US military units to stay for South China Sea patrols

[AYJAYDEE]

The thread has become one of the more interesting threads ever, at least as far as this poster is concerned.

From nihilism to one-liners that could make a book of quotations, to lengthy posts full of news bulletins and expert analysis, to self-pitying pathetic posts, this thread has a variety of viewpoints, perspectives and styles rarely displayed.

We in the USA are used to being the focus of attention and the receptacle of arrows and rhetorical bombardment, so we simply argue, even against our own nihilist and anarchist countrymen where they appear. The Chinese on the other hand, do not accept becoming a global bull's eye even when it is of their own doing.

USA is the country of learning -- or as some would say, the learning country -- whereas China is as it always has been for thousands of years, i.e., the autistic country that when it gets a wrong glance in its direction erupts in a reaction that varies from the superiority of scolding lectures to whimpering self-pity.

yes, america learned the vietnam lesson s well she just had to go out and get entangled in iraq just to make sure they were on the right track! lol

and no wonder youre a focus of attention:http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Of course the US has a complex and bloodied history of interventions around the world. These are the things that an empire does, and they are the things that all empires have done. Some empires do it under pretext, and some do it overtly. The US often does this under the cover of the spread of democracy and a morally superior pretext like protection of free speech and assembly (such viewpoint as evidenced by some true believer posters in this thread), while sending CIA advisers in to "advise" and [kill] in places such as all over Latin America in order to effect regime change.

What is common to all empires, is that the bigger they get, the hungrier they get, and they all seek to build a bubble around their territory in the form of a sphere of influence. This influence and control of other surrounding or nearby states for self protection, and resource procurement is logical and natural.

China is not an overtly expansionist empire. You don't see examples where they invaded and occupied vast territories as the Roman or British or Soviet Empires did, for example. However, they do want and need the oil under the SCS (and they will get it, at least a large portion), and they do want to extend the bubble that protects China from potential enemies, namely the USA, and at the same time, exercise domination and control over the whole of Asia Pacific, which China considers its back yard, and not the back yard of the USA.

So, we do see flag-wavers from both China and the USA on this thread, and we also see posters with varying degrees of acceptance and admissions to the facts of life of empires as I've stated herein.

You can often tell the depth and quality of a person's critical thinking ability by their ability to understand and argue the other person's point of view. You can also tell the extent to which they are subjectively enslaved to their own political belief system and value system by these same indicators.

We have at least one or two enslaved members on this thread. Hey, I think I just made an unintentional joke about my underwear. that sounds painful, an enslaved member.

most americans i know refuse to admit that america has/had an empire and that their interventions were all done out out of self interest

[keemapoot]

^Jaydee, I originally liked your post, and then took it back, because after I thought about it, I don't agree. There are many, many sophisticated, deep thinking Americans who do understand that America is an empire and that it acts in its self interests to intervene around the world.

I just think you haven't met enough Americans yet. And, please don't judge by some highly biased, tunnel-visioned posters who seem to live in a bubble on this forum, as they do not represent all that America is.

Edited April 26, 2016 by keemapoot

[AYJAYDEE]

^Jaydee, I originally liked your post, and then took it back, because after I thought about it, I don't agree. There are many, many sophisticated, deep thinking Americans who do understand that America is an empire and that it acts in its self interests to intervene around the world.

I just think you haven't met enough Americans yet. And, please don't judge by some highly biased, tunnel-visioned posters who seem to live in a bubble on this forum, as they do not represent all that America is.

i have lived and worked in the USA, have many american friends (most do understand) but the majority of my aquaintences fit my generalization

[2fishin2]

When was the last time the US stole land land that didnt belong to it? Dont answer with a strawman argument. How about China or even Russia? That's the answer and real crux of this entire debate.

[AYJAYDEE]

When was the last time the US stole land land that didnt belong to it? Dont answer with a strawman argument. How about China or even Russia? That's the answer and real crux of this entire debate.

no its not. empires can be economic as well

[LawrenceChee]

When was the last time the US stole land land that didnt belong to it? Dont answer with a strawman argument. How about China or even Russia? That's the answer and real crux of this entire debate.

no its not. empires can be economic as well

When Nike pays $1 for a start in the early 80s in wages in factories in Cambodia and Vietnam...that's call resource grabbing , exploitation and no osha was there In those places

Trust me ...when you see the conditions in the factories it makes you think twice before buying some crap item in Walmart you may not need ....the people making that in all parts of Asia ...that's stolen childhoods , time and life ....

[ExpatOilWorker]

The range of issues and points of view on this thread, are fascinating to read.

I had no idea until yesterday (BBC Doc posted last night) that the Chinese machine gunned Viet troops in 1988 and took over a submerged reef out there. There wasn't much context, who started shooting first but man, seeing those Vietnamese standing waist high in water, being mowed down, was hard core.

I also found the mowing down of the defenseless Vietnamese troops very brutal, but I am afraid it is showing the true nature of the PLA.

[LawrenceChee]

The range of issues and points of view on this thread, are fascinating to read.

I had no idea until yesterday (BBC Doc posted last night) that the Chinese machine gunned Viet troops in 1988 and took over a submerged reef out there. There wasn't much context, who started shooting first but man, seeing those Vietnamese standing waist high in water, being mowed down, was hard core.

I also found the mowing down of the defenseless Vietnamese troops very brutal, but I am afraid it is showing the true nature of the PLA.

No one should be mowed down like this and I wish this will not happen again but in the heat of all battles ...every veteran will tell you ...it's better to fire first than be fired at

[boomerangutang]

When was the last time the US stole land land that didnt belong to it? Dont answer with a strawman argument. How about China or even Russia? That's the answer and real crux of this entire debate.

Since the age of imperialism wound down (at around the 19th century), the US has not tried to commandeer other countries' territories. Philippines was probably the most recent imperialist venture, and the US marines (for better or for worse) went in there to try and quell native uprisings. Uncle Sam left soon after, only to return again in force at the closing months of WWII, but that wasn't a territory grab, it was to rescue prisoners, and to deliver a death blow to the Japanese navy.

Russia, as we know, has had its territory swell and ebb like a trillion ton octopus. And I've already pontificated a bunch on China's territory grabs of the past 70 yrs.

Back to topic: Look at the names on the maps (preceding China's territory grab in the SCS). All maps, even maps used in China, had the names of the two key groupings of islands as Paracel Islands and Spratly islands. Those names don't sound Chinese to me. Of course very recently, China has bestowed Chinese-sounding names to the islands. It would be like me stealing kids from some Chinese families, and then naming them Tom, Sandra and Bill and Nancy, ......and then claiming they've always had those names, therefore they're my kids. Similar with the Japanese-sounding 'Senkaku islands' near Japan. China recently named them Diaoyu Islands, but that doesn't magically make them Chinese possessions. It would be almost comical, except it's serious stuff, because if China can hang on to the islands it renames, then it can....

>>> terraform them, including destroying surrounding environment via dredging, waste dumping, overfishing, etc.

>>> stop and/or harass other countries' ships from passing nearby,

>>> harass other countries' planes flying over,

>>> drill for oil nearby. What if there's a serious spill? How responsible will Chinese clean-up crews be? Will they even acknowledge there's a spill? Look at recent past calamities (earthquakes and tepid official responses, for example), to get an idea of how China responds to uncomfortable scenarios.

>>> put Chinese residents on them, along with infrastructure/residences, etc, similar what it's doing in Tibet, with thousands of Han Chinese being railroaded up there to settle. There are now more Han Chinese in Tibet than Tibetans. Tibetans are discouraged from speaking their native language.

>>> set weapon systems upon them, usually in concrete.

[AYJAYDEE]

When was the last time the US stole land land that didnt belong to it? Dont answer with a strawman argument. How about China or even Russia? That's the answer and real crux of this entire debate.

Since the age of imperialism wound down (at around the 19th century), the US has not tried to commandeer other countries' territories. Philippines was probably the most recent imperialist venture, and the US marines (for better or for worse) went in there to try and quell native uprisings. Uncle Sam left soon after, only to return again in force at the closing months of WWII, but that wasn't a territory grab, it was to rescue prisoners, and to deliver a death blow to the Japanese navy.

Russia, as we know, has had its territory swell and ebb like a trillion ton octopus. And I've already pontificated a bunch on China's territory grabs of the past 70 yrs.

Back to topic: Look at the names on the maps (preceding China's territory grab in the SCS). All maps, even maps used in China, had the names of the two key groupings of islands as Paracel Islands and Spratly islands. Those names don't sound Chinese to me. Of course very recently, China has bestowed Chinese-sounding names to the islands. It would be like me stealing kids from some Chinese families, and then naming them Tom, Sandra and Bill and Nancy, ......and then claiming they've always had those names, therefore they're my kids. Similar with the Japanese-sounding 'Senkaku islands' near Japan. China recently named them Diaoyu Islands, but that doesn't magically make them Chinese possessions. It would be almost comical, except it's serious stuff, because if China can hang on to the islands it renames, then it can....

>>> terraform them, including destroying surrounding environment via dredging, waste dumping, overfishing, etc.

>>> stop and/or harass other countries' ships from passing nearby,

>>> harass other countries' planes flying over,

>>> drill for oil nearby. What if there's a serious spill? How responsible will Chinese clean-up crews be? Will they even acknowledge there's a spill? Look at recent past calamities (earthquakes and tepid official responses, for example), to get an idea of how China responds to uncomfortable scenarios.

>>> put Chinese residents on them, along with infrastructure/residences, etc, similar what it's doing in Tibet, with thousands of Han Chinese being railroaded up there to settle. There are now more Han Chinese in Tibet than Tibetans. Tibetans are discouraged from speaking their native language.

>>> set weapon systems upon them, usually in concrete.

no, now they just send troops to secure the territory and install a figurehead to maintain the stranglehold for them.

[boomerangutang]

When was the last time the US stole land land that didnt belong to it? Dont answer with a strawman argument. How about China or even Russia? That's the answer and real crux of this entire debate.

no its not. empires can be economic as well

When Nike pays $1 for a start in the early 80s in wages in factories in Cambodia and Vietnam...that's call resource grabbing , exploitation and no osha was there In those places

Trust me ...when you see the conditions in the factories it makes you think twice before buying some crap item in Walmart you may not need ....the people making that in all parts of Asia ...that's stolen childhoods , time and life ....

2fishin2 asked a good question. The two responses, above are diversionary and diluting. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I ask what color is your shirt, you can say 'blue', or you can go off on a tangent like; 'indigo used to be used to dye shirts bluish, but then shirt makers found that chemically-made blue color was cheaper, and then........"

Try to stay on topic. US Navy ships are patrolling the SCS because of concerns by all SE countries in that region - about China preemptively and illegally commandeering the islands. Very soon after, China commenced to dredging up thousands of tons of sand, and pouring concrete runways. More recently, they've set missile batteries in reinforced concrete bunkers. Only a fool would think China will stop militarizing and terraforming the islands. They never owned them, and they don't own them now. When are legal findings scheduled to come forth from international tribunals? Every time there's a mention of legal findings, in the same paragraph we hear that China is not a party to the legalities, and furthermore won't abide by any Int'l findings. We also hear that there's no teeth to any findings. So, the only buffer between China and its continued commandeering of territory, is the world's most powerful military. It ain't over, folks. Some ugly crap is going to hit the fan.

[AYJAYDEE]

When was the last time the US stole land land that didnt belong to it? Dont answer with a strawman argument. How about China or even Russia? That's the answer and real crux of this entire debate.

no its not. empires can be economic as well

When Nike pays $1 for a start in the early 80s in wages in factories in Cambodia and Vietnam...that's call resource grabbing , exploitation and no osha was there In those places

Trust me ...when you see the conditions in the factories it makes you think twice before buying some crap item in Walmart you may not need ....the people making that in all parts of Asia ...that's stolen childhoods , time and life ....

2fishin2 asked a good question. The two responses, above are diversionary and diluting. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I ask what color is your shirt, you can say 'blue', or you can go off on a tangent like; 'indigo used to be used to dye shirts bluish, but then shirt makers found that chemically-made blue color was cheaper, and then........"

Try to stay on topic. US Navy ships are patrolling the SCS because of concerns by all SE countries in that region - about China preemptively and illegally commandeering the islands. Very soon after, China commenced to dredging up thousands of tons of sand, and pouring concrete runways. More recently, they've set missile batteries in reinforced concrete bunkers. Only a fool would think China will stop militarizing and terraforming the islands. They never owned them, and they don't own them now. When are legal findings scheduled to come forth from international tribunals? Every time there's a mention of legal findings, in the same paragraph we hear that China is not a party to the legalities, and furthermore won't abide by any Int'l findings. We also hear that there's no teeth to any findings. So, the only buffer between China and its continued commandeering of territory, is the world's most powerful military. It ain't over, folks. Some ugly crap is going to hit the fan.

lol! the worlds most powerful military couldnt even keep the NVA out of saigon, isis out of iraq and the taliban out of afghanistan.

[boomerangutang]

2fishin2 asked a good question. The two responses, above are diversionary and diluting. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I ask what color is your shirt, you can say 'blue', or you can go off on a tangent like; 'indigo used to be used to dye shirts bluish, but then shirt makers found that chemically-made blue color was cheaper, and then........"

Try to stay on topic. US Navy ships are patrolling the SCS because of concerns by all SE countries in that region - about China preemptively and illegally commandeering the islands. Very soon after, China commenced to dredging up thousands of tons of sand, and pouring concrete runways. More recently, they've set missile batteries in reinforced concrete bunkers. Only a fool would think China will stop militarizing and terraforming the islands. They never owned them, and they don't own them now. When are legal findings scheduled to come forth from international tribunals? Every time there's a mention of legal findings, in the same paragraph we hear that China is not a party to the legalities, and furthermore won't abide by any Int'l findings. We also hear that there's no teeth to any findings. So, the only buffer between China and its continued commandeering of territory, is the world's most powerful military. It ain't over, folks. Some ugly crap is going to hit the fan.

lol! the worlds most powerful military couldnt even keep the NVA out of saigon, isis out of iraq and the taliban out of afghanistan.

...and they couldn't keep fleas out of their bedrolls or MSG out of their Chinese carry-out.

[Credo]

The US interest in the SCS is, of course, self-serving. Why would there be any agreement or intervention without some self interest? That rarely happens.

The US has military alliances with some of the countries in the region and these alliances are the basis for the involvement in the region. Keeping shipping lanes open is important, but it is not necessarily imperative. The countries in the region on nervous about Chinese expansion and intentions. If, for example, the Philippines wishes to use military might to reclaim what they consider to be the area where the island/reef has been built, the US will back them, but it is their claim to the island, not the US's. If it's not worth any risk to the Philippines, it's certainly not worth the risk to the US.

[keemapoot]

The US interest in the SCS is, of course, self-serving. Why would there be any agreement or intervention without some self interest? That rarely happens.

The US has military alliances with some of the countries in the region and these alliances are the basis for the involvement in the region. Keeping shipping lanes open is important, but it is not necessarily imperative. The countries in the region on nervous about Chinese expansion and intentions. If, for example, the Philippines wishes to use military might to reclaim what they consider to be the area where the island/reef has been built, the US will back them, but it is their claim to the island, not the US's. If it's not worth any risk to the Philippines, it's certainly not worth the risk to the US.

Actually, you're the first poster putting his finger on the most precise reason the US is now gearing this up. With the pivot to Asia, most likely to continue under Clinton, with the TPP passage, and with China's new aggression in the SCS it provides a timely opportunity for the US to reestablish its allies and friends in SE Asia, and double down on those bets. There will be a quid pro quo required of each country that the US sails in to save. So, this is a very good time for the US, presenting opportunities in the Pacific Century.

It is worth remembering all these countries will have a price to pay for Uncle Sam's kind benefaction.

Deal-making on a big scale. fun.

[LawrenceChee]

Not much different from what the Chinese are doing in the sidelines making deals

Although living in Thailand for a while and looking at Indochina and the general consumerism culture ....there is still a shade of glamor dealing with USA vs China

[Publicus]

^Jaydee, I originally liked your post, and then took it back, because after I thought about it, I don't agree. There are many, many sophisticated, deep thinking Americans who do understand that America is an empire and that it acts in its self interests to intervene around the world.

I just think you haven't met enough Americans yet. And, please don't judge by some highly biased, tunnel-visioned posters who seem to live in a bubble on this forum, as they do not represent all that America is.

That is a well balanced rhetoric by any standard.

One loose end of it is however that it leans unmistakably in one direction while it then reverses itself to lean unmistakably in the other direction. After all, the idea of balance is to be smooth rather than to shift so noticeably from here to there.

All the same, the bottom line is not necessarily whether one can be a successful prosecutor one day and a successful defender the next day. It is rather which victories does one win. And on which side, to include especially in pursuit of which goals and purposes; ends.

Clarence Darrow was my kind of advocate. His client in the Scopes Monkey Trial got fined $100 which back then was a lot of bucks, especially for a biology teacher. Darrow however kept Scopes out of jail. Moreover, Clarence Darrow killed off the Donald Trump of the time, Wm. Jennings Bryan who days after the trial died of a heart attack. Bryan had been humiliated on the stand by Darrow because Bryan simply failed to stand up to Darrow's scientific and rational scrutiny. So there's nothing wrong with being on the right side of the issue and there's everything right about it when one is exposing the dim wits of the other side.

So with Donald Trump as the latter-day incarnation of Jennings Byran, one can think the Clarence Darrow approach to defending and promoting the United States is the preferred approach. This applies to the CCP in particular and in the SCS where here, early in the 21st century, there's a lot of Chinese monkeying around.

CCP are out of their tree so the roundup of 'em has begun. But it's only just begun as there are a lot of 'em to catch and to snag. No walls needed either as they are counter productive (in the extreme). Balance has a different meaning to different folk. (Think attack, counter-attack.)

[Publicus]

When Nike pays $1 for a start in the early 80s in wages in factories in Cambodia and Vietnam...that's call resource grabbing , exploitation and no osha was there In those places

Trust me ...when you see the conditions in the factories it makes you think twice before buying some crap item in Walmart you may not need ....the people making that in all parts of Asia ...that's stolen childhoods , time and life ....

2fishin2 asked a good question. The two responses, above are diversionary and diluting. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I ask what color is your shirt, you can say 'blue', or you can go off on a tangent like; 'indigo used to be used to dye shirts bluish, but then shirt makers found that chemically-made blue color was cheaper, and then........"

Try to stay on topic. US Navy ships are patrolling the SCS because of concerns by all SE countries in that region - about China preemptively and illegally commandeering the islands. Very soon after, China commenced to dredging up thousands of tons of sand, and pouring concrete runways. More recently, they've set missile batteries in reinforced concrete bunkers. Only a fool would think China will stop militarizing and terraforming the islands. They never owned them, and they don't own them now. When are legal findings scheduled to come forth from international tribunals? Every time there's a mention of legal findings, in the same paragraph we hear that China is not a party to the legalities, and furthermore won't abide by any Int'l findings. We also hear that there's no teeth to any findings. So, the only buffer between China and its continued commandeering of territory, is the world's most powerful military. It ain't over, folks. Some ugly crap is going to hit the fan.

lol! the worlds most powerful military couldnt even keep the NVA out of saigon, isis out of iraq and the taliban out of afghanistan.

Learn something new each day. (Hopefully)

Specifically, Land-Air warfare is passe' and the US Army proved it in the places you identified and for the reasons we recognise since the stupid land war in Asia in Vietnam. No more maneuver forces will be used (divisions, army groups).

As US new military doctrine, since 2010, we have the use of special forces, special ops forces, brigades. We are currently seeing this in recent years and ongoing against Daesh, in Afghanistan, by Nato in Europe; and against Lybia. The division sized maneuver forces used by Bush and his Dick Cheney in Afghanistan and Iraq are failures of the past, not to be repeated by the US military and its civilian commanders up to the top. Not ever again.

Air-Sea Combat is the new US military fighting doctrine, officially since 2010. Those who've been developing the thread from the beginning were exposed to the essence of Air-Sea Battle in a post by yours truly.

It's more than one line to read, I know. Do however consider taking a brief moment to take a quick look at Air-Sea Battle as the US new warfighting doctrine:

Air-Sea Battle is typically depicted as a doctrine for long-range exchange of missiles with China in the troubled Western Pacific or with Iran in and around the Persian Gulf: US air and sea forces try to push their way in while battling enemy “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) forces trying to keep us out. But that’s just part of it.

Air-Sea Battle in essence, is an effort to develop compatible technologies and tactics across all four services for a new kind of conflict: not the Army and Marine-led land war against low-tech guerrillas we have seen since 9/11, but an Air Force and Navy-led campaign against “anti-access/area denial” forces that could fry our networks, jam GPS, and hit our planes, ships, bases, and even satellites with long-range missiles. China is the worst case scenario here, but not the only one.

Unlike nukes, cyber operations – both offensive and defensive – have been at the heart of Air-Sea Battle from the beginning, since it envisions future warfare as a clash not just between missiles, ships, and aircraft but between the computer networks linking them. Why shoot down planes or satellites one at a time when frying the enemy’s network can neutralize all his hardware at once?

http://breakingdefen...r-at-its-heart/

There is nothing in this new US military war fighting doctrine of the old and discarded practice of Land- maneuver battle. Learn this, know this, or look silly continually referencing the past US military doctrine of Land-Air and maneuver battle as utilised in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Those dayze are gone from US military war fighting doctrine. As of 2010, those dayze are gone forever.

Air-Sea Battle is here and it is here because it is radically different from the past of the US warfighting doctrines and their miserable failures. CCP has itself developed specialised and elite PLA units of air and inner space war fighting capabilities, and CCP is busting a nut trying to develop a respectable naval force, the latter is still yet to manifest.

Each side needs to try out its new toys because neither knows how they'd function in the real thing, to include actual and real time contested cyberwarfare.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Publicus

[LawrenceChee]

When Nike pays $1 for a start in the early 80s in wages in factories in Cambodia and Vietnam...that's call resource grabbing , exploitation and no osha was there In those places

Trust me ...when you see the conditions in the factories it makes you think twice before buying some crap item in Walmart you may not need ....the people making that in all parts of Asia ...that's stolen childhoods , time and life ....

2fishin2 asked a good question. The two responses, above are diversionary and diluting. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I ask what color is your shirt, you can say 'blue', or you can go off on a tangent like; 'indigo used to be used to dye shirts bluish, but then shirt makers found that chemically-made blue color was cheaper, and then........"

Try to stay on topic. US Navy ships are patrolling the SCS because of concerns by all SE countries in that region - about China preemptively and illegally commandeering the islands. Very soon after, China commenced to dredging up thousands of tons of sand, and pouring concrete runways. More recently, they've set missile batteries in reinforced concrete bunkers. Only a fool would think China will stop militarizing and terraforming the islands. They never owned them, and they don't own them now. When are legal findings scheduled to come forth from international tribunals? Every time there's a mention of legal findings, in the same paragraph we hear that China is not a party to the legalities, and furthermore won't abide by any Int'l findings. We also hear that there's no teeth to any findings. So, the only buffer between China and its continued commandeering of territory, is the world's most powerful military. It ain't over, folks. Some ugly crap is going to hit the fan.

lol! the worlds most powerful military couldnt even keep the NVA out of saigon, isis out of iraq and the taliban out of afghanistan.

Learn something new each day. (Hopefully)

Specifically, Land-Air warfare is passe' and the US Army proved it in the places you identified and for the reasons we recognise since the stupid land war in Asia in Vietnam. No more maneuver forces will be used (divisions, army groups).

As US new military doctrine, since 2010, we have the use of special forces, special ops forces, brigades. We are currently seeing this in recent years and ongoing against Daesh, in Afghanistan, by Nato in Europe; and against Lybia. The division sized maneuver forces used by Bush and his Dick Cheney in Afghanistan and Iraq are failures of the past, not to be repeated by the US military and its civilian commanders up to the top. Not ever again.

Air-Sea Combat is the new US military fighting doctrine, officially since 2010. Those who've been developing the thread from the beginning were exposed to the essence of Air-Sea Battle in a post by yours truly.

It's more than one line to read, I know. Do however consider taking a brief moment to take a quick look at Air-Sea Battle as the US new warfighting doctrine:

Air-Sea Battle is typically depicted as a doctrine for long-range exchange of missiles with China in the troubled Western Pacific or with Iran in and around the Persian Gulf: US air and sea forces try to push their way in while battling enemy “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) forces trying to keep us out. But that’s just part of it.

Air-Sea Battle in essence, is an effort to develop compatible technologies and tactics across all four services for a new kind of conflict: not the Army and Marine-led land war against low-tech guerrillas we have seen since 9/11, but an Air Force and Navy-led campaign against “anti-access/area denial” forces that could fry our networks, jam GPS, and hit our planes, ships, bases, and even satellites with long-range missiles. China is the worst case scenario here, but not the only one.

Unlike nukes, cyber operations – both offensive and defensive – have been at the heart of Air-Sea Battle from the beginning, since it envisions future warfare as a clash not just between missiles, ships, and aircraft but between the computer networks linking them. Why shoot down planes or satellites one at a time when frying the enemy’s network can neutralize all his hardware at once?

http://breakingdefen...r-at-its-heart/

There is nothing in this new US military war fighting doctrine of the old and discarded practice of Land- maneuver battle. Learn this, know this, or look silly continually referencing the past US military doctrine of Land-Air and maneuver battle as utilised in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Those dayze are gone from US military war fighting doctrine. Gone forever.

Air-Sea Battle is here and it is here because it is radically different from the past of the US warfighting doctrines and their miserable failures. CCP has itself developed specialised and elite PLA units of air and inner space war fighting capabilities, and CCP is busting a nut trying to develop a respectable naval force, the latter is still yet to manifest.

Each side needs to try out its new toys because neither knows how they'd function in the real thing, to include actual and real time contested cyberwarfare.

I can assure you none of the USA commanders share the same confidence ...going after terrorists is one thing when you hit them with drones and bomb them etc and hopefully not take out civilians repeatedly with bad intelligence

Attacking China by whatever doctrine , that's take guts and political will and currently both are lacking in real stimulus by the presidents or presidents to be

The Russians showed the Americans what a fly by was the other day and all the armorers and weapons was no good as no one had an itchy finger and wanted to awake the Russian bear and dared to shoot or fire a warning shot

The Chinese panda is no different ...the American forces have no land victories to prove in recent decades since WWII and know that's the weakest point

No UN or international body will endorse a bombing of China no matter what islands they try to reclaim ...they have 2 votes in that security council and you can bet the Russians won't play ball and UK are a lot wiser after Iraq not to trust the Americans gung go no Long term plans anymore

So you won't get your votes but you can try to go in solo and prove again you have no respect for laws that aren't made for you ...pretty much like China today. China just needs to find that balanced line where it has to stop as that is the max the world and its ASEAN partners can take ...so they exploring

Superpowers behave this way ...stop acting righteous or high moral ...looks silly .

[boomerangutang]

Thanks for the heads-up (post# 318), Publicus. Some peripheral thoughts: I was surprised when the Pentagon entertained bids for a contract recently, for state-of-the-art manned fighter jet. I think it was Boeing vs Lockheed, and Boeing lost (it's entry looked rather tubbish). One would think the manned jet fighter is a relic of the recent past, and that the new generations of fighters will be unmanned. They can be lighter, and turn/maneuver more agilely/swifter. No need for ejection seats. Save on fuel. Can have self-destruct mechanism, so rendered useless if they fall into enemy hands.

Land-based or all-terrain vehicles will more often be unmanned in future battles. Yet, top brass military are slow to adapt to concepts like jets with no pilots, and tanks with no drivers/bombadiers. They remember Sgt. York and other battlefield heroes. Ahhh, the good old days when a man can line up his sights and shoot another man.

Yet, no matter how advanced warfare becomes, there will be uses for soldiers at the battlefield. Navy seals, for example, are continually updating their capabilities and stealth.

[Publicus]

lol! the worlds most powerful military couldnt even keep the NVA out of saigon, isis out of iraq and the taliban out of afghanistan.

Learn something new each day. (Hopefully)

Specifically, Land-Air warfare is passe' and the US Army proved it in the places you identified and for the reasons we recognise since the stupid land war in Asia in Vietnam. No more maneuver forces will be used (divisions, army groups).

As US new military doctrine, since 2010, we have the use of special forces, special ops forces, brigades. We are currently seeing this in recent years and ongoing against Daesh, in Afghanistan, by Nato in Europe; and against Lybia. The division sized maneuver forces used by Bush and his Dick Cheney in Afghanistan and Iraq are failures of the past, not to be repeated by the US military and its civilian commanders up to the top. Not ever again.

Air-Sea Combat is the new US military fighting doctrine, officially since 2010. Those who've been developing the thread from the beginning were exposed to the essence of Air-Sea Battle in a post by yours truly.

It's more than one line to read, I know. Do however consider taking a brief moment to take a quick look at Air-Sea Battle as the US new warfighting doctrine:

Air-Sea Battle is typically depicted as a doctrine for long-range exchange of missiles with China in the troubled Western Pacific or with Iran in and around the Persian Gulf: US air and sea forces try to push their way in while battling enemy “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) forces trying to keep us out. But that’s just part of it.

Air-Sea Battle in essence, is an effort to develop compatible technologies and tactics across all four services for a new kind of conflict: not the Army and Marine-led land war against low-tech guerrillas we have seen since 9/11, but an Air Force and Navy-led campaign against “anti-access/area denial” forces that could fry our networks, jam GPS, and hit our planes, ships, bases, and even satellites with long-range missiles. China is the worst case scenario here, but not the only one.

Unlike nukes, cyber operations – both offensive and defensive – have been at the heart of Air-Sea Battle from the beginning, since it envisions future warfare as a clash not just between missiles, ships, and aircraft but between the computer networks linking them. Why shoot down planes or satellites one at a time when frying the enemy’s network can neutralize all his hardware at once?

http://breakingdefen...r-at-its-heart/

There is nothing in this new US military war fighting doctrine of the old and discarded practice of Land- maneuver battle. Learn this, know this, or look silly continually referencing the past US military doctrine of Land-Air and maneuver battle as utilised in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Those dayze are gone from US military war fighting doctrine. Gone forever.

Air-Sea Battle is here and it is here because it is radically different from the past of the US warfighting doctrines and their miserable failures. CCP has itself developed specialised and elite PLA units of air and inner space war fighting capabilities, and CCP is busting a nut trying to develop a respectable naval force, the latter is still yet to manifest.

Each side needs to try out its new toys because neither knows how they'd function in the real thing, to include actual and real time contested cyberwarfare.

I can assure you none of the USA commanders share the same confidence ...going after terrorists is one thing when you hit them with drones and bomb them etc and hopefully not take out civilians repeatedly with bad intelligence

Attacking China by whatever doctrine , that's take guts and political will and currently both are lacking in real stimulus by the presidents or presidents to be

The Russians showed the Americans what a fly by was the other day and all the armorers and weapons was no good as no one had an itchy finger and wanted to awake the Russian bear and dared to shoot or fire a warning shot

The Chinese panda is no different ...the American forces have no land victories to prove in recent decades since WWII and know that's the weakest point

No UN or international body will endorse a bombing of China no matter what islands they try to reclaim ...they have 2 votes in that security council and you can bet the Russians won't play ball and UK are a lot wiser after Iraq not to trust the Americans gung go no Long term plans anymore

So you won't get your votes but you can try to go in solo and prove again you have no respect for laws that aren't made for you ...pretty much like China today. China just needs to find that balanced line where it has to stop as that is the max the world and its ASEAN partners can take ...so they exploring

Superpowers behave this way ...stop acting righteous or high moral ...looks silly .

I recognise English is not your native language so you get a considerable latitude in your otherwise mostly excellent use of it.

The post did not say war is coming or that all out war is around the corner. Or that a general war is foreseeable. There will not be a war...certainly not a general war that either side consciously or willfully begins as a part of some evil design.

My post you quote presents and discusses that CCP and USA are doing their 21st century war planning. 21st century warfare on the scale of World War II means Air-Sea Battle, which includes cyberwarfare which means in turn space and satellite warfare. It means A2/AD, or Anti-access, Area Denial technologies CCP has 'acquired' to defend itself should a war break out for any reason -- for any reason or for no reason.

The SCS is not about a general war. Not on either side. SCS is not about a WW III. Certainly not consciously or by anyone's plan, intent or design. Not.

I'd stated previously to this thread and to other threads, SCS will very likely and instead develop to involve trigger pulling. There very likely will be an incident, consciously occurring or by accident -- how it may occur does not really matter. Not really.

SCS is a test of wills between two nations, two societies, two cultures, two civilisations. Namely and obviously, China the ancient and past one vs the USA the modern and future one. While it is a larger contest between East vs West, it is also a contest within East and South Asian civilisation.

There very likely will be several separate SCS individual, otherwise isolated shooting incidents between the US side and the CCP side, the armed forces of each.

For example a plane shootdown (almost certainly Australian first). Or firing directly into a warship (probably a Vietnamese one). Attacking a submarine (Japanese). Ramming tactics (probably against Philippines) is a CCP favorite...any ramming of USN ships or the warships of any other country would be an indicator of a looming more serious encounter as presented here.

Making plans for all out war is what the major military forces do of the major nations. Making such a plan does not mean a world war or a global war is in the making or around the corner. SCS is presently, and as it is developing, what is called a "low intensity" conflict. That is well below the level of a world war or an all out war.

We can expect the SCS match to have isolated shooting incidents but perhaps a series of 'em. No World Wart III. No war. Not even a Lybia kind of war, much less an Afghanistan or Iraq kind of war, or even a Syria kind of conflict. Those were or are Land-Air Conflicts which I've pointed out are consigned to the past, not to recur.

CCP and USA do need to test their new Air and Sea warfare capabilities at some low level in real time conflict, that's all. Bad, but not WW III.

[boomerangutang]

I can assure you none of the USA commanders share the same confidence ...going after terrorists is one thing when you hit them with drones and bomb them etc and hopefully not take out civilians repeatedly with bad intelligence

Attacking China by whatever doctrine , that's take guts and political will and currently both are lacking in real stimulus by the presidents or presidents to be

The Russians showed the Americans what a fly by was the other day and all the armorers and weapons was no good as no one had an itchy finger and wanted to awake the Russian bear and dared to shoot or fire a warning shot

The Chinese panda is no different ...the American forces have no land victories to prove in recent decades since WWII and know that's the weakest point

No UN or international body will endorse a bombing of China no matter what islands they try to reclaim ...they have 2 votes in that security council and you can bet the Russians won't play ball and UK are a lot wiser after Iraq not to trust the Americans gung go no Long term plans anymore

So you won't get your votes but you can try to go in solo and prove again you have no respect for laws that aren't made for you ...pretty much like China today. China just needs to find that balanced line where it has to stop as that is the max the world and its ASEAN partners can take ...so they exploring

Superpowers behave this way ...stop acting righteous or high moral ...looks silly .

LC: "The Russians showed the Americans what a fly by was the other day and all the armorers and weapons was no good as no one had an itchy finger and wanted to awake the Russian bear and dared to shoot or fire a warning shot"

Boomers: Not true. Naval personnel knew what was going on and took a conscious decision to not shoot. Other times, it's different: USN ship shot down a jet flying at a menacing trajectory straight for the ship. It was an Iranian Air jet. A Russian MIG shot down a Korean Air commercial jet which had strayed into Russian territory. Both instances are regrettable, but neither sparked any military retaliation. If in the recent USN incident, the Americans had shot at the Russkie jets, LC would be jumping up and down saying, "See, I told you Americans are trigger happy! They're always eager to create conflict!"

LC: "The Chinese panda is no different ...the American forces have no land victories to prove in recent decades since WWII and know that's the weakest point"

Boomers: Ok, you're inferring the PLA do have a victory? Ummm, yea, their invasion of Tibet. It would be like the US invading Canada's Yukon Territory. A walk-over. As for the US, what about the first Iraq war courtesy of Bush & Swarzkoff? It was too easy. Iraq had dozens of Russian state-of-the-art tanks, and not one of them got a projectile close to an adversary. By drilling their forces often, both in training and actual combat, the US military is miles ahead of any other force. Not even close.

LC: "China just needs to find that balanced line where it has to stop as that is the max the world and its ASEAN partners can take ...so they exploring"

Boomers: So, what are you saying, LC? China needs to push, push, push, until it hits some resistance? There are other islands down there, ....and a bit further south there's Papua. If all countries put up with China's pushiness, China could just keep oozing its way farther and farther. A country like Thailand would have no problem at all. Heck, let China take over island after island, Thai leaders would just smile and say things like, "Let's no interfere. China must have its reasons for traveling various places. They're now a rich country with many consumers and a large army, so who are we to question what they do?" Exploring?!? A proctologist explores also. So do leeches and slugs.

[chuckd]

When Nike pays $1 for a start in the early 80s in wages in factories in Cambodia and Vietnam...that's call resource grabbing , exploitation and no osha was there In those places

Trust me ...when you see the conditions in the factories it makes you think twice before buying some crap item in Walmart you may not need ....the people making that in all parts of Asia ...that's stolen childhoods , time and life ....

2fishin2 asked a good question. The two responses, above are diversionary and diluting. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I ask what color is your shirt, you can say 'blue', or you can go off on a tangent like; 'indigo used to be used to dye shirts bluish, but then shirt makers found that chemically-made blue color was cheaper, and then........"

Try to stay on topic. US Navy ships are patrolling the SCS because of concerns by all SE countries in that region - about China preemptively and illegally commandeering the islands. Very soon after, China commenced to dredging up thousands of tons of sand, and pouring concrete runways. More recently, they've set missile batteries in reinforced concrete bunkers. Only a fool would think China will stop militarizing and terraforming the islands. They never owned them, and they don't own them now. When are legal findings scheduled to come forth from international tribunals? Every time there's a mention of legal findings, in the same paragraph we hear that China is not a party to the legalities, and furthermore won't abide by any Int'l findings. We also hear that there's no teeth to any findings. So, the only buffer between China and its continued commandeering of territory, is the world's most powerful military. It ain't over, folks. Some ugly crap is going to hit the fan.

lol! the worlds most powerful military couldnt even keep the NVA out of saigon, isis out of iraq and the taliban out of afghanistan.

...or the Chinese out of Tibet...lol!

[Publicus]

Thanks for the heads-up (post# 318), Publicus. Some peripheral thoughts: I was surprised when the Pentagon entertained bids for a contract recently, for state-of-the-art manned fighter jet. I think it was Boeing vs Lockheed, and Boeing lost (it's entry looked rather tubbish). One would think the manned jet fighter is a relic of the recent past, and that the new generations of fighters will be unmanned. They can be lighter, and turn/maneuver more agilely/swifter. No need for ejection seats. Save on fuel. Can have self-destruct mechanism, so rendered useless if they fall into enemy hands.

Land-based or all-terrain vehicles will more often be unmanned in future battles. Yet, top brass military are slow to adapt to concepts like jets with no pilots, and tanks with no drivers/bombadiers. They remember Sgt. York and other battlefield heroes. Ahhh, the good old days when a man can line up his sights and shoot another man.

Yet, no matter how advanced warfare becomes, there will be uses for soldiers at the battlefield. Navy seals, for example, are continually updating their capabilities and stealth.

Good post and one of a series of consistently well analyzed and insightful posts over time to several threads, if I may say.

Yes, Army special operations troops, delta forces in small effective agile units, the smaller light and high efficiency US Marine forces; navy seals, air force special ops too, many of 'em old and new.

However, the largest land fighting unit the US wants to use going forward is the brigade, which consists of 5000 troops in several battalions and 16 or so companies and 40 or so platoons. No divisions of 10,000 troops pouring in with several of 'em maneuvering around and about -- no, no more. Gen "Stormin" Norman Schwartzkopft was the last US field commander to have this SUCCESSFULLY, in the first Gulf War in 1991.

Any armed force of any nation incapable of putting boots on the ground will and must lose. So US will continue to use land forces, but in much smaller agile flexible all purpose units than ever in the past,

Warfare in the 21st century is air and sea and undersea warfare that occurs in the cyberspace of satellites, and the anti-satellite weapons developed by CCP. And the satellite defenses further developed by the Pentagon.

(SecDef Ashton Carter is a star wars kind of guy, i.e., space and satellites. His focus is on super tech weapons systems, i.e., identify where in the "kill chain" the system's weak point is and to exploit it to knock out the whole of the system. And how to defend against same.)

[LawrenceChee]

Comrade P

I can speak 5 languages so at times the English may not be perfect in typing especially seeing you are at the desk pecking away and I am on an iPhone at an airport most times typing in a lounge replying to the pairs

Not sure why the inference to language ? I don't thinks it's that bad people can't understand ? I have lots of friends who work in Marcom and are whinny about grammar but that's their line of profession ...what's yours ?

Are you one of those grammar freaks ? Yours is not the best at times when you ramble but with your age I let it slide seeing I can think inside my head with 5 and you probably one ?

Now if you can think in Maths as fast as myself that might impress me ...just might

Edited April 27, 2016 by LawrenceChee

[Publicus]

Comrade P

I can speak 5 languages so at times the English may not be perfect in typing especially seeing you are at the desk pecking away and I am on an iPhone at an airport most times typing in a lounge replying to the pairs

Not sure why the inference to language ? I don't thinks it's that bad people can't understand ? I have lots of friends who work in Marcom and are whinny about grammar but that's their line of profession ...what's yours ?

Are you one of those grammar freaks ? Yours is not the best at times when you ramble but with your age I let it slide seeing I can think inside my head with 5 and you probably one ?

Now if you can think in Maths as fast as myself that might impress me ...just might

Lawrence your English is perfectly coherent and I'm not complaining in any respect of its mechanics to include grammar or any other nazi obsessions about English that certain people sometimes display.

I read your post to mean you thought US was preparing to start WW III by attacking China any day now.

This line in your post caught my attention:

Attacking China by whatever doctrine , that's take guts and political will and currently both are lacking in real stimulus by the presidents or presidents to be

So I made a post to refute that.

The United States will sink a PLA Navy warship in the SCS confrontation, but only under very specific circumstances, provocations, tactical and strategic considerations, yes. However, United States is not going to launch 8000 conventional warhead missiles against the mainland of the CCP China (or against anyone anywhere else).

I want that to be clear in this discussion of the SCS mess. It is clear to me anyway that neither side is about to try to start World War III. Certainly not by anyone's design or intention. Each side is and will continue to be careful about accidents and, more importantly, playing down any accident that may occur.

However, are separate individual incidents of live fire likely to occur, yes. A series of individual (if connected) live fire incidents, yes, such things could occur. I and others think it's very likely to occur.

US will not however be first to pull the trigger.

Just as I say btw that US will not fire a first shot in the SCS, so too can anyone say CCP will not fire the first shot. So the effect is that everyone will have wait to see what comes out in the wash.

Just keep in mind the USA is neither defending territory nor is it advancing on territory (land or sea). It is pursuing the status quo. It is initiating nothing so one should not expect it to be the first to pull the trigger. Regardless, we'd still have to see how things look after the wash cycle starts.

One big risk for instance is if CCP unilaterally and arbitrarily declare an Air Defense Identification Zone over the SCS or particular parts of it where CCP has occupied existing islands or has occupied artificial islands CCP have constructed. CCP said two years ago it definitely will do this, at a time and circumstance of its choosing. CCP has said it again very recently. An ADIZ requires specific requests to fly through it at the risk of being shot down. US will fly through an ADIZ in any form over the SCS and the US will fly through it each and every day. Twice on Sundays. Have absolutely no doubt of it.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Publicus

[LawrenceChee]

I have written in my previous posts ...these two giants need some space to jostle around and play to their own crowds / politics

I don't think anyone will fire something at each other although.

I agree with you on a rare point ...there will be no WWIII started by either China or USA ...the only folks capable of starting that will be in Middle East or Crazy Kim up north

[boomerangutang]

I agree, the US is not going to attack China, and has zero intention of doing so.

If there is conflict, it will be in the South China Sea. The islands there have never been Chinese and aren't now. So any conflict on or around the islands is not attacking China, any more than attacking Trinidad is attacking the US.

The Spratly Islands belong to Philippines because they're near the Philippines. Indeed, they're several times closer to Phil's than to Hainan.

The Paracels are more Vietnamese than Chinese. If Vietnam had military as large or mightier than China's, then China wouldn't be so crudely laying claim to them. It's only because China has a mightier military, that it's pushing its weight around. Same for the Spratlys and other island groups near Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Taiwan and Japan.

It's an ugly territory grab, and SE Asian countries (among others) don't like it. Not one country ww is supporting China in these disputes. Usually, China can pay some small principalities (like Fiji or Cape Verde Islands) to support it, but they can't even get a little principality like Montenegro or The Gambia to back its claim, let along any other country. China didn't have many friends before the stand-off. It has less now. It's losing face and losing credence as each week rolls by.

[AYJAYDEE]

I agree, the US is not going to attack China, and has zero intention of doing so.

If there is conflict, it will be in the South China Sea. The islands there have never been Chinese and aren't now. So any conflict on or around the islands is not attacking China, any more than attacking Trinidad is attacking the US.

The Spratly Islands belong to Philippines because they're near the Philippines. Indeed, they're several times closer to Phil's than to Hainan.

The Paracels are more Vietnamese than Chinese. If Vietnam had military as large or mightier than China's, then China wouldn't be so crudely laying claim to them. It's only because China has a mightier military, that it's pushing its weight around. Same for the Spratlys and other island groups near Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Taiwan and Japan.

It's an ugly territory grab, and SE Asian countries (among others) don't like it. Not one country ww is supporting China in these disputes. Usually, China can pay some small principalities (like Fiji or Cape Verde Islands) to support it, but they can't even get a little principality like Montenegro or The Gambia to back its claim, let along any other country. China didn't have many friends before the stand-off. It has less now. It's losing face and losing credence as each week rolls by.

lol! since when is distance a measure of who owns land?

[Publicus]

When was the last time the US stole land land that didnt belong to it? Dont answer with a strawman argument. How about China or even Russia? That's the answer and real crux of this entire debate.

no its not. empires can be economic as well

When Nike pays $1 for a start in the early 80s in wages in factories in Cambodia and Vietnam...that's call resource grabbing , exploitation and no osha was there In those places

Trust me ...when you see the conditions in the factories it makes you think twice before buying some crap item in Walmart you may not need ....the people making that in all parts of Asia ...that's stolen childhoods , time and life ....

Just got myself away from the Canton Fair (in Guangzhou as you well know) which I attend once during its twice yearly event, as a consultant to an industrial group in Guangdong province (Ye Olde Canton Faire).

Don't know the experience of others who post here with manufacturing facilities in the CCP China (factories), but the industrial group I've been consulting with for several years in the CCP South have very good production and safe storage facilities. Most of 'em are in fact excellent.

Some Chinese owners in the group have nearly immaculate and safe factories in Shenzhen. The group's older buildings outside the central urban areas, but still in built up areas out to Shantou, are well restored and maintained. Their factories are clean, neat, well ordered and kept. So it sounds from your post that the factories you go to are owned by CCP misers who use 19th century capitalism as their model -- and everyone knows there are plenty of those in the CCP China.

Osha for sure would come out of any of these particular buildings that I know with a list of corrections, from the urgent to the very soon category of attention, but Osha simply would not be aghast over any of these particular facilities. When I'm there I do a lone cowboy stroll-through at whichever facility I am, just to check things out -- they are in fact the same as when I participate in a hosted business visit. (I also enjoy the pleasant individual interaction as the workers are very receptive toward this Yankee Capitalist Running Dog Imperialist loose on the grounds!)

Youse guyz who do business in the CCP need to find a better bunch of state-corporate bosses there cause it sounds like the Party ones are the only masters you associate with.

Indeed youse guyz might want to revise and extend your thoughts in these CCP posting matters as they relate to the CCP threads and their topics.