plawolf
Lieutenant General
I would be amazed if any of that make it onto a "mainstream" media piece about the topic.
Its amazing how co-ordinated the "independent" western "free" media can be isn't it.
PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
I would be amazed if any of that make it onto a "mainstream" media piece about the topic.
Its amazing how co-ordinated the "independent" western "free" media can be isn't it.
Yes I am attempting to decouple them. Logically, for the purposes of this discussion at least, one must decouple them, otherwise it is materially misleading regarding China's actions and its intentions. I explain this at the end of the post.
The fact that international law does not differentiate them does not mean that we, as astute observers cannot point out illogical statements that seek to hide behind international law for misinformation.
So therefore you are implicitly agreeing that China has not sought to establish conditions of freedom of navigation regarding civilian vessels... and you also agree that it is not in the US's interests for China to have the capability to do so if the necessity ever arose...
I don't disagree with any of this -- in fact if you look back at my posts on the matter, I have entirely stated that it is in the US's interest to prevent Chinese military presence in SCS, while it is in China's interest to have a greater military presence in SCS, and it all goes back to mahan 101 -- that control of sea lanes and shipping is power.
In other words, the ability to constrain the other side's shipping via one's own military power is... well, power.
But hey, we were never debating about the ability to constrain civilian, we were debating the evidence for China intending to limit civilian FON as justification for describing them as a threat to FON of all kinds of vessels. And for that, you have no leg to stand on, because China has never physically acted in such a way to restrict FON of civilian vessels and they have never stated any desire to do so, so unless you want to equate the ability to restrict civilian FON as the intention, well then I refer you back to this doctrine that you supposedly follow:
----
Because civilian ships and military ships are fundamentally different (do you need me to "present a case" for why they're different?)?
Because China has not sought to challenge any civilian vehicle's FON up to the present?
Because the suggestion that China would seek to challenge the FON of civilian vehicle's makes no sense for its economy given it is the largest trading nation on earth and the largest trading partner of virtually all its regional neighbours, and limiting FON would limit its own trade?
Because if one does imply that China is challenging the FON of all vehicles, and if one looks at the few challenges they have issued in the past and the types of vehicles they have issued it to, it is disingenuous if not outright lying to claim that China is a threat or a challenge to FON of all types of vehicles, when facts up to the present are only suggestive that a particular, obvious subset of vehicles (military) were challenged?
Because if one implies China is challenge FON of all vehicles (rather than only military vehicles in certain limited ways), then that would mislead other nations and observers into thinking it is more aggressive than it actually is?
(btw now that I go back to the P-8 incident, the name of the zone was actually a "military alert zone" not a "military exclusion zone". Given you were insistent on equating exclusion as restriction, what would you equate "alert" to?)
Last edited:
There are up to 5 names for each feature, Philippines news reports sometimes refer to Hughes as Keenan.
China isn't restricting freedom of navigation. It does however have an interesting interpretation of the rules of EEZ which the US spin as limiting FON.
Essentially under UNCLOS a nation can limit maritime surveys in its EEZ if it wants. China applies this to all vessels, civilian and military, the US excludes military vessels from this eg submarines. Thus if we take China's interpretation, US military vessels can pass through to China's EEZ to go from point A to point B, but they can't do maritime surveys, which limits their ability to spy since detecting other submarines could potentially fall under the "maritime survey" bit.
The US then goes, "ah, so China doesn't want our submarines to go through its EEZ" (after all, what will it do in its EEZ if it can't spy, hunt other military assets etc") and thus we get the old freedom of navigation spiel the US likes to use.
*************************************************************************************
The other example about the CNN reporting is stretching it. Those artificial islands which were reclaimed from rocks (ie above sea level at high tide) like the one they flew near are entitled to 12 nm territorial sea eg Scarborough shoal, Johnson reef , Cuarteron reef and Fiery Cross reef.
.
Those that are reclaimed from reefs (ie below sea level at high tide) are entitled to a 500 metre safety zone only, eg Mischief Reef, Kennan Reef /Hughes Reef , Gaven Reef and Subi Reef.
FON allows me to fly north to south skirting US airspace, but not entering it. I can even ignore the US ADIZ in the sense that I don't have to answer their requests for identification, but it might make them suspicious and send assets to trail me. I cannot however deliberately enter US airspace and go FON for the win. The same applies here. The US can skirt near the 12 nm limit of some of the islands (which media are now reporting they did) but not enter it. If they want to get from point A to point B, they can cross the SCS without skirting the airspace of these islands easy. So China warned them about entering Chinese airspace, and the US didn't. Since they supposedly flew very close, its quite possible both sides thought that the plane was inside / outside the 12 nm limit respectively.
The only way you could argue it was standing up for FON is if the Chinese believe they are entitled to more than the 12 nm limit, and there is no evidence for this. At best they believe the US military plane can pass through but not spy, ie cannot do maritime surveys.
FON is just an excuse the US politicians use to make themselves look tough on China.
Essentially under UNCLOS a nation can limit maritime surveys in its EEZ if it wants. China applies this to all vessels, civilian and military, the US excludes military vessels from this eg submarines. Thus if we take China's interpretation, US military vessels can pass through to China's EEZ to go from point A to point B, but they can't do maritime surveys, which limits their ability to spy since detecting other submarines could potentially fall under the "maritime survey" bit.
The US then goes, "ah, so China doesn't want our submarines to go through its EEZ" (after all, what will it do in its EEZ if it can't spy, hunt other military assets etc") and thus we get the old freedom of navigation spiel the US likes to use.
*************************************************************************************
The other example about the CNN reporting is stretching it. Those artificial islands which were reclaimed from rocks (ie above sea level at high tide) like the one they flew near are entitled to 12 nm territorial sea eg Scarborough shoal, Johnson reef , Cuarteron reef and Fiery Cross reef.
.
Those that are reclaimed from reefs (ie below sea level at high tide) are entitled to a 500 metre safety zone only, eg Mischief Reef, Kennan Reef /Hughes Reef , Gaven Reef and Subi Reef.
FON allows me to fly north to south skirting US airspace, but not entering it. I can even ignore the US ADIZ in the sense that I don't have to answer their requests for identification, but it might make them suspicious and send assets to trail me. I cannot however deliberately enter US airspace and go FON for the win. The same applies here. The US can skirt near the 12 nm limit of some of the islands (which media are now reporting they did) but not enter it. If they want to get from point A to point B, they can cross the SCS without skirting the airspace of these islands easy. So China warned them about entering Chinese airspace, and the US didn't. Since they supposedly flew very close, its quite possible both sides thought that the plane was inside / outside the 12 nm limit respectively.
The only way you could argue it was standing up for FON is if the Chinese believe they are entitled to more than the 12 nm limit, and there is no evidence for this. At best they believe the US military plane can pass through but not spy, ie cannot do maritime surveys.
FON is just an excuse the US politicians use to make themselves look tough on China.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Nice work Ahojunk. 279 hectares is huge, over 6x Vatican and bigger than Monaco (1.4x)
Jeff ... you may want to update your Flickr that Fiery Cross area is actually 279 hectares (not 100 ha)
Jeff ... you may want to update your Flickr that Fiery Cross area is actually 279 hectares (not 100 ha)
Zetageist
Junior Member
South China Sea: Satellite Images Show Pace of China’s Subi Reef Reclamation
China is adding 8 acres a day, while other images corroborate Malaysia on South Luconia Shoals.
By Victor Robert Lee for The Diplomat
June 19, 2015
China is adding 8 acres a day, while other images corroborate Malaysia on South Luconia Shoals.
By Victor Robert Lee for The Diplomat
June 19, 2015
Guys (specifically Brumby and Bltizo), need I remind you that this thread is about the PLAN/PRC fleet and islands/reefs and bases themselves? This is for pictures and discussions of each of those and the vessels, structures, facilities, etc. there.
Your back and forth and dialog are excellent, but...
We have a SEPARATE THREAD for PRC Strategy in the SCS.
We have another SEPARATE THRED for other nation's strategy in the SCS.
Take discussions regarding that to those thread.
Thanks, let's get back on topic.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
Your back and forth and dialog are excellent, but...
We have a SEPARATE THREAD for PRC Strategy in the SCS.
We have another SEPARATE THRED for other nation's strategy in the SCS.
Take discussions regarding that to those thread.
Thanks, let's get back on topic.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
From
By comparison after the inundation of a significant part of The Netherlands on February 1, 1953 the Dutch parliament decided to rebuild the defence against the sea and a lot of equipment and experience was developed that help Dutch companies do similar work all over the World, including contributing to the Hong Kong airport, but also at home extending the port of Rotterdam into the North Sea ( Europort and Europort2 ).
This project showed China how it was possible to make an island in a short time. Next an island was constructed for port and shipbuilding activities near Shanghai. I think that when planning and executing that last project time was saved by using more equipment than would earlier have been thought necessary with the idea to use that equipment in SCS. No doubt a wealth of articles appeared in China's technical press about all aspects of constructing islands but that was not recognized by US or SEA strategic thinkers. When the time came China had the equipment and the experience to think and act big.
By comparison after the inundation of a significant part of The Netherlands on February 1, 1953 the Dutch parliament decided to rebuild the defence against the sea and a lot of equipment and experience was developed that help Dutch companies do similar work all over the World, including contributing to the Hong Kong airport, but also at home extending the port of Rotterdam into the North Sea ( Europort and Europort2 ).