U.S. says will be consequences for China's South China Sea militarization

[webfact]

U.S. says will be consequences for China's South China Sea militarization

By David Brunnstrom and Idrees Ali

 

FILE PHOTO: Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Fiery Cross Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in this still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft provided by the United States Navy May 21, 2015. U.S. Navy/Handout via Reuters/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has raised concerns with China about its latest militarization of the South China Sea and there will be near-term and long-term consequences, the White House said on Thursday.

 

U.S. news network CNBC reported on Wednesday that China had installed anti-ship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems on three outposts in the South China Sea. It cited sources with direct knowledge of U.S. intelligence.

 

Asked about the report, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told a regular news briefing: "We’re well aware of China’s militarization of the South China Sea. We’ve raised concerns directly with the Chinese about this and there will be near-term and long-term consequences."

 

Sanders did not say what the consequences might be.

 

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. intelligence had seen some signs that China had moved some weapons systems to the Spratly Islands in the past month or so, but offered no details.

 

CNBC quoted unnamed sources as saying that according to U.S. intelligence assessments, the missiles were moved to Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef and Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands within the past 30 days.

 

They would be the first Chinese missile deployments in the Spratlys, where several Asian countries including Vietnam and Taiwan have rival claims.

 

China's defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment. Its foreign ministry said China has irrefutable sovereignty over the Spratlys and that necessary defensive deployments were for national security needs and not aimed at any country.

 

"Those who do not intend to be aggressive have no need to be worried or scared," ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.

 

CNBC said the YJ-12B anti-ship cruise missiles allowed China to strike vessels within 295 nautical miles. It said the HQ-9B long-range, surface-to-air missiles could target aircraft, drones and cruise missiles within 160 nautical miles.

 

Eric Sayers, a former consultant to the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, called the missile deployment "a major escalation" and said one immediate U.S. response could be to rescind Beijing's invitation to this year's RIMPAC multilateral naval exercises beginning in Hawaii in July.

 

"When China sees that it can get away with these types of actions with little cost - as they did all through 2015 and 2016 - it only makes it more likely they will keep pressing," said Sayers, currently an adjunct fellow at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies.

 

"China sees its participation in the exercise as a sign of its acceptance among the world's maritime powers but Beijing should not be allowed to militarize this open maritime domain and still be honoured as a welcomed member of the maritime community."

 

Last month, U.S. Admiral Philip Davidson, nominated to head U.S. Pacific Command, said China could use its "forward operating bases" in the South China Sea to challenge the U.S. regional presence and "would easily overwhelm the military forces of any other South China Sea claimants."

 

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom, Idrees Ali and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-04

[Enoon]

 

" there will be near-term and long-term consequences."

 

One of which is that history will say:

 

"Why didn't somebody do something to stop them before they got so far.....before they had completed their island fortresses, before they became so confident, so powerful?"

 

The Chinese plan grinds slowly forward.....on schedule, on target.....ever onwards.

 

No surprise attacks, no set-piece battles, no smart weapons. 

 

China is winning the "War of the Snail".

 

Words are as cheap as the wind.

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Enoon

[mikebike]

In other news, the ROTW hopes the USA can start minding its home business and stop playing world police.

[Jdiddy]

This is coming from a country that has 800 military bases abroad and a massive lethal navy that roams the seas bullying anything that steps out of line

[PhonThong]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

In other news, the ROTW hopes the USA can start minding its home business and stop playing world police.

The U.S. has the least to lose if China takes full control of the SCS. If China is able to take full control of the SCS and the islands in dispute.

China would be able to collect tariffs on trade going through the region.  Asian countries would be hit the hardest on tariffs.

But the U.S. Navy helps ensure that free trade and travel can pass through the area that is in dispute.  Saying the U.S. should mind its own business is like saying, " I wish I could pay a lot more for the goods being shipped through the SCS area". Because that is likely what's going to happen. It is also not only the U.S. that patrols this area. Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, all have a stake in this.

 

Exports Through the SCS (billions)

Top ten exporters

China$874

South Korea$249

Singapore$214

Thailand$170

Vietnam$158

Japan$141

Hong Kong$140

Indonesia$121

Germany$117

Malaysia

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, PhonThong said:

The U.S. has the least to lose if China takes full control of the SCS. If China is able to take full control of the SCS and the islands in dispute.

China would be able to collect tariffs on trade going through the region.  Asian countries would be hit the hardest on tariffs.

But the U.S. Navy helps ensure that free trade and travel can pass through the area that is in dispute.  Saying the U.S. should mind its own business is like saying, " I wish I could pay a lot more for the goods being shipped through the SCS area". Because that is likely what's going to happen. It is also not only the U.S. that patrols this area. Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, all have a stake in this.

 

Exports Through the SCS (billions)

Top ten exporters

China$874

South Korea$249

Singapore$214

Thailand$170

Vietnam$158

Japan$141

Hong Kong$140

Indonesia$121

Germany$117

Malaysia

A silly and ridiculous post.

Yes, the South China Sea has a huge amount of trade going through it, but most of that trade is actually carrying goods to and from China.

Yes, ships involving goods from Thailand and Vietnam are heavily involved in the SCS area. These are ships doing trade wth China. Please note that Thailand and Vietnam do a lot of trade with China. And Australia is exporting a mountain of coal and iron ore to China, using ships, are we concerned about China taxing or blocking this trade ? That's absurd.

Also, Britain and the rest of the EU is importing a huge amount of cheap Chinese goods. Are we concerned that China might take over the South China Sea and tax and disrupt the ships carrying cheap Chinese goods to Europe ? Again, it's absurd.

And China is not interested in blocking South Korean and Japanese cargo ships in the SCS. If China does, America is welcome to sort out the Chinese military ships.


I will say this. There are a lot of cheap Chinese goods in Britain's shops. The cheap Chinese goods, they got here, via the South China Sea. Who wants to partially block the South China Sea ? I want to know, who wants to block the cheap Chinese goods flowing from China to England ? Whoever wants to block it, don't do it. I want to see Britain continue to have cheap Chinese goods in the retailers. Anybody on planet earth who wants to block the cheap Chinese goods flowing to England, via the South China Sea, do not do it, you will be sorry if you try. Don't forget, Britain was one of the five nations who won World War Two. That's why Britain is one of the five permenant members of the United Nations Security Council.  America, Russia, France and China are also on that Security Council.

Edited May 4, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[zydeco]

The free world needs to embargo China the same way Japan was embargoed in the 1930s

[Expatthailover]

'I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down'.

Sarah sanders must be a bag of nerves not knowing what hogwash she has to spout on behalf of her halfwit boss. That he'll change his mind a few weeks later after sacking the advisers that asked her to spout the bilge she does must be disconcertng

[the guest]

2 hours ago, zydeco said:

The free world needs to embargo China the same way Japan was embargoed in the 1930s

Really? and how will the west make cheap goods to support it's failing economy? Most of the factories are closed, and the skills gone with the wind.

[zydeco]

11 hours ago, the guest said:

Really? and how will the west make cheap goods to support it's failing economy? Most of the factories are closed, and the skills gone with the wind.

Yes, I realize that reducing the amount of cheap consumer goods coming from China will cause some discomfort to American buyers with low incomes and might even hurt some businesses. But the "skills" to manufacture are easily learned--and AI will replace most humans soon anyway.  And whatever discomfort we all may suffer now (maybe a new big screen TV every four years instead of every two, a new smartphone every two years instead of every year, etc), will be well worth it if it means avoiding domination from a totalitarian China or all out war that kills tens of millions.

[Expatthailover]

47 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Yes, I realize that reducing the amount of cheap consumer goods coming from China will cause some discomfort to American buyers with low incomes and might even hurt some businesses. But the "skills" to manufacture are easily learned--and AI will replace most humans soon anyway.  And whatever discomfort we all may suffer now (maybe a new big screen TV every four years instead of every two, a new smartphone every two years instead of every year, etc), will be well worth it if it means avoiding domination from a totalitarian China or all out war that kills tens of millions.

..all out war killing 10's of millions..

linked to being able to access cheap chinese manufactured goods????

Hyperbole on steroids