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

[Aktungbby]

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

[Onkel Neal]

China says changing position on sea dispute would shame ancestors

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]

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 “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 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. 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]

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]

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 (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. 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 due to the loss of membership/recognition in the United Nations and lack of wide diplomatic recognition. In a poll of Taiwanese aged 20 and older taken by the 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]

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]

would imply significant coasts.

I thoroughly agree with your analysis; both Hong Kong and Formosa (Taiwan) are significantly off the coast of China. 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. 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. With recent Chinese submarine forays into the Indian Ocean...significant coasts indeed!

[ikalugin]

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/milita...a/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]

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/graphi...uth-china-sea/

[mapuc]

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]

"Border skirmishes continued throughout the 1980s, including a significant skirmish in April 1984 and a naval battle over the Spratly Islands in 1988 known as the Johnson South Reef Skirmish." Actually, looking again at who holds what in the Spratleys, (my above post-tnx again Harvs) 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 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]

Originally Posted by mapuc

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]

Discovery News had made this video

What if China & Japan went to war

https://testtube.com/testtubenews/wh...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]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/20/us-pacific-fleet-chief-joins-surveillance-of-south-china-sea.html The 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.

[ikalugin]

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