Chinese Naval Threat to SEA?
- Thread starter tankee1981
- Start date
MwRYum
Major
There's always an arms race in this part of the world, with or without encouragement...even amongst ASEAN member states too. Just nobody admit it to preserve the appearance doesn't mean there ain't.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Here is what BBC said. But Hu Jintao will be remember as the prez who expand Chinese naval power no doubt about it He is instrumental by giving both the navy and air force a seat in central military committee. He also give bigger share of defense budget to the Navy Seem like he want to accelerate the transformation of the navy. Good for China
Hu Jintao tells China navy: Prepare for warfare
China's navy should speed up its development and prepare for warfare, President Hu Jintao has said.
He told military personnel they should "make extended preparations for warfare".
China is locked in territorial disputes with several other nations in the South China Sea. Political tension is also growing with the US, which is seeking to boost its presence in the region.
After Mr Hu's comments, the US said China was entitled to defend itself.
"Nobody's looking for a scrap here," said Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby in quotes carried by the AFP news agency.
"Certainly we wouldn't begrudge any other nation the opportunity to develop naval forces."
Senior US and Chinese officials are currently holding talks on military issues.
The one-day meeting takes places every year, with the stated aim of ensuring there are no misunderstandings between the two nations.
'Sovereignty dispute'
China has recently acquired its first aircraft carrier and has been vocal about its naval ambitions.
But its military remains primarily a land-based force, and its naval capabilities are still dwarfed by the US.
Mr Hu told a meeting of military officials that the navy should "accelerate its transformation and modernisation in a sturdy way, and make extended preparations for warfare in order to make greater contributions to safeguard national security".
The word "warfare" was used in official media, but other translations used "military combat" and "military struggle".
Analysts say Mr Hu's comments are unusually blunt, and are likely to be aimed at the US and Beijing's rivals in the South China Sea.
Both the Philippines and Vietnam have repeatedly accused China of overt aggression in the region.
They are among the nations claiming sovereignty over islands in the sea in the hope that there could be oil and gas deposits there.
And US President Barack Obama announced last month that the US was boosting its presence in the region, and will base a full Marine task force in northern Australia.
Analysts say the US move is a direct challenge to China's attempts to dominate the area, and is likely to bolster US allies in the South China Sea dispute.
Hu Jintao tells China navy: Prepare for warfare
China's navy should speed up its development and prepare for warfare, President Hu Jintao has said.
He told military personnel they should "make extended preparations for warfare".
China is locked in territorial disputes with several other nations in the South China Sea. Political tension is also growing with the US, which is seeking to boost its presence in the region.
After Mr Hu's comments, the US said China was entitled to defend itself.
"Nobody's looking for a scrap here," said Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby in quotes carried by the AFP news agency.
"Certainly we wouldn't begrudge any other nation the opportunity to develop naval forces."
Senior US and Chinese officials are currently holding talks on military issues.
The one-day meeting takes places every year, with the stated aim of ensuring there are no misunderstandings between the two nations.
'Sovereignty dispute'
China has recently acquired its first aircraft carrier and has been vocal about its naval ambitions.
But its military remains primarily a land-based force, and its naval capabilities are still dwarfed by the US.
Mr Hu told a meeting of military officials that the navy should "accelerate its transformation and modernisation in a sturdy way, and make extended preparations for warfare in order to make greater contributions to safeguard national security".
The word "warfare" was used in official media, but other translations used "military combat" and "military struggle".
Analysts say Mr Hu's comments are unusually blunt, and are likely to be aimed at the US and Beijing's rivals in the South China Sea.
Both the Philippines and Vietnam have repeatedly accused China of overt aggression in the region.
They are among the nations claiming sovereignty over islands in the sea in the hope that there could be oil and gas deposits there.
And US President Barack Obama announced last month that the US was boosting its presence in the region, and will base a full Marine task force in northern Australia.
Analysts say the US move is a direct challenge to China's attempts to dominate the area, and is likely to bolster US allies in the South China Sea dispute.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
OK, advill, hold it there. The "freedom of passages ... for warships" means PASSAGE, not "drills" or "patrolls". You bet a freindly (or at least "innocent") navy passage through US water will became unfreindly very quike, if they starting to "drilling" things, and uncle sam would put them to a stop before anyone hurts / further hurts himself.
That's what sovereignty water means, and I see no different if it's SCS we are talking here.
- Yes, even to a certain extends, there's "disputed" sovereignty water among China and few others (and among those few others themselves), I don't see justification if Japanese, S.Korean, or even American navy start to do anything more than PASSAGE throughout the area. - And China never deny or hamper (or like some likes to do - tailing), those who innocently PASSING the area, merchant or warships.
And again, FYI, US didn't sign the UNCLOS, which people have the right - well, have not the capability it turns out - to deny USN's passage, through their own sovereignty water. Something, let's say, US as a nation, should cherish for - at least in a diplomatic level.
Red__Sword, never been to sea have you?.. I have..aaarrrvvv..
Not true, read the second paragraph on the page below.
maybe..but the only nations that ever drill close to the US are US allies in conjunction with thw USN. Most navies of the World lack the logistics to conduct such drills.
Not true, read the second paragraph on the page below.
maybe..but the only nations that ever drill close to the US are US allies in conjunction with thw USN. Most navies of the World lack the logistics to conduct such drills.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
Yes, exactly, like we would familiar these days of that saying "we are the 99%" - Most navies of the world tend to behave themselves when they expect mutual respect from others when both doing that "freedom of passage" thing. And at the other hand, we witness the non-questionable USN, while its federal government didn't actually participants mutual treaties that would "enable" (in a sense) others passes US water freeely, fully enjoys the *freedom* everytime they passes others' water.
Well sir, I think word play is a fair game. Your states is right that most navies of the world lack the abilities to conduct drills near US, but a "good enough" navy dose have the ability to do the same near *others*, when, all the involved parties' react and counter-react heated up the very sea lanes we all wished to be calm - only because if we all "do what the romans do", do what the US do at interpreting the "freedom of passage".
Like Geographer pointed out, "stakeholder" of the international system wishes rome to behave, cause we all do what they do, at a perimeter where their own stake holds.
Last edited:
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Your post is good sleight of hand presented piece, but thanks and no thanks to the suggestions.
Suggesting that it was time for China to take over Asian Security, would be viewed with horror by most other SE.Asian countries. IMO they would view it as China taking back her historic control over these areas.
Equally relieving for these countries in the Pacific is the fact that American presence in the Pacific is preventing China from pursuing her strategy of declaring the second island chain as in her core interests.
Walking away from this as you suggest would be a strategic blunder from a Western point of view as it would be handing China an improved strategic depth with improved sea lines of communication.
I do see it as been unfair for the US to shoulder the financial burden on her own in this day at age, and as I pay some Australian taxes, I dont have a problem with it being used to going to pay the Australian end of the costs of an increased American presence in the Pacific.
Actually I don't think it would be such a bad idea to see an American CVN and battle group stationed in Australia.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
So basically America is going out of its way to prevent China from improving it's strategic depth and SLC. And funny how the only 'unfairness' you could see in that is how America has to pay so much money to try and contain China. 
When will America learn that if you treat someone like an enemy, you are also very likely to make them your enemy.
The balance of power is changing in the world, and the Chinese have long memories. It will be a far greater strategic blunder for the US to install the idea that it is the enemy in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people.
When will America learn that if you treat someone like an enemy, you are also very likely to make them your enemy.
The balance of power is changing in the world, and the Chinese have long memories. It will be a far greater strategic blunder for the US to install the idea that it is the enemy in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people.
