Publicus Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I would feel more confident of America's bravado in regards to responding to threats from China if the US had actually won a military operation since WW2. China has sat back with their feet up watching USA blow $3 Trillion in the Middle East getting nowhere. The smart money would have to be on China winning this little skirmish. Last war China won the past 500 years was the civil war which was anyway going to be won by the Chinese They certainly didn't win the Korean Conflict, got their <deleted> kicked in Vietnam by Vietnam in 1979, lost World War 2, got routed in World War I, got clobbered in the Sino-Japanese War, lost to the Brits the whole of the entire 19th century, and now they have a PLA this that and the other thing commanded by CCP party hack generals and admirals appointed entirely on the basis of political and ideological loyalty and purity. Purity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 You know it is always mind blowing to read some of the tripe that issues out here regards the USA and war with someone. There are far too many here watching way too much CNBC and WW2 movies. For those of us who actually were participants in the last Soviet MAD games and have kept up with developments it is clear the last thing the USA can afford is a nuclear exchange of any kind. It should be known that the next war will not be fought on some foreign shore but in your back yard, live and in living color. Anyone who was trained in this will explain how vulnerable USA is to this. A simple nuclear detonation of several kilotons at 300 to 500,000 feet AGL will result in a 3 spike EMP burst that will effectively cripple most of the USA. According to Senate & DOD EMP Commission the result of such a strike would result in the deaths of up to 90% of the entire population in 12 months. Hey, that is how it reads. I don't know if I agree with that number but it will be a sh#tload of them. No power, no fuel, food or water distribution, no emergency services no communications. Alarmist. Yep, agreed damn right I am very alarmed they have allowed such a situation to exist given we stood toe to toe with Ivan for 70 years over this very matter. Does not seem there was much point to that now. For those you gungho types you may wanna talk to family members back there and see if they still as keen as you given this situation. Just saying. Just for the record, the war plan of the United States is to absorb an initial attack of the worst weapons in existence or imaginable, such as nuclear, biological, chemical etc then to launch aggressively deep and inclusively into the enemy's homeland an Aero-Space-Sea-Undersea massive assault of missiles, stealth bombers, lasers, satellite weapons, undersea boomer nuclear submarines, cyberwarfare, electromagnetic offense and more to anihilate the enemy. Don't think for a moment the United States military does not know what weapons there are in the world, what they do or do not do, what we have and how we use what we have. The most recent warfare technology is A2-AD which is Anti-Access and Area Denial which was initiated by the CCP China to deny the USA the ability to attack it by using hi-tech weaponry to prevent US weapons to access targets in the CCP China. The US response officially adopted in 2010 is the Doctrine of Air-Sea Battle, which is the shorthand of what I described. Even some US generals and admirals say ASB is too aggressive and destructive to use fully and completely cause it won't leave anyone standing in the enemy country it's used against, namely the CCP China, Russia, Iran which are the three ASB was designed to deal with. The scenarios presented in your post are real, however, they ignore the US official war plans doctrines and strategies of the 21st century. So where you come up short is that you'd need to also point out how the aggressor against the United States would have his homeland turned into a completely depopulated huge glass bowl many thousands of km in diameter. Just sayin, y'know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabothai Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I sww parallels with the Cuba crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FritsSikkink Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Meaning..."we are ready to go to war!" No Oh too bad a war might settle some thingsdoesn't have the USA enough wars to fight atm. War industry is running fine at the moment or are the planning on more sales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I would feel more confident of America's bravado in regards to responding to threats from China if the US had actually won a military operation since WW2. China has sat back with their feet up watching USA blow $3 Trillion in the Middle East getting nowhere. The smart money would have to be on China winning this little skirmish. I seriously doubt any Americans are concerned about boosting up your confidence. But just for the record, the US military doesn't lose wars. The US politicians lose wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willyumiii Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Hmmm. Thinking climate change might be a good thing. Icecaps melt, Sea levels rise, China's little man made islands disappear. Problem solved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggt Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 This is a "verbal" warning shot over the bow of future US activity in the S. China Sea... I am sure China has a plan to intervene if the US comes back...just how decisively we will not know until it happens... China does not view the US as the threat it once was thanks to the last several years of lack of US leadership...and military reductions... This could become a major incident...hopefully not to escalate to a full blown war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Neither side wants a war! This is just a pissing contest for VERY big boys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slipperylobster Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) This is a "verbal" warning shot over the bow of future US activity in the S. China Sea... I am sure China has a plan to intervene if the US comes back...just how decisively we will not know until it happens... China does not view the US as the threat it once was thanks to the last several years of lack of US leadership...and military reductions... This could become a major incident...hopefully not to escalate to a full blown war... S. China Sea does not belong entirely to China...so they actually have little to say on whose ships pass through. Free Nations have used those shipping lanes for quite a while now. Suggest youu follow the news from recent world court rulings, Actually...looks as if China is on their own. Their verbal warning shots fall on deaf ears, and are about as effective as teats on a boar hog. Even Putin got scared off. China has obviously stuck their crappy chinellas in their mouths...again. I would not underestimate the USA's capabilities..... The nature of politics, business interests, and public opinion....limit our military. I would not push it too far..even china knows this. China can get swatted right back to the stone age, economically....should they choose agression. I don't even think Putin wants that. Edited October 30, 2015 by slipperylobster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffreysearch Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I would feel more confident of America's bravado in regards to responding to threats from China if the US had actually won a military operation since WW2. China has sat back with their feet up watching USA blow $3 Trillion in the Middle East getting nowhere. The smart money would have to be on China winning this little skirmish. I seriously doubt any Americans are concerned about boosting up your confidence. But just for the record, the US military doesn't lose wars. The US politicians lose wars. Yes and who votes in theses `Politicians .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookee68 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 China will just talk the talk, and not walk the walk, it makes them look good to their people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggt Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 This is a "verbal" warning shot over the bow of future US activity in the S. China Sea... I am sure China has a plan to intervene if the US comes back...just how decisively we will not know until it happens... China does not view the US as the threat it once was thanks to the last several years of lack of US leadership...and military reductions... This could become a major incident...hopefully not to escalate to a full blown war... S. China Sea does not belong entirely to China...so they actually have little to say on whose ships pass through. Free Nations have used those shipping lanes for quite a while now. Suggest youu follow the news from recent world court rulings, Actually...looks as if China is on their own. Their verbal warning shots fall on deaf ears, and are about as effective as teats on a boar hog. Even Putin got scared off. China has obviously stuck their crappy chinellas in their mouths...again. I would not underestimate the USA's capabilities..... The nature of politics, business interests, and public opinion....limit our military. I would not push it too far..even china knows this. China can get swatted right back to the stone age, economically....should they choose agression. I don't even think Putin wants that. China has already served notice that they will not abide by world court decisions or opinions...they seem to have dug in on this one...can not read what the overall importance of these obscure Islands are to China's future...but apparently they have thought this out and are willing to take a stand...we shall see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisparateDan Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) I sometimes reflect if China had to rely on it's own serendipitous inventions, how well they might wage war. I understand they cannot produce a viable Jet Engine, and source them from Russia. https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-Chinese-aircraft-companies-produce-their-jet-engines-domestically When I worked there even the wheel was a novelty, large tree trunks being manually dragged along the roads. Worrying however is Edited October 31, 2015 by DisparateDan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I would feel more confident of America's bravado in regards to responding to threats from China if the US had actually won a military operation since WW2. China has sat back with their feet up watching USA blow $3 Trillion in the Middle East getting nowhere. The smart money would have to be on China winning this little skirmish. I seriously doubt any Americans are concerned about boosting up your confidence. But just for the record, the US military doesn't lose wars. The US politicians lose wars. Another key weakness of American Foreign Policy. Arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I sometimes reflect if China had to rely on it's own serendipitous inventions, how well they might wage war. I understand they cannot produce a viable Jet Engine, and source them from Russia. https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-Chinese-aircraft-companies-produce-their-jet-engines-domestically When I worked there even the wheel was a novelty, large tree trunks being manually dragged along the roads. Worrying however is Sixty Minutes does a lot of good stuff and this report is another instance of it. The segment shows the CCP lost their rare earths case at the WTO brought by Prez Obama. They also don't mention HRClinton whom the CCP detests is focused on the rare earths issue. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24315615/ns/politics-decision_08/t/indiana-clinton-plays-china-card/#.VjQ6XpPGPYg The quote below is apart from persons or personalities as the USA contains all the rare earths we'd need going forward. The issue is not the volume or the mining of them, it's the environmental consequences to process them. Congress has fumbled on the required environmental protections subsidies for a long time but that will change, as it must change, before too much longer. For these economic (and obvious national security) reasons, the United States and other global powers have begun to build their own mines to extract these rare minerals. Those mines in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Vietnam and Malawi should be operational in less than five years, which should lessen concerns over China's monopoly a bit. [U.S. Sitting on Mother Lode of Rare Tech-Crucial Minerals] http://www.livescience.com/29287-is-china-mining-a-rare-earth-monopoly-op-ed.html The rare earths concerns are much like the US Treasuries owned by the CCP Boyz in Beijing. People who are overly concerned about either or both can get needlessly worried. Issues such as the South China Sea are not of concern. The CCP Boyz in just recent months have sold something like $600 billion of T-Bills without any impact on the US economy and the WTO straightened up the CCP Boyz when they reduced rare earths exports to Japan over islands disputes in the East Sea. Beijing and Moscow have as national policy the use of their natural resources as strategic means to strategic ends but these approaches have always gone bust. Yet neither of 'em learn from their failures. So each will have to continue to get busted in the chops each time they try to pull another fast one using their particular natural resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIPinthailand Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 can I claim territory ownership if I let my air mattress near a thai beach? in this case the whole town is becoming mine within an 18 miles radius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Some points on this SCS islands business on this Halloween Saturday: * US 7th Fleet aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt with the guided missile cruiser USS Normandy (and an unidentified USN attack submarine) together monitored the USS Lassen destroyer during its 114 km "transit" within the 12 mile area of the reef, to include the two PLA Navy ships shadowing it. . * Sina Military News in Beijing says the CCP Boyz are considering two responses to USN ships "transiting" the reefs area. One is to "tightly follow" any USN vessel to force it outside the 12 nm area. The other is to straight out ram any USN ship inside the area of falsely claimed CCP sovereignty. Sina notes a Chinese fishing boat rammed a Japanese coast guard vessel in 2010, but the online news organ did not note the Chinese boat was boarded by the Japanese, its captain was arrested and taken to Japan. Sina also noted in 1988 two Soviet Russian frigates "accidentally lost control" and rammed a USN missile cruiser that had entered Soviet territorial waters, the only result being an eventually negotiated protocol agreement between Washington and Moscow. * Nationalist and militant Global Times controlled by the PLA said yesterday SCS incidents would not escalate to a war because of common economic interests between the two countries. * Duowei News in the USA (associated with Hong Kong & Taiwan) suggested the CCP Boyz can't afford to keep losing face by continuing to make idle threats against the USN actions in the SCS. Duowei said the Boyz can't afford to get involved in open hostilities either. The paper suggested the Boyz save face by doing with their new artificial islands what they already do concerning the outer parts of their nine-dash line. Which is to accept "innocent passage" by US Naval ships and aircraft without claiming a violation of sovereignty. Duowei notes the outer limits of the nine-dash line are vague even by Beijing's standards and legal claims. The CCP Boyz, it notes, have never objected (at least not yet) to the many commercial and military ships that daily transit just inside of the southernmost part of the line. Duowei specifically notes the US military has always respected the 12 nm limits of China's coastal waters no matter what, to include Hainan Island where the PLA Navy South Fleet is based, all in accordance with the ICLOS. Its reconnaissance ships and aircraft have always respected the 12 mile zone. Duowei added that this is not expected to affect the three PLA Navy ships nearing the US Naval Station Mayport in Florida which will visit Nov 3-7 and engage in some joint exercises. Others have suggested time remains for the Boyz to order the three ships away from Florida and the USA as an expression of retaliation, but this view has no consensus. * Taiwan independence Democratic Progressive Party candidate for president Tsai Ing-wen yesterday endorsed the ILOS and freedom of navigation in all international waters, thus pleasing Washington and infuriating Beijing. Ms Tsai has a 27-point lead over her Kuomintang opponent in the January 16th election Eric Chu who opposes the US's recent actions in the SCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I would feel more confident of America's bravado in regards to responding to threats from China if the US had actually won a military operation since WW2. China has sat back with their feet up watching USA blow $3 Trillion in the Middle East getting nowhere. The smart money would have to be on China winning this little skirmish. I seriously doubt any Americans are concerned about boosting up your confidence. But just for the record, the US military doesn't lose wars. The US politicians lose wars. Yes and who votes in theses `Politicians .... The civilians, that have their right to vote protected by the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Off-topic posts and replies removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I would feel more confident of America's bravado in regards to responding to threats from China if the US had actually won a military operation since WW2. China has sat back with their feet up watching USA blow $3 Trillion in the Middle East getting nowhere. The smart money would have to be on China winning this little skirmish. I seriously doubt any Americans are concerned about boosting up your confidence. But just for the record, the US military doesn't lose wars. The US politicians lose wars. Another key weakness of American Foreign Policy. Arrogance. When you got it, flaunt it. What country claims you among its citizenry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidermike007 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I would feel more confident of America's bravado in regards to responding to threats from China if the US had actually won a military operation since WW2. China has sat back with their feet up watching USA blow $3 Trillion in the Middle East getting nowhere. The smart money would have to be on China winning this little skirmish. Utterly ridiculous drivel. How many wars has China won? Other than slaughtering the Uighur people, and quite a few Tibetans, and taking out the political detractors at home, where is their military experience? Sure, they have a huge army. But, what do you do with an army of millions in this day and age? Granted the US adventures in the middle east have been unmitigated disasters, resulting in tremendous instability and the growth of AL Queda, the Taliban, and ISIS. They have hurt the US on so many levels. Foolhardy and mentally retarded men planned those campaigns. The US has won two decisive campaigns recently. Grenada and Panama. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FritsSikkink Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 This is a "verbal" warning shot over the bow of future US activity in the S. China Sea... I am sure China has a plan to intervene if the US comes back...just how decisively we will not know until it happens... China does not view the US as the threat it once was thanks to the last several years of lack of US leadership...and military reductions... This could become a major incident...hopefully not to escalate to a full blown war... S. China Sea does not belong entirely to China...so they actually have little to say on whose ships pass through. Free Nations have used those shipping lanes for quite a while now. Suggest youu follow the news from recent world court rulings, Actually...looks as if China is on their own. Their verbal warning shots fall on deaf ears, and are about as effective as teats on a boar hog. Even Putin got scared off. China has obviously stuck their crappy chinellas in their mouths...again. I would not underestimate the USA's capabilities..... The nature of politics, business interests, and public opinion....limit our military. I would not push it too far..even china knows this. China can get swatted right back to the stone age, economically....should they choose agression. I don't even think Putin wants that. What are Free Nations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squarethecircle Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) I would feel more confident of America's bravado in regards to responding to threats from China if the US had actually won a military operation since WW2. China has sat back with their feet up watching USA blow $3 Trillion in the Middle East getting nowhere. The smart money would have to be on China winning this little skirmish. Utterly ridiculous drivel. How many wars has China won? Other than slaughtering the Uighur people, and quite a few Tibetans, and taking out the political detractors at home, where is their military experience? Sure, they have a huge army. But, what do you do with an army of millions in this day and age? Granted the US adventures in the middle east have been unmitigated disasters, resulting in tremendous instability and the growth of AL Queda, the Taliban, and ISIS. They have hurt the US on so many levels. Foolhardy and mentally retarded men planned those campaigns. The US has won two decisive campaigns recently. Grenada and Panama. LOL. Well kind of a side point but I'm not aware of them slaughtering Uighurs. They are certainly brutal towards Uighur/Kazakh terrorists, and that includes killing their associates in flat-out assassinations, no justice process, but not aware of out-right slaughtering. Then again I wouldn't want my country taken over by China in its current state, but that's a side point. I read USMC General "Mad Dog" Maddis saying that up until 2006 the US strategy was a success in Iraq, soundly completing the mission, after that there was no strategy given from the US political structure (ultimately from the US people) and no clear mission. In a full out-and-out war versus, say, Iran, there would be a clear mission and that would mean destruction to the dictators of Tehran. Another thing that comes to mind is something a Korean Army friend said, he said that in Vietnam the US military could literally watch Soviet-made antiaircraft guns being built but due to Rules of Engagement were not allowed to fire on them until they were firing first. In contrast, the VietCong were afraid to attack Koreans via sniper fire because if they did so and were successful, the South Korean army would respond with extreme brutality on the villages the snipers came from. Another success, though, is in Thailand, since as many will tell you, the reason the Communist forces were unsuccessful on this side of the Mekong is due to US support of the Thai counterinsurgency, think that was based out of Nakhon Phanom. Edited October 31, 2015 by squarethecircle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) This is a "verbal" warning shot over the bow of future US activity in the S. China Sea... I am sure China has a plan to intervene if the US comes back...just how decisively we will not know until it happens... China does not view the US as the threat it once was thanks to the last several years of lack of US leadership...and military reductions... This could become a major incident...hopefully not to escalate to a full blown war... Let's look at the significant factors the United States accomplished by this one "transit" of the USS Lassen during its 114 km patrol within the 12 mile area of the artificial island constructed on Zubi reef. But let's also look at what did not happen in Beijing especially. 1) Beijing has not admitted nor has Beijing confirmed the Lassen traveled within 12 nautical miles of the Subi Reef. The CCP Boyz Foreign Ministry restricted its loud complaint to say "waters near relevant islands and reefs of China's Nansha Islands." (Spratley Islands.) 2) The Boyz' Foreign Ministry consciously did not say "territorial waters" in discussing the presence of the Lassen vis-a-vis Zubi Reef. The FM said instead "nearby waters" and also said "neighboring" waters [of Subi reef]. FM never used the word "zone" nor "jurisdiction" nor "limit." FM never used the word "exclusive" nor did it use the word "economic." Never said "kilometers' (or "miles"). 3) While the FM hollered a lot about CCP sovereignty, it never used the word "violated." FM rather said "harmed" and FM said "threatened," and the FM used the word "illegal," but the CCP FM never said the USN mission executed by the USS Lassen "violated" Chinese sovereignty. There are other points of great significance in terms that are legal, diplomatic, military, regional, national and the like, but these are the principal and primary points in what Beijing did (and did not) say about the event. The bottom line is that the United States has backed the CCP Boyz into a corner in which they found themselves unable to take a clear legal or diplomatic position on their activities on the reef. Which also means other reefs and other artificial islands currently under their construction. The Boyz were unable to say Subi Reef actually has a 12 nautical mile territorial sea under the UN ICLOS treaty the Boyz signed. Or on any basis at all, whatsoever. The Boyz are thereby unable to make any allegation or charge of any kind the US violated CCP sovereignty. The Boyz are further at a loss to try to specify what maritime sites of the area they claim sovereignty over. The Boyz FM hollered a lot about sovereignty but specified nothing, alleged nothing in particular, charged nothing in law or diplomacy. In short, the White House looked up one day not long ago and suddenly saw the CCP Boyz crawling out on a legal and diplomatic limb. So when Xi Jinping during the informal dinner with Prez Obama said the limb was his and his alone, Barack went for his saw. The immediate and direct consequence is that Xi and his Boyz presently look like Wiley E. Coyote out there on a creaking half sawed-off limb. The result of the Lassen event is that the Boyz were unable (or unwilling) to make any claim based in international law or diplomatic history. Which leaves the Boyz out there on these artificial islands and their submerged reefs with no legal or diplomatic basis of any kind. The short one word description of that is aggressor. Another word for it would be thief. Yet another would be klutzes. Full statement in English by the CCP Foreign Ministry on the Lassen Event: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2535_665405/t1309567.shtml Edited October 31, 2015 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 If we send 2 more ships...we can surround their "fleet" Seriously...get a navy, before you start elbowing the international seaway. Yep and well said cause the US 7th Pacific Fleet is the same size as the entire Chinese Navy If we put the Seabees to fast build a couple of canals from Afghanistan into southwest China we can surround 'em. Prez Obama is trying to arrange a new face to face meeting with Xi Jinping pong at the Apec conference in Manila later this month. Barack wants a frank chat about the fact the CCP made no claims of sovereignty over the artificial island after the USS Lassen 'transit' within 12 miles of the Subic Reef. The Boyz did a lot of hollering about sovereignty but made no statement that Subic Reef is sovereign CCP territory. No claims of a 12 nm zone of sovereignty at it. No claim of a territorial sea at the Reef. No nuthin. Just a lot of jumping up and down about CCP sovereignty as CCP sovereignty blah blah blah blurp. So if the CCP Boyz aren't specifically claiming specific sovereignty over this specific spot --and all the other artificial islands in the SCS-- then what the hell do they think they're doing. Any why. The Boyz got some 'splainin' to do to Asean, the Apec countries and to the international community. The Boyz need to start some straight talk now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now