PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

J

joshuatree

Captain
Even when China participated in RIMPAC, it was segregated and only partook in the non-sensitive events. So.....uninviting them hurts them how? I guess it looks good on face value to shame them (this feels so much like junior high). But how does uninviting help the US desire for more Chinese military transparency and engagement? If anything, it sends the signal China should dial back attempts to be transparent.

I would like to point out exclusion can lead to undesired results - example being repeated ignoring of requests to increase Chinese voting power in IMF and ADB, so what happens? AIIB.
 
N

no_name

Colonel
joshuatree said:
I would like to point out exclusion can lead to undesired results - example being repeated ignoring of requests to increase Chinese voting power in IMF and ADB, so what happens? AIIB.
Click to expand...

You raised an interesting point, perhaps China does intend on setting up their own version of multinational naval exercise? Perhaps the exercises in recent years with Russia is a start, and may soon expand to other Asian countries and maybe more as their naval assets and influences grow? If so then doing what McCain suggested will only give them one more handle?
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
Watch out China! John McCain wants to disinvite PLAN to next year's Rim of the Pacific event.

McCain: Look here, China, you better stop doing things I don't approve.
China: Or what?
McCain: I'll push the Pentagon to disinvite you from RIMPAC!
China: Uh..., what?

Calls to Punish China Grow
Click to expand...
McCain is blustering...and it is political.

China was invited to and was well behaved and a significant input to RIMPAC 2014 in the activities they were involved with. There was no security breach to my knowledge, and no real threat.

To my knowledge, there has not been an official invitation to 2016 (though most expect it), so it would not be possible to "dis-invite them" since they have not been invited yet.

They could simply not invite them.

At this point, I think such a move would do more harm than good, and would have little if any positive impact on the PRC's actions..

If the US wants to show displeasure about the reclamation efforts in the SCS, they should form a coalition with Australia and Japan and then work with Vietnam, the Philippines and other nations with similar claims in the SCS and help them do more reclamation on their own reefs and islands.

That would be more suitable, and could be argued, just as the PRC is arguing, that reclaiming your own possessions harms no one, and is not an offensive move...but yet would make the statement in far better a way than not inviting the PLAN to RIMPAC would.

But that is just my opinion.
 
S

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
If the US wants to show displeasure about the reclamation efforts in the SCS, they should form a coalition with Australia and Japan and then work with Vietnam, the Philippines and other nations with similar claims in the SCS and help them do more reclamation on their own reefs and islands.
Click to expand...
How about if the U.S. could ask the Philippines to "borrow" one of the Philippine-occupied islands to the U.S., and the U.S. Navy deploy PAC-3s, Harpoons, and other air-defense AESA radars on it. And doing it without voicing anything or cheering. Basically the Philippines will do the construction work (with covert U.S. support). Once the construction is completed, the U.S.could just try move the equipment there in one night. That would be a shock-and-awe therapy to the Chinese while, giving no reason for the PLAN to over-react.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Josh Luo said:
How about if the U.S. could ask the Philippines to "borrow" one of the Philippine-occupied islands to the U.S., and the U.S. Navy deploy PAC-3s, Harpoons, and other air-defense AESA radars on it.

That would be a shock-and-awe therapy to the Chinese while, giving no reason for the PLAN to over-react.
Click to expand...
That is not going to happen. It would be seen as a clear provocative over-reaction and would in fact give China and the PLAN every reason to react.

The US would be doing the very thing (and more) it is now complaining against China of.

No...far better to come up with a commercial enterprise that is backed by the US, Australia, Japan, etc. and then make funds and construction available for the Philippines and others to do the exact same thing that China is doing in reclamation.

Overtly placing US military assets like that in the middle of the SCS would be far too strong a provocation.

This other way, the Philippines (and others) can then build up the reclaimed spaces with its own bases and assets.

As it is...I personally do not believe the US and others have the will, or the inclination to do even what I have suggested.

In the mean time, the PRC does and they are showing it by their actions and doing it on reefs and islands that they already possess.
 
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
Josh Luo said:
How about if the U.S. could ask the Philippines to "borrow" one of the Philippine-occupied islands to the U.S., and the U.S. Navy deploy PAC-3s, Harpoons, and other air-defense AESA radars on it. And doing it without voicing anything or cheering. Basically the Philippines will do the construction work (with covert U.S. support). Once the construction is completed, the U.S.could just try move the equipment there in one night. That would be a shock-and-awe therapy to the Chinese while, giving no reason for the PLAN to over-react.
Click to expand...

Who is going to pay for that ?

US has much larger and costly military then China . Yet, China gradually overtakes US as largest economy in the world (in PPP they have already did that) . Because of nuclear weapons, military conflict between US and China is highly unlikely . Therefore, huge US military spending (to maintain superiority over China) is largely ineffective . Sure, US could build bases in Asia to "contain" China , but in the end those bases would not be used . As a reminder, Soviet Union did not collapse because its military was defeated or rendered useless . It was defeated because it could not sustain such a huge military spending without economic backbone to support it .
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Okay Guys,let's get it back on topic.

We touched on potential US courses of action in the SCS...but this is NOT a US SCS Strategy Thread. I apologize for myself starting that line of discussion.

This is a thread about what the PRC and PLAN are doing with their bases in the SCS.

Let's keep it focused on that.

Thanks.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERAION
 
J

jacksprat

New Member
Jeff Head said:
McCain is blustering...and it is political.

China was invited to and was well behaved and a significant input to RIMPAC 2014 in the activities they were involved with. There was no security breach to my knowledge, and no real threat.

To my knowledge, there has not been an official invitation to 2016 (though most expect it), so it would not be possible to "dis-invite them" since they have not been invited yet.

They could simply not invite them.

At this point, I think such a move would do more harm than good, and would have little if any positive impact on the PRC's actions..

If the US wants to show displeasure about the reclamation efforts in the SCS, they should form a coalition with Australia and Japan and then work with Vietnam, the Philippines and other nations with similar claims in the SCS and help them do more reclamation on their own reefs and islands.

That would be more suitable, and could be argued, just as the PRC is arguing, that reclaiming your own possessions harms no one, and is not an offensive move...but yet would make the statement in far better a way than not inviting the PLAN to RIMPAC would.

But that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
So just how is sending an uninvited intelligence collection ship along considered good manners, seems rude to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top