China's SCS Strategy Thread

[tidalwave]

I completely disagree with everything that you have stated, for a US admiral to make such statements is within his rights, and he is only voicing the "concern" that those who are aware of China's overt policy changes have on their minds?

The US and her allies will respond to China's more aggressive policies, and militarizing these disputed territories is a provocative action in any language and culture?

I haven't heard someone mention the name Deng Xiao Ping , from anywhere for a long long time already. Seems kind of odd to me. Maybe Mao Xi Tong is next. well take it for whatever its worth.

 

[tidalwave]

The US and her allies will respond to China's more aggressive policies, and militarizing these disputed territories is a provocative action in any language and culture?

Depend how you judge it?
Yes, China actions are changing status quo.
But judging from a historical perspective of rising powers's actions, China 's actions seem mild.

Despite the talk of war, tension, crisis and all in South China Sea, Not a single soul has died from so called conflict(make me wonder if its a legit concern) while you have less covered events in rest of the world where people are dying left and right.

It's all relative.

From my POV, if not a person died from the so called "conflict" then I deem it as overblown. too much Hype with no real meat

 

[Air Force Brat]

Depend how you judge it?
Yes, China actions are changing status quo.
But judging from a historical perspective of rising powers's actions, China 's actions seem mild.

Despite the talk of war, tension, crisis and all in South China Sea, Not a single soul has died from so called conflict(make me wonder if its a legit concern) while you have less covered events in rest of the world where people are dying left and right.

It's all relative.

From my POV, if not a person died from the so called "conflict" then I deem it as overblown. too much Hype with no real meat

Actions have consequences??? and to tell the truth, can you be certain that nobody has suffered under China's new policies? China is asserting authority and taking liberties that the rest of the world would suggest that she should not? and no doubt before its all over, someone will step up and say no?

very, very sad to see the "regression", the whole world is going nuts?

 

[tidalwave]

Actions have consequences??? and to tell the truth, can you be certain that nobody has suffered under China's new policies? China is asserting authority and taking liberties that the rest of the world would suggest that she should not? and no doubt before its all over, someone will step up and say no?

very, very sad to see the "regression", the whole world is going nuts?

US should care more where the "real suffering" is.
That's at middle east where people are dying horribly on a daily basis.

 

[solarz]

I completely disagree with everything that you have stated, for a US admiral to make such statements is within his rights, and he is only voicing the "concern" that those who are aware of China's overt policy changes have on their minds?

The US and her allies will respond to China's more aggressive policies, and militarizing these disputed territories is a provocative action in any language and culture?

First of all, there is no indication that the so-called "militarization" by China is anything more than manufactured hysteria by the western media. The reported missiles and fighter jets are located on Woody Island, which, as has been indicated by posters above, had been firmly under PRC control since 1956. Do you really believe that China has had no military presence on that island in the last 60 years???

Second, why do you consider China upgrading its military presence on an island that had been under its control for 60 years to be an "aggressive policy", but the USN's "freedom of navigation" patrols, which BTW, saw the flight of a B-52 bomber over Chinese positions, not to be "aggressive"? Are bomber overflights now part of the US' definition of "innocent passage"?

China is simply responding to US escalations.

 

[tidalwave]

Being World Police OK, but current situation reminds me of cops in my neighborhoods.
They only concentrate on easy , money collecting tasks like speeding, traffic violation, bust and fine against defenseless massage parlors instead going after the thugs, drug dealers and murders of the rough neighborhoods.

I have been told asia is where the money and trade flow and asians are easy and more willing to cough it up. concentrate on it will get paid .

 

[AndrewS]

Actions have consequences??? and to tell the truth, can you be certain that nobody has suffered under China's new policies? China is asserting authority and taking liberties that the rest of the world would suggest that she should not? and no doubt before its all over, someone will step up and say no?

very, very sad to see the "regression", the whole world is going nuts?

I'd say that on balance, China's actions in the SCS should be a net positive for the world, due to the additional infrastructure for civilian purposes for everyone and its guarantee of freedom of commercial navigation in all circumstances.

Plus you state that "China is taking taking liberties that the rest of the world would suggest that she should not"

Yet in reality, the position of numerous countries is neutral or even supportive of the island construction. Think Russia, Central Asia and Africa.

===

But your comment does remind me how the UN has had numerous votes on resolutions over the years concerning Israel.

Yet the US vetoes them all, and is frequently the SOLE dissenting vote amongst every nation in the world.

Now that is taking liberties with the world, as you put it.

 

[plawolf]

Actions have consequences???

Exactly! The problem is that it appears American leaders, commutators and apparently significant parts of the general public only seems to think consequences arise from what others do and never from their own actions.

China would not feel the need to arm up the islands, and find the action significantly harder to defend and justify if they did it anyways, without all the gunboat diplomacy from the US that preceded it.

Some may insist on calling it FON, but that might as well be an euphemism.

One does not send heavily armed warships and bombers right up into someone else's face without it intending to have a threatening or at least intimidating signal.

If the point was merely to test if China would try to interfere with freedom of movement, sending in unarmed ships and aircraft would have served the same purpose without the same threat to the party you are testing.

and to tell the truth, can you be certain that nobody has suffered under China's new policies?

That's just a silly premise to set since it's stupidly easy to satisfy and is not a test anyone has ever serously tried to apply to anything.

China is asserting authority and taking liberties that the rest of the world would suggest that she should not? and no doubt before its all over, someone will step up and say no?

What liberties? China isn't doing anything others haven't done first.

China complained and protested, and no one listened, so honestly, what did you seriously expect? That China will just always turn the other cheek and never stand up for itself and its interests?

The rest of the world couldn't care less about the islands in the SCS. If they care at all, it's because America is trying to make such s big fuss over the issue and they are worried America will end up starting a war with China.

No one but America is seriously concerned about trade or navigation, and I seriously doubt anyone in America is honestly concerned by those things either.

Freedom of navigation and trade are just pretexts to justify America inserting itself into a dispute that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Someone has stood up to say 'enough', only that someone is China.

 

[Brumby]

I'd say that on balance, China's actions in the SCS should be a net positive for the world,

So actions are judged whether they are net positive? How do you even begin to measure that? Try convincing the Filipino fishermen driven from their fishing grounds.

due to the additional infrastructure for civilian purposes for everyone
.

Has that memo gone out? I don't think anyone has gotten it.

and its guarantee of freedom of commercial navigation in all circumstances.

FON is a right embedded in UNCLOS which is derived from traditional laws of the seas. It is not for China to guarantee or withdraw it at its pleasure.

Plus you state that "China is taking taking liberties that the rest of the world would suggest that she should not"

Yes liberties of freedom embedded within a system that respects rule of law.

Yet in reality, the position of numerous countries is neutral or even supportive of the island construction. Think Russia, Central Asia and Africa.

You are kidding, right?

 

[AssassinsMace]

The Pivot to Asia is a rebalancing of US military forces to Asia. Obama said it wasn't about containing China. Now it's freely said it's about containing China. So who actually militarized the situation first?