China's SCS Strategy Thread

Blackstone

Brigadier
I doubt President Obama would want to play hardball because he's only got a few more years left on his last term. He and his administration people doesn't want any blemishes on his legacy, especially a historical one. But he will make it seems so by using the press and soft power to appear to be standing up to China or Russia. So who knows.
Whether Obama personally wants to play hardball or not is unknown, but my guess is he rather avoid trouble, if given the choice. However, his Asia team is Sinophobic and has convinced Obama to change US strategy from hedging to containment. That's why Obama uses the phrase "you got to be pretty firm with China" a lot in his second term.

US is right to take clear and firm lines with freedom of navigation and rights of nations to patrol anywhere international laws and norms allow, even if some nations doesn't like it. US has and will continue to do so. On the other hand, aggressive patrolling 24/7/365 has clearly damaged Sino-US relations, and it seems the cost/benefit ratio is now deeply in the red. Maybe an agreement could be reached where US backs off on frequency of patrols, and China stops complaining about it?
 

balance

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The article mentions one potential troubling scenario:
Cole doubts either China or the U.S. would fire a first shot. “But suppose the Philippines manages to get one of those two old Coast Guard cutters underway that we gave them and it ends up getting sunk by the Chinese?” he frets. “We have a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of the Philippines that very clearly includes Philippine warships.”

The assumption is the Philippines can do whatever they like, and if they get shot by China for the right reason, US will help because of the treaty.

Is it a correct interpretation for the statement?
 

joshuatree

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The article mentions one potential troubling scenario:
Cole doubts either China or the U.S. would fire a first shot. “But suppose the Philippines manages to get one of those two old Coast Guard cutters underway that we gave them and it ends up getting sunk by the Chinese?” he frets. “We have a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of the Philippines that very clearly includes Philippine warships.”

The assumption is the Philippines can do whatever they like, and if they get shot by China for the right reason, US will help because of the treaty.

Is it a correct interpretation for the statement?

I would say that is a statement that needs clarification. If the Filipino warships fire first, Chinese ships have the right to self defense and what transpires hardly qualifies as an attack on the Philippines.

Probably, what is really meant is if the Filipino warships faces off the Chinese and for whatever reason, the Chinese fire on them first, then the defense treaty kicks in and even then, this is something the US does not necessarily want. But given the amount of time transpired on this dispute and the number of times the Chinese and Filipino have stand off out in those waters, the Chinese have demonstrated they clearly understand the trigger point and have been very diligent about not firing on any Filipino warship.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The article mentions one potential troubling scenario:
Cole doubts either China or the U.S. would fire a first shot. “But suppose the Philippines manages to get one of those two old Coast Guard cutters underway that we gave them and it ends up getting sunk by the Chinese?” he frets. “We have a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of the Philippines that very clearly includes Philippine warships.”

The assumption is the Philippines can do whatever they like, and if they get shot by China for the right reason, US will help because of the treaty.

Is it a correct interpretation for the statement?
It's doubtful to the extreme US would go to war with China if the Filipinos fire first, not impossible in today's climate, but next to it.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The article mentions one potential troubling scenario:

Cole doubts either China or the U.S. would fire a first shot. “But suppose the Philippines manages to get one of those two old Coast Guard cutters underway that we gave them and it ends up getting sunk by the Chinese?” he frets. “We have a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of the Philippines that very clearly includes Philippine warships.”

The assumption is the Philippines can do whatever they like, and if they get shot by China for the right reason, US will help because of the treaty.

Is it a correct interpretation for the statement?
Okay, 1st, we do not go into direct US vs China War Scenarios here on SD. So do not post articles or discusions that either advocate or postulate it.

Second, the former US Navy Captain has maybe been out of service for a long time...and even though Time claims he is an expert...it is clear he is not very up on his stuff.

This statement, "suppose the Philippines manages to get one of those two old Coast Guard cutters underway."

Seriously? They were both delivered recently (2011 and 2013) to the Philipiines in good working order. They have added systems and weapons to them since. The Philippines are regularly exercising those vessels, including with the US Navy..


Philippine_frigates_with_USS_John_S__McCain_(DDg-56)_in_June_2014.JPG
The Philippine Navy frigates BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15), left, and BRP Ramon Alcaraz (PF-16), right, underway with the U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) during Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Philippines

Both are manned and regularly underway, Captain Cole.
 
Last edited:

Insignius

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Obama: land reclamation projects in South China Sea 'counterproductive'
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

June 1, 2015 3:53 PM
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly …

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday that land reclamation projects in the South China Sea are unproductive and called for an end to aggressive action in the region.

"We think that land reclamation, aggressive actions by any party in that area are counterproductive," Obama said in a town-hall discussion at the White House with a group of young leaders from southeast Asian nations.

"China is going to be successful. It's big, it's powerful, its people are talented and they work hard. And it may be some of their claims are legitimate," Obama said.

"But they shouldn't just try to establish that based on throwing elbows and pushing people out of the way," he said.

(Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Bill Trott)
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
"China is going to be successful. It's big, it's powerful, its people are talented and they work hard. And it may be some of their claims are legitimate," Obama said.

I mean, his words are consistent with what I consider the US position to be... but compared to rhetoric from the last few weeks... my reaction is:

PRsC3qT.jpg
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Okay guys...let get back on topic.

This is the Chinese Strategy Page for the SCS.

Let's discuss the PRC and PLAN Strategy and stop going on and on about US Strategy and US pronouncements.

Also..NO DIRECT WAR scenarios, discussions, or postulating about real world events between China and US or others.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Ultra

Junior Member
Good article I don't think it has been posted:

Exposing US hypocrisy on South China Sea island reclamation
21 May 2015, 6.03am AEST

image-20150520-30566-613mfn.jpg

A Chinese government image of soldiers on one of the built-up Spratly islands.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



The United States is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
sending warships and helicopters to patrol in the South China Sea, under the guise of so-called “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” exercises. This is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
part of a plan to pressure China into scaling back its construction work in the Spratly islands (known in China as the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
islands).

That would be an unjustifiable and provocative act, which could lead to a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
between the world’s two most powerful countries.

The US has so far failed to build a strong case for its much-talked-about strategic move. On May 13, US Assistant Secretary of State
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the US:

"can and does play an active role in the South China Sea to defend our national interests and international legal principles. "

Defending national interests is certainly true – but defending “international legal principles”? That seems a hollow claim, since Washington is not even a member of the United Nations
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which it refers to frequently when it comes to the South China Sea disputes.


So how does the US justify potentially using its military to try to contain the “China threat”? And do those justifications stand up to scrutiny?

One rule for most nations, another for China
There has been much media coverage and hype (including
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) about how quickly China is creating a sizeable landmass in the disputed South China Sea islands.

But nearly all of those articles have failed to explain one critical point: what is the proper size of reclamation that is acceptable and not alarming?

And why is there one rule for China and another for other nations?

Speaking at the same Senate hearing on May 13, US Assistant Secretary of Defence
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
explained that:

"Over the past two decades, all of the territorial claimants, other than Brunei, have developed outposts in the South China Sea, which they use to project civilian or maritime presence into surrounding waters, assert their sovereignty claims to land features, and monitor the activities of other claimants. In the Spratly islands, Vietnam has 48 outposts; the Philippines eight; China eight; Malaysia five; and Taiwan one."


So, despite being the largest and most powerful country among the claimants, China has, for many years, exercised a high degree of self-restraint.

And as Shear also said, compared with Vietnam and the Philippines, China is a latecomer:


"Between 2009 and 2014, Vietnam was the most active claimant in terms of both outpost upgrades and land reclamation, reclaiming approximately 60 acres."


But have you ever read or heard of US criticism of Hanoi, or a US threat to send warships to deter the Vietnamese activity in the South China Sea?
 
Top