Britain plans to send warship to South China Sea in move likely to irk Beijing

[soalbundy]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

 

 

Two things about that upcoming meeting:   #1 SE Asian countries which aren't directly affected by Chinese aggression in the S.C.Sea will demure.  At most, countries like Thailand will say tepid things like Rodney King would say, "why can't we all just get along?"

 

#2,   Countries which are directly affected, like Philippines and Vietnam, will be hamstrung by their worries about not being strong enough to stand up to the 600 lb China bully.  Granted, they are weaker militarily, but the US Britain and France will lock arms with Fils and VN.   Only Britain and the US, right now, are doing a few tangible things to show they're willing to stand by their Asian friends.

 

                  More countries, including Australia/NZ, should step up to the plate and do what's right.   Notice, it's only Caucasian-dominated countries which are willing to show resolve to assisting Fil and VN.   All Asian countries are fading in the shadows.    

 

                       Similar happened regarding the E.Timor problem with Indonesia.   It was western countries which rang the alarm and came to E.Timor's aid.   Asian countries only showed up after E.Timor went through its darkest hours.    Thailand send a contingent of about 11 armed guards to patrol the streets there, only weeks after farang countries had come in and done the dirty work.  

 

                                             What is it about Asian countries, where they're so easily cowed - particularly cowed by China?  I know China has a giant population and a powerful military.   But heck, India has similar, and is also a nuclear power, but India is always hiding in the wings - when it comes to assisting a fellow Asian country being threatened.   Same for every other Asian country.    Bottom line:  Asians are scared to take a strong stand for what's right.

They can think outside the box, be pragmatic, trade, who needs ruined cities for an ideology. Look what getting involved in the middle East has done for the world. It seems people ignore those plaques on the walls saying 'Lest we forget'.

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

An aircraft carrier with no aircraft and precious little defensive systems ?

An aircraft carrier never sails alone.  It will have a numerous warships with it.  Enough of a deterrence.  And the US will probably be close by. 

 

Perhaps a great training exercise for the crew?

[Krataiboy]

Yeah, but. . .

 

Clearly another heartwarming demonstration of our "special relationship" with the Yanks.

 

One day, on the pretext of bailing us out of the Brexit quagmire, they offer us a phony "free trade" that will mainly benefit corporation America.

 

The next we get the call to arms to cock a mililtary snook at the hated Commie regime which is turning America into one ginormous Walmart.

 

What a double whammy for Mother Theresa and the rest of the Tory twits rearranging the furniture as the decks of the stricken SS Britannia!

 

Hopefully, the vicar's daughter will recall what happened to the political reputation of Tory Lite lapdog leader Tony Blair after he stupidly agreed to help the US sock it to Saddam.

 

And maybe somebody should remind balmy Boris that - unlike the erstwhile Iraqi leader - the Chinese actually do have weapons of mass destruction and will have no qualms about using them.

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

Yeah, but. . .

 

Clearly another heartwarming demonstration of our "special relationship" with the Yanks.

 

One day, on the pretext of bailing us out of the Brexit quagmire, they offer us a phony "free trade" that will mainly benefit corporation America.

 

The next we get the call to arms to cock a mililtary snook at the hated Commie regime which is turning America into one ginormous Walmart.

 

What a double whammy for Mother Theresa and the rest of the Tory twits rearranging the furniture as the decks of the stricken SS Britannia!

 

Hopefully, the vicar's daughter will recall what happened to the political reputation of Tory Lite lapdog leader Tony Blair after he stupidly agreed to help the US sock it to Saddam.

 

And maybe somebody should remind balmy Boris that - unlike the erstwhile Iraqi leader - the Chinese actually do have weapons of mass destruction and will have no qualms about using them.

They'll have a modicum of qualms. 

[soalbundy]

Just now, Krataiboy said:

Yeah, but. . .

 

Clearly another heartwarming demonstration of our "special relationship" with the Yanks.

 

One day, on the pretext of bailing us out of the Brexit quagmire, they offer us a phony "free trade" that will mainly benefit corporation America.

 

The next we get the call to arms to cock a mililtary snook at the hated Commie regime which is turning America into one ginormous Walmart.

 

What a double whammy for Mother Theresa and the rest of the Tory twits rearranging the furniture as the decks of the stricken SS Britannia!

 

Hopefully, the vicar's daughter will recall what happened to the political reputation of Tory Lite lapdog leader Tony Blair after he stupidly agreed to help the US sock it to Saddam.

 

And maybe somebody should remind balmy Boris that - unlike the erstwhile Iraqi leader - the Chinese actually do have weapons of mass destruction and will have no qualms about using them.

Agree, about being America's poodle again but can't agree with your last sentence. China has shown itself to be responsible, yes it's flexing its muscles but USA has been doing that for years, they aren't going to use nukes, nobody is, even the most stupid red neck would balk at that and the Chinese are anything but stupid.

[Grouse]

39 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

An aircraft carrier never sails alone.  It will have a numerous warships with it.  Enough of a deterrence.  And the US will probably be close by. 

 

Perhaps a great training exercise for the crew?

Do we have any available to do anti aircraft picket duty and anti submarine?

[soalbundy]

27 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Do we have any available to do anti aircraft picket duty and anti submarine?

Won't be needed, the Chinese will probably send out tourist boats to take pictures and have a laugh, ''Oh look, just like Thailand, ship have no planes.'

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Funnily enough, I was an Englishman in Austin TX at the time. Sir Nicholas Henderson, our ambassador won the PR war by appearing in avuncular style on American TV in cardigan buttoned one button out. Made the slick Argie guy look like a gangster! We don't do great diplomacy anymore!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-nicholas-henderson-diplomat-who-secured-american-help-for-britain-during-the-falklands-war-1647309.html

 

We don't have the people now ?

 

(BTW, we got Sidewinders from the Americans. And the French ensured the Exocets did not explode. The lone Vulcan bomber strike on Stanley airport kept the Agentinian Mirages protecting Buenos Aries for the duration. Conqueror's captain ruined his roast pork dinner because he had to sink the Belgrano.) Off topic but maybe of interest to the younger generation!

Edited July 28, 2017 by Grouse
It was pork, not lamb. Sorry

[ilostmypassword]

Maybe the consequences of Brexit are too easy to deal with so May wants to make it even more of challenge?

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe the consequences of Brexit are too easy to deal with so May wants to make it even more of challenge?

Funnily enough again, some say Thatcher went to war in South Atlantic to win another term. It worked; she did!

 

If Theresa pulled the same stunt, would it work?

Edited July 28, 2017 by Grouse

[Fortean1]

Our intelligence office in Panama gave support to Whitehall.  We offered targetting

on the Belgrano.  I saw the Atlantic Conveyor transit the Panama Canal.

[tonbridgebrit]

52 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Maybe the consequences of Brexit are too easy to deal with so May wants to make it even more of challenge?

+1   

[tonbridgebrit]

35 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Funnily enough again, some say Thatcher went to war in South Atlantic to win another term. It worked; she did!

 

If Theresa pulled the same stunt, would it work?

No, it won't work. There won't be anybody left after World War Three.

[chickenslegs]

Some very silly comments on this topic, probably due to people not reading the original article correctly.

 

Boris Johnson did not say that the new aircraft carrier will be sent to the South China Sea next year. It will not be commissioned until 2020 at the earliest - so, of course it has no planes yet. This bears no comparison to the RTN carrier which is without planes.

 

BJ said that a trip to the South China Sea would be one of its first missions.

 

Defense Minister Fallon said that a warship (not a carrier) would be sent to the area next year, and that 4 fighter jets would join in exercises in Japan.

 

The UK may or may not be influenced by the US in these decisions. But the UK does have its own interests in the area as well as supporting international efforts to keep reminding China that these are international waters.

 

Also, if anyone thinks that the Royal Navy is a toothless tiger, they have overlooked the fact that it has some of the best trained crews, top class vessels/equipment (yes, less than in the past) and the small matter of some extremely sophisticated, virtually invisible, and armed-to-the-teeth submarines.

[Krataiboy]

3 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Agree, about being America's poodle again but can't agree with your last sentence. China has shown itself to be responsible, yes it's flexing its muscles but USA has been doing that for years, they aren't going to use nukes, nobody is, even the most stupid red neck would balk at that and the Chinese are anything but stupid.

Sorry, I forgot that the capitalist mafia running "Red" China have as much to lose from a nuclear war as Trump and the One Percenters. But accidents and misunderstandings do happen - and we have had an awful lot of close shaves over the last few decades. Trying to stir up new Cold War, as the US is clearly doing in order to support  feed the military/indusrial complex which is now the backbone of the US economy, is simply compounding the risk and pushing  the hands of the Doomsday Clock nearer to midnight  than it has been at any time since t he Cuban missile crisis.

[Top man]

10 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

UK did rather well in the Falklands debacle.  The fighting lasted a short time.  It moved a formidable force thousands of miles to fight.   Argentina was fighting in its back yard.   The only setback for the Brit Navy was when one of its ships fired when another Brit ship lay between the gun and the target, and unfortunately the 2nd ship was damaged by 'friendly fire.'  

That's the Falklands my friend, sorry to say this but it's time to understand without America we are nobody. That's a fact. 

[goldenbrwn1]

11 hours ago, Grouse said:

An aircraft carrier with no aircraft and precious little defensive systems ?

Really? Do you honestly believe that they would send it with no aircraft or not fully functioning defence systems. And to the other poster about the Exocet missiles. Well that was a valuable lesson learned 35 years ago...and not just for the Royal Navy but all navy's around the world to invest in defending ships against those kind of attacks. 

 

And yes we did do rather well considering both sides were more or less on an even footing military wise and the UK had to fight 8000 miles away across open waters.

 

But seriously yes the Royal Navy is a lot smaller but with today's technology on these ships, you don't need many. Look at the type 45 destroyer....and if you really want to look at them you can. They are all in port being repaired in the UK with engine propulsion issues.....? 

But they are formidable and the Royal Navy is envied still to this day.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by goldenbrwn1

[tonbridgebrit]

The politicians have made Britain look ridiculous with these silly announcements. So, Britain is going to send an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.

These ships have used up a huge amount of tax-payers money. What's the point of sending them to the South China Sea ? They will take part in freedom of navigation exercises. Now then, the USA are already in the South China Sea. American aircraft carriers are already in the area, making sure that all ships can sail through the South China Sea.

There is no need for Britain's military presence in the Far East. If Chinese ships do actually stop whatever ships, let the Americans fire a few missiles and blow the Chinese ships out of the water.  This whole thing is bad use of the resources.


And what's the main point ? It's being done, because Washington wants to make it look like, that there is an international coalition involved in the South China Sea. There isn't one.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

8 hours ago, retarius said:

Great provocative move. Really helpful. Britain needs to be reminded that their empire is no more, it is deceased like a dead parrot. China may just take a pop at them for their stupidity.

Why not wait until the Chinese, realising that there is little or no opposition, merely block all movements through the South China Sea, or start charging Nations for passage?

[Retiredandhappyhere]

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Sorry, I forgot that the capitalist mafia running "Red" China have as much to lose from a nuclear war as Trump and the One Percenters. But accidents and misunderstandings do happen - and we have had an awful lot of close shaves over the last few decades. Trying to stir up new Cold War, as the US is clearly doing in order to support  feed the military/indusrial complex which is now the backbone of the US economy, is simply compounding the risk and pushing  the hands of the Doomsday Clock nearer to midnight  than it has been at any time since t he Cuban missile crisis.

OK, let China have the South China Sea all to itself as they wish.  They will then be able to either stop all shipping etc going through, or alternatively charge for access, a bit like the Suez Canal.

[tonbridgebrit]

9 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Why not wait until the Chinese, realising that there is little or no opposition, merely block all movements through the South China Sea, or start charging Nations for passage?

Well, as soon as Chinese ships block ships in the South China Sea, the US navy will fire their missiles at the Chinese ships.  To suggest that China's navy is no match for America's navy would be putting it lightly.

And the downside of sending a British aircraft carrier to the South China Sea ? It simply irk's or antagonises China. Nothing else is achieved. Britain is suppose to be signing more trade deals with China, encourage more Chinese tourists, encourage more Chinese investment in Britain.  This is simply not the right way to go about things.

 

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

The politicians have made Britain look ridiculous with these silly announcements. So, Britain is going to send an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.

These ships have used up a huge amount of tax-payers money. What's the point of sending them to the South China Sea ? They will take part in freedom of navigation exercises. Now then, the USA are already in the South China Sea. American aircraft carriers are already in the area, making sure that all ships can sail through the South China Sea.

There is no need for Britain's military presence in the Far East. If Chinese ships do actually stop whatever ships, let the Americans fire a few missiles and blow the Chinese ships out of the water.  This whole thing is bad use of the resources.


And what's the main point ? It's being done, because Washington wants to make it look like, that there is an international coalition involved in the South China Sea. There isn't one.

I think there is an international coalition involved in this issue, The US, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea,The Philippines and Australia, are in for sure and I don't know why GB would be doing this if they are not in.

[chickenslegs]

8 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, as soon as Chinese ships block ships in the South China Sea, the US navy will fire their missiles at the Chinese ships.  To suggest that China's navy is no match for America's navy would be putting it lightly.

And the downside of sending a British aircraft carrier to the South China Sea ? It simply irk's or antagonises China. Nothing else is achieved. Britain is suppose to be signing more trade deals with China, encourage more Chinese tourists, encourage more Chinese investment in Britain.  This is simply not the right way to go about things.

 

Seems that you are suggesting that we (UK and all other nations) leave the US to solve the problem alone, so that we can get on with our important trade/investment/tourism deals with China.

 

Put US sailors and airmen, alone, in danger to protect our interests.

 

Personally, I would be ashamed of my country if we did that.

Edited July 28, 2017 by chickenslegs

[tonbridgebrit]

24 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I think there is an international coalition involved in this issue, The US, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea,The Philippines and Australia, are in for sure and I don't know why GB would be doing this if they are not in.

 

19 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Seems that you are suggesting that we (UK and all other nations) leave the US to solve the problem alone, so that we can get on with our important trade/investment/tourism deals with China.

 

Put US sailors and airmen, alone, in danger to protect our interests.

 

Personally, I would be ashamed of my country if we did that.

There's hardly any Japanese military ships or combat jets involved. That's because, ever since they lost World War Two, Japan has been practically banned from using it's military outside of Japan. The ban was implemented by America and Britain. As for the Philipinnes, their leader Duterte, he's well in with China.

If any Chinese ships stop any ships, the US navy will easily blow whatever Chinese ships out of the water. It's very unlikely any American sailors will be killed. You realise how big and powerful America's navy is, when compared to China's very small navy. I think China has got one aircraft carrier, and that's it. Chna is simply no match for America's navy.

China is simply not stopping any ships, and if they did, they can be easily dealt with by America.

Edited July 28, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[chickenslegs]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

There's hardly any Japanese military ships or combat jets involved. That's because, ever since they lost World War Two, Japan has been practically banned from using it's military outside of Japan. The ban was implemented by America and Britain. As for the Philipinnes, their leader Duterte, he's well in with China.

If any Chinese ships stop any ships, the US navy will easily blow whatever Chinese ships out of the water. It's very unlikely any American sailors will be killed. You realise how big and powerful America's navy is, when compared to China's very small navy. I think China has got one aircraft carrier, and that's it. Chna is simply no match for America's navy.

PRC has the 2nd or 3rd largest navy in the world. https://www.quora.com/Which-are-the-top-10-strongest-navies-in-the-world

 

Of course, it is massively outgunned by the US Navy, but it does not follow that US personnel would not be in danger.

 

My point is that this should be an international show of determination - not just left to the US.

[tonbridgebrit]

14 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

PRC has the 2nd or 3rd largest navy in the world. https://www.quora.com/Which-are-the-top-10-strongest-navies-in-the-world

 

Of course, it is massively outgunned by the US Navy, but it does not follow that US personnel would not be in danger.

 

My point is that this should be an international show of determination - not just left to the US.

I think, if Britain, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, if they join in, it still turns out that 90-95% of the firepower against China will be from the US.

Why is Washington encouraging other nations to send ships ? They've got enough firepower as it is.  How about Washington sends one extra aircraft carrier ? This is being done, so that they can say "oh look, it's an international coaltion".


"Outgunned by the US Navy" ?  Yes, same as a man with a starting pistol, one you use at an athletics race. He's going to have a gunfight with somebody with a semi-automatic assault rifle. And the semi-automatic assault rifle has a telescopic sight. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[boomerangutang]

14 hours ago, colinneil said:

Yes but that was in 1982, when we still had a navy, now it is less than half the size it was then.

Also the last time the UK had a prime minister with balls, even though she was a woman.

I don't think Thatcher was tough. She folded like a Japanese fan re; giving HK to the Chinese.  Britain didn't have to give HK back.  It was prior ceded to Britain 'in perpetuity' (in a document signed by top Chinese royalty) - referring to the lower and more valuable portion of the colony, bordered on the north by the appropriately named; 'Boundary Road'.

 

5 hours ago, Fortean1 said:

Our intelligence office in Panama gave support to Whitehall.  We offered targetting

on the Belgrano.  I saw the Atlantic Conveyor transit the Panama Canal.

Your first post.  Welcome to Thai Visa Forum.

 

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And what's the main point ? It's being done, because Washington wants to make it look like, that there is an international coalition involved in the South China Sea. There isn't one.

There is, but it hasn't yet been clearly manifested.

[chickenslegs]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I think, if Britain, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, if they join in, it still turns out that 90-95% of the firepower against China will be from the US.

Why is Washington encouraging other nations to send ships ? They've got enough firepower as it is.  How about Washington sends one extra aircraft carrier ? This is being done, so that they can say "oh look, it's an international coaltion".

It is an international coalition. But, if the US is left to challenge this "ocean-grab" alone, it will be seen as a solely US-v-PRC issue.

I am against leaving others to fight my battles for me. I extend this to include my country's battles.

 

 

[Caps]

4 hours ago, Top man said:

That's the Falklands my friend, sorry to say this but it's time to understand without America we are nobody. That's a fact. 

Rubbish

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Caps said:

5 hours ago, Top man said:

That's the Falklands my friend, sorry to say this but it's time to understand without America we are nobody. That's a fact. 

Rubbish

 

They're hilarious, aren't they, with their 'little Britain' nonsense. One of the top six economies in the world, with by far the most important armed forces and security/intelligence system in Europe. And yet some people drone on with their childish, meaningless insults .