a large volume of long-term sovereign gold-denominated bonds, secured by Chinese tax revenues, to private investors and governments for the construction of infrastructure and financing of governmental activities. Put simply, the China we know today would not have been possible absent these bond offerings.

In 1938, during its conflict with Japan, the ROC defaulted on its sovereign debt. After the military victory of the communists, the ROC government fled to Taiwan. The People’s Republic of China was eventually recognized internationally as the successor government of China. Under well-established international law, the “successor government” doctrine holds that the current government of China, led by the Chinese Communist Party, is responsible for repayment of the defaulted bonds. The Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have a unique opportunity to enforce the well-established international rule that governments must honor their debts. Like the UK did in 1987, the U.S. must view the repayment of China’s sovereign debt as essential to its national security interests. In doing so, the U.S. government should undertake one or both of two actions currently being discussed by members of Congress.

The first would be to acquire the Chinese bonds held by the ABF and utilize them to offset (partially or in whole) the $850+ billion of U.S. Treasuries owned by China (reducing up to $95 million in daily interest paid to China). This would lower the national debt and put the U.S. in a better financial position globally. BOTTOM LINE China wouldn;t dream of letting anyone else default on the debt owed to Beijing as is the current situation with the 'loans' owed under its Road and Belt by several bankrupt Third World nations. Time to turn the fiduciary tables on Asia's biggest 'paper dragon"!!?? Twixt our trillion dollar debt and the third world defaulters, China is in a $erious jam it can't get out of...:oops: :hmmm::x:dead:
I'd rather wage fiduciary-sinews warfare on the enemy's checkbook than the shootingwar's battlefield! :arrgh!::ping::ping::ping::hmmm: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/21/china-debt-diplomacy-belt-and-road-initiative-economy-infrastructure-development/ In the span of a decade, China has emerged as the developing world’s bank of choice, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in loans into global infrastructure projects as part of its sprawling Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

But as its borrowers fail to pay up, China is finding that its newfound authority is coming at a price. Eager to recoup its money, Beijing is transitioning from generous investor to tough enforcer—and jeopardizing the very goodwill that it tried to build with initiatives such as the BRI. China has broken a few bones in Sri Lanka, whose financial turmoil allowed Beijing to seize control of a strategic port, and is hassling Pakistan, Zambia, and Suriname for repayment.

For two decades, countries “were getting to know China as the kind of benevolent financier of big-ticket infrastructure,” said Bradley Parks, the executive director of the AidData research group at William & Mary. Now, he said, “the developing world is getting to know China in a very new role—and that new role is as the world’s largest official debt collector.”