China builds new military facilities on South China Sea islands - think tank

[webfact]

China builds new military facilities on South China Sea islands - think tank

 

Construction is shown on Mischief Reef, in the Spratly Islands, the disputed South China Sea in this June 19, 2017 satellite image released by CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to Reuters on June 29, 2017. MANDATORY CREDIT CSIS/AMTI DigitalGlobe/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China has built new military facilities on islands in the South China Sea, a U.S. think tank reported on Thursday, a move that could raise tensions with Washington, which has accused Beijing of militarising the vital waterway.

 

The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), part of Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, said new satellite images show missile shelters and radar and communications facilities being built on the Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi Reefs in the Spratly Islands.

 

The United States has criticized China's build-up of military facilities on the artificial islands and is concerned they could be used to restrict free movement through the South China Sea, an important trade route.

 

Last month, a U.S. Navy warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef in a so-called freedom of navigation operation, the first such challenge to Beijing's claim to most of the waterway since U.S. President Donald Trump took office.

 

China has denied U.S. charges that it is militarising the sea, which also is claimed by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

 

Trump has sought China's help in reining in North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, and tension between Washington and Beijing over military installations in the South China Sea could complicate those efforts.

 

China has built four new missile shelters on Fiery Cross Reef to go with the eight already on the artificial island, AMTI said. Mischief and Subi each have eight shelters, the think tank said in a previous report.

 

In February, Reuters reported that China had nearly finished building structures to house long-range surface-to-air missiles on the three islands.

 

On Mischief Reef, a very large antennae array is being installed that presumably boosts Beijing's ability to monitor the surroundings, the think tank said, adding that the installation should be of concern to the Philippines due to its proximity to an area claimed by Manila.

 

A large dome recently was installed on Fiery Cross and another is under construction, indicating a sizeable communications or radar system, AMTI said. Two more domes are being built at Mischief Reef, it said.

 

A smaller dome has been installed near the missile shelters on Mischief, "indicating that it could be connected to radars for any missile systems that might be housed there," AMTI said.

 

"Beijing can now deploy military assets, including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers, to the Spratly Islands at any time," it said.

 

(Reporting by Eric Beech; Editing by Bill Trott)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-30

[impulse]

I'd like to conjure up an after-life meeting with the guy who named the reef.  That is, after his life.  During mine...

 

I need some long term stock picking advice.

 

 

[the guest]

So nobody complains about the embargo against Cuba, but when china sets up it's own military post, the world complains. Double standards I think !

[williamgeorgeallen]

everyone relax. trump is ramping up coal mining and consumption which will increase global warming, raising sea levels, drowning these low lying military bases.  dam smart.

[sgracer]

1 hour ago, the guest said:

So nobody complains about the embargo against Cuba, but when china sets up it's own military post, the world complains. Double standards I think !

 

not to mention the military outposts on okinawa, south korea, guam, the supply of arms to taiwan etc.

[boomerangutang]

China politburo thinks; if you can steal it and get away with it, do it.  They did it with Tibet, why not expand southward?

[oldgent]

cause for concern I think. 

[IAMHERE]

This should not be costing America money or blood. Their are at least five other nations that can spend their money and blood.

[off road pat]

The Americans and British did exactly the same on Diego Garcia after kicking out the inhabitants. !

http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/03/18/diego-garcia-truth-and-power

http://ifg.org/2016/05/03/diego-garcia-50-years-of-fiction-about-an-american-military-base/

[off road pat]

47 minutes ago, sgracer said:

 

not to mention the military outposts on okinawa, south korea, guam, the supply of arms to taiwan etc.

Diego Garcia anyone !?!?!?

[Morch]

3 hours ago, off road pat said:

Diego Garcia anyone !?!?!?

 

Was Diego Garcia used to claim ownership of the Indian Ocean?

[ddavidovsky]

The US has three options: bomb it, shut up, or whine about it. I know what it's going to be.

 

The region is now China's and will be in perpetuity. Frankly, they deserve it, the stealth and speed with which they've done this is breathtaking. Nobody has been displaced. I only hope they put the region to good use - a marine reserve, or tourism. It could be the new Maldives.

[Dumbastheycome]

7 hours ago, sgracer said:

 

not to mention the military outposts on okinawa, south korea, guam, the supply of arms to taiwan etc.

A  very  incomplete  list.

 

[Thechook]

They do believe that the South China sea is their territory so the are defending it.  Next is claiming the Indian Ocean and all lands it kisses as part of China.

[off road pat]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Was Diego Garcia used to claim ownership of the Indian Ocean?

No, Diego Garcia was a peaceful island with indigenous people !!! The British and Americans took possession of the Island and deported the Indigenous population and slaughtered all there animals, so they could build a naval base and Military airport !!!

[Morch]

On 7/1/2017 at 2:44 PM, off road pat said:

No, Diego Garcia was a peaceful island with indigenous people !!! The British and Americans took possession of the Island and deported the Indigenous population and slaughtered all there animals, so they could build a naval base and Military airport !!!

 

And you do realize that's not what the topic is about, right? If you wished to compare treatment of indigenous people by the PRC there would be other, more relevant examples.

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And you do realize that's not what the topic is about, right? If you wished to compare treatment of indigenous people by the PRC there would be other, more relevant examples.

 

 

The  treatment  of the indigenous  people is an example  of  very  inhumane treatment for  the purpose  of  constructing  a   military   base  extremely  remote  from  the  initiators. 

It is  relevant . It demonstrates a  desire  for  global  domination  as  opposed  to  China  establishing  positions in local albeit  disputed territory.,

The propaganda is  getting   very  tiring.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

The  treatment  of the indigenous  people is an example  of  very  inhumane treatment for  the purpose  of  constructing  a   military   base  extremely  remote  from  the  initiators. 

It is  relevant . It demonstrates a  desire  for  global  domination  as  opposed  to  China  establishing  positions in local albeit  disputed territory.,

The propaganda is  getting   very  tiring.

I agree that the propaganda, in this case US bashing, does get tiresome.

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

I agree that the propaganda, in this case US bashing, does get tiresome.

 

 

Relevancy  is  not   bashing. It  is  relevancy of fact. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Relevancy  is  not   bashing. It  is  relevancy of fact. 

 

The only relevancy seems to be that both are islands.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The only relevancy seems to be that both are islands.

 

lol.

[tonbridgebrit]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The only relevancy seems to be that both are islands.

 

Morch, they're both islands ??

Morch, in Diego Garcia, indigenous people were forced to leave. In China's islands, nobody has been forced leave, the islands are newly built !!   :)


 

 

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And you do realize that's not what the topic is about, right? If you wished to compare treatment of indigenous people by the PRC there would be other, more relevant examples.

 

 

How about we look at Australia's treament of indigenous people, as well as China ?
 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

Oh well, Reuters has decided to raise this absurd attempt to demonize China, again.

Look, let's get real here. The Obama government wanted to demonize China, and they decided to use the issue of China building these irrelevant dots in the South China Sea to demonize China. Hillary Clinton was suppose to be elected, and Hillary was going to continue the same BS campaign.

But Trump got in instead. I really hope that Trump has enough sense and decency to not carry on with this ridiculous and pathetic attempt to make China look like a bunch of thugs trying to steal territory.

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, they're both islands ??

Morch, in Diego Garcia, indigenous people were forced to leave. In China's islands, nobody has been forced leave, the islands are newly built !!   :)


 

 

How about we look at Australia's treament of indigenous people, as well as China ?
 

 

 

How about you comment on topic?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Oh well, Reuters has decided to raise this absurd attempt to demonize China, again.

Look, let's get real here. The Obama government wanted to demonize China, and they decided to use the issue of China building these irrelevant dots in the South China Sea to demonize China. Hillary Clinton was suppose to be elected, and Hillary was going to continue the same BS campaign.

But Trump got in instead. I really hope that Trump has enough sense and decency to not carry on with this ridiculous and pathetic attempt to make China look like a bunch of thugs trying to steal territory.

 

 

Reuters hasn't "decided to raise this topic", they are reporting about it. If there was, indeed, an "attempt to demonize China", it would have been by the think tank mentioned in the OP. Do go on about "absurd".

 

The Obama administration did not seek to "demonize China". The US and the PRC have conflicting interests in the region, and the PRC conduct (with regard to the topic at hand) was both confrontational and dishonest (vs. US and neighboring countries). The "dots" are not "irrelevant", not by a long shot. Not even if you manage yet another "demonize China".

 

Trump seems lacking in both sense and decency. What you hope for is for the PRC to achieve its goals.

[ddavidovsky]

The current argument as to who owns these atolls relates to their proximity to other countries. This assumes, for one thing, that human development is now set in aspic and there can be no further changes to borders and no more movements of peoples. It's hopeful rather than realistic.

 

Another argument, validated by much of history, is that ownership of a place relates to the ability to exploit/develop it economically. Thus Europeans stole North America. In the SE China Sea, no one has been displaced. China is basically expanding because it has the population and the economic clout to do so. We ought to be thankful it is in such a minor way.

 

It could have been prevented, but Vietnam, Philippines etc did nothing to develop this territory. They snooze, they lose.

 

If I was China, I would be making the above arguments - there's no reasonable reply - rather than trying to brazen it out.

Edited July 3, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[boomerangutang]

On 6/30/2017 at 3:04 PM, IAMHERE said:

This should not be costing America money or blood. Their are at least five other nations that can spend their money and blood.

There are times when peace should be advised.  Other times when military might should come to the fore.  This is a time for military muscle flexing by the US.   It's the only navy in the world powerful enough to force the Chinese to back off on their commandeering of other countries' territories.  If it comes to military action, that's lamentable, but I think it's justified in this instance.   China is the 900 lb bully and must be disciplined.

 

On 6/30/2017 at 8:39 PM, ddavidovsky said:

The US has three options: bomb it, shut up, or whine about it. I know what it's going to be.

The region is now China's and will be in perpetuity. Frankly, they deserve it, the stealth and speed with which they've done this is breathtaking. Nobody has been displaced. I only hope they put the region to good use - a marine reserve, or tourism. It could be the new Maldives.

See my missive, above.  China is way out of line.  I've been following this issue of China commandeering other countries' territories, for years.  I predict that military conflict will break out there in the SC sea and China will be on the losing end. 

On 7/1/2017 at 2:44 PM, off road pat said:

No, Diego Garcia was a peaceful island with indigenous people !!! The British and Americans took possession of the Island and deported the Indigenous population and slaughtered all there animals, so they could build a naval base and Military airport !!!

There are hundreds of transgressions from bygone days.  Pretty much every country has sordid episodes in their past.  Bikini Island is another.   In some regions, like the Middle east, every square meter has been fought over dozens of times.  There's human and animal blood on the sand there that's thousands of years old.  That's not to say they weren't grievous, but today is today.  

 

The pressing issue today and the near future is China's bullying and environmental destruction in the SC Sea.  Not as much mentioned, but just as dire is the massive overfishing there.  It goes hand-in-hand with destruction of coral reefs.   Just because the Fils weren't terraforming and pouring thousands of tons of concrete there, doesn't mean the islands/shoals don't belong to them.  Look at any map, and it's plain the territories China started claiming 12 yrs ago are not theirs.

[tonbridgebrit]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Reuters hasn't "decided to raise this topic", they are reporting about it. If there was, indeed, an "attempt to demonize China", it would have been by the think tank mentioned in the OP. Do go on about "absurd".

 

The Obama administration did not seek to "demonize China". The US and the PRC have conflicting interests in the region, and the PRC conduct (with regard to the topic at hand) was both confrontational and dishonest (vs. US and neighboring countries). The "dots" are not "irrelevant", not by a long shot. Not even if you manage yet another "demonize China".

 

Trump seems lacking in both sense and decency. What you hope for is for the PRC to achieve its goals.

Morch, the "think tank" has done this to demonize China. And Reuters, they've given the think tank a patform to spread this demonizing of China.

What is the point of the Chinese dots ??  They are irelevant. Are the dots there, to try and stop Japanese (or any other) ships from entering the South China Sea ? Off-course not. If China was to use the dots or ships to block any non-Chinese ships, well, Washington will have every right to fire a few missiles and knock out the enemy. Yes, China's military is nothing when compared to what Washington has got. Washington can simply use 2% of it's firepower, and this will knock-out the bulk of China's combat jets and military ships.

So, what's the point of the Chinese dots ?  They are there, for symbolic reasons, for display purposes. Those countries on the South China Sea, we're talking Vietnam, Philipinnes, etc. Those countries are doing more and more trade with China (imports and exports) and China is sending increasing numbers of tourists to those countries. China is increasing it's economic influence on those countries, and the dots are symbolic of this increasing influence. By the way, nobody is forcing these countries to do more trade with China, Beijing is not forcing them to accept more and more tourists.


You say that I'm hoping that PRC will achieve it's goals ? Okay, I have no problems with Chinese goods in Britain's shops. And I have no problems with Britain exporting more goods to China. And I don't have a problem with more and more Chinese tourists in London.

[tonbridgebrit]

17 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

.  Look at any map, and it's plain the territories China started claiming 12 yrs ago are not theirs.

China has been claiming this stuff for 12 years ??  Well, actually, no.

When Publicus was here, he kept on putting up that 9 dash line map. That's the map that Beijing has been using to claim the South China Sea. That map was drawn back in about, 1947.  The Chinese who drew that map, well, they lost the civil war in China, and fled to Taiwan. And those Chinese who fled to Taiwan, well, they're still using the same map to claim the South China Sea. Note that Taiwan (Republic of China) is an ally of Washington's. The Chinese who won that war, in 1949, we're talking about Mao Zedong, they still control China today. They are using the same map. These Chinese are claiming all the territory China had prior to 1949.

By the way, there is talk, that China told Britain and France back in the 1870s, that the South China Sea belonged to China. This was towards the time when Britain and France first turned up in the area. Surely, China's borders that existed when Britain and France turned up in the Far East, those borders are the acceptable borders ? I mean, it would be ridiculous to turn up in the Far East, and then say to the countries that are there, tell them "we are not accepting these borders". 

And the Philipinnes. Duterte has become a Beijing ally. I don't think Duterte is against China. Duterte might be more friendly with Beijing than with Washington.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, the "think tank" has done this to demonize China. And Reuters, they've given the think tank a patform to spread this demonizing of China.

What is the point of the Chinese dots ??  They are irelevant. Are the dots there, to try and stop Japanese (or any other) ships from entering the South China Sea ? Off-course not. If China was to use the dots or ships to block any non-Chinese ships, well, Washington will have every right to fire a few missiles and knock out the enemy. Yes, China's military is nothing when compared to what Washington has got. Washington can simply use 2% of it's firepower, and this will knock-out the bulk of China's combat jets and military ships.

So, what's the point of the Chinese dots ?  They are there, for symbolic reasons, for display purposes. Those countries on the South China Sea, we're talking Vietnam, Philipinnes, etc. Those countries are doing more and more trade with China (imports and exports) and China is sending increasing numbers of tourists to those countries. China is increasing it's economic influence on those countries, and the dots are symbolic of this increasing influence. By the way, nobody is forcing these countries to do more trade with China, Beijing is not forcing them to accept more and more tourists.


You say that I'm hoping that PRC will achieve it's goals ? Okay, I have no problems with Chinese goods in Britain's shops. And I have no problems with Britain exporting more goods to China. And I don't have a problem with more and more Chinese tourists in London.

 

You can repeat your "demonize China" nonsense all you like, still doesn't amount to demonstrating it. That it is your opinion doesn't make it fact. Similarly, despite your unfounded claims, both Reuters and the Center for Strategic and International Studies are credible sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies).

 

In the same vain, insisting the PRC's efforts are "irrelevant", minimizing them as "dots" - is just more of the usual disingenuous, agenda driven propaganda which makes the bulk of your posts. Claiming that the PRC has no territorial ambitions, or no designs relevant to maritime traffic in the region is preposterous. and counterfactual. The irrelevant bit would be the childishly simplistic (and inaccurate) representation of military balance.

 

The PRC's efforts on these islands (not "dots") are not carried out for unspecified "symbolic" reasons. Nor are they carried out for vague "display purposes". There would be no need for these outposts to be militarized if they were about commerce and tourism.

 

There was nothing in my post which mentioned the UK, London or anything of the sort. Lame deflection. What you're on about is non stop support for PRC expansionist policies and dominance in the region.