What "US military bases" there? It sounds like you're a couple decades behind the times. In any case the "small listening post" on Scarborough Shoal is not some kind of tit for tat due to THAAD. Undoubtedly it is part of PLA's gradual approach to the 'sinification' of the Shoal by gradually building up a ground presence there, little by little adding more, each move only slightly escalatory but nothing worth going to war over, until all of a sudden there is a base there.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
They can easily sustain $600-700b annual trade deficits. It is just money they create from hot air. They have lived that way for years and when it caused trouble they intimidated the trouble maker. That was Japan and the Plaza accord. That is until their position crumbles. They can't intimidate China. And perhaps South Korea will recognize that it can only be safe as a friend of China and that this friendship will also open the way to eventual reunification.
The US can only print money for so long before the entire house of cards crumbles. On that day there will be a reckoning. A reckoning upon all the progressive lunatics who want to fund this or that social program and upon all the conservative warmongers who want to have more weapons than the US needs or its economy can support. One day we will have spent ourselves into utter ruin, all the while the cowards and idiots in Congress promising us more stuff that we don't have the money to buy. Sequestration is all but gone. Any pretense of fiscal discipline is gone. The Orange One is going to add yet another massive pile of debt onto our already massive mountain of debt. The one straw that breaks the camel's back is going to fall any day now...
There are other ways to isolate them.
For example, minefields.
Also, reinforcement can be troubled by both direct (maritime interdiction) and indirect(infrastructure damage) action.
<<OT>> I agree with your analysis about "in-affordability" part in US economy. What I worries me is: what USA (no matter it's White House, congress, or so-called "general public" [populist, shadow of "Trumpism"]) will do with its irresistible military forces to handle problem like this?
I can't stop a wildest thought that USA pose a gun at those low-income countries, yelling: "I don't care, just keep producing what I want (those low-cost products) and give them to me, for free. Trade war? This is NOT trade. I'm not giving you anything in return, NOT a single bit, other than you-won't-get-shot!!".
I fully understand it's a wild thought. And country especially China is NOT that easily intimidated. But how about others? Like the saying: to those who only got a big hammer, everything looks like a nail.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Interesting statement from Rex
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sunday that the US would like to develop the relationship with China based on the spirits of "mutual respect" and "win-win cooperation," with analysts believing that this means Tillerson has implicitly endorsed the new model of major power relations.
Xi stressed that cooperation is the only right option for both sides during his meeting with the visiting secretary of state.
"You said that China-US relations can only be friendly. I express my appreciation for this," Xi said.
Xi also said he had communicated with President Donald Trumpseveral times through telephone conversations and messages. "We both believe that China-US cooperation henceforth is the direction we are both striving for. We are both expecting a new era for constructive development."
"The joint interests of China and the US far outweigh the differences, and cooperation is the only correct choice for us both," Xi added.
Tillerson said President Trump is looking forward to meeting with President Xi and to have the opportunity to visit China.
Tillerson further said the summit will confirm the direction of Sino-US relations in the next 50 years. The US would like to develop the bilateral relationship with China based on "the spirit of no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation," the Xinhua News Agency reported.
New expression
In 2010, China put forward a new model of major power relations, in which the core concepts are "no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation." Beijing hoped Washington would accept these principles to develop the Sino-US relationship as the right way to avoid the Thucydides trap, a theory which says that a rising power and an established super power are bound to engage in conflicts.
While China welcomes the endorsement of its model, which the previous administration of Barack Obama refused to do, we need to observe the US' words and deeds going forward to see if it is credible, said Shi Yinhong, director of the Center for American Studies at the Renmin University of China.
"Tillerson said these words because Trump wants to create a friendly atmosphere and environment for the upcoming summit," Shi said.
During Obama's era, China always stressed these principles, but there was no record that the US side did the same.
"In that time, the US refused to accept the concept of 'mutual respect,' because it refused to accept China's definition of 'core interests,'" Shi said.
"'Mutual respect' will give US allies in the Asia-Pacific region an impression that China and the US are equal in the region, so to accept 'mutual respect' will undermine US authority among its allies. This is what the Obama administration believed," said An Gang, a US studies expert and a member of the academic committee of the Pangoal Institution, a Beijing-based think tank.
Tillerson was not speaking personally, but after a serious decision made by the US, because Trump wants to start a relationship with China different from his predecessor's. China should cautiously welcome Tillerson's words. At least this is a step forward and a result of China's diplomatic efforts, An said.
"We should learn from the lessons of Obama's era, which is that everything looks happy and friendly during the summit, but in reality, the US makes little compromises or even acts more aggressively," Shi noted.
Since Trump took office, his recognition of the "one-China policy" is the biggest achievement so far, but in many other areas, such as the Taiwan question, the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula, we still need to wait and see, Shi said.
Words are not enough
"Both countries agree on 'no conflict and no confrontation' and for 'win-win cooperation,' we can see how both cooperate on global challenges. The most difficult part is 'mutual respect,' because it covers many sensitive areas such as human rights, Taiwan, the South China Sea, and so on," said Diao Daming, a research fellow at the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
US Acting Assistant Secretary of State Susan Thornton had previously told reporters that the US was "pursuing a results-oriented relationship with China."
The concept of "results-oriented" might reflect US understanding of "mutual respect," An said. "A results-oriented relationship means the US will push the Sino-US relationship based on the results or effects of every single instance of Sino-US cooperation."
"Currently, the US needs China's cooperation and respect on issues like trade and the Korean Peninsula, so China needs to consider to what extent it can provide what the US wants at this moment," An said.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sunday that the US would like to develop the relationship with China based on the spirits of "mutual respect" and "win-win cooperation," with analysts believing that this means Tillerson has implicitly endorsed the new model of major power relations.
Xi stressed that cooperation is the only right option for both sides during his meeting with the visiting secretary of state.
"You said that China-US relations can only be friendly. I express my appreciation for this," Xi said.
Xi also said he had communicated with President Donald Trumpseveral times through telephone conversations and messages. "We both believe that China-US cooperation henceforth is the direction we are both striving for. We are both expecting a new era for constructive development."
"The joint interests of China and the US far outweigh the differences, and cooperation is the only correct choice for us both," Xi added.
Tillerson said President Trump is looking forward to meeting with President Xi and to have the opportunity to visit China.
Tillerson further said the summit will confirm the direction of Sino-US relations in the next 50 years. The US would like to develop the bilateral relationship with China based on "the spirit of no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation," the Xinhua News Agency reported.
New expression
In 2010, China put forward a new model of major power relations, in which the core concepts are "no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation." Beijing hoped Washington would accept these principles to develop the Sino-US relationship as the right way to avoid the Thucydides trap, a theory which says that a rising power and an established super power are bound to engage in conflicts.
While China welcomes the endorsement of its model, which the previous administration of Barack Obama refused to do, we need to observe the US' words and deeds going forward to see if it is credible, said Shi Yinhong, director of the Center for American Studies at the Renmin University of China.
"Tillerson said these words because Trump wants to create a friendly atmosphere and environment for the upcoming summit," Shi said.
During Obama's era, China always stressed these principles, but there was no record that the US side did the same.
"In that time, the US refused to accept the concept of 'mutual respect,' because it refused to accept China's definition of 'core interests,'" Shi said.
"'Mutual respect' will give US allies in the Asia-Pacific region an impression that China and the US are equal in the region, so to accept 'mutual respect' will undermine US authority among its allies. This is what the Obama administration believed," said An Gang, a US studies expert and a member of the academic committee of the Pangoal Institution, a Beijing-based think tank.
Tillerson was not speaking personally, but after a serious decision made by the US, because Trump wants to start a relationship with China different from his predecessor's. China should cautiously welcome Tillerson's words. At least this is a step forward and a result of China's diplomatic efforts, An said.
"We should learn from the lessons of Obama's era, which is that everything looks happy and friendly during the summit, but in reality, the US makes little compromises or even acts more aggressively," Shi noted.
Since Trump took office, his recognition of the "one-China policy" is the biggest achievement so far, but in many other areas, such as the Taiwan question, the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula, we still need to wait and see, Shi said.
Words are not enough
"Both countries agree on 'no conflict and no confrontation' and for 'win-win cooperation,' we can see how both cooperate on global challenges. The most difficult part is 'mutual respect,' because it covers many sensitive areas such as human rights, Taiwan, the South China Sea, and so on," said Diao Daming, a research fellow at the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
US Acting Assistant Secretary of State Susan Thornton had previously told reporters that the US was "pursuing a results-oriented relationship with China."
The concept of "results-oriented" might reflect US understanding of "mutual respect," An said. "A results-oriented relationship means the US will push the Sino-US relationship based on the results or effects of every single instance of Sino-US cooperation."
"Currently, the US needs China's cooperation and respect on issues like trade and the Korean Peninsula, so China needs to consider to what extent it can provide what the US wants at this moment," An said.
Fortunately no country in the world, including the US, has the power to take whatever it wants for itself. The US may be able to do this to a few small countries, but if it does it enough times even its allies will turn away from it.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
So just how does anyone plan to seed those minefields in the first place? I suppose you expect the Chinese to just watch and do nothing as this is happening? Not to mention how such an act would grossly undermine all the claims about freedom of navigation - the sole pretext on which the US has inserted itself into territorial disputes that has absolutely nothing to do with them on the other side of the he world.
As for maritime interdiction or attack on infrastructure, well again, the whole point is that the US (or anyone else) would need to fight through multiple, mutually supportive defensive layers of air, sea and land based defences to be able to launch any attacks against the islands. And given the geographical and military assets that could be easily or reasonably brought to bear by all sides, China could actually enjoy modest to significant local military superiority in any such clash depending on how many carriers the USN can bring into play at the time.
The US would have to both expect and be prepared for casualty rates not seen since WWII to even consider trying to take those islands by military force. And no one can see the US being prepared to pay that kind of butcher's bill over these islands.
To blunder in expecting an easy and costless victory without making those psychological and physical preparations could easily see the the US humbled in any such clash. Which, with the Orange One's personality and temperament, is actually the most likely and dangerous outcome to American military adventurism in the SCS, as he seems clueless enough to expect an easy victory if Fox News says so, and would be sorely tempted to escalate in order to save face rather than face the reality of his own mistakes in the event that doesn't pan out. That could see any limited conflict in the SCS escalate rapidly and wildly out of control.
There are two main ways of placing mines in contested area: submarines(self-deploying ones), or aerial(if we're talking about US - with JDAM-like kits), typically (but not necessarily) by strategic bombers.
Both can be performed even with very strong opposition.
Other options(minelaying by surface combatants, requesitioned vessels or sneaky options with maritime militia and/or light forces) are less prominent in case of US, but, say, Vietnam has every ingredient in place.
If we're twlking such operations - forget freedom of navigation, we're at full shooting war in vicinity of national nuclear detterent. Gloves off.
Also, unlike Paracel chain("shadowed" by Hainan), Spratly trio, as fortified as they are, are actually quite far away from mainland China, yet far less so from others. Not only this, but there are quite a few other nations aroynd, sometimes(again, Vietnam) with very significant installations of their own. They're just overshadowed in English-speaking press by Chinese activity, but should never be forgotten.
Any war with China by now will see forgotten casuality rates. But by no means it is absolute deterrence.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
Vietnamese installation is too insignificant in size and can be countered quite easily. And I don't think they would want to risk an open war with China. After all, if China losses a island or even damage to any of it due to Vietnamese action, Vietnam can basically kiss their northern provinces and most of their seaboard areas goodbye.
No other powers are nearby.