Very interesting comments indeed. It appears there could be a serious conflict between China and the US in the South China Sea & East Asia waters, with various countries taking sides. Why? China does not want interference in its claimed territorial waters (based on history - yet to be supported by others), and the USN will not budge or be threatened. To some its a "Balance of Power", but China sees it as containment of its economic & military super-power status. Looks like a "cold war", hopefully not a real war in the making. Let the politicians (in 2012, a new President will be elected in China, & Obama or a new President in the US) deal with this problem. My take is that they should be wise enough not to continue with belligerancy. Let's hope the military & civilian hawks would not exercise great influence over either of the Presidents (US or China). Common sense should prevail. No winners in an any war - nukes will destroy all.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chinese Naval Threat to SEA?
- Thread starter tankee1981
- Start date
What do you call WWII and the cold war?
My prediction is that America's involvement will make the South China Sea more volatile and dangerous instead of bring peace and freedom of navigation. Because surprise surprise, American involvement has nothing to do with peace and stability in the region or freedom of navigation or any other high minded notions they use as excuses for their presence. The American involvement is aimed solely at China, and seems more like the petty payback of a president who feels the Chinese did not worship the ground he walks on enough for his liking, as antagonizing China so directly is hardly good for America's national interest.
Precisely! Very well said. US concerns has nothing to do with freedom of navigation; it's all about keeping China boxed in.
Looks like the possibility of a volatile South China Sea, & the claim that China being "boxed-in" by the USN now appears to be spreading to the Indian Ocean. A recent newspaper report stated that "India worried as China gets close to Seychelles" (for fuelling & other facilities). It's an open secret that China has fuelling and docking facilities in Myanmar and Gwadar in Pakistan. India calls it the "string of pearls", & there are fears of a possible Chinese encirclement. Well, this is another "boxed-in theory". Just as the US claims freedom of Navigation, China has claimed this port/fuelling facilities are for the PLA-N anti-piracy operations. I suppose in democratic societies, the choice of analysis and opinion is yours to make. Hopefully, I reiterate it would not lead to belligerancy in these waters among the Navies.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
Looks like the possibility of a volatile South China Sea, & the claim that China being "boxed-in" by the USN now appears to be spreading to the Indian Ocean. A recent newspaper report stated that "India worried as China gets close to Seychelles" (for fuelling & other facilities). It's an open secret that China has fuelling and docking facilities in Myanmar and Gwadar in Pakistan. India calls it the "string of pearls", & there are fears of a possible Chinese encirclement. Well, this is another "boxed-in theory". Just as the US claims freedom of Navigation, China has claimed this port/fuelling facilities are for the PLA-N anti-piracy operations. I suppose in democratic societies, the choice of analysis and opinion is yours to make. Hopefully, I reiterate it would not lead to belligerancy in these waters among the Navies.
The "String of pearls" hypes comes wayyyy before Somali pirates earned their repuation, not to mention Chinese escorting fleets - thus China get shot despite she make port re-supply to Seychelles or not. Facts checking:
1. China would - thus officially not yet, make port resupply with Seychelles.
2. China did not announed (in either way, "may" or "may not") that she will actually build or make use of military base at Seychelles. China resupply at Seychelles is not equal to build military base at Seychelles. Hell, China even resupply at Singapore several times, do we have PLA patrolling Malacca now?
3. US got operational military base at Seychelles and some dozens other countries as we speak, which well CAN function as "String of pears" to contain India, the one everybody being whispering to be the next superpower candidate - and India do not worry about that it apears.
4. India itself got very good military ties with Seychelles and constant joint training, aid, port visiting has been made at first place. For all the odds many whispering that China and India have had, wishing it spin into loss-loss confrontation, China could well shouting "India's presence at Seychelles could potentially harm the right of freedom of passage, and creeping Chinese escort fleet whom carries out the righteousness mission nearby at a dangerous position..." We heard not. So the nonsense is sensable as long as it is China we are bashing about?
Two post earlier (#81) you are calling for "wise enough" people for world-viewing, I believe we can start from here.
Red_Sword, your viewpoints are noted. As long as there is continued communications (especially by leaders of the countries concerned), & voicing of opinions, & not actual belligerancy by Naval Vessels of any country in the South China Sea, East China Sea, Sea of Japan, Indian Ocean etc. etc. it's great. Actually the "right or wrong" in any debate depends on whether the communicator is convincing with legitimate/factual reasoning, or his facts are actually dubious/sketchy. It's up to the readers to be convinced or not - and that's is democracy.
Red_Sword, your viewpoints are noted. As long as there is continued communications (especially by leaders of the countries concerned), & voicing of opinions, & not actual belligerancy by Naval Vessels of any country in the South China Sea, East China Sea, Sea of Japan, Indian Ocean etc. etc. it's great. Actually the "right or wrong" in any debate depends on whether the communicator is convincing with legitimate/factual reasoning, or his facts are actually dubious/sketchy. It's up to the readers to be convinced or not - and that's is democracy.
This I have problem with,
Democracy is held to the pinnicle of human civilization. it is simply the aggregate of individual opinions. thus the possibility of the existence of an objective truth is denied because only "opinions" count.
On the other hand I have a great proposal, in spirit of democracy, to decide this SCS thing once and for all.
if one entirely buys the argument that the only thing is the aggregate of individual opinion counts, then I would invite all the people in the countries who are material in SCS dispute, to vote in one giant referendum on who should get what and settle it once for all.
would the other parties in SCS dispute interested in a referendum where the absolute majority who will be chinese? thus any likely outcome would be decided essentially by chinese? it's only fair.
If you truly support democracy, 'One person one vote', above all other principles , then I would see the supporters of democracy supporting that proposal.
sadly I do not see that scenario being agreed up on the parties involved other than the chinese. let along supported by the gun-toting "interested parites" such as democracy pushing United States.
sadly even the people here in this hypothetical space would starting to throw out caveats like "oh its not fair to the small countries". what ever to the principle? do you think it is fair to the 1.X billion chinese?
sad state of affair in this world, where one talks one thing and acts on another.
and what does the would be reaction to my democracy based proposal to divy up SCS shows the objective truth of Democracy?
P.S,
On the other day on NPR I heard President of United States of America Barack Hussein Obama calling on the neighbors of Iraq to respect Iraq's sovereignty.
I could not hold down, and laughed and cried, at same time.
Do people actually hear their own words any more?
This is the leader of the most powerful country on this planet and would like every one to believe it is the upholder of all things great and awesome like democracy and freedom etc etc.
and he , as part of the system that he belongs, and the entire system for that matter,
has no shame.
P.P.S.
on the value of Shame
An Ancient Greek legend said that when Zeus made humanity he created but on law: anyone who feels no personal shame, or anyone who feels no urge to punish the wickedness of others, is a pestilence to society and should be put to death. The glue that binds human society together is made by the reaction that occurs when two substances are mixed together – outrage and shame. However, society can in fact survive with a few pestilent shameless wild beats inside it, because the majority’s love of justice keeps them in a state of perpetual fear, but as the proportion of wild beasts in society rises the end of civilization grows gradually near. So the Ancient Greeks said measure the strength and beauty of a society by the presence of “justice” and “shame” in its people – Athens was destroyed by the gods when the Athenians became “idle and cowardly, chatteres and money grubbers”.
Plato's Gorgias.
Last edited: