Battleland

The South China Sea: From Bad to Worse

  • Share
  • Read Later
U.S. Navy photo / Lt. Cmdr. Denver Applehans

A U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet launches from the aircraft carrier USS George Washington during routine operations in the South China Sea last week.

TOKYO – Territorial disputes in the South China Sea are about to get a whole lot worse — and at the worst possible time.

Whether the U.S. can avoid being dragged into a shooting match will depend on how far Beijing and its unruly mix of military, maritime and natural resources agencies choose to push their claims. And whether China’s increasingly frustrated neighbors decide to push back.

Last week’s regional security talks in Cambodia were a step in the wrong direction. China refused to look at a written code of conduct being drafted to govern navigation, resources and related issues in the South China Sea, one of the world’s most important waterways. It also blocked discussion – let alone resolution — of the conflicting territorial claims in the region.

China claims exclusive rights to virtually all of the South China Sea, including its vast reserves of oil, gas and ocean resources; four other countries and Taiwan claim large parts of the region, as well. The disputes have led to increasingly tense standoffs between China and its neighbors.

The weeklong security talks, hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), dissolved amid charges of Chinese bullying, without even a customary closing statement. China made its point, but it may be a short-lived victory, says Mark Valencia, a Hawaii-based maritime policy analyst and senior associate at the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability in San Francisco.

“What China is saying is, ‘We have this historic claim to the South China Sea and we own everything within it – islands, reefs, submerged areas, resources, you name it. That’s the way it is, and we’re not even going to talk to you about it.’ But they’ve painted themselves into a corner now, and that’s very dangerous for everybody,” says Valencia.

So far, the U.S. has stayed out of the territorial disputes. That’s wise. The U.S. cannot referee the welter of legal, historical and emotional arguments that accompany each dispute (all or parts of the Spratly Islands, for example, are claimed not only by China, but also by Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines, with evidence and documentation of varying degrees of credibility and relevance, dating back hundreds of years in some cases).

The primary U.S. interest in the region is in ensuring freedom of navigation. Half the world’s commercial shipping passes through the South China Sea — $5 trillion a year — and U.S. warships regularly transit the region on their way to and from the Persian Gulf, Southwest Asia and the Indian Ocean.

wiki

China has promised not to interfere with any ships passing through region. But China has also signaled that it may require prior notice, and that military exercises and surveillance activities by foreign ships and planes may not be permissible. Those are hot-button issues for the U.S., which insists that under international law, nations cannot restrict activity other than economic development within most of their their 200-mile limits – assuming that those claims are internationally recognized to begin with.

An early test could be shaping up with Vietnam. In June, China issued an invitation for foreign companies to explore for oil in a region where Vietnam has already awarded exclusive contracts to U.S., Russian and Indian oil firms. The region is within Vietnam’s standard 200-mile exclusive economic zone. China’s move is likely in retaliation for a law enacted by Vietnam’s parliament earlier in the month that asserts sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly islands, which of course, China says it owns.

There’s little love lost between the two countries, which fought a short but bloody border war in 1979. Last year, a Chinese fishing ship and government fishery patrol boats cut the cables of a Vietnamese exploration vessel in an area claimed by both countries.

Valencia says he won’t be surprised if the latest dispute results in bloodshed.

“I don’t think it will be war, per se. But Vietnam has shown that it’s not afraid of China, so I can see them sending out their navy, and I can see China shooting back at them,” says Valencia.

A far more dangerous confrontation could be shaping up outside the South China Sea, with an even older and better-armed rival.

On the same day that Japan’s foreign minister was due to meet with his Chinese counterpart at the ASEAN security talks last week, three Chinese maritime patrol ships entered Japanese waters near the disputed Senkaku Islands.

The two governments have been sparring over the islands – which China calls Diaoyu – since 2010, when Japan seized a Chinese fishing vessel that it says rammed a Japanese patrol ship in territorial waters near the islands; the ship and crew were released only after intense economic and political pressure from China.

Japan Foreign Minister Koichiro Genba initially said he wasn’t sure whether the intrusion last week “just happened, or was timed to coincide with the bilateral meeting.” But all doubt seemed to disappear when another Chinese patrol boat entered Japanese waters the very next day. Tokyo summoned the Chinese ambassador and Genba complained again to Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who responded by repeating China’s claim to the islands, located in the East China Sea near Taiwan,  were “inherently” Chinese.

Although Tokyo has been publicly trying to tamp down the dispute, it’s clear that patience is wearing thin.

Tetsuo Kotani, a maritime security specialist with the Japan Institute of International Affairs, a leading Tokyo think tank, said at a forum in Washington DC in late June that it is time for Japan’s naval forces to begin actively tracking Chinese submarines in the South China Sea, and to be prepared to intervene militarily.

“If an armed conflict results between the South China Sea claimants – for example, China and the Philippines, or China and Vietnam – we have to protect our ships in the South China Sea. And what I am proposing to the government is that if anything happens in the South China Sea, we have to send our self-defense forces to the vicinity of the conflict area to protect Japanese ships,” said Kotani, who is not affiliated with the government but who is believed to reflect government views.

Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force is designed largely for anti-submarines and anti-mine warfare and generally operates in home waters and the Western Pacific. Venturing into the South China Sea could be seen as a provocative move not only by China, but by some of the regions smaller powers, which still view Japan with suspicion. Japan’s constitution currently forbids the use of military force except in self-defense.

The South China Sea already is heavily militarized and is certain to become more so as the “re-balancing” of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific gains traction. The U.S. Seventh Fleet, based in Yokosuka, Japan, routinely operates there. Three U.S. littoral combat ships are scheduled to begin operating from Singapore next spring.  Japan is supplying the Philippines with 10 patrol boats. China has completed construction of a major naval base at Yalong, on the southernmost tip of Hainan Island, which can hold nuclear-powered ballistic missile and attack submarines and large surface warships, including aircraft carriers.

Although the U.S. does not have a security treaty with Vietnam, it does with mutual defense pacts with other nations that have disputes with China. U.S. officials said earlier this month that a Chinese attack directed at the Senkaku Islands would fall under the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty, which requires the U.S. to come to the aid of Japan. The U.S. has a similar pact with the Philippines, which was involved in a months-long standoff with China earlier this year as the Scarborough Shoal, a collection reefs in the South China Sea.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a 2008 report that the South China Sea has potential oil reserves as high as 213 billion barrels, larger than then Saudi Arabia.

In addition to the People’s Liberation Army Navy, at least four other government agencies or ministries operate patrol craft or have a degree of authority over maritime-related issues. At a forum hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington DC, one Chinese participant stated that even if a procedure were developed to resolve the territorial disputes, it is not clear which agency within the Chinese government would have the authority to settle the issue.

And that’s how you go from bad to worse.

59 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
greenspan03
greenspan03

Nixon made the huge mistake of opening China. Look at all the job lost and technology transfer/thefts. War with Vietnam will not just involved navy, it will be fought on land as well, with both Hanoi and Beijing is within gun sight. Can you say fireworks? US should start arming Vietnam to keep China in check.

Xuan Thu
Xuan Thu

A Chinese maps published by the Qing dynasty in 1904 found that Hainan Island is China's southernmost point, not two archipelagoes of paracel islands and spratly islands. 

China invaded and took control  paracel islands and spratly islands in 1974 and 1988.

James Hollifield
James Hollifield

If, just if, China enters a war with Vietnam, both of those communist countries will be doomed and economy crushed.  Then US/Japan/Philippines will benefit the most.  So, 

US/Japan/Philippines might want to quietly  push everything to go to that direction.

If, just if, China enters a war with Philippines and/or Japan, US will be inevitably pulled into the big war, too.  No doubt, their economies will all be destroyed in the war.  Then Russia will benefit the most.   After the war, Russia would  become the sole superpower of the world, and would be able to conquer all of China.  So, Russia might want to quietly push all things to go to this direction.  

James Hollifield
James Hollifield

The author might not know how Asians bargain with each other.  The author seems to take everything by their face values (i.e. the asking/bidding prices), which can be very misleading to the minds that think in western ways.  

What is shown on the surface are usually far different from what's under the table.When bargaining, Asians ask insanely high prices and bid 

insanely low prices, all with plans to counter counter offers.  Deep in the mind, no one thinks/expects to get the asking/bidding price.  A final price can be satisfactory to both sides, ONLY after a very lengthy process.If a bargain process ends too quickly, then neither sides will have the same fulfillment feeling.   It is the way it is.  Let time do its work.  No need to worry.  No need to lose your sleep over those seemingly crazy asking/bidding prices of theirs.   In the end, everything will be fine.  

Mazzaroth Darkman
Mazzaroth Darkman

The Phillipines has to be sure a Georgia-Russia situation does not arise, much as it needs to stand up to being bullied - on he other hand the bully here needs to make sure it doesn't precipitate a perfect storm against itself by uniting its enemies against an overbearing demeanour, a tough act for China now - World War 3, methinks....LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUMBLE!

jeezcak3
jeezcak3

WOW! Freedom of speech... so many China agents here. Like this if you agree with me!

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

 What's the problem with Chinese agents? Oh come on, don't be so integer.

If a splendid, young, Chinese woman suddenly turned up in front of you, gave you a handful of banknotes and told you that all you had to do to earn more is to talk to somebody in the Chinese Embassy, what would you do?

Dave Asia
Dave Asia

HU JINTAO, President of China, says "We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of westernizing and dividing China."

Go big China!

Dave Asia
Dave Asia

The Mighty Military of The Superpower can't defeat a few soldiers in Iraq...

Kevin Brent
Kevin Brent

The thing about playing maritime naval bully and claiming whole sections of a sea or ocean as your national play pen, is that you need a powerful navy to back that up. And, China just simply ain't got one. If China had anything to be worried about, they'd be sailing warships in gridlock just outside the territorial limit off Tokyo Bay. Not down in the SOCHI Sea picking on the PI and their one coast guard cutter with a pop gun. China is a joke and not even a funny one.

Joseph Tan
Joseph Tan

This is the worst kind of journalism we have ever seen.

1) In Cambodia, there is no consensus came out of the talk.

2) It is Vietnam and Philippine that refuse to adhere to the earlier code of conduct signed between the relevant parties with China.

3) US is being nosy and poked her nose in the internal affairs of this dispute only to be humiliated.

4) It is high time America should deal with with her homeland problems and let the parties here sort them out themselves as they had done thousands of years ago.

Abajay Co
Abajay Co

@Joseph Tan

See whose speaking a Chinese I presume. 

So it's only natural to defend your Two-Faced New-Comer-Imperialist state that didn't learn a thing or two from European colonizers, There are varied tactics of colonization other than bullying and putting infrastructures on the islets just because your neighbors are Navy weak, 

See the map on the article above shows how absurd China claims the entire area that Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines has nothing left but a mere space to anchor its fishing boats. 

Chinese claim is based on History but as freefallingbob said "And WHOSE fault is it that you Chinese NEVER discovered or conquered a single Japanese or Austronesian island WHEN The only boat type which China ever invented and used was the so-called “junk”, and never evolved, Which is rather strange, since the first “ironclad” battleship in the World, the iron-covered “Kobukson”, was already invented by the Koreans and sent against the Japanese fleet in A.D. 1592 ! China has always been a Continental Power, not a maritime power". It was just now that they have become a maritime power is Asia and starts grabbing islands. 

@freefallingbomb, you should work on the Defense Dept.

Just because Chinese have military and economic might right now doesn't mean it's right to grab islands within 200 Economic Zones of your neighbors. 

U.S. and China has interest on those islands for plain and simple reason, Oil. Reason enough for any country to go to war.

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

To the poster “Abajay Co”

You wrote: “@freefallingbomb, you should work on the Defense Dept.”

I have a handicap: I'm honest.

I would never be a good politician.

James Eward
James Eward

Vietnam has been tried too hard to bring other countries to be involved in the south china sea against China.  For example, Vietnam has invited three old firms. 1) from the U.S. 2) from the Russia, and 3) from the India. Vietnam hopes that three of those men will be its security umbrella.   

theonlygreat
theonlygreat

China is going on the same path as the japanese and germans did back in WW2 and we all know how that ended up it is not yet too late for the chinese people to wake up ! china is in dispute with almost all theirs neighbors except maybe North korea . that just only say one thing and you go figure it out !

thisistheotherjess
thisistheotherjess

This whole "China claims...virtually all of the South China Sea" shtick has become cliché. Even if you exclude the Gulf of Thailand as part of the South China Sea, the sea still extends westward to the coast of Peninsular Malaysia and southward to Singapore. I mean, really, pick up an atlas once in a while.

John Lone
John Lone

We should give and assist whatever the Filippinos and Vietnamese need to take care these CHITCOM and not getting our hands and feets dirty. China is very greedy, reckless, irrational, and erratic country. If we don't help others to deal these chinese now then we will have to face these same chinese later.

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

 Guess what: A few hours ago I said exactly the same and “Battleland” immediately deleted my post.

Did China invest in U.S. media corporations lately, or is “Kirk Spitzer” just a pseudonym for Li Cheong Wang?

Bobserver
Bobserver

You forget that Vietnam has a land border with China and that has been quiet since the Vietnamese made concessions.  The sea boundaries are a separate issue that was stirred up by Vietnam seizing and holding 24 Chinese fishing vessels and issuing oil licences in contested waters.  All this because Vietname thinks that their communist government can link up with the USA against the bigger communist state to the north.  I don't think that too many Americans will see it your way. 

As for the Philippines attempting to seize a few fishing boats last month in the Scarborough Shoal which wasn't even given to the Philippines by the USA at the former's independence.  The Chinese are claiming it as their land while the Philippines are trying to claim it's their waters under UNCLOS.  The USA hasn't ratified UNCLOS.  The USA has also so far has stayed out of what is actually a much more complicated set of cross-claims in the S. China Sea involving several countries of ASEAN, China and Taiwan.

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

 To the poster “Bobserver”

You wrote: “ (...) Vietnam thinks that their communist government can link up with the USA against the bigger communist state to the north. I don't think that too many Americans will see it your way.”

True. Judging by the speed with which the U.S.A. abandon Capitalistic Taiwan to its fate I wonder who else in the region can ever rely on U.S. “loyalty”...

John Lone
John Lone

I am agreed with my friend, if the security in Asia Pacific turn from bad to worse then Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam have to take matters into their own hands. How America feel Japan turn into a Nulcear weapons state? because we turn blind eyes in face of chinese aggression.  BTW, I am not agreed with you "Bobserver". We do help them (Filippinos, Vietnamsese) but the timing and spacing is too slow... 

china_rules
china_rules

it's time China send its navy to kick some a s s

Ernesto Icogo
Ernesto Icogo

All your comments mean nothing ... All these things will turn to ashes with the way things are going ... Warfares, nowadays, are nukes and do you think one will let himself be outdone by the other? ... It's a holocaust and there is no escape ...

While China is talking and using the media with the propaganda, the Allies are already starting a massive military build-up and someone, just someone will start the strike and that's it, a deafening silence will follow.

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

 A global nuclear Apocalypse over local trawling rights? Wow, helluva influence the Chinese fishermen's lobbyists must have in Beijing!

Alex Wijaya
Alex Wijaya

For a nation that didn't sign up the UNCLOS treaty, it is "weird" the US care so much about the UNCLOS, especially since it is not even an involved party. 

Tam Do
Tam Do

 U.S is tired of taking care of the world. It is about time to take care of her sons and daughters.

Twan Tran
Twan Tran

For a country that signed UNCLOS treaty, China is using it as a butt wipe.

beowulf20
beowulf20

@facebook-1661030663:disqus 

I agree, at least when the US starts talkinking about maritime territorial issues they won't be a complete hippocrite considering they didn't sign the UNCLOS treaty compared to China signing the treaty.

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

China's claim to every country's Z.E.E. in the South China Sea is just BAT-CRAZY , and when I write “bat-crazy” I really mean “bat-crazy” as on a Kim-Jong-un- or Gaddafi- or Mussolini-level.

Just look at this crystal-clear presentation of China's maritime ambitions:

http://southchinaseastudies.or...

All of this preposterously claimed ocean surface (sometimes over nothing but fishing rights!) is obviously the closest, adjacent country's internationally recognized Z.E.E.: There is hardly even any free, international water left between all their well-defined Z.E.E.s, yet the Chinese pretend to have all foreign Z.E.E.s for themselves, foreign sea BOTTOMS included (for drilling) ! This is also extremely short-sighted, self-defeating Geo-Strategy: Not only does rich China forfeit the chance to surround itself with lots of sympathetic, humble neighbours of common heritage ( = any Super-Power's natural “backyard” = a bulwark against distant hostiles), with this extremely primitive behaviour China also disqualifies itself from ever becoming a GLOBALLY respected giant = a non-belligerent, predictable, trustworthy referee, like Russia is slowly morphing into today. This is a pity, the World badly needs more alternatives to the imploding, corrupt, conscience-less, psychopathic U.S.A. . The Chinese philosopher Lao-Tsu once taught: “He who turns down what's near will attain what's distant”, but the Chinese clearly aren't practicing what they preach to others. So, in regard to the South China dispute, any help from the U.S.A. isn't just another Fascist invasion or subversion abroad (like Syria), but a perfectly legitimate support for several free, bullied peoples. By mere coincidence.

Still, why do the U.S.A. feel mysteriously compelled to get up from the chair and to get directly, physically involved in their distant allies' military defense, for example by returning to the Philippines and to Vietnam and by creating rifts over naval manoeuvres and reconnaissance flights, etc., etc.? Why not catch two, three or even four birds with the same stone, just by making a few, sensible PEN STROKES back at home, not more??

For example, what's wrong with this alternative, profitable, deterrent and 100 % risk-free plan:

1) Declassify the literally breathtaking F-22 as a “vital” national secret (as you should have done with the F-15s, and from 1976 on, as a global replacement for absolutely all F-4 “Phantoms” everywhere), reopen its production line and sell HUNDREDS of F-22s to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand and other important, cash-rich, interested allies in a belt around China, and to all your defrauded F-35 customers in the West, too – maybe even to the U.S. Airforce. That should finally ram a stick through the hopelessly aborted F-35 program, too... all the while saving your face. Tip: Until you found the F-22s' O.B.O.G.S. defect, install some absolutely traditional oxygen bottles in them. They will enable F-22 pilots to fly in a formation with Chinese J-20 pilots.

2) Same with SM-3s, SM-2s and “Patriot” anti-everything missiles: Emergency mass-production + swift export (conventionally-tipped “Pershing” IIs and G.L.C.M. cruise missiles, too, à la Cold War in Europe...? Why not?!),

3) license-build Swedish, A.I.P.-driven A26- or older “Gotland”-class submarines for all your South Eastern allies and for the U.S. Navy, too. Just get over your mental dependency and that almost idolatrous, ridiculous veneration of SSN-fixated Admiral Rickover already: That long dead, buried and decomposed mummy never got a single chance in life to prove its megalomaniacal theories,

4) same with the modular, multi-purpose European “MEKO” frigates or the specialized, British Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates. Your South East Asian allies and the U.S. Navy could well need a few dozens of these brilliant yet affordable designs (technology transfer, skilled workforce retention, economies of scale, local economies amp; elections, standardization, mutual use, yada yada...),

5) broaden A.S.E.A.N. (today a purely economic pact) to include Defense and teach its members how to coordinate their armed forces and all that sophisticated, new gear all by themselves = entirely without U.S. advice one day.

Such a plan, whether completely executed or just announced, would turn the tables in the South China Sea almost comically during the next 30 years, and at the same time it wouldn't even burden the U.S. Defense budget with a single additional soldier wage or veteran benefit, expose a single U.S. grunt to any health risk or even have him move one foot to the West, closer to China. On the opposite: Such truly game-changing FOREIGN arms deals ( = NO U.S. tax dollars spent on them!) would make belt-tightening U.S. arms companies drag cash bags to the banks and create thousands of jobs at home, etc.!

I find it twofold irresponsible that the U.S.A. deploy a “defensive missile shield” around Russia, allegedly against Iranian medium-range missiles (which are completely non-existent, or out-of-range, and entirely conventional), while neglecting the extremely real Chinese and Nork missile threats to all its South East Asian allies, and even prefer to jump into the fire line instead – without any need for that! Out of only two simple options, you U.S. Americans never get one right. That's why you're in the hole you are right now. And your last all-out war in your History, against China (over Vietnamese trawling rights) hasn't even broken out yet...

funnyboy911
funnyboy911

talking about bankrupting each other. 

Ed Lazar
Ed Lazar

I'm a recent USS submarine fan and have been reading some books about our country's supremacy over the world.  Tom Clancey's novel SSN is a must read.  It's a stroy of exactly what's going on with China.  China has no chance in winng this.  Their "superpower' subs were bought from the Russians, 1980's vintage.  They are noisy and our tropedos can nail then 40 miles away.  Oue battle in the China sea is a none issue.  GO GET'EM USSN's.  Also another great sub novel is "Blind Man's Bluff". Awesome.  US subs are so advanced, nothing can touch them or hear them. They are totally silent. The Chinese will soon find that out. Same goes ffor Iran and any other hotshot country.

mlamachine
mlamachine

I agree with you on this issue...i've worked on lots of U.S. submarines when i was in the U.S. Navy and stationed at Charleston,SC aboard the U.S.S. ORION.If they were so advance then,i could only imagine the new technologies that have been improved and constantly improving about our submarines.MORE POWER TO U.S. SUBMARINES!

Daniel Alvin
Daniel Alvin

There is a saying that empty vessel sounds much. Here are few who know very little or know something from few American Trash books like Tom Clancey's novel SSN and then feel that US having the best things. Before going further I suggest look at the following link a nice review of the American strength by a very sane American. http://www.godlikeproductions....

Further read about Russian anti submarine cruise missiles.

3M-54 Klub - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Americans must think something beyond ships and submarines which are floating graveyards

Daniel Alvin
Daniel Alvin

Empty vessel sounds much there is a saying. When you don't know much about the war scenario and lethal weapons available with other countries, its better to shut up. Tom Clancey's novel SSN is nothing but scrap and is read by insane minds with coke and chips in their hands.  Go through this link written by a sane American and revert back only if understood this.

http://www.godlikeproductions....

Soviet / Russian

SS-N-14

SS-N-16

SS-N-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

Yo submarine fan, the U.S. Navy's main dish are SURFACE warships and the Chinese already have a magic bullet against them. It is even so effective that it might leave no other option to the U.S.A. than nuking China in retaliation, which is something that the U.S.A. still seem to resist doing.

But only because they're so proud of their big, doomed warships, for absolutely no other reason.

Mekhong Kurt
Mekhong Kurt

ffb -- whatever you are ethnically, your comment "It is even so effective that it might leave no other option to the U.S.A. than nuking China in retaliation" caused me first to roaring with laughter and rolling my eyes then, once I got past that, the come suspicious you *are* a trusted worker at China's Ministry of Propaganda. Even the OLD MEN OF ZHONG NAN HAI have suggested to the contrary.

bejeebuss -- get your head out.

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

To the poster “Mekhong Kurt”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wrote: “whatever you are ethnically”

I'm White.

And you, what would you like to be if you weren't U.S. American?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wrote: “(...) your comment 'It is even so effective that it might leave no other option to the U.S.A. than nuking China in retaliation' caused me first to roaring with laughter and rolling my eyes”

You may not be the only one: I'm sure if a Chinese and a Japanese were sitting side by side and reading your reply together, they would only look at each other and smirk for half a hour. Like improbable accomplices. (And in fact: Japan got nuked in retaliation 67 years ago, as I said. Even twice)

Once I got past that, let me remind you that the last U.S. Administration – though not in the person of the White House Speaker himself – threatened REPEATEDLY that if Iraq (in 2003) or Iran (in the future) ever managed to sink a single U.S. aircraft carrier, they would resort to nukes. Soo, are YOU reassuring us now the U.S. will react more conventionally if the fatal missiles or torpedoes are Chinese?

Mention of tactical nukes still arises occasionally during discussions about raids on Iran's inaccessibly deep nuclear research labs, too.

I've even heard the same COWARDICE AND LUNACY about nuclear retaliation against whole countries that launch a single, successful “cyber”-attack against the U.S.A. ! (I've got links)

Now compare that to China's surprisingly noble nuclear posture (no kidding!) : Of all the five nuclear weapons states, China is the ONLY ONE to give a formal, written security assurance to ALL non-nuclear-weapon states that... (quote)

“China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Shame on you, U.S. American... Go hide your “sophisticated, invincible” Navy behind a big pile of nukes.

So much only about different Super-Powers' thresholds to nuclear war. But does any of this really strike you as “news” ? Then you mustn't read many.

In relation to nuclear strikes against China, not from China: True, their own collection of underwater nukes may make you reconsider a strategic – or even just one mini-mini-tactical – nuclear first strike. You think you constantly know where they're hidden? But the killer always shoots first.

Trouble is: Even if the Chinese vowed to and actually stuck exclusively to conventional weapons against U.S. targets, pray hard that all those conventionally-tipped (or even inert) Chinese DF-21 “carrier-killer” missiles strike their intended U.S. carriers as far away as possible from their large nuclear engines amp; cooling systems, which also happen to occupy these ships' entire centers... Otherwise it will look like the first nuclear strike again, and then goodbye.

Given the U.S.' rightful or wrongful interference in the brewing, major South China Sea conflict, I would say that in the near future your whole existence depends only on the diplomatic skills of a Chinese trawler captain. Keep roaring with laughter. At him.

delpillar
delpillar

The sunburn missile can be accurate within 100 miles (based from demonstration.

The Tomahawk can be launched 1,400 miles away with 99% accuracy, based on actual combat.

The battle field of this century is not on the effectiveness of one single deadly missile like Sunburn. It is the digital console, integrated digital battle field system common to all platform from submarine, aircraft, helicopters, space-based systems and that is where the US is ahead of everybody. The secret space ship of the US just returned on earth after 460 days into orbit mapping all military satellites of Russia and China. It is very easy to kill satellite by ground based missile if you know where are they orbiting.

Newer UAV that can be launched from US warships are in development that can loiter in the air for several days covering a protection for the US Battle Carrier group with a radius of thousand miles. Sunburn is very deadly if they can go closer to the Battle Carrier Group

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

 I wasn't even thinking about the “Sunburns” (but still: Thanks for reminding me of those!) ...

1) China also has MOBILE-based, ballistic, medium-range, high-hypersonic Dong-Feng 21 missiles, mysteriously labelled “carrier killers”. They fly 2.700 km far and have maneuverable warheads and decoys to fool and dodge defending radars, missiles and C.I.W.S. (imagine an Aegis system fending off a whole barrage of real and fake, high-hypersonic, zig-zagging warheads!).

The combat radius of the carrier-borne F/A-18E/F “Super Hornets” is only 722 km, so wave goodbye to Taiwan and to many U.S. bases in the Pacific, too.

To date, only 19 – 50 of these carrier-killing missiles have been deployed. If the U.S. Navy moves all its 11 aircraft carriers “within effective range” of China, that still makes 1,7 x – 4,5 x DF-21 missiles per hard-to-miss aircraft carrier (and they say a single top-down hit will do).

2) China has stealthy J-20s. With a combat range of 2.000 km, these fly and fight 2,77 x times farther than the F-18s, too, and U.S. aircraft carriers don't even have any stealth planes to counter them. That's why the most rational thing that all airborne F-18s can do when they hear that a J-20 is heading their way is to fly with afterburners on to the nearest friendly land base and forget about defending their own carrier group. They'll be the lucky ones...

3) China has 13 x STEALTHY multi-rôle frigates and 83 x STEALTHY missile speedboats, too (wave-piercing catamarans of the Type 022 “Houbei”-class). That's a total of 96 x STEALTHY warships.

The U.S. Navy had only one fully stealthy, experimental, bizarre-looking, unarmed ship prototype called “Sea Shadow” – and sold it as scrap iron.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroo...

http://www.afcea.org/signal/ar...

Excerpts of the first article:

“Ten years ago, the U.S. Navy set about building a new class of small, cheap, numerous Littoral Combat Ships meant to dominate dangerous coastal waters. But after a decade of politics and design-by-committee, the LCS has turned out to be anything but small, cheap and numerous. LCS is the 'wrong ship at the wrong time', retired Navy Cmdr. John Patch wrote.

(...)

On the other side of the Pacific, the Navy’s biggest maritime rival, faced with the same requirement for small, cheap, numerous ships, quickly produced exactly that. The result is the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s triple-hull Type 022 missile boat, a 'thoroughbred ship-killer', according to Patch.

(...)

Eighty-three Type 022s firing more than 640 anti-ship missiles in quick salvos represent a 'serious cause for concern', according to retired Navy Cmdr. George Root.

(...)

One thing is indisputable. The Type 022 is 'a potential success story on how to field small combatants', Patch wrote. Its merits in combat remain to be seen, but at least the ship exists to perform a combat role. The same cannot be said of the huge fleet of LCSs the U.S. Navy thought it would have by now.

In just seven years, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy has built 83 of the 400-ton Type 022s at an estimated cost of $40 million per ship. And production continues at a high rate in several shipyards.

The U.S. Navy, by comparison, has finished just two LCS in the same span of time, each at a cost of more than $600 million.

The Chinese ships sport eight anti-ship missiles apiece plus defensive guns and surface-to-air missiles.

The American vessels, lightly armed in their own right, are designed to accommodate 'plug-and-play' weapons kits, none of which are complete.

(...)

For China, that reality cuts both ways. Considering China’s limited anti-submarine skills and equipment, 'U.S. submarines can currently operate freely in Chinese coastal waters', according to MIT analyst Owen Cote, Jr. But with more and more advanced jet fighters and surface-to-air missiles entering Chinese service, the United States cannot take for granted that its own aircraft can operate safely near the Chinese coast. Nor could the LCS take on the Type 022 in direct combat and count on winning. The LCS lacks major air defenses and cannot, on its own, defend against large numbers of incoming missiles. Similarly, the U.S. vessel does not carry long-range anti-ship missiles for use against craft like the Type 022.

(…)

In wartime, the Type 022s would likely prowl China’s coastal zone as far afield as the Philippine Sea, unleashing missile barrages against American aircraft carriers and their escorting destroyers.

LCS, meanwhile, would be trawling for enemy mines and submarines under the defensive umbrella of nearby destroyers and carriers — maybe. Truth is, no one has quite figured out what LCS is really for.

In any event, what really matters is that Beijing set out to build a large number of small warships, quickly and at low cost — and succeeded. Washington tried the same thing, and failed, big-time.

The dictatorial Chinese government and its command economy are ideally suited to building simple weapons in bulk, albeit at the risk of poor quality control. But that’s not the only explanation for China’s small-ship-building success. The biggest reason is that China started with a requirement for a small ship, and stuck to it. The U.S. Navy allowed its undisciplined design committees to gradually corrupt and complicate the original concept for the LCS, undermining any hope of building ships cheap or fast. That would probably come as no surprise to Dan Ward, an Air Force officer and advocate of building smaller weapons, faster. 'I think the real culprit is our fascination with complexity, viewing it as a sign of sophistication', said Ward. China apparently does not share the same fascination.

That’s the real reason Beijing has the coastal warship fleet America only wishes it had.”

(End of excerpts)

A quick war simulation (as realistic – or even very optimistic... – as possible) :

a) If only 5 % of these stealthy, CHEAP Chinese missile speedboats survive long enough to fire all their missiles at the U.S. Navy, that's still 4 speedboats firing off their 32 (combined) anti-ship missiles.

b) If these 32 x Chinese anti-ship missiles hit and sink only 10 x U.S. Navy warships, then they caused already more material damage than the production cost of that entire 83-missile-boat-fleet together, because 83 speedboats x 40 million $ apiece = 3,32 billion $ , and no single, ocean-going U.S. warship costs only 332 million $ (= one tenth of the price of the Chinese speedboat fleet).

c) Comparison of casualties: Each stealthy, Chinese missile speedboat has a crew of only 12 sailors.

All 83 x speedboats together have a crew of (83 x 12 =) 996.

But how many U.S. warships have a crew of only 96 sailors on board (= one tenth of that number) ? For the Chinese it will have paid off again!

Since the most common (= the “average”) U.S. Navy warship is an “Arleigh Burke”-class destroyer, which costs 1,843 billion $ APIECE and has a crew of 303 sailors on board, I give you now a more definitive comparison of losses:

CHINA LOSES:

– 83 x stealthy, cheap missile speedboats

– worth 3,32 billion $

– with 996 sailors on them.

U.S.A. LOSES:

– 10 x “Arleigh Burke”-class destroyers

– worth 18,43 billion $ (that's 5,5 x times more than the cost of China's entire speedboat fleet!)

– with 3.030 sailors on them (that's 3 x times more than all the dead Chinese speedboat sailors)

And last time I heard, China has reserves of dollars and manpower.

4) China bought and license-built, and even improved, ~ 1.600 Russian-designed S-300 anti-aircraft missiles (the very ones which could protect Iran forever from U.S. attack). These can also be used as anti-ballistic missiles and as anti-cruise missiles.

5) Best of all: In 1998 Russia sold China 40 x (conventionally-tipped) “Shkval-E” carrier-killing hyper-speed torpedoes...

Therefore, since China's Navy will hit every red button in case of war together, this is the fact sheet of “Wikipedia”'s article about the U.S. Navy in the year 2020 :

U.S. Navy

Active

1775 – 1790

1797 – 2012

2013 – present

dec101
dec101

The South China See prblems have existed for decades and have been kepted relatively quite.  US made a calculated move to stirup the issue in order to contain China.  There is no freedom of navigation issue, as long as US leave the area along.

Imran Pangilinan
Imran Pangilinan

LOL CHINA SENT A WARSHIP TO THE PHILIPPINES ONLY 60 MILES FROM PALAWAN

vstillwell
vstillwell

It's nice to see that we are footing the bill to keep the South China Sea open. We've spent trillions to keep the Gulf open so the world can have oil. Why not spend a few more trillion to keep Asia growing. 

Abajay Co
Abajay Co

IT's NOT keeping South China Sea OPEN @umbass! It's the Oil!! It has always been Oil! If to choose between two evils, I'd like to be in the U.S. side.

davideconnollyjr
davideconnollyjr

China wants to deal with each of the claimants on a case by case basis so they can strong arm and short change them. In the case of Vietnam, China has clearly breached Vietnam's exclusive economic zone in violation of international maritime law. This entire case of the South China Sea should be referred to an international court for arbitration; but many nations -- including the United States -- have resisted empowering an international court for fear of losing sovereignty. Empowering China economically was a shortsighted thing for the world to have done; we should have traded more evenly and brought up the smaller nations which are struggling against the land and water grabbing communist state. No misunderstandings should be harbored concerning China -- they do not respect other cultures -- the Tibetan people, Uyghurs, and Mongolians have been systematically displaced and their land taken from them by the majority Han people through an ongoing, officially sponsored program by the Chinese state government. How much less the Chinese must think of everyone not from the mainland!

duduong
duduong

The US owns thousands of islands around the world. Over half of them are closer to China than to the US mainland. Should we also send the cases to international arbitration?

Virtually all of the US-owned islands were acquired using gun boats.

The funniest part of these closet racists' (including Hilary) argument is the insistence on arbitration, given that there is NO international arbitration mechanism in place for disputes over ownership of islands. The UN does have a court that deals with overlapping territorial waters, but it has no jurisdiction over any dry land, no matter how small it is. Furthermore, the US refuses to recognize this court, just like it refuses to submit to the international war crime court. Now, for the US Secretary of State or any of its citizens to advocate arbitration under this court is simply surreal; either they are stupid (and I don't think that is the case with Hilary) or they think their audience is.

Compare these hypocrites' willingness to go international to their opinion on American own foreign adventures, one cannot help but be amazed by their shamelessness, not to mention idiocy.

IAF101
IAF101

ALL US posessions have a LEGAL basis that FAR FAR more credible than 9-dashed lines on a map nobody knew existed till China pulled it out in 1970. 

Unlike Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, etc the Sparty, Parcel, Senkaku islands are ALL contested by other powers and furthermore have no native populations. 

Even Guantanamo Bay has more legal basis than the Chinese claim over the South China sea islands. Unlike the US, China never won, bought, sold or traded for these islands. Neither have any of these island's populations "volunteered" to join the PRC. 

To claim all chinese "historical" holdings as being a part of the PRC is laughable when even Taiwan contests PRC legitimacy over it. 

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

 To the poster “duduong”

You wrote: “The US owns thousands of islands around the world. Over half of them are closer to China than to the US mainland. Should we also send the cases to international arbitration?”

It's true that the presence of the U.S.A. on Hawaii is completely illegal and should immediately be prosecuted, punished and terminated by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, if necessary by force. I say the same also of the ongoing presence of palefaces of European ascendancy in the Indian hunting grounds. But you Chinese have no claim to any rock, reef or palm in the Pacific Ocean either. Just tell me ONE SINGLE “historical fact” that proves that any of those tiny, disputed islands in the South China Sea EVER WAS LEGITIMATELY Chinese – let alone that it was always inhabitated by you Chinese! (Any ruins or archaeological artifacts that prove it...?)

China has been an Empire since ~ 1.700 B.C. (that's ~ 3.712 years ago), and the first vestiges of human activity there even date back 2,24 million years ago.

That's

– 4.307 x times older than the discovery of America (the continent) in A.D. 1492,

and even

– 9.491 x times older than the independence of America (the country) in A.D. 1776.

But during all this time China was ALWAYS a CONTINENTAL power, NEVER a MARITIME power!

Still is!!!

One example: As late as A.D. 1887 the Chinese Emperor Guangxu (alias: His concubine Cixi – but that's another story) still had to ask a tiny, measly European nation of wretched sailors (= from the other side of the World!) to protect your fishermen from local pirates because your Empire STILL didn't have a single warship! The only boat type which China ever invented was the so-called “junk” [ 廢物 ] from 206 B.C. – A.D. 220, and it never evolved, nor was it truly ocean-going, with a few unconfirmed exceptions, only for navigation on rivers and coastal waters. (Which is rather strange, since the first “ironclad” battleship in the World, the iron-covered “Kobukson”, was already invented by the Koreans and sent against the Japanese fleet in A.D. 1592 !)

http://navy.memorieshop.com/Ko...

And WHOSE fault is it that you Chinese NEVER discovered or conquered a single Japanese, Philippine, Indonesian or Polynesian island etc. in the WHOLE Pacific Ocean during all these millenia, or even during all these millions of years? Is this an attempt to hastily rewrite your History before the next National People's Congress meeting? Good luck with that.

Tam Do
Tam Do

The younger communist chineses , even to one with high education,they hesitate to accept the truth about the world has changed. They continue to alter the historical facts in order to take resources and ignore human rights. They do a very good copy cat job.

omegafrontier
omegafrontier

What is idiocy is your failure to recognize that China bridged into economic zone of another country.  I see that you're trying to divert the conversation to the American so you won't have to defend China's action.  I understand.  It would be hard to defend such a hostile act.

Also, virtually all of China's territory was acquired through wars and conquest of smaller states.  I mean really, if you want to play the who is more evil game, we both can play.  What is hypocrite is you attack others but fail to see that your country has done exactly what you're accusing.

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

 Actually he's not an idiot, he's even cleverer than you. His (and China's) reasoning is: You need to claim that these scattered islands belong to you to also have ownership of the E.E.Z.s around them...

wangel06
wangel06

US owned islands and territories were acquired through purchases and treaties .  China did not sign any treaty to claim the islands they are claiming in SE asia.

freefallingbomb
freefallingbomb

 To the poster “wangel06”

You wrote: “US owned islands and territories were acquired through purchases and treaties.”

Means nothing. “israel” was also acquired through “purchases and treaties”, yet last time I looked it didn't exist.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,107 other followers