China's SCS Strategy Thread

[AndrewS]

Yes, you're correct.

The Israeli effort works because of the enormous political, economical and social influence the Jewish-American cuscus wields.

But China needs to build something similar. Call it a soft power campaign.

The news media in the US and in most of Europe is based on an advertising model. So it is possible for Chinese business interests to look unfavourably on inaccurate reporting, just like Jewish business interests in the US.

Social influence is a tougher call, but an encouraging example is how all the Hollywood studios are partnering up with Chinese companies because:

1. Those multi-nationals have deep pockets to fund movie production
2. China will very likely grow to become a larger and more important movie market than the USA next year in 2017, and having a Chinese partner smooths the way for Hollywood movies to enter China

So we should see a number of Sino-US movie studios in some form, which will continue the trend of increasingly positive portrayals of China in the US media.

However, I agree political influence will be a huge stretch, as China will end up as a peer competitor to the USA, which Israel will never be.

 

[Micron]

How was the persuasion implemented?

LOL Persuasion can be executed in many forms.

Based on what we read from the media and since China did NOT arrest anyone, NO fishes nor the gear were confiscated, boats were NOT sank, etc will probably goes like this.

"This area is out of bound. Please leave quietly before you get arrested."

What were you thinking? USA Guantanamo Bay Shock Treatment???


Perhaps they should experience the Filipino Persuasion method?
They will riddled these fishing boats with bullet with every shots aimed at the Captain cabin.

Or the Indonesia persuasion method.
Apprehend, arrest then burn those fishing vessels.

Pick your choice.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

What would be the Chinese respond to this challenge?. It is about time to test ASBM

The U.S. Navy has dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea.

The carrier John C. Stennis, two destroyers, two cruisers and the 7th Fleet flagship have sailed into the disputed waters in recent days, according to military officials. The carrier strike group is the latest show of force in the tense region, with the U.S. asserting that China is militarizing the region to guard its excessive territorial claims.

Stennis is joined in the region by the cruisers Antietam and Mobile Bay, and the destroyers Chung-Hoon and Stockdale. The command ship Blue Ridge, the floating headquarters of the Japan-based 7th Fleet, is also in the area, en route to a port visit in the Philippines, and Stennis deployed from Washington state on Jan. 15.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Japan-based Antietam, officials said, was conducting a "routine patrol" separate from the Stennis, following up patrols conducted by the destroyer McCambell and the dock landing ship Ashland in late February.

The stand-off has been heating up on both sides. After news in February that the Chinese had deployed an advanced surface-to-air missile battery to the Paracel Islands, U.S. Pacific Command head Adm. Harry Harris told lawmakers that China was militarizing the South China Sea.

"In my opinion China is clearly militarizing the South China Sea," Harris testified on Feb. 24. "You’d have to believe in a flat Earth to believe otherwise."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Pacific Fleet spokesman downplayed the heavy U.S. presence in the region.

"Our ships and aircraft operate routinely throughout the Western Pacific — including the South China Sea — and have for decades," Cmdr. Clay Doss said in a statement. "In 2015 alone, Pacific Fleet ships sailed about 700 combined days in the South China Sea."

However, experts say sending Stennis and its air wing to the South China Sea is a clear signal to China and the region.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Clearly the Navy and DoD is demonstrating its full commitment to presence and freedom of navigation in the region,” said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with the Center for a New American Security in Washington, D.C. “With the full carrier strike group and the command ship, the Navy is showing the scope of its interests and ability to project presence and power around world.”

The destroyer Lassen's vaunted October patrol within the 12-mile limit of China's man-made South China Sea islands was the first challenge of China's sovereignty over the Spratly Islands since Chinese land-reclamation projects began there.

On Jan. 30, the destroyer Curtis Wilbur patrolled near Triton Island, part of the Paracel Islands chain China also claims.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[weig2000]

What would be the Chinese respond to this challenge?. It is about time to test ASBM

The U.S. Navy has dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea.

The carrier John C. Stennis, two destroyers, two cruisers and the 7th Fleet flagship have sailed into the disputed waters in recent days, according to military officials. The carrier strike group is the latest show of force in the tense region, with the U.S. asserting that China is militarizing the region to guard its excessive territorial claims.

It's not clear from the report whether any ship in the CSG has sailed into the 12 nautical miles of any of the islands there. Testing ASBM would be an overreaction if these ships only sail through the area or even just conducting exercises.

 

[Qi_1528]

It looks like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's clear China can't continue with Deng's policy anymore, but getting more muscular plays into the Western narrative and increases tensions at a time when China isn't quite ready to take on the USN if those tensions get out of control.

The US really should back off in the SCS. I get the impression the DoD, if not the government, underestimates China's resolve to defend its perceived strategic interest. It's like they've forgotten the cutting off of oil exports to Japan pushed it towards war instead of backing down in Asia.

 

[tidalwave]

while USN sends in its carrier fleet to SCS, China sends in its ELINT intelligence gathering ship up close near the carrier fleet to collect signals. LOL.

 

[Blackstone]

What would be the Chinese respond to this challenge?. It is about time to test ASBM

No one in the public realm even knows what happened with the Stennis CSG, so let's wait for more facts to come out before getting out knickers in knots. For all we know, it was simply innocent passage in the SCS.

 

[Blackstone]

It looks like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's clear China can't continue with Deng's policy anymore, but getting more muscular plays into the Western narrative and increases tensions at a time when China isn't quite ready to take on the USN if those tensions get out of control.

Right you are! Best if Washington (because it's the stronger party) reaches out to Beijing and work out a modus vinvendi that includes sharing leadership with China and retaining strong US presence in Asia.

The US really should back off in the SCS. I get the impression the DoD, if not the government, underestimates China's resolve to defend its perceived strategic interest. It's like they've forgotten the cutting off of oil exports to Japan pushed it towards war instead of backing down in Asia.

Let's be clear, US has the right to fly and sail anywhere and anytime international laws allow. Current norms means at the 12-mile territorial limit. So from that point of view, US isn't legally obligated to back off, quite to the contrary.

On the other hand, just because you could legally do something doesn't mean it's the wisest thing to do, and from that perspective, US should consider dialing things back and cool the temperature. The consideration being what is required for security and political interests, anything beyond that is counterproductive.

 

[Ultra]

What would be the Chinese respond to this challenge?. It is about time to test ASBM

The U.S. Navy has dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea.

The carrier John C. Stennis, two destroyers, two cruisers and the 7th Fleet flagship have sailed into the disputed waters in recent days, according to military officials. The carrier strike group is the latest show of force in the tense region, with the U.S. asserting that China is militarizing the region to guard its excessive territorial claims.

Stennis is joined in the region by the cruisers Antietam and Mobile Bay, and the destroyers Chung-Hoon and Stockdale. The command ship Blue Ridge, the floating headquarters of the Japan-based 7th Fleet, is also in the area, en route to a port visit in the Philippines, and Stennis deployed from Washington state on Jan. 15.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wow, sounds like fireworks are about to start!


This is starting to remind me of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
United States imposed what it styled a "quarantine" and others called a de facto (and illegal) blockade that restricted freedom of navigation on the international water near Cuba.

In that regard, US actually threaten nuclear armageddon with the Russian even though Russian were just excercising their FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION!
See how it cuts both way? And how much of a hypocritical bully US is ???

It only shows to China that MIGHT IS RIGHT.

If China has the stockpile of nukes capable of annhilate US completely (and negating the missile defense), China can also do what US did to Russian, ready to turn this earth into smoking ball of fire by stopping the anyone FON with threat of nuclear force. And the next contender of super power title will also do the same, and earth will eventually be destroyed. As nuclear weapon and weapons of mass destruction becomes common place as more states pursues development of it, more and more states with follow suit.

This is what a hypocritical superpower does to the whole world. It breeds injustice, inequality.
It sets an example for more wrongs to follow.

 

[plawolf]

Let's be clear, US has the right to fly and sail anywhere and anytime international laws allow. Current norms means at the 12-mile territorial limit. So from that point of view, US isn't legally obligated to back off, quite to the contrary.

Other than UNCLOS (which the US refuses to sign), what actual law or treaty that everyone has signed and agreed to specifically spells out that magic 12nm boundary?

In addition, there is heated dispute in terms of how UNCLOS is interpretated with regards to the allowance or not of foreign military activity within the EEZ of coastal states.

As such, unless people can find a treaty or UN resolution that I somehow missed which backs up this 12nm boundary without UNCLOS that China has signed and agreed to, I object to this line or argument.

You simply and categorically cannot claim the legal moral high ground by citing a law you yourself refuses to be bound by.

Nor could you claim the legal moral high ground when the precise legal point you are trying to cite is hotly contested.