US military units to stay for South China Sea patrols

[LawrenceChee]

We (Chinese) accept the USA military are interfering and likes to be in every campaign whether needed or not ...accept now China won't let the SCS go as they see it as a strategic intent to defend

The above is LC's closing sentence. China can accept, albeit grudgingly, US and other countries debating and even sword-rattling about the SCS. Of course, if China had its choice, all countries would be warm and fuzzy with China's territory-grab. There is one thing Chinese leaders won't accept: actually picking up and leaving the disputed territories.

Here's a comparison: Let's say you have property with a house and a chicken coop placed in a far corner of the yard. A wolf comes along and camps out next to the coop, and you don't like it. You can shout at the wolf, sing to it, wave yellow flags in its face, offer it raw meat, spray it with a water hose, ......all those things annoy the wolf, but won't send it packing for good. Only dynamic action will banish the wolf, and that's an armed attack followed by a sustained/concerted campaign to keep the wolf away. All else is window dressing and ineffectual.

P.S. the longer the wolf is there, the deeper it digs its burrow, and the more pups it sires.

The way you describe this wolf is how China see the USA ...

[Publicus]

We (Chinese) accept the USA military are interfering and likes to be in every campaign whether needed or not ...accept now China won't let the SCS go as they see it as a strategic intent to defend

The above is LC's closing sentence. China can accept, albeit grudgingly, US and other countries debating and even sword-rattling about the SCS. Of course, if China had its choice, all countries would be warm and fuzzy with China's territory-grab. There is one thing Chinese leaders won't accept: actually picking up and leaving the disputed territories.

Here's a comparison: Let's say you have property with a house and a chicken coop placed in a far corner of the yard. A wolf comes along and camps out next to the coop, and you don't like it. You can shout at the wolf, sing to it, wave yellow flags in its face, offer it raw meat, spray it with a water hose, ......all those things annoy the wolf, but won't send it packing for good. Only dynamic action will banish the wolf, and that's an armed attack followed by a sustained/concerted campaign to keep the wolf away. All else is window dressing and ineffectual.

P.S. the longer the wolf is there, the deeper it digs its burrow, and the more pups it sires.

The way you describe this wolf is how China see the USA ...

Even CCP have divisions within it, factions that want to work with the US and the dominant faction that doesn't ever want to discuss anything with the US.

Given the CCP side thinks only about China and how CCP can dominate Asean, rout Japan, and try to make the US irrelevant in the region to gain control over the SCS, the CCP fanboyz should make some effort to acquaint themselves with the China differences among the candidates of each party running for Potus.

Youse fanboyz might like Ted Cruz as Potus best of 'em all. He's getting his CCP positions from Henry the Kissinger. It's notorious that K is a CCP sycophant from waaaay back when. K will do or say anything favorable to CCP to keep his star status with 'em over there, no matter what. Cruz sounds like a kitty cat when it comes to SCS and China in general, opposing Trump's tariffs and just about everything Trump has said he'd do against China.

You want a quick and complete control over the SCS then root for Bernie Sanders. Bernie recently hired Bill French as his principal CCP advisor. French is aptly named given he's a negotiate away the store surrender monkey any time he sits down somewhere.

Marco Rubio the gone-boy had a fairly balanced CCP policy so if Marco wants to be SecState in a Trump Big Hands Administration he won't get it. A prezzidente Cruz probably would put Marco in the 7th floor palatial office of the DepState main building at the foggy bottom Potomac bank (where it disappears from view most nights).

John Kasich on China is, well, John Kasich, i.e., all CCP have to do to get things in order is to balance the budget. John doesn't like the US Navy over there either, same as the Boyz in Beijing do not like it.

Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is the only US leader who can get a foot in everyone's door and whose arm is strong enuff to get 'em all talking again. Certainly not by any economic sanctions or trade whackob (self) punishments, or a currency war and so on. Hillary is no bombast and no surrender. HRC is the American the CCP Boyz actually fear (SecState HRC initiated the Rebalance Pivot to the Pacific spelled C-h-i-n-a, so they also despise her).

When a Potus Hillary Clinton announces there'll be a meeting to settle the SCS stuff and that everyone needs to be there, then everyone will be there. Nobody will come out of it happy but just about everything will be wrapped up. Only Potus will be smiling and that is all that will count or matter.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Publicus

[keemapoot]

^hehe, Clinton is Super Hilary to you, and we all understand that. You do state correctly though, that China does both fear and respect Clinton more so than any of the other candidates. This is well documented in international, China, and Asian journals and press.

I just have one question: can Hilary walk on water?

[boomerangutang]

I somewhat agree with Publicus that Hillary would probably be the best of the candidates, for dealing decisively with Chinese territory-grabs.

Trump is a flip-flopper. While men his age were fighting in Vietnam, he was partying every night around NYC with his daddy's millions.

Cruz can talk tough, but down deep I don't think he has the resolve needed re; tough overseas issues. He's mostly about domestic issues, and if in doubt, he'll consult the Bible. As we know, the Bible can justify or condemn anything, depending on what opinion a person seeks.

Sanders? I don't know, even though l like him as a candidate.

Edited April 22, 2016 by boomerangutang

[Publicus]

What the quote below fails to include is that CCP control over the SCS would give it control over the Global Commons sea lanes of the sea by which ME oil traverses to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Asean and down under in Australia/NZ and through which 40% of global trade travels.

This is 100% not acceptable throughout the region and globally, which is why, as the CCP continues in the arbitrary absolute to assert control over the sea, a possible US Navy blockade is on the table at the Pentagon and at the White House. It appears from many posts that it must be reiterated any possible USN and allies blockade would be limited to the SCS and it would be exclusive to any and all military assets only.....

If China can impose its will in the South China Sea, at least five rival claimants—all much smaller, weaker Asian states—will be limited to a narrow band of the sea along their coastlines. China would gain greater security for its crucial supply lines of oil and other commodities; exclusive access to rich fishing areas and potentially vast undersea oil deposits; a much larger buffer against what it regards as U.S. naval intrusions; and, not least, the prestige and standing it has long sought, becoming in effect the Pacific’s hegemon, and positioning itself to press its decades-old demand that Taiwan come under its control. Arguably, it would achieve the greatest territorial expansion by any power since imperial Japan’s annexation of large swaths of Asia in the first half of the 20th century. (emphasis added)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/chinas-dangerous-game/380789/

While Washington and Asean capitals to include US treaty allies Japan and South Korea, Australia/NZ, would not engage in economic sanctions such as trade embargoes or tariffs etc, financial transactions sanctions on CCP banks are a possibility. Such sanctions were extremely painful to the ayatollahs in Iran and they are presently torturing Russia which has now formally aligned itself with CCP against the ILOS.

G-7 foreign ministers are now involved with G-7 heads of government to meet in Japan next month, and the EU has taken adversarial positions against CCP in the SCS. The Swift electronic banking system in Belgium moves $6 Trillion daily but not to Iran for many years. The UN sponsored International Court of Arbitration is expected to rule against CCP sometime around June which for many governments will clear the decks for a legal basis of any moves to counter and stop CCP in the SCS, from the financial to things military.

A major reason CCP is acting as it is in the SCS is that it considers itself untouchable by the US or the international community and its formal organisations and bodies, such as the International Court. CCP is changing the national boundaries and territorial borders in the SCS in ways that are different from Putin in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere but the radical changes are still the same-same as Russia changing countries' borders by military force to assert control of their territory. This is irredentist and it is revanchism, i.e., classic 1920s and 1930s Europe.

One recalls a (slightly adjusted) observation from the 16th century in respect of the Malacca Strait —“Whoever is lord of Malacca has his hand on the throat of China Venice” India has completed huge naval and air bases on its Andaman Islands at the north entrance to the Malacca Strait and it has entered into a "strategic partnership" with Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam. So has the USA entered into a "strategic partnership" with each of 'em to include India.

Scarborough Shoal is next coming very soon. The shoal, as with almost every natural and artificial island CCP has constructed and militarised, is 620 miles from the coast of the CCP (1000 km). This is a classic nationalist aggression defined, the old-fashioned kind that leads sooner or later to a serious conflict.

[Publicus]

^hehe, Clinton is Super Hilary to you, and we all understand that. You do state correctly though, that China does both fear and respect Clinton more so than any of the other candidates. This is well documented in international, China, and Asian journals and press.

I just have one question: can Hilary walk on water?

Ahh yes, The Nutcake Rule applies in the absolute that no positive word about Hillary Clinton is ever allowed, anywhere, anytime, for any reason without an equal and opposite attack. And then some. And then an awful lot more.

Even people who are generally measured and moderate in respect of most issues and public figures can and do invariably jump and indeed pounce in their personal animosity towards the lady Hillary Clinton.

When the topic of HRC arises the swarm of rightwhingenuts descends, as do otherwise normally rational people, in pursuit of their bents. No positive word is allowed or is allowed to stand unmolested.

My post discussed all the present surviving candidates of each party for the office of Potus in relation to the CCP and its PRC. Yet the attack post focuses on only one of 'em, Hillary Clinton. The focus is as per usual and typical concerning HRC, and it is by the usual suspects.

The whole of it is abnormal. In the extreme.

[keemapoot]

^hehe, Clinton is Super Hilary to you, and we all understand that. You do state correctly though, that China does both fear and respect Clinton more so than any of the other candidates. This is well documented in international, China, and Asian journals and press.

I just have one question: can Hilary walk on water?

Ahh yes, The Nutcake Rule applies in the absolute that no positive word about Hillary Clinton is ever allowed, anywhere, anytime, for any reason without an equal and opposite attack. And then some. And then an awful lot more.

Even people who are generally measured and moderate in respect of most issues and public figures can and do invariably jump and indeed pounce in their personal animosity towards the lady Hillary Clinton.

When the topic of HRC arises the swarm of rightwhingenuts descends, as do otherwise normally rational people, in pursuit of their bents. No positive word is allowed or is allowed to stand unmolested.

My post discussed all the present surviving candidates of each party for the office of Potus in relation to the CCP and its PRC. Yet the attack post focuses on only one of 'em, Hillary Clinton. The focus is as per usual and typical concerning HRC, and it is by the usual suspects.

The whole of it is abnormal. In the extreme.

Here is abnormal...in the extreme:

When a Potus Hillary Clinton announces there'll be a meeting to settle the SCS stuff and that everyone needs to be there, then everyone will be there. Nobody will come out of it happy but just about everything will be wrapped up. Only Potus will be smiling and that is all that will count or matter.

Wow, Madame President will be truly omniscient, and awesome. She will call all the shots, everyone will snap to attention, and only she will walk away from any exchange with China as a winner.

Woo, have another short one my friend, or write another treatise on her majesty.

[LawrenceChee]

No blockade will happen because it cannot be enforced and no aggression from the Chinese to provoke the first move ; everyone is more worried what the meddling Americans will do next

They are almost running out of places for their flawed foreign policy engagement

As for the next POTUS , the Govt in China knows it's only 4 years ...so how bad can it be .... It's a dynasty for a reason they can patiently wait out the 4 years and wait for the next person

Meanwhile dredging goes on today ..:.

Edited April 22, 2016 by LawrenceChee

[keemapoot]

One of the biggest concerns is that China is now building and will locate several mobile - soon to be permanent nuclear reactors to the SCS. That will power their oil exploration off the Spratleys and other disputed areas.

Honestly, it's a footrace, and as China correctly reasons, international law enforcement is nil and useless (by its nature), and therefore if unopposed, China will de facto take control of the SCS.

It is up to Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and other afflicted countries to rally together the US and other allies in trade pacts, like the TPP, that exclude Chinese companies, and therefore forces China to cooperate in negotiated solutions in the SCS; re-worked cooperation on things like the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and New Silk Road initiatives, and other efforts to curb China's expansion.

the onus should not rest chiefly on the US to be the policeman or coast guard in this dispute, nor should the expense and risk of political damage and possible military escalation. It's up to those countries to come to the US with concrete proposals and put skin in the game.

So far, Vietnam has gone to extraordinary lengths to achieve participation in the TPP and it is paying off with record FDI and investment in all areas. Smart country.

Edited April 22, 2016 by keemapoot

[LawrenceChee]

Vietnam is an extremely industrious and intelligent ASEAN country

Most of the Vietnamese I have met in the business circles are extremely good negotiators and very sharp with details

I admire them a while lot and their women are the literal backbone of the country !

[boomerangutang]

Nothing less that tangible strong action will work. The goal, for SE Asian countries, the US, Japan and Taiwan, should be to get China out of the mix in the SCS and the disputed islands near Taiwan and Japan. China for China, ok. Territorial grabs: not ok.

No amount of dialog, reference to treaties / findings by int'l courts / arbitration is going to achieve that goal. China won't pack up and leave in response to words.

A true remedy won't be painless and won't be pretty. China will lose face big time, and may lose a few things/people in the process.

The alternative is to maintain the status quo: China continuing to commandeer islands. China continuing to build airstrips, bunkers, weapon emplacements, radar, docks. China continuing to dredge up sand and pour ever more tons of concrete. The only country ww in favor of that is China. Every other country with an opinion is opposed. Then there are countries which consciously try to appear neutral. China likes those countries, like Thailand, and some African and Pacific principalities. They sit on the sidelines and say what Chinese minders tell them to say; Rodney King statements like, "why can't we all just get along?" or "If any country has an issue, they can simply discuss it with Chinese authorities."

Yea sure, discuss it with the Chinese, each country individually. That's how Chinese would like this to drag out, because they know that they'd never have to vacate the contested islands if people just exchanged words endlessly. Next time your house is on fire and the fire department shows up, i'm sure you'll be fine with them standing around discussing the issue for hours, and then leaving with a smile and a wave and 'good luck!'

[keemapoot]

^What's your tangible action going to be to get those nuclear reactors removed once they're in place? Military action? What tangible action can be taken while they are being transported? Military action? Does anyone really believe maritime brinkmanship will stop China? Does anyone really have the appetite or budget for a full scale military confrontation or blockade?

I think there are more sensible and workable solutions, that seek to bring China to the bargaining table. But, for sure, I think the threat of military action and blockade is one tool in the toolbox, and for sure China knows that Clinton is capable of doing this. So, you never want to remove any tool from the toolbox, just know when to threaten to use it and when never to use it.

[ExpatOilWorker]

The Chinese are bullies to anyone close to their fake islands they built illegally. Chinese continually go into other countries water to fish along with their support boats and navy ships. I have to vote for USA rather than China any day.

This picture really shows how fake their islands are:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35031313

[tonbridgebrit]

The Chinese are bullies to anyone close to their fake islands they built illegally. Chinese continually go into other countries water to fish along with their support boats and navy ships. I have to vote for USA rather than China any day.

This picture really shows how fake their islands are:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35031313

Yes ExpatOliWorker, the islands ARE fake.

And bearing in mind that the islands are fake, well, what's the point of sending some US aircraft carriers to the area ? Those aircraft carriers cost billions of dollars of US tax-payers money to build and operate. What's the point of reducing or threatening those Chinese transport ships carrying a load of cheap goods to America or Europe ??

And this is the point. This whole thing about China being aggressive IS a load of rubbish. China is NOT a threat, and certainly NOT a threat in the Souh China Sea. The islands they've got are fakes. It's actually all about the USA pretending that China is a threat, and putting some warships in the South China Sea. Washington has to justify to the American people WHY it is that billions have been spent on the carriers. And the pretend reason why billions have been spent ? To tackle a non-existent threat from China.

If Washington really did feel that China was dangerous to America, well, they would simply reduce the amount of Chinese goods entering into America. This thing about China being a threat to America is actually absurd.

[tonbridgebrit]

There's a whole load of goods in America's shops (Walmart) that have got this label on them. It's absurd for America's warships to threaten the transport of these goods in the South China Sea.

Yes, America's warships should be used to make sure that the ships carrying the Chinese goods reach America. Don't block the sea-lanes, keep them open.

[ExpatOilWorker]

The Chinese are bullies to anyone close to their fake islands they built illegally. Chinese continually go into other countries water to fish along with their support boats and navy ships. I have to vote for USA rather than China any day.

This picture really shows how fake their islands are:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35031313

Yes ExpatOliWorker, the islands ARE fake.

And bearing in mind that the islands are fake, well, what's the point of sending some US aircraft carriers to the area ? Those aircraft carriers cost billions of dollars of US tax-payers money to build and operate. What's the point of reducing or threatening those Chinese transport ships carrying a load of cheap goods to America or Europe ??

And this is the point. This whole thing about China being aggressive IS a load of rubbish. China is NOT a threat, and certainly NOT a threat in the Souh China Sea. The islands they've got are fakes. It's actually all about the USA pretending that China is a threat, and putting some warships in the South China Sea. Washington has to justify to the American people WHY it is that billions have been spent on the carriers. And the pretend reason why billions have been spent ? To tackle a non-existent threat from China.

If Washington really did feel that China was dangerous to America, well, they would simply reduce the amount of Chinese goods entering into America. This thing about China being a threat to America is actually absurd.

The Indonesian Navy might feel a little bit different about that: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/world/asia/indonesia-south-china-sea-fishing-boat.html?_r=0

But, of course I agree China is no direct threat to your daily supply of Chang beers.

[boomerangutang]

^What's your tangible action going to be to get those nuclear reactors removed once they're in place? Military action? What tangible action can be taken while they are being transported? Military action? Does anyone really believe maritime brinkmanship will stop China? Does anyone really have the appetite or budget for a full scale military confrontation or blockade?

I think there are more sensible and workable solutions, that seek to bring China to the bargaining table. But, for sure, I think the threat of military action and blockade is one tool in the toolbox, and for sure China knows that Clinton is capable of doing this. So, you never want to remove any tool from the toolbox, just know when to threaten to use it and when never to use it.

It's ok if we don't agree, but I strongly believe that no amount of dialogue with Chinese leaders is going to get them to abandon their territory grab.

A blockade is not a good idea at all. It harkens back to siege warfare mentality of the Middle Ages. It will be completely anti-productive to a solution, and will instead garner sympathy for those being blockaded.

I'll say it again, the only thing that will compel the Chinese to go back to China is military force and/or the real threat of it. Personally, I favor a preemptive strike against weapons installations. An airstrip is part of a weapons system. It won't be a drawn out conflict and it won't become WWIII. It will be like the Falklands. A few days battling, at worst, with some casualties on both sides. Perhaps 1 or 2 ships sunk. Again, the longer the rest of the world sits on its hands, the bigger the eventual military clash will be. Just in the past month, China has been setting missiles in concrete on the Paracels. What is it doing now? What will it do next month, ...this summer? This fall?

Even if Nuclear devices were there (or being transported there) , it wouldn't preclude a strike. I hate radiation as much as anyone, but military battles entail garbage and toxins. Always have, always will.

[boomerangutang]

I wouldn't want to be a Chinese soldier charged with being posted at a weapons installation on one of those islands. I'd rather have a $1 million insurance policy on the guy, with me as the beneficiary.

[Publicus]

^What's your tangible action going to be to get those nuclear reactors removed once they're in place? Military action? What tangible action can be taken while they are being transported? Military action? Does anyone really believe maritime brinkmanship will stop China? Does anyone really have the appetite or budget for a full scale military confrontation or blockade?

I think there are more sensible and workable solutions, that seek to bring China to the bargaining table. But, for sure, I think the threat of military action and blockade is one tool in the toolbox, and for sure China knows that Clinton is capable of doing this. So, you never want to remove any tool from the toolbox, just know when to threaten to use it and when never to use it.

The following from the year 2011 Code of Conduct relative to the SCS is the last time Asean and CCP Dictators in Beijing agreed on anything concerning the SCS as initiated or advocated by Asean.

It is from the Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) which includes the SCS Code of Conduct (COC), first written in 2001 after several years of Asean-Beijing negotiations.

Joint Declaration of the ASEAN Defence Ministers on Strengthening Defence Cooperation of ASEAN in the Global Community to Face New Challenges, Jakarta, 19 May 2011

8. Reaffirm ASEAN Member States’ commitment to fully and effectively implement the Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea, and to work towards the adoption of a regional Code of Conduct in the South China Sea that would further promote peace and stability in the region;

9. Reaffirm also the importance of regional peace and stability, and freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea as provided for by universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS);

http://www.cil.nus.edu.sg/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Documents-on-ASEAN-and-South-China-Sea-as-of-June-2011.pdf

No SCS agreements affirmed or reaffirmed have occurred between Asean and CCP since 2011. No further agreements have been possible due to CCP and Hun Sen sabotaging the Asean 2012 annual meeting in Cambodia. In fact, the chaos caused by CCP and Hun Sen in 2012 resulted in such acrimony that, for the first time, Asean failed to issue a joint statement at the conclusion of its annual meeting.

CCP succeeded in thus trashing the rule of law in the SCS except for the rule of CCP law, only and exclusively. We see the consequence in the present time and proceeding.

Why China Isn't Interested in a South China Sea Code of Conduct

Ultimately Beijing has the most to lose from a code of conduct. Such an agreement would limit its activities in waters that China claims and de facto controls (such as the Paracel Islands and, increasingly, the Scarborough Shoal), while also hampering China’s strategy to increase its area of de facto control through maritime patrols. Countries don’t generally give up national advantages (perceived or real) in exchange for the stability provided by international law...

China is unlikely to prove an exception. It loses little and gains much by stalling the code of conduct talks— or at least making sure the final version is so watered down as to be essentially meaningless.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/why-china-isnt-interested-in-a-south-china-sea-code-of-conduct/

Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines is next and CCP will begin its standard operations there very soon. The shoal is 620 miles from the China coast (1000 km) yet CCP says it belongs to China.

The ruling on the Philippines SCS case by the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague is expected in the next few months so everyone is anticipating CCP will move against the Scarborough Shoal as its statement that the Court's ruling is rejected by CCP.

The last place international law is welcomed is in Beijing. This is true despite CCP signing on to the ILOS treaty. CCP says it recognises the treaty, just not its application to the SCS. CCP did after all attach a caveat and proviso to its agreement on the treaty stating the treaty applies to Beijing only when Beijing decides it applies. It is thus immediately apparent this is the rule of men, not the rule of law.

So I'd reiterate that CCP is but a new dynasty of Chinese emperors in business suits.

It is therefore impossible to deal with the CCP given their negotiating position is that the other side agree in advance of negotiations to agree to everything CCP demands.

A pre-emptive strike is however a bad news proposal because it would encourage other quick one-off reactions that would only encourage other military actions and so on. A blockade is the viable option, i.e., a naval blockade of military assets only in the SCS only.

A USN limited blockade has been examined closely and thoroughly by the US Naval War College so it is an option among others the Pentagon has on the table. A blockade has the advantage of being passive-active in contrast to a preemptive strike which would be provocative and also be too reminiscent of the Bush-Cheney period of neocon warmongering and war manufacturing.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Publicus

[ExpatOilWorker]

^What's your tangible action going to be to get those nuclear reactors removed once they're in place? Military action? What tangible action can be taken while they are being transported? Military action? Does anyone really believe maritime brinkmanship will stop China? Does anyone really have the appetite or budget for a full scale military confrontation or blockade?

I think there are more sensible and workable solutions, that seek to bring China to the bargaining table. But, for sure, I think the threat of military action and blockade is one tool in the toolbox, and for sure China knows that Clinton is capable of doing this. So, you never want to remove any tool from the toolbox, just know when to threaten to use it and when never to use it.

It's ok if we don't agree, but I strongly believe that no amount of dialogue with Chinese leaders is going to get them to abandon their territory grab.

A blockade is not a good idea at all. It harkens back to siege warfare mentality of the Middle Ages. It will be completely anti-productive to a solution, and will instead garner sympathy for those being blockaded.

I'll say it again, the only thing that will compel the Chinese to go back to China is military force and/or the real threat of it. Personally, I favor a preemptive strike against weapons installations. An airstrip is part of a weapons system. It won't be a drawn out conflict and it won't become WWIII. It will be like the Falklands. A few days battling, at worst, with some casualties on both sides. Perhaps 1 or 2 ships sunk. Again, the longer the rest of the world sits on its hands, the bigger the eventual military clash will be. Just in the past month, China has been setting missiles in concrete on the Paracels. What is it doing now? What will it do next month, ...this summer? This fall?

Even if Nuclear devices were there (or being transported there) , it wouldn't preclude a strike. I hate radiation as much as anyone, but military battles entail garbage and toxins. Always have, always will.

Ask the Japanese how well their last preemptive strike worked out last time they tried it.

If you hit China with as much as a ping pong ball you will in an instance unify them all in a blaze of nationalistic feelings not seen since Mao did his rounds.

The US is way smarter than this. They will win this conflict when China collapse from within, similar to how the Cold War was won.

Thorough history the Chinese have always been best at fighting each other.5 of the worlds 10 biggest wars in terms of casualties have been fought inside China's borders. It could happen again.

Edited April 23, 2016 by ExpatOilWorker

[tonbridgebrit]

^What's your tangible action going to be to get those nuclear reactors removed once they're in place? Military action? What tangible action can be taken while they are being transported? Military action? Does anyone really believe maritime brinkmanship will stop China? Does anyone really have the appetite or budget for a full scale military confrontation or blockade?

I think there are more sensible and workable solutions, that seek to bring China to the bargaining table. But, for sure, I think the threat of military action and blockade is one tool in the toolbox, and for sure China knows that Clinton is capable of doing this. So, you never want to remove any tool from the toolbox, just know when to threaten to use it and when never to use it.

It's ok if we don't agree, but I strongly believe that no amount of dialogue with Chinese leaders is going to get them to abandon their territory grab.

A blockade is not a good idea at all. It harkens back to siege warfare mentality of the Middle Ages. It will be completely anti-productive to a solution, and will instead garner sympathy for those being blockaded.

I'll say it again, the only thing that will compel the Chinese to go back to China is military force and/or the real threat of it. Personally, I favor a preemptive strike against weapons installations. An airstrip is part of a weapons system. It won't be a drawn out conflict and it won't become WWIII. It will be like the Falklands. A few days battling, at worst, with some casualties on both sides. Perhaps 1 or 2 ships sunk. Again, the longer the rest of the world sits on its hands, the bigger the eventual military clash will be. Just in the past month, China has been setting missiles in concrete on the Paracels. What is it doing now? What will it do next month, ...this summer? This fall?

Even if Nuclear devices were there (or being transported there) , it wouldn't preclude a strike. I hate radiation as much as anyone, but military battles entail garbage and toxins. Always have, always will.

Ask the Japanese how well their last preemptive strike worked out last time they tried it.

If you hit China with as much as a ping pong ball you will in an instance unify them all in a blaze of nationalistic feelings not seen since Mao did his rounds.

The US is way smarter than this. They will win this conflict when China collapse from within, similar to how the Cold War was won.

Thorough history the Chinese have always been best at fighting each other.5 of the worlds 10 biggest wars in terms of casualties have been fought inside China's borders. It could happen again.

"Ask the Japanese how well their last preemptive strike worked out last time they tried it." Ha, that's a good comment.

"If you hit China with as much as a ping pong ball you will in an instance unify them all in a blaze of nationalistic feelings not seen since Mao did his rounds."

Well, I think far more important are things like Russia stepping in and being with China once any attack causes whatever war between China and America. And throw in China's nukes. North Korea, they (might) have nukes, North Korea is living proof that any nation that has nukes should NOT be attacked or messed around with.

"The US is way smarter than this. They will win this conflict when China collapse from within, similar to how the Cold War was won."

Well, I'ill give it to you, that's a far better idea, sit and wait to see what happens with Beijing. Will it take five years for Beijing to collapse ? Fifty years ? Five hundred years ? Whatever time it takes, it's still a far better idea than a World War Three against Russia and China.

[Publicus]

The following is from a Taiwan defense specialist, Michael Thim who has noted that if CCP gain control over the SCS, they will isolate and move against Taiwan soon afterward. Would it be ironic to note CCP plans to isolate Taiwan and to take control of it include a PLA Navy blockade of Taiwan?

CCP Dictators in Beijing will know that if the US yields on CCP control of the SCS, it would mean the USA will have yielded on its support of Taiwan. And that Asean countries will have become tributary states of the new dynasty of Chinese emperors in business suits, the CCP.

Beijing has been successful in dividing Asean. However, countries that are growing restless with the grouping’s toothless approach may one day cease all efforts to address regional stability via Asean and seek separate arrangements. That day could very well be the day when Beijing will waste its last chance to address the dispute by way of a peaceful legal settlement. Hanoi has already indicated a somewhat conciliatory approach vis-à-vis Manila. Would it still be a victory for Beijing if its push in the South China Sea were to materialise into closer security arrangements between Vietnam, Philippines, the US, and perhaps even Japan and Taiwan?

In a classic gambit move, China appears to be more than willing to sacrifice a receding positive image in exchange for the benefits of realpolitik posturing. The recent discovery of Chinese ships off Malaysian Borneo signals that Beijing may well apply its salami slicing to new claims in the area.

https://taiwan-in-perspective.com/2016/03/25/will-chinas-smart-strategy-in-the-south-china-sea-push-things-one-step-too-far/

Malaysia has turned to India to its west and the USA and Australia for support against CCP incursions. Malaysia has recently agreed to host an Australian Royal Air Force P3 Orion recon aircraft that is flying observation missions over the SCS. The Malaysian Navy and US Navy have begun to engage in bilateral exercises.

CCP's salami slicing has turned its standing throughout the region into baloney. These guyz in Beijing simply are not smart in creating enemies to all points of the compass and in risking serious military developments. CCP in its irredentism and revanchism thinks this is the world of 500 years ago. Or of the 1920s and 1930s. Wong again.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Vietnam is an extremely industrious and intelligent ASEAN country

Most of the Vietnamese I have met in the business circles are extremely good negotiators and very sharp with details

I admire them a while lot and their women are the literal backbone of the country !

Here is the history of CCP armed military violence and aggression against Vietnam to include during recent years over the SCS.

An excerpt:

In September and October 1978, Prime Minister Pham Van Dong paid official visits to the Philippines and Malaysia and signed agreements with the President and the Prime Minister of the two countries to resolve the disputes over the East Sea (internationally known as the South China Sea) by peaceful means.

In this period, the relationship between the two countries was strained. China shifted from the viewpoint that the Hoang Sa is a"dispute" to "Hoang Sa belong to China as an indisputable fact."

On February 17th 1979, China mobilized 600,000 troops to attack the six northern border provinces of Vietnam. After two weeks of heavy losses, the Chinese troops withdrew.

In March 2013, Sina.com launched the topic "Fight to defend sovereignty" to praise the Chinese military for"seizing opportunities" to "crush the unruly of Vietnam". Quoting General Yue Qiang, Sina.com boldly declared: "The clashes between China and Vietnam showed the trend of no intervention of big countries when their interests are not affected. China should take advantage of and promote it."

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/special-reports/155232/china-s-ambition-and-the-lessons-from-gac-ma.html

The intervention of "big countries" referenced in the quote has now begun.

US Navy freedom of navigation exercises are underway as are joint FON exercises of the US and the Philippines. More joint exercises involving more Asean and neighboring countries will come, to include Australia and India. The coming soon ruling of the International Court of Arbitration will provide the legal basis of it.

US Pacific Fleet and US Pacific Air Forces with allies will then be able to take a decisive action to block CCP sustaining their isolated SCS islands, both the natural ones and the artificial ones that are in violation of the ILOS. Consequently, CCP has to consider the course it is taking in the SCS.

US and Japan's determination in the East Sea over the Senkaku Islands (2011-13) has simmered CCP Boyz down there, requiring them to turn their covetous attention to the SCS. CCP will soon find out they will fare no better in the SCS than they did in the East Sea where they flopped and had to fall silent and inactive. In respect of CCP and the SCS, it will take a while yet and a few incidents too, but CCP will realise the same fate there as well.

The Phils are not Japan by any means or stretch, but CCP is enabling opposition to it to succeed by creating serious objection to it throughout the entire India-South China Sea-Western Pacific region. This is occurring in the waters and seas from Shanghai to Shenzhen and Hainan Island. The grand lesson for CCP new dynasty of Chinese emperors in business suits is that no country is an island no matter its bully size or its absolutist mindset, no matter its authoritarian traditions and imperious history, or of its arbitrary culture.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Publicus

[LawrenceChee]

Not sure what the above comments has anything to with praise for Vietnam ?

If you list this kind of history , countries like France , England have conflicts heading back even further

[LawrenceChee]

China is not going to re-take Taiwan ...integration is the key , a concept I know trigger happy idiots find hard to fathom as they grow up learning only bombing works

[LawrenceChee]

The current CCP Govt has no history of starting a large scale war while the USA have accumulated quite a resume in the last 50 years...hence its current actions seems strangely familiar....

Edited April 23, 2016 by LawrenceChee

[2fishin2]

China is not going to re-take Taiwan ...integration is the key , a concept I know trigger happy idiots find hard to fathom as they grow up learning only bombing works

Then why all the offensive weapons in the China straight aimed directly at Taiwan?

Why are they building military bases in the spratleys?

[2fishin2]

The current CCP Govt has no history of starting a large scale war while the USA have accumulated quite a resume in the last 50 years...hence its current actions seems strangely familiar....

In 50 years name one "large scale war" the US has started. Bet you cant.

While you are at the questions, please name one single time the CCP military has ever come to the rescue of another sovereign country in times of need.

[LawrenceChee]

China is not going to re-take Taiwan ...integration is the key , a concept I know trigger happy idiots find hard to fathom as they grow up learning only bombing works

Then why all the offensive weapons in the China straight aimed directly at Taiwan?

Why are they building military bases in the spratleys?

It's has been reduced every year as a result of negotiations and good ties that are improving ...so why did it take this long for you guys to visit Cuba till Obama ...trade is not lifted yet ? What are you waiting for ?

[LawrenceChee]

The current CCP Govt has no history of starting a large scale war while the USA have accumulated quite a resume in the last 50 years...hence its current actions seems strangely familiar....

In 50 years name one "large scale war" the US has started. Bet you cant.

While you are at the questions, please name one single time the CCP military has ever come to the rescue of another sovereign country in times of need.

Let start with Iraq shall we or are we arguing the grammatical point of getting involved vs started

The death kill rate is higher ...for this we thank the yanks for that ...every military campaign resulted in the death of civilians and ongoing conflicts / suffering