Tks AssassinsMac for the latest update. The Chinese must have made their calculations vis-a-vis potential US moves. It's like a game of "chess" (Chinese or Western). Who will eventually "blink"? We will await for the latest developments in the South China Sea, including China and US statements during the coming Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. Doesn't bode well when 2 Superpower clash.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
China's island reclamation has been happening over a year and Obama basically did nothing against but give lip-service. They didn't know they maybe used for military purposes until now which why the alarm bells are ringing? They didn't see the shape of a runway being constructed until now? You better believe "action" now is in part because allies' continued upset at Obama's inaction. This is just a lot of show. Why wasn't there any action when China started reclamation? We all saw the satellite pictures from nearly the beginning. We've read stories on it earlier than that. Like China is going to stop and give up so Vietnam or the Philippines can take over a foothold on what China built already? It's not going to happen. China is there to stay. As long as China is there and does nothing else, China wins because you know Obama and Asian allies severely miscalculated China's reaction. Who would've thought China was going to build islands in reaction. They can't really call that an invasion. No one was killed in the process. I put that as a genius move almost at the level of turning the police state minded Taiwan into a democracy to give it a protection that goes beyond military. What China has done isn't an act of war. The US can fly military aircraft over these man-made islands knowing China is not going to start a war over it. Just like the US isn't going to war with China for building these islands. Oh yeah something can be lied about but the fear of severe loss from a war in general keeps that on a leash.
janjak desalin
Junior Member
folks, it's getting stupid, now!
China Jams US Spy Drones Over Disputed South China Sea Island
China tried to electronically jam US drone flights over the disputed South China Sea in order to prevent surveillance on man-made islands Beijing is constructing as a part of an aggressive land reclamation initiative, US officials said.
interestingly:
"Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said the United States does not recognize China's sovereignty claims over the new islands. He added that flights and Navy ships will continue their routine patrols, but will maintain a distance of at least 12 miles from the island."
does this seem to be a concession to a de-facto sovereignty?
this just seems to be a bit too confrontational. but, Xi did say that China was like a rock on the SCS!
Read more:
China Jams US Spy Drones Over Disputed South China Sea Island
China tried to electronically jam US drone flights over the disputed South China Sea in order to prevent surveillance on man-made islands Beijing is constructing as a part of an aggressive land reclamation initiative, US officials said.
interestingly:
"Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said the United States does not recognize China's sovereignty claims over the new islands. He added that flights and Navy ships will continue their routine patrols, but will maintain a distance of at least 12 miles from the island."
does this seem to be a concession to a de-facto sovereignty?
this just seems to be a bit too confrontational. but, Xi did say that China was like a rock on the SCS!
Read more:
Blackstone
Brigadier
Jamming drones is a hostile military act and could cause grave untended consequences. Both sides have plainly and forcefully made their points, time for Obama and Xi to ease off the saber rattling before events/accidents create a crisis.
Ultra
Junior Member
Why would jamming a drone that's trespassing China's airspace be hostile act? And why would it cause grave unintended consequences? Downing a drone will not cause any life loss. So big deal! Remember the ? The most secretive and advanced spy drone was jammed and captured by Iran. Did US do anything? NOTHING.
So this is nothing, I don't expect US go to war with China over this. Don't sweat over there, this is not even sabre rattling, just your friendly Cold War greeting!
Equation
Lieutenant General
Because it would show the weaknesses of some drones therefore no one would be buying them outside the US tax payers pockets. The MIC would be out of jobs and funding from congress that's why.
Germany bought five, called RQ-4E Euro Hawk, received one, spent $1b, and cancelled the project in May 2013 because it proved unusable. It is reconsidering ...Because it would show the weaknesses of some drones therefore no one would be buying them outside the US tax payers pockets. The MIC would be out of jobs and funding from congress that's why.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Yeah...reconsidering ONLY at a lower bargain price.
Blackstone
Brigadier
And how do you know US drone "violated" China's airspece? What exactly does China claim and not claim in the SCS? How far away was the US drone? I say it was outside whatever international laws permit foreign crafts to be, and China committed an overt, unfriendly, and hostile act. By the way, I have no way of knowing if I'm right or wrong, but without all the facts, my statement is as valid as yours.
I would suggest everyone go and read the UNCLOS itself. Read the history of UNCLOS I, II, and III.
Here is an excellent article explaining it in detail:
Here's another summary from UNLAWOFTHESEA.ORG
Here is the direct link to the UNCLOS on the UN Site:
I have red these now and I believe both Brumby and SamuraiBlue (who have been posting about it on the South China Sea Strategy-Non-Chinese Nations Thread) are correct.
UNCLOS, to which China is a signatory, outlines a very detailed framework of dealing with these very issues to which all signatories have agreed.
It is very specific about historical context, and in the vast majority of cases, sets it aside in favor of this framework. In the very specific and narrow cases it is not set aside, I can not see that these SCS claims would qualify.
So, the nations signing UNCLOS have agreed, by treaty, to a very specific framework of considerations regarding what constitutes, among other things, islands that can claim a territorial surrounding ocean limit. They agree that these definitions will be what is used legally to determine what does and what does not apply.
...and guess what?
Artificial, unnatural constructs on top of reefs and shoals do not warrant a 12-mile territorial limit unless those reefs and shoals naturally stayed above the water line at high tide as Brumby and SamuraiBlue have been explaining.
So, based on what I have read, and also based on the PRC being a signatory, I do not believe they will be able to win a court case claiming a 12-mile territorial limit for any of the reclamation they are doing on reefs and shoals that did not naturally stay above the water line. It does appear that they can get a 500 meter zone for those reclaimed areas according to UNCLOS.
I believe this explains a lot of the reactions we are seeing regarding China's reclamation efforts.
Now, is China going to stop? No way!
Heck, they knew all of this before they started these recent reclamation efforts.
They are betting on the fact, that even with the 500m zone, that as they expand their holdings that no one is going to try and "force" them to stop.
From their perspective, the 12 miles is clearly not the issue. Having those facilities and capabilities in place in those areas of the SCS is the issue...and, as I said earlier, it is fast becoming a fait accompli.
Here is an excellent article explaining it in detail:
Here's another summary from UNLAWOFTHESEA.ORG
Here is the direct link to the UNCLOS on the UN Site:
I have red these now and I believe both Brumby and SamuraiBlue (who have been posting about it on the South China Sea Strategy-Non-Chinese Nations Thread) are correct.
UNCLOS, to which China is a signatory, outlines a very detailed framework of dealing with these very issues to which all signatories have agreed.
It is very specific about historical context, and in the vast majority of cases, sets it aside in favor of this framework. In the very specific and narrow cases it is not set aside, I can not see that these SCS claims would qualify.
So, the nations signing UNCLOS have agreed, by treaty, to a very specific framework of considerations regarding what constitutes, among other things, islands that can claim a territorial surrounding ocean limit. They agree that these definitions will be what is used legally to determine what does and what does not apply.
...and guess what?
Artificial, unnatural constructs on top of reefs and shoals do not warrant a 12-mile territorial limit unless those reefs and shoals naturally stayed above the water line at high tide as Brumby and SamuraiBlue have been explaining.
So, based on what I have read, and also based on the PRC being a signatory, I do not believe they will be able to win a court case claiming a 12-mile territorial limit for any of the reclamation they are doing on reefs and shoals that did not naturally stay above the water line. It does appear that they can get a 500 meter zone for those reclaimed areas according to UNCLOS.
I believe this explains a lot of the reactions we are seeing regarding China's reclamation efforts.
Now, is China going to stop? No way!
Heck, they knew all of this before they started these recent reclamation efforts.
They are betting on the fact, that even with the 500m zone, that as they expand their holdings that no one is going to try and "force" them to stop.
From their perspective, the 12 miles is clearly not the issue. Having those facilities and capabilities in place in those areas of the SCS is the issue...and, as I said earlier, it is fast becoming a fait accompli.