China's SCS Strategy Thread

Blackstone

Brigadier
He said it's for defense, therefore China has the right to defend it's sovereignty. We're still waiting on the US excuses for it's FONOP around the SCS that is not even their territory. The rest of the free world can't trust the Regime Changer trouble maker and their press for the truth.
Indeed, Li Kequin said it was defensive weapons the PLAx placed on China's territory. Nevertheless, it's military gear and so by definition it's militarization. Don't get me wrong, I have no problems whatsoever with China placing weapons on its own territory. It is, after all, Chinese territory. But, we need to call it as it is, and it's militarization.

As for FONOPs, the United States doesn't need any "excuses" to conduct them, because they're conducted in international waters, and not in Chinese territorial waters. Freedom of Navigation is in America's DNA and a core interest of the Republic. Full stop.

So, is the Pentagon making trouble and gunning for regime change? Of course it is! Neocons and liberal imperialists in Washington want to put China back in the bottle, and their stated methods are containment and regime change. The American public might support them if it's a) doable, and b) at costs that justify the benefits. Problem is, both 'a' and 'b' are demonstrably false.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Indeed, Li Kequin said it was defensive weapons the PLAx placed on China's territory. Nevertheless, it's military gear and so by definition it's militarization. Don't get me wrong, I have no problems whatsoever with China placing weapons on its own territory. It is, after all, Chinese territory. But, we need to call it as it is, and it's militarization.

As for FONOPs, the United States doesn't need any "excuses" to conduct them, because they're conducted in international waters, and not in Chinese territorial waters. Freedom of Navigation is in America's DNA and a core interest of the Republic. Full stop.

So, is the Pentagon making trouble and gunning for regime change? Of course it is! Neocons and liberal imperialists in Washington want to put China back in the bottle, and their stated methods are containment and regime change. The American public might support them if it's a) doable, and b) at costs that justify the benefits. Problem is, both 'a' and 'b' are demonstrably false.

I think we need to define "militarization". Does putting weapons in any place justify calling it "militarization"? Is there a well-defined characterization for the term? What kind of weapons vs. others would be considered as part of militarization?

China has always had weapons but used to be considered as defensive in nature. China only started equipping itself with offensive weapons within the past couple decades. In my view, "militarization" is very aggressive term. So if China only put "defensive" weapons on the islands, then it should not be considered as militarization.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I think we need to define "militarization". Does putting weapons in any place justify calling it "militarization"? Is there a well-defined characterization for the term? What kind of weapons vs. others would be considered as part of militarization?

China has always had weapons but used to be considered as defensive in nature. China only started equipping itself with offensive weapons within the past couple decades. In my view, "militarization" is very aggressive term. So if China only put "defensive" weapons on the islands, then it should not be considered as militarization.
Yes, and I agree with all but your last sentence. There are some unknowns for we the public, and it includes what agreement did Xi and Obama actually struck. Since we don't have the facts, we can only go with the most widely accepted authority on the term "militarization," the English dictionary, and under that strict definition, defensive weapons are considered militarization.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Definition of militarize
militarized
;
militarizing



    • 2 : to equip with military forces and defenses
    • 3 : to adapt for military use
militarization
play \ˌmi-lə-t(ə-)rə-ˈzā-shən\ noun
 

vesicles

Colonel
Yes, and I agree with all but your last sentence. There are some unknowns for we the public, and it includes what agreement did Xi and Obama actually struck. Since we don't have the facts, we can only go with the most widely accepted authority on the term "militarization," the English dictionary, and under that strict definition, defensive weapons are considered militarization.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm not asking for the dictionary version of the definition of "militarization". I am thinking about the political definition. what constitutes as an aggressive gesture of militarization and what simply means defending one's own land? Or is there such distinct?
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I'm not asking for the dictionary version of the definition of "militarization". I am thinking about the political definition. what constitutes as an aggressive gesture of militarization and what simply means defending one's own land? Or is there such distinct?
Again, it depends on what bargain Xi and Obama struck. But if we're talking about what reasonable people may consider militarizing one's own territory, then I think short-range or point defense weapons wouldn't be militarization. IMHO, HQ-9s and other "defensive" weapons like it would fall outside that definition, in this specific case, because they can dominate the SCS and force-multiply offensive PLA operations.
 
according to MilitaryTimes
Report: China's man-made South China Sea islands nearly complete
A report from a U.S. think tank says China has nearly completed construction work on three man-made islands in the South China Sea, giving it the ability to deploy combat aircraft and other military assets to the disputed region.

The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies analyzed recent satellite photos and concluded that runways, aircraft hangers, radar sites and hardened surface-to-air missile shelters have either been finished or are nearing completion.

The report, released Monday, appears to be the most conclusive indication yet that China is using its island-building project to give teeth to its claim over almost the entire South China Sea and its islands and reefs.

The islands in the study — Subi, Mischief and Fiery Cross reefs — are part of the Spratly chain, which is claimed in whole or in part by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei.

On each of the islands, China has constructed enough concrete hangers for 24 fighter jets and four or five larger planes such as bombers or early warning aircraft, CSIS reported.

China already uses an existing airfield on Woody Island in the similarly disputed Paracel chain, located to the north, where it has maintained mobile HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles for more than a year and deployed anti-ship cruise missiles on at least one occasion, CSIS said.

The airfields and advanced surveillance and early warning radars will allow China's military to operate over virtually the entire South China Sea.

"Beijing can now deploy military assets, including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers, to the Spratly Islands at any time," the report said.

China's creation of seven man-made islands in the South China Sea has drawn strong criticism from the U.S. and others, who accuse Beijing of further militarizing the region and altering geography to bolster its claims.

China says its island construction is mainly for civilian purposes, particularly to increase safety for ships that carry an estimated $5 trillion worth of goods through the waterway each year. It has also provided reassurances that it will not interfere with freedom of navigation or overflight, although questions remain as to whether that includes military ships and aircraft.

Commenting on the report, a senior Philippine defense official said the construction China has carried out on the islands "belies a clearly military purpose contrary to Chinese public pronouncements that it is civilian in nature."

That raises the likelihood of further militarization and restrictions on air and sea traffic, posing a "clear and present danger to the present regional security balance," said the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters on the matter.

China has refused to confirm speculation over whether it plans to declare an air defense identification zone over the South China Sea as it has done already over international airspace in the East China Sea. The U.S. has refused to recognize the East China Sea zone, which requires aircraft to declare their flight plans, identify themselves to Chinese traffic monitors and follow their instructions.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

delft

Brigadier
Of course the main purpose of China's military in the area is the defence the Freedom of Navigation that is after all of vital importance to China and its economy. Besides that USN presence is not much more than holiday tripping.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Of course the main purpose of China's military in the area is the defence the Freedom of Navigation that is after all of vital importance to China and its economy. Besides that USN presence is not much more than holiday tripping.
No, USN FONOPs are not holiday excursions, but part and parcel of US core interests since the founding of the Republic. It's a mistake for China to discount important US interests in the SCS, just as it's a mistake for US to discount China's interests. I believe in the long-run, China will move closer to current international norms on Freedom of Navigation, because it'll have more interests all over the world, and PLAN needs to sail where it legally can to protect Chinese interests and provide global public goods.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Definition of words are meaningless. The US cried out that China was establishing ADIZs without consulting it's neighbors. Japan didn't when they established theirs. South Korea didn't consult with North Korea when they establish their ADIZ 50 miles into North Korea. The US complains about any Chinese naval vessel in international waters that goes beyond the first island chain. So who thinks they own all of the Pacific and up to 12 miles off of China? Trump complaining about Democrats said they want the US to sink the Russian spy ship off the US coast in international waters. So do you think it matters on following the law? All that matters is accumulating power where any contesters can't do anything about it.
 

advill

Junior Member
All this talk of Militarisation & FON, and who is right or wrong are raising temperatures of various interested parties re: South China Sea. The best possible solutions would entail " serious talk, discussions" to examine how common sense could prevail in making the South China Sea PEACEFUL for global trade for ALL nations, without antagonising any particular country/countries. China I read, is now looking seriously at the "Code of Conduct" with ASEAN, and perhaps the other interested parties like the US etc. Hopefully, a reasonable and acceptable "Code of Conduct" will be tabled & acceptable by the major parties involved the South China Sea disputes. Give the "Owlish" diplomacy a chance to solve problems & succeed, and restrain the "Hawks" of all parties/countries from interfering.
 
Top