China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
solarz
Brigadier
Short of opening fire, there's nothing the US can do to stop China from developing those islands. The US knows this, so I believe the purpose of this FONOP is to rally their allies so they can build a containment line around those islands.
Does US worry more about China than it did about Soviet during the Cold War?
When US and China got together during the early 80s, i don't think US offered much weapons to China to counter Soviet.
But, US ready to offered weapons to Vietnam to counter China.
When US and China got together during the early 80s, i don't think US offered much weapons to China to counter Soviet.
But, US ready to offered weapons to Vietnam to counter China.
The US was very forthcoming with armament sales offers to China during the "honeymoon period". However, China did not take up most of these offers due to various reasons including a desire for indigenous development, cuts to defence spending, and occasionally, dissatisfaction with performance of the weapons offered.
The S-70 helicopters in service with the PLA were purchased during this period. Likewise with the LM2500 gas turbines on the Type 052 destroyers. The US also offered to upgrade the J-7s and J-8s respectively through the 'Super 7' and 'Peace Pearl' projects. Eventually, these fell through due to China's unwillingness to be left out of the development process. The US even offered to sell F-16s to China but equipped with the inferior J79 engines.
Many other Western weapons and cooperation projects were offered during this time and they served to introduce China to world standards. Chinese engineers and military personnel were enlightened in many respects by Western equipment including the Mirage 2000 and various Western FCS. These all educated China on the need to catch up to world standards and some effects include the construction of the Type 052s, which were the first Chinese vessels to be constructed to a strict military structural standard, the commencement of the J-10 project, influenced by Chinese pilots' test flights of Mirage 2000s, and adoption of BVR aerial combat, based around the Italian Aspide missile.
joshuatree
Captain
There's another purpose. To maintain the US position that there is no need to seek permission when conducting innocent passage within a territorial sea. So FONOP around the Chinese installations serve two purposes at the moment.
Ultimately the US FONOP operations and the Chinese protests/intercepts serve first and foremost, their respective domestic audiences. As long as either side doesn't let it get out of control, each will keep repeating this song and dance.
joshuatree
Captain
I think that runs counter to China's interests. The song and dance in the SCS eventually will fade from headlines if nothing changes. What you suggest will simply galvanize portions of the US public that really doesn't care much about the SCS.
No, it would force the US into negotiation about the Freedom of Navigation clause.
The US can abuse it by having the world's largest navy and 11 nuclear Flattops, as well as tons of overseas bases in convenient distance to their rivals. They literally have nothing to fear about China or Russia sending a few warships to their coast to show flag, and would even welcome that as legitimation for their own massive abuse of the FON clause.
But what happens when China, who lacks overseas bases in the near of the US, sends nuclear powered floating airbases, armed to the teeth with a fighter-bomber division and nuclear SLBMs, just off the US territorial waters, while each of the bases have a huge "WE LOVE FON"-flag fluttering on them?
The US would have to admit defeat and negotiate with China - Or go full retard again like back during Cuba Crisis. And in that case, the SLBMs on those bases are already near the US coast.
The US can abuse it by having the world's largest navy and 11 nuclear Flattops, as well as tons of overseas bases in convenient distance to their rivals. They literally have nothing to fear about China or Russia sending a few warships to their coast to show flag, and would even welcome that as legitimation for their own massive abuse of the FON clause.
But what happens when China, who lacks overseas bases in the near of the US, sends nuclear powered floating airbases, armed to the teeth with a fighter-bomber division and nuclear SLBMs, just off the US territorial waters, while each of the bases have a huge "WE LOVE FON"-flag fluttering on them?
The US would have to admit defeat and negotiate with China - Or go full retard again like back during Cuba Crisis. And in that case, the SLBMs on those bases are already near the US coast.
joshuatree
Captain
You actually already answered why it won't force the US into negotiation about its FON stance. The US would welcome Chinese FON because as you say, it would be taken as legitimization of US FON operations. They've played the cat and mouse game with the Soviets/Russians for decades. Don't see why it would stop now. Let's not forget, the US did not back down during the Cuba Crisis so unless you are espousing war, it wouldn't be prudent to go up a creek without a paddle.
At the same time, sending such forces would definitely make a splash on headlines and you'll simply add fear to the general American public and increase their anti-Chinese sentiment.
What China should really do is (ironically), open a case within UNCLOS to clarify what is and isn't when discussing "innocent passage". The US cannot attend these meetings because they are not a signatory to the convention. So if China is able to gather enough allies (I actually see states like Russia, India, Vietnam, etc being on board), to redefine clearly that innocent passage goes not mean military ships armed to the teeth go sailing through others' territorial waters without prior communication, then it would remove any international/customary law the US is claiming to uphold. Such a legal maneuver may motivate the US to finally ratifying UNCLOS so it can contest such proceedings but then at least you've closed the loophole the US has been using, abiding by its interpretation of UNCLOS but beyond touch of UNCLOS.
The US would just ignore UNCLOS. The international system is characterized by anarchy and there is no world-police, aside of the US, to enforce international laws. And the Police will never abide to the law. Just as they ignored the UN when invading Iraq. They can and will do it again and again because they have the power for it. Nothing counts but making them taste the same medicine.
The US didnt back down during Cuba Crisis because their nukes were already pointed at Russia in Turkey and the Russians still had to move theirs to Cuba.
But If Chinese floating fortresses move off US waters and suddently declare they have them, and legitimize it with their beloved FON, the US will finally notice and maybe be ready to negotiate with China.
And if not, having nuclear armed and powered mobile fortresses off the US coast will make a nice deterrent. The PLAN should just make sure that any attacks against these fortresses will mean a nuclear meltdown and spilling against the densely populated cities of the US west coast.
Tit for tat is the only viable language in the great power game.
The US didnt back down during Cuba Crisis because their nukes were already pointed at Russia in Turkey and the Russians still had to move theirs to Cuba.
But If Chinese floating fortresses move off US waters and suddently declare they have them, and legitimize it with their beloved FON, the US will finally notice and maybe be ready to negotiate with China.
And if not, having nuclear armed and powered mobile fortresses off the US coast will make a nice deterrent. The PLAN should just make sure that any attacks against these fortresses will mean a nuclear meltdown and spilling against the densely populated cities of the US west coast.
Tit for tat is the only viable language in the great power game.