China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

all your words is based on the assumption that PCA has jurisdiction. For that assumption you referred to Article 9 Annex VII.

This is your base. However, "a duty to consider" will only lead to a review of the filing not necessarily a proceeding, is it not? It only means duty to consider, no more. Duty =\= Jurisdiction. I also suggest you to revisit logic class.

It is not an assumption. That authority is legislated by UNCLOS. Article 9 requires a duty on the Tribunal to consider whether it has jurisdiction only after having made due consideration based on both law and fact. In other words, the Tribunal has sole authority to make that determination. In the Philippines case, the Tribunal had made the determination that it has the jurisdiction on specific issues. The Hague findings were handed out last year in a 149 page document.


Did you actually bother to read that document and reconcile the findings to China's opt out before asserting that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction? I do question your plain reading ability and understanding of UNCLOS text and the meaning of proceeding which is irrelevant to the Tribunal's determination.

The opt out act (read the Chinese claim some posts back) were taken by many tenths countries. The act exclude them from taking up or accepting any legal proceedings of such nature, making such proceedings including PCA arbitration without a legal base, is that right? so the review (to determine whether or not accept the case) is a duty, but not the admitting and proceeding, is it right? Because of the opt out which removed the legal ground of arbitration there is ONLY one logical outcome of the review process, dismiss.

Frankly based on your arguments I don't think you actually understand the nature of the opt out by China; the meaning of proceeding and how that is connected to the jurisdiction issue. In other words, you are making a bunch of statements that are incoherent as a basic legal argument.

For example, if a Chinese person who has never been to U.S. sue a person in Germany in a court in Texas, non of them has anything related to U.S. What will happen then? I am sure the court will have the duty to review the case, but ONLY to find out whether the case is valid in the court, and the only conclusion can be dismiss, no proceeding should ever happen. The court would breaking laws if it choose to proceed. That is exactly what I am saying. Don't know if you can get the idea. I doubt as I sense you are acting exactly as the PCA.

Your example affirms my assessment of your lack of understanding of jurisdictional authority. It is a question of both law and fact whether the US court has jurisdiction. Proceeding is simply a prescribed judicial process. In your example, you cannot even articulate why the US court has no legal standing to hear the case but yet want to use such an example as an analogy.

All your accusation of me ignoring the arbitral process and asking me to look at the Tribunal's blah blah Is based on the assumption of PCA has the right to proceed, that is what I was rejecting all the time due to what I have said in the paragraph above. So there is no need for me to answer this, but I suggest you to think of my "is that right?"s

You obviously think you are making a substantive argument. You are merely once again repeating your assertion without attempting to substantiate it.

Finally, you own me an apology for calling my posts "rubbish". You have every right to disagree with me by arguing, but your wording is personal insult without doubt. And anything other than an apology is "the word of yours" in return.

I stand by what I said. It is rubbish because it is groundless. If you so liberally accuse an international institution as a kangaroo court, then you have already by your own behaviour removed the gloves.

 

[Brumby]

I agree this thread is about China's strategy in the SCS. But that could mean taking a page out of what Britain does when it comes to court rulings that are not in its favor.

That doesn't change the fact that two wrongs don't make a right and especially for a country aspiring to global leadership.

 

[Yvrch]

Long overdue.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Email

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's newest ICBM, the DF-41

BY:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

April 21, 2016 12:05 pm

China’s Defense Ministry on Thursday confirmed that Beijing fired its newest long-range missile into the South China Sea in a test this week, amid growing tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Responding to a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday, the ministry defended the missile launch in an unusual confirmation of a nuclear system test.

“It is normal for China to execute scientific experiments within its territory, and these experiments are not aimed at any specific country nor target,” the ministry said.

The statement said the long-range missile was test fired “near the South China Sea on April 12.”

“The so-called test location reported by the media is pure conjecture,” the statement said.

Defense officials disclosed that a new DF-41 missile was launched and carried two dummy warheads that were identified as multiple, independently-targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs.

The location of the DF-41 test was not disclosed. Past flight tests were launched from Wuzhai Missile and Space Test Center in central China.

The DF-41 test was closely monitored by U.S. intelligence satellites and other sensors. It came amid growing tensions between China and the United States over disputed islands in the South China Sea.

A large delegation of Chinese military officials, led by Central Military Commission Vice Chairman Fan Changlong, recently traveled to Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands, which is claimed by Philippines and two other states in the region. Fan’s visit coincided with the visit of Defense Secretary Ash Carter to the aircraft carrier USS Stennis, which was patrolling the South China Sea.

Additionally, the Pentagon objected to China’s use of a military aircraft to rescue injured workers on one of the disputed South China Sea islands. Beijing dismissed the criticism.

The DF-41 is China’s newest and most lethal long-range missile, and one of the few nuclear delivery vehicles that can range the entire United States.

The missile has been under development and testing for the past several years and military analysts say it is nearing deployment.

The new missile will be equipped with between six and 10 MIRVs, representing a major increase in China’s nuclear arsenal. The missile has an estimated range of up to 7,456 miles.

Until it began MIRVing its strategic missiles, China was estimated to have around 250 to 300 strategic warheads, many of them large-yield “city-busters.”

The CIA stated in the 1990s that China obtained espionage details about every deployed nuclear warhead used by the United States, including the W-88 small warhead deployed on U.S. submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

This week’s DF-41 test followed an earlier flight test of the new missile on Aug. 6, also with two simulated warheads.

Defense officials also disclosed earlier this year that China has begun upgrading older, single-warhead DF-5 missiles with MIRVs.

The nuclear buildup by China has raised concerns that China is developing a first strike capability using large numbers of mobile missiles with multiple warheads.

China’s military doctrine in the past was that Beijing would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

The Pentagon did not respond when asked about the missile test last week.[/URL]

 

[PanAsian]

Long overdue.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/URL]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/URL]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/URL]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday, the ministry defended the missile launch in an unusual confirmation of a nuclear system test.[/URL]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

 

[antiterror13]

when China has clear credible deterrence against the US, the attitude and tone of the US would be totally different ... and China is getting there very very closely, time will tell anyway

 

[xxl_aber]

To maintain a strategic balance and peace, China needs to boost the number of its nuclear warheads, so China is able to deploy the doctrine of the mutual assured destruction.

 

[AndrewS]

Much as I hate to say it, China deploying say 50 road-mobile DF-41 would probably result in a more stable strategic environment.

That's a minimum of 300 warheads that can reach the entire continental USA.

As demonstrated with Russia, we would see an end to the rhetoric from the US military about how war with China is an option, because the escalation ladder ends up with MAD.

This should similarly result in more restraint from China due to the same logic and because the US military would not be so visible in the SCS. As was the case recently, PACOM was muzzled because he was publicly baiting the Chinese to respond.

===

And it plays back to what I've been saying before. The more that the US pushes with military force in public, the greater the escalation response from China.

PACOM should realise that this won't work at this time.

 

[antiterror13]

100 road-mobile DF-41would be better, with real 3 warheads and 3 excellent warhead dummies, still 300 real warheads. It can be achieved in 5 years

 

[taxiya]

I stand by what I said. It is rubbish because it is groundless. If you so liberally accuse an international institution as a kangaroo court, then you have already by your own behaviour removed the gloves.

So you are saying "it is acceptable to you to label others' word as rubbish just because you don't agree." That grant me the same right to label your word as rubbish by your logic, right?

But contrary to your choice, I choose not to respond to rubbish any longer from this moment. And there is no need for me to respond to the rests of your last post as they are just rubbish. Case closed on my part.

 

[solarz]

In a sports game you know your team is in trouble when you resort to attacking the referee.

It seems that you don't understand the difference between International Law and the laws of a country. They are two completely different beasts and are in no way comparable.

As a citizen of a country, you have to obey that country's laws. You have no choice about it. If you live in a democratic country, your only option is to vote for a politician that you *hope* will change the laws you don't like.

International Laws, on the other hand, are nothing like that. At its basis, international laws are just treaties that a lot of countries sign on to. Treaties means two (or more) countries agree on a set of behaviors. Some countries may be forced into treaties by way of military or economic threat, but that is not the case we are discussing.

The UNCLOS is simply a treaty that a bunch of countries, including China, signed on to. However, because all countries have their own opinions, UNCLOS was designed to allow signatory nations to opt out of clauses that they do not like.

To put it simply, China is only bound by those clauses in the UNCLOS that it signed on to. It is absolutely not bound by any of the clauses that it opted out of, and this includes the arbitration portion at hand. Therefore, the international court in question has no legal authority to make any judgement whatsoever on this case.