China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

Where's South Vietnam now? If it wants it back then come out and claim it.
Vietnam is not democratic country, it doesn't need the people to vote or consent, the communist party 's action alone suffice. It's an authoritorian state. It's as good as treaty. The Vietnamese communists don't need to answer to its people.

Your logic doesn't stand You saying China cannot get paracel because South Vietnam occupied it at that time.
You might as well say North Vietcongs can't have Saigon because South Vietnam was one occupied it at that time. LOL

The only chance you have is have another government overthrow the current communist party ion vietnam and then say whatever the communists did doesn't count. But by now it's weak logic now becuase generation of Chinese natives being raised in Paracel.

joshuatree do you want to answer this or you want to remind me that this has been beaten to death?

 

[tidalwave]

joshuatree do you want to answer this or you want to remind me that this has been beaten to death?

I like you to answer it because what you saying exactly matched by what the vietnameses are saying at the forum.

 

[Jura The idiot]

What’s on Woody? (clipped out from the article I quote down below)

I'm new to all this
...

... and now I read in a Russian blog the HQ-9 SAMs would be on Woody Island located "seen below the nose" of this aircraft:

 

[joshuatree]

joshuatree do you want to answer this or you want to remind me that this has been beaten to death?

I'm pretty much saying to all that this debate over the note has been done endlessly here. I was only commenting on the remark about the type of note.

 

[tidalwave]

I'm pretty much saying to all that this debate over the note has been done endlessly here. I was only commenting on the remark about the type of note.

He cannot answer about my question of his statement of North Vietnam cannot give away paracel because it doesn't have the consent of the vietnamese people, therefore it's invalid. Duh.

It's communist Authoritarian party, it doesn't need to answer to common vietnamese people . It's the Only main government of Vietnam as South Vietnam is longer a valid entity.

He also need to answer whether Vietamese communists allow to have Saigon.

 

[Brumby]

He cannot answer about my question of his statement of North Vietnam cannot give away paracel because it doesn't have the consent of the vietnamese people, therefore it's invalid. Duh.

You are clearly entitled to your opinion but not to your manufactured facts. Please point out to me where did I say the following "North Vietnam cannot give away paracel because it doesn't have the consent of the vietnamese people". Your statement suggest to me that you are clueless on this issue.

 

[AndrewS]

Fiery Cross is probably the best option. Apparently it lies outside of anyone's 200km EEZ, so is politically the best option as it's in a "neutral" zone.

Come to think of it, would it be in China's interest to offer up Fiery Cross as a permanent base for joint patrols with various littoral nations in the South China Seas?

>>> Direct US-China conflict scenario deleted. It is against SD rules <<<{/b]

Let me rephrase it then.

China is the world's largest trading nation and sits in the geographical centre of Asia.
If you look at the trade flows, the Asian trade network is actually China-centric, with most of China's trade flowing through the SCS and China dominating the trade flows in the SCS.

Therefore there are literally no scenarios where China would EVER want to restrict commercial freedom of navigation in the SCS, no matter what happens. The coastal littoral nations of the SCS are in the same situation, as they are even more dependent on freedom of shipping in the SCS.

However, various other nations from outside the SCS do have an interest in shutting down trade in the SCS in various conflict scenarios.

If there was a joint base at Fiery Cross between China and various other SCS nations - this would help protect freedom of commercial navigation in the SCS.

So in order to successfully shut down trade in the SCS - Fiery Cross Base would have to be neutralised - even if it hosted personnel from China plus other SCS countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Brunei etc

One possible model would be the patrols on the Mekong river which runs through China, Thailand, Myanmar and Laos.

The patrols consist of a multi-national, paramilitary force comprised of personnel from China, Thailand, Myanmar and Laos - which means they are authorised to cross territorial borders whenever necessary.

 

[AndrewS]

I think China may ultimately allow some patrol operations from one of its new SCS bases...but only on a temporary, rotational basis. As a good will gesturer perhaps.

But I do not believe they will allow permanent basing of US, Australian, or other nation's military or coast guard forces on those islands.

That's just my opinion on it.

In the short-term, I would agree.

But in the long-run and when the territorial disagreements get resolved, it would make sense for China and some of the other SCS nations to setup a permanent base to protect their interests.

 

[Jeff Head]

In the short-term, I would agree.

But in the long-run and when the territorial disagreements get resolved, it would make sense for China and some of the other SCS nations to setup a permanent base to protect their interests.

There is no doubt in my mind that China is going to set up permanent bases now on its new islands in the SCS. They are doing so as we speak.

I do not think that they ever will allow permanent bases from other nations on those islands fo theirs.

But I do believe that other nations will also have permanent bases on their own holdings. some already do.

 

[plawolf]

I think China may ultimately allow some patrol operations from one of its new SCS bases...but only on a temporary, rotational basis. As a good will gesturer perhaps.

But I do not believe they will allow permanent basing of US, Australian, or other nation's military or coast guard forces on those islands.

That's just my opinion on it.

Considering a primary source of the tensions in the region is American insistence on sending military patrols through waters which China objects to foreign militaries operating in, hell will freeze over before China allows US navy ships on FON patrols to use any of its islands.

China might open up part of the islands to international civilian ships so they can dock to resupply, repair or just generally get a bit of R&R, maybe that could be extended to coast guard and other non-military ships.

But unless the country/navy in question renounces the right to conduct FON, and indeed any military activity without authorisation from China within its EEZ, then those naval ships will not be welcome at the islands unless for exceptional humanitarian reasons, like if one of them struck a reef and needed a place to conduct urgent repairs or else it will sink before being able to get to a friendly port etc.

Seeing as the USN will also say hell will freeze over before they accept that, they are just not going to be allowed to dock to those islands.

Basing of foreign military on any of those islands would be categorically out of the question. Just as the idea of China setting up a permanent military base somewhere on US soil would be anathema to America.