China's SCS Strategy Thread

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
A good article As everybody who learn high school Physics Action will result in Reaction
Indian Times
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Action reaction: Deployment of Chinese missiles on South China Sea island is a product of US moves in the region
February 19, 2016, 6:36 pm IST
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
|
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
| TOI

The US has described the deployment of Chinese HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in South China Sea’s Paracel Islands group as further evidence of increasing militarisation of the region by Beijing. In fact, US secretary of state John Kerry has asserted that in the coming days the American side will have very serious conversations with the Chinese over the development. There’s no denying the fact that increasing tension in the South China Sea is a matter of concern for all parties. But to put the blame for this solely on China’s doorstep is patently unfair.

China may be taking steps to shore up its defensive capabilities in the Paracel Islands. It has argued this is well within its rights since Woody Island has been under its control since 1956. True, the island is also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan. But one must ask what has brought things to this pass. It’s simply absurd to assert that China’s military moves in the South China Sea lack provocation. In fact, the US as part of its Asian pivot has increasingly flexed its military might in the region. It’s clear now that President Barack Obama, in his last year in office, wants this to be a part of his Asia-Pacific legacy.

Let’s take a look at the list of American moves in the region. First, the US has sent warships and surveillance aircraft to waters near the disputed islands in South China Sea while disregarding the rules of innocent passage. It plans to continue undertaking such missions and is goading its allies like the Philippines to participate in joint naval patrols. In fact, Manila has inked a 10-year agreement with Washington that allows the latter to station its ships and aircraft at several Philippine bases. Plus, the US is spending millions of dollars to upgrade the naval capabilities of countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia.

Add to this tensions on the Korean peninsula in the aftermath of North Korea’s latest nuclear test. In response, South Korea has recently said that it is considering deploying the American THAAD anti-ballistic missile system to counter the North’s acts of provocation. However, given THAAD’s design the weapon system is more attuned to countering long-range missiles. This in the Korean context would mean missiles emanating from China. And if all of this wasn’t enough, the recently held US-Asean meet was a clear attempt by Washington to stiffen the Southeast Asian group’s spine against China.

Thus, given the evidence at hand it is ridiculous to argue that China shouldn’t feel threatened by US moves in the Asia-Pacific region. And with Washington upping the ante, it’s only natural that Beijing will take appropriate measures to defend itself. Of course, in the long run growing militarisation of the South and East China Seas isn’t going to benefit anyone. All parties to the territorial disputes in the region must come to the negotiating table and peacefully resolve their differences. In this regard, confidence building measures such as joint development of the islands and waters in the region should definitely be considered.

But if the US plans to use the situation to further its military-strategic interests in the region, China will obviously respond. It would be better for everybody if the two world powers work on their ties in the spirit of the ‘major powers relationship’ that was proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping during his trip to the US last year. After all, US-China cooperation is critical to resolving the major challenges that the world faces today.
 

weig2000

Captain
Let's not forget the HQ-9 deployment comes on the heels of all the talk of THAAD to South Korea. It's probably tit-for-tat now. I suspect also when there's freedom of navigation patrols, China will start landing military aircraft on China's new runways since China has been warned not to do it.

Nah. This is not tit-for-tat for the THAAD talk in SK. The THAAD is still in the discussion stage (or even not at that stage yet according to the latest official statements from both the US and SK). It's both premature and not the right kind of tit-for-tat for THAAD deployment in SK.

The HQ-9 deployment is more a response the the USN "FON" patrol of Parcel Island last month. That patrol is more surprising to a lot of people and more provoking, because Parcel Islands are quite different from the reclaimed Spratly Islands. The US action, to many, represents an escalation, indicating the US is increasingly dropping its veil of neutrality and starts to enlarging its scope of challenge and threat to China. To add insults to the injuries, it also specifically named Taiwan as a party, to the sovereign disputes.

This pattern of challenge and provoking to China is disturbing and alarming for China; it goes beyond "FON" or innocent passing even if they themselves are just excuses and pretext. we start to see China to respond, gradually, beginning from Parcel Islands. A couple of more highly-publicized, in-your-face patrols within the 12-mile territorial waters of SCS Islands, we'll see the Spratly Islands will be militarized too, once they're ready. An advise to the USN: if you think the USN patrols are not insulting enough to the Chinese, bring along the Japanese Navy.
 

joshuatree

Captain
There's no need for Woody Island to permanently host fighters.

It's only 200km from the airbases in Hainan, so call it 10min at cruising speed for a jet fighter.

But it would make sense for Woody island to be able to refuel fighters if needed.

I think it would make sense for Woody to permanently host reconnaissance and ASW planes. This in turn would make it nice if a few fighters rotated through as backup should a reconnaissance patrol get challenged.


The HQ-9 deployment is more a response the the USN "FON" patrol of Parcel Island last month.

I would also view it as a response to the US being open to joint patrols with rival claimant Philippines in the name of FON. That throws neutrality out the door unless the US invites all to these joint patrols.

There's an emphasis on the $5 trillion in goods that traverses the SCS every year as reason for concern but does anyone have a breakdown of the $5 trillion, what amount goes to which country? If the majority of that goes to China, it deflates that argument.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think it would make sense for Woody to permanently host reconnaissance and ASW planes. This in turn would make it nice if a few fighters rotated through as backup should a reconnaissance patrol get challenged.




I would also view it as a response to the US being open to joint patrols with rival claimant Philippines in the name of FON. That throws neutrality out the door unless the US invites all to these joint patrols.

There's an emphasis on the $5 trillion in goods that traverses the SCS every year as reason for concern but does anyone have a breakdown of the $5 trillion, what amount goes to which country? If the majority of that goes to China, it deflates that argument.

What benefit is there for Woody Island to host recon/awacs/asw planes?

They tend to be long-range aircraft based on the manned Y-9/Y-8 platform or even longer-ranged UAVs.

If we take the Y-8/Y-9, a 200km difference is an extra 20minutes flight time, but they have an endurance in the region of 9hours (5700km). It doesn't make much of a difference.

It doesn't seem worth it to place them on Woody Island, when bases on Hainan or further inland would be better protected, cost less, easier to supply, have lower maintenance costs and better availability.

Remember that lower support costs can be traded off for more aircraft to make up the difference in endurance.

===

A back of the envelope calculation would suggest that Chinese-owned vessels + Chinese trade is greater than everyone else combined in the SCS. Plus Peter Lee came out with an analysis recently on AIS ship tracks, which suggests that China dominates the main shipping lane that runs through the middle of the SCS, and that the traffic from the other SCS nations is mostly domestic and coastal in nature.

I'll repeat my view again on China and commercial freedom of navigation.

China is the world's largest trading nation with most of its trade passing through the SCS, with China dominating the shipping flows in the SCS.

But given that China's shipping trade is interconnected with that of every other country and how important external trade is to the Chinese economy, it makes no sense for China to ever impede commercial freedom of navigation in the SCS,
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
The video is in the link below. I don't know how to put it (Adobe Flash) here.

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

Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:44PM

Press TV has interviewed Jeff J. Brown, a commentator and host at China Rising Radio Sinoland in Beijing, about China slamming US military build-up in the South China Sea, saying it is Washington, and not Beijing, which is truly militarizing the disputed waters by conducting patrols there.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: I am wondering at this point between the US accusations of militarization by China and now counter-accusations by China against the US, who is right?

Brown: Well it is obviously China is right. If the United States had the equivalent of China’s Sixth Fleet sailing off the coast of the United States as close as the United States is sailing along the coast of China, there would be riots in the streets in the United States.

It is absolutely absurd that the United States is over there but this is all part of China’s plan to disrupt harmonious relationships between their natural allies - Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. - so that they can continue to create divisiveness and tension to oppose China.

And what is so crazy about all this is what people do not realize and people tend to forget. Everybody talks about America’s great Sixth Fleet. The fact of the matter is that the United States Navy is totally outgunned against the Chinese Navy. The Chinese have submarine parity with the United States, they already have one aircraft carrier on the water and they have their new Dong Feng-21D anti-ship missile which an admiral in front of the Congress in the United States said that if actually there was a hot war in the South China Sea, that it would be lucky for the US Sixth Fleet to last one week with China’s new anti-ship missiles.

So this is just …, it is a disgrace but this is what empire does, this is what hegemonic powers like the United States does and it is amazing to me that the Chinese are as patient and as diplomatic about this as possible and I have to tip my hat to my Chinese neighbors that they are not up in arms because I know if this would be done to United States, the United States would be up in arms and in the streets protesting against China sailing off the coast of the United States.
 

nfgc

New Member
Registered Member
So this is just …, it is a disgrace but this is what empire does, this is what hegemonic powers like the United States does and it is amazing to me that the Chinese are as patient and as diplomatic about this as possible and I have to tip my hat to my Chinese neighbors that they are not up in arms because I know if this would be done to United States, the United States would be up in arms and in the streets protesting against China sailing off the coast of the United States.

Huh? Hegemonic? The Chinese are claiming and building out the entire sea, new construction all over the Paracels, Scarborough Shoal, Chinese sources are now placing the Riau's on their maps, clearly those are future conquests.

It is China that is hegemonic and the fact that all of their neighbours excepting those bought and paid for by FDI (Cambodia, Lao) are completely against what China is doing speaks volumes.

The USNavy could do nothing, and the nations involved would still be upset about China's belligerent and domineering attitude. Vietnam would still be increasing naval spending, as would Indonesia and Philippines

Placing 8 missile batteries pointed towards Taiwan, 175kms NE and far away from where the USN transited near Triton, says clearly which direction China sees the threat coming from.

China has a well-known history of politely insisting on ''respect" - the Emperor, the Dynasty, the government - and smiling as they show up and demand that respect and tribute at the threat of hostilities.

Do as they say, or it is your fault they attack.

Zheng He did this with the Kotte, and the PRC are doing it with the current nations that border the sea.

China is demanding that all regional powers submit to Chinese Suzerainty.
 

jobjed

Captain
Huh? Hegemonic? The Chinese are claiming and building out the entire sea, new construction all over the Paracels, Scarborough Shoal,
Since millenia ago. If you don't like it, see if you can get the Doctor to take you back in time with his TARDIS to convince the Chinese emperor to cede it.
Chinese sources are now placing the Riau's on their maps, clearly those are future conquests.
About bloody time. After sitting on their asses for a century and watching their inheritance get carved out by tiny countries, China is finally getting around to reclaiming what their ancestors left them.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
When I look at China today, I see many parallels to the US during it's rise.

The US was intensely focused on internal development and also on expanding westwards across the entire North American continent. This came at the expense of the native American Indians already inhabiting these lands and also at the expense of Canada and Mexico and the European powers present.

We can also see that the US was jealous power for much of history. Hence the Monroe Doctrine which aimed to persuade or push the European powers out of the Americas, and allow the USA regional primacy which is just a fancy way of say regional hegemony.

So when Cuba or Mexico threatened to strike a military alliance with the USSR or Imperial Germany, the US either did go to war or nearly did so. In Latin America, this meant the overthrow of any democratically elected government that did not accord to US interests - which were sometimes hijacked by vested interests solely motivated by financial profit or sheer jealously - in contravention to the ideals embodied by the average US citizen.

Yet the US has changed since those days. It has grown so large and wealthy and technologically advanced that it has regional military and economic primacy in the Americas, and is acknowledged as such in the region. It has also become benevolent in many ways.

Mexico has given up its bitterness towards the US and accepted US leadership. The US no longer covets the conquest of Canada, and the two maintain some of the closest relations possible as Canada has willingly accepted US hegemony. The British Superpower voluntarily withdrew from the Americas to make way for the coming US superpower.

So what lessons does this hold for China and the other nations in the South China Seas?

The key thing is that China continues to focus on internal economic development, because that is the foundation for all other forms of economic/technological/cultural/diplomatic/military power.

Therefore China should strenuously avoid conflict, as this would threaten to derail China's rise.

And the China of the future will be very different to the one today with different desires, and will be large and advanced enough that it will have defacto regional primacy in Asia.

At the end of the day, China already has the territory that it needs in the SCS for sufficient military bases that will dominate the waters. Everything else is inconsequential.
 
Top