Chinese Naval Threat to SEA?

The USN has been patrolling the Pacific since since after WWI. The reason is to keep the sea lanes open to allow for the free flow of commerce. And they have remained opened.

Click to expand...

I take a piss every morning and the sun rises. Causation or coincidence? Can you point to any operations the U.S. has undertaken in the last 20 years in East or Southeast Asia to keep the sea lanes open?

There is no reason for nations in East or Southeast Asia to close the sea lanes because maritime trade benefits all nations immensely. There is no reason for the USN to patrol Southeast Asian waters because there is no threat to maritime trade that can't be handled by Southeast Asian governments. The Malacca Straights used to have a problem with piracy 20 years ago but Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia took care of that long ago.

The worst case for piracy, what we see off Somalia now, barely makes a dent in maritime trade. That's why there is barely any news about it anymore, despite the pirates' continued success in hijacking and ransoming ships. Journalists and governments have realized piracy really isn't a big deal unless your nation's crew are held for ransom.

The U.S. military mined the Vietnamese harbor of Haiphong during the Vietnam War, greatly inhibiting maritime trade. Now, I know your response to this: "Duh! America was at war with North Vietnam and wanted to stop Russian and Chinese weapons flowing to the Communists." Right. So what you'd be saying is that during wartime, the noble mission of keeping the sea lanes open takes a back seat to national interests.

The USN did some serious work during the 1980s in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War. They protected Iraqi and non-Iranian oil tankers from Iranian attacks. Iran was in a fight for its life against Iraq, and it was total war, meaning economic assets such as oil tankers were fair game. Before you get all self-righteous about the immorality of total war, remember that World War II was a total war in which the U.S. and Britain bombed the hell out of German and Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to kill the economy and hasten the war's end. Same principle in the Iran-Iraq War, except the two sides were so evenly matched the war just dragged on and on, like the stalemate on the Western Front during World War I. Anyways, the U.S. was happy to let its ally Iraq sink Iranian tankers demonstrating that keeping the sea lanes open once again is less important than national interests.

Look at the Israeli embargo of the Gaza Strip. Where is the noble USN to keep the sea lanes to Gaza open? Once again, keeping the sea lanes open is less important than national interests.

In conclusion, the USN uses "keeping the sea lanes open" as one of its justifications for bases all over the world and wasting a lot of American taxpayer money on patrols. But it contributes little to a cause that isn't even a problem. And it has shown many times that national interests--err, American national interests--are more important than the noble mission of protecting international trade.

Finally, the U.S. government has called on China many times to assume a greater role in the international system. Their favorite word is "stakeholder." As if China didn't already have a massive stake in maintaining global economy stability. If you assume keeping the sea lanes open is a service to the international community, then why isn't the U.S. encouraging China's navy to play a greater role in keeping the sea lanes open? Why doesn't the U.S. hand the baton for keeping the sea lanes open to China, scale back its navy, save money, and retire into the sunset? The U.S. often complains about the burden of being a global policeman, yet when offered the chance to hand their badge to up-and-coming China on certain issues like Asian security, the U.S. pushes back and builds their upteenth foreign base in Australia. Because when the U.S. talks about China taking a greater role in international institutions, it really means China should forgo its national interests and be shaped by, rather than shape, those institutions. China is expected to meet all of Western nations' military-related demands while receiving little cooperation on its priorities. Western leaders hypocritically demand China play a greater role in international crises yet freak out when China builds a navy to play that greater role.

Can you point to any operations the U.S. has undertaken in the last 20 years in East or Southeast Asia to keep the sea lanes open?

Click to expand...

Nope because the USN is everywhere. It is the stated mission of the USN to keep the sea lanes open.

Mission of the Navy

The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.

Click to expand...

Your hatred for the Us is on your sleeve. I myself hate no one. God bless.

Hypocrisy, propaganda, and wasted money are problems to be solved, and hiding behind the flag is not going to solve them. As long as we're quoting official government agency mission statements, why not include the PLAN's?

China pursues a national defense policy which is purely defensive in nature. China places the protection of national sovereignty, security, territorial integrity, safeguarding of the interests of national development, and the interests of the Chinese people above all else.

Click to expand...

Mission statements are always grandiose and self-righteous, and hardly worth referencing. Action and public statements by officials are more useful for understanding intentions.

Nope because the USN is everywhere. It is the stated mission of the USN to keep the sea lanes open.

Click to expand...

I should use that excuse when my boss asks why I haven't been doing any work and questions whether he needs to keep me on salary. It's a logical fallacy allowing open-ended patrols. If there is a problem and the USN takes care of it, the USN can trumpet its success and show how much the patrols are needed. If there aren't any problems for 20+ years, the USN can still say its presence deterred the problems. It is called a non-falsifiable claim.

As an American taxpayer, I want the missions scaled back, saving a lot of money, and letting other nations shoulder the responsibility. If the shit hits the fan we can always redeploy. But if all goes well, as I think it will, that's a lot a more money than can be spend on improving the welfare of Americans at home, be in health care, education, or scientific research.

But actually, in view of this official mission of the USN, its complete lack of interest in the Somali pirates issue is striking. The USN only once got really active, when the MAERSK ALABAMA operating under Pentagon charter as an arms carrier, was seized by pirates. They were duly executed.

I am sure Jeff Head is ready to reel off statistics demonstrating the important role played by the USN in this theatre, but seen from my chair all the real work is done by European navies.

China is not a naval threat to SEA; the name of this thread is absurd.

If anything, China sees open sea lanes and freedom of navigation as top priority, as China economic development depends on trade. Which means there is absolutely no chance (none whatsoever!) of China closing the SCS to trade if it's sovereignty is upheld; that will be like one strangling itself to death.

Geographer has made excellent points, and called a spade for what it is; a spade. US patrols the world's oceans for it's own benefits first and foremost, everything else comes a distant second. And it is the interests of US to maintain a naval presence in SEA...hence the usage of "freedom of navigation" as a means to get involved.

There is the freedom of passages for both merchant & warships in any seas or oceans. In my opinion, no reason for objecting the PLA-N from conducting exercises or patrolling the Western Pacific; or the Japanese, Korean Navy or any Navy for that matter from sailing into the South China Sea and surrounding waters. As for facilities, it's up the the countries concerned whether they would want to provide such facilities to the USN. After all, Pakistani ports in the Indian Ocean have reportedly provided the PLA-N with berthing and fuelling facilities. In this day and age, we look at development of trade ties among countries & one should avoid belligerancy by any military or naval leaders.

advill said:

There is the freedom of passages for both merchant & warships in any seas or oceans. In my opinion, no reason for objecting the PLA-N from conducting exercises or patrolling the Western Pacific; or the Japanese, Korean Navy or any Navy for that matter from sailing into the South China Sea and surrounding waters. As for facilities, it's up the the countries concerned whether they would want to provide such facilities to the USN. After all, Pakistani ports in the Indian Ocean have reportedly provided the PLA-N with berthing and fuelling facilities. In this day and age, we look at development of trade ties among countries & one should avoid belligerancy by any military or naval leaders.

Click to expand...

Ah, they don't "object", they "voice their concerns".

adeptitus said:

Ah, they don't "object", they "voice their concerns".

Click to expand...

That is merely play of words, but the message is the same.

Can someone comment on Agence France-Presse very recent report that according to China's official news agency Xinhua, President Hu stated that the PLA-N should "make extended preparations for warfare", emphasing the Chinese term "junshi douzheng" (military combat or military struggle). Where is this sea warfare to focus on: South China Sea, East China Sea or Western Pacific, and with whom? Or is this press report inaccurate and is not an actual reflection of the Chinese Government or its President? It has happened before.

advill said:

Can someone comment on Agence France-Presse very recent report that according to China's official news agency Xinhua, President Hu stated that the PLA-N should "make extended preparations for warfare", emphasing the Chinese term "junshi douzheng" (military combat or military struggle). Where is this sea warfare to focus on: South China Sea, East China Sea or Western Pacific, and with whom? Or is this press report inaccurate and is not an actual reflection of the Chinese Government or its President? It has happened before.

Click to expand...

Nothing more than the usual rhetoric actually, though at times like these it sparks imagination...