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

Wow. They reported Mischief Reef as 5.42 square kilometres only in June, and now its 5.58 square kilometres. This is most probably more to do with measurement error, unless the Chinese have really stepped up the pace.

Back to the Philippines finances or lack of. In 2014 an Australian documentary mentioned the Philippines struggle to build more than, shall we say budget conscious buildings on Thitu (or Pagasa). I doubt they could somehow find the funds to do reclamation work, even if they can do it cheaper than the Chinese (they don't have dredgers AFAIK, but they are closer). This is quite funny because the Philippine economy is larger than Vietnam's. Not sure if its corruption, incompetence or fighting separatists, but they just can't seem to find the money. No wonder their president is whining about Nazis.

South China Sea: Images suggest Chinese airstrip on man-made island could soon be operational

China has almost finished building a 3,000-metre-long airstrip on one of its artificial islands in the disputed Spratly archipelago of the South China Sea, new satellite photographs of the area show.

A US military commander in May said the airstrip on Fiery Cross Reef could be operational by year's end, although the June 28 images suggest that could now be sooner.

The airstrip will be long enough to accommodate most Chinese military aircraft, security experts said, giving Beijing greater reach into the heart of maritime South-East Asia.

China said on Tuesday some of its land reclamation in the Spratlys, where it is building seven islands on top of coral reefs, had been completed, although it gave few details.

The latest photographs were taken by satellite imagery firm DigitalGlobe and published by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

AMTI said the airstrip was being paved and marked, while an apron and taxiway had been added adjacent to the runway.

Two helipads, up to 10 satellite communications antennas and one possible radar tower were visible on Fiery Cross Reef, it said.

The images also showed a Chinese naval vessel moored in a port.

Recent images of Chinese-occupied South Johnson Reef also showed a large multi-level military facility in the centre of the reef with two possible radar towers under construction, AMTI added.

Two helipads and up to three satellite communications antennas were also visible, it said.

<snip as the rest just goes over old news>

Blackstone said:

Nicely stated, Wolf, and I agree on principles. Back to the Spratlys, and for better focus, let's just stick to the land part of the issue for now.

What exactly are China's claims in the Spratlys? Has Beijing officially announced it owns all, some, or none of the land and features? If China says it owns all of the land/features, how will it enforce its claims? Will it be with gunboats, bilateral strong-arming, or through the International Court of Justice? If China is successful with the ICJ, why should other claimants follow verdicts they don't like, when China refuses to meet Philippines in the ICJ now? What happens to the current occupants? If they refuse to leave, how will China evict the people and soldiers living there?

That's just some of the issues to settle, and we haven't even looked at fishery, sea bed minerals, and energy resource arguments. And then there's the waters of SCS...

Click to expand...

Blackstone, the answers to your questions could either all be found easily enough in Chinese statements and announcements, or by simple deductive reasoning.

China has consistently says it lay claim to all islands and features within its nine dashed lines.

Its currently trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the dispute, it does not rule out any options.

China has specifically rejected using ICJ to resolve any territorial disputes.

The specifics of how current inhabitants would be dealt with are unclear, but any soldiers would be pulled out once their government relinquishes their claims, they won't get a say on whether they can or can't stay.

The civilians would be a more tricky problem, but one that can be managed easily enough.

The obvious include financial incentives for them to leave, which should see of the vast majority since the reason the overwhelming majority are there at all is because of their own government's financial incentives.

The rest could be allowed to stay and be made irrelevant by China moving in and establishing its own, much larger civilian population communities. Hell, China could offer all of them Chinese passports if it wants to get really creative.

Mineral rights would be easily determined based on UNLOS rules.

ahojunk said:

Subi Island on 30-Jun-2015.
The shape of the island is almost complete. Now, on to the construction of civilian facilities "to enable China to better perform its international obligations and responsibilities in areas such as maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and mitigation, marine scientific research, meteorological observation, ecological conservation, navigation safety as well as fishery production services."
View attachment 15209

Click to expand...

Why not fill it up all the way to the end of the coral...

nfgc said:

France (Normans) does not claim England as its territory 950 years later.

England does not claim France as its territory 668 years later.

The US does not claim Canada, Italy nor Turkey do not claim Iran, and so on.

Click to expand...

You forgot to mention the Mongols, or the Chinese for that matter, don't claim most of Eurasia.

Of course these claims are not made because of the relative duration of presence compared to time lapsed. China had a continuous historical presence in the SCS and ECS for hundreds of years through today.

Then there are these cases and many others where other people's continuous historical presence are also ignored or trampled upon but conveniently the newcomers with the big guns get to stay and say who's right. First the European colonial powers then the US claimed and took over most of North America subjugating the native Americans then the US took over parts of Mexico, Hawaii, and countless islands with and without an existing native population. Same goes for the European colonial powers. The British claimed and took over Australia subjugating the locals there, deported the inhabitants it found on the Falklands and planted its own colonists there. Japan annexed the Ryukyus which was an existing independent kingdom and forcibly "Nipponized" local culture. Most recently Jews who have lived in Europe for many generations took over land in the Middle East by terrorizing and forcing out as many non-Jewish locals as possible. Of course that's all convenient history to ignore as it shows how restrained China's approach is. The Philippines itself endured much suffering under the "civillizing" heel of the Spanish empire and then the US.

nfgc said:

France (Normans) does not claim England as its territory 950 years later.

England does not claim France as its territory 668 years later.

The US does not claim Canada, Italy nor Turkey do not claim Iran, and so on.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, all of those disputes have been settled through war and treaty.

The Norman's successfully conquered England and William became the King of England.

The 100 year war came to an end when the French defeated the English on continental Europe and the Treaty of Picquigny have the English relinquish all claims to the French throne while the french paid a yearly pension to the English king and lords.

The US invasion of Canada ended with the US army being beaten by the Canadian militia; and four british armies were invading the US; France was about to resume war with Britain and the Treaty of Ghent was a case of realpolitik.

Italy's claim on the Mediterranean ended with Mussolini in WW2 after Italy was defeated by the allies and so on.

So you are correct, history have proven that claims can be relinquished but generally after a war which is satisfactory or painful enough for both sides.

Geographer said:

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(CSIS) has some new photographs of Fiery Cross Reef and Johnson South Reef. I couldn't right-click to get a URL of each photo, does anyone have any tips?

They also estimate the size of each reclaimed island:

Click to expand...

I thought I would convert these into acres. For your information:

One acre = 4100 square meters
1 square mile = 640 acres.

Mischief Reef: 5,580,000 sq. meters = 1,379 acres = 2.14 sq miles.
Subi Reef: 3,950,000 sq. meters = 976 acres = 1.52 sq miles.
Fiery Cross Reef: 2,740,000 sq. meters = 677 acres = 1.06 sq miles.
Cuarteron Reef: 231,100 sq. meters = 57 acres = .09 sq miles.
Gaven Reef: 136,000 sq. meters = 34 acres = .05 sq miles.
Johnson South Reef: 109,000 sq. meters = 27 acres = .04 sq miles.
Hughes Reef: 76,000 sq. meters = 19 acres = .03 sq miles.

These are HUGE areas. MIschief reef has reclaimed over two square miles of territory! That would be an area equivalent to 10,560 feet x 5,280 feet. IMHO, clearly the first three are the locations where airfields would be considered.

As a comparison, in Washington DC the following area is approximately two square miels:



That is basically all of the major US historical monuments, including the White House and a large swath surrounding it. If you have ever been there, that is a huge area.

plawolf said:

Blackstone, the answers to your questions could either all be found easily enough in Chinese statements and announcements, or by simple deductive reasoning.

China has consistently says it lay claim to all islands and features within its nine dashed lines.

Its currently trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the dispute, it does not rule out any options.

China has specifically rejected using ICJ to resolve any territorial disputes.

The specifics of how current inhabitants would be dealt with are unclear, but any soldiers would be pulled out once their government relinquishes their claims, they won't get a say on whether they can or can't stay.

The civilians would be a more tricky problem, but one that can be managed easily enough.

The obvious include financial incentives for them to leave, which should see of the vast majority since the reason the overwhelming majority are there at all is because of their own government's financial incentives.

The rest could be allowed to stay and be made irrelevant by China moving in and establishing its own, much larger civilian population communities. Hell, China could offer all of them Chinese passports if it wants to get really creative.

Mineral rights would be easily determined based on UNLOS rules.

Click to expand...

That's about how I see it too, Wolf, although I think resolving current residents will be every bit as difficult as concluding sovereignty-relating actions. Some people just don't want to leave their "home" for cash or anything else, and the PRC is abound with examples. And now, we turn to the amorphous part of Beijing's 9DL, what about the waters? Has the Foreign Ministry issued any official statements on what China considers sovereign territorial waters?

Sweeper Monk said:

Back to the Philippines finances or lack of. In 2014 an Australian documentary mentioned the Philippines struggle to build more than, shall we say budget conscious buildings on Thitu (or Pagasa). I doubt they could somehow find the funds to do reclamation work, even if they can do it cheaper than the Chinese (they don't have dredgers AFAIK, but they are closer). This is quite funny because the Philippine economy is larger than Vietnam's. Not sure if its corruption, incompetence or fighting separatists, but they just can't seem to find the money. No wonder their president is whining about Nazis.

Click to expand...

For reclamation, dredging isn't the only way. Vietnam doesn't have as many dredgers too so instead, they ship in landfill material.

joshuatree said:

For reclamation, dredging isn't the only way. Vietnam doesn't have as many dredgers too so instead, they ship in landfill material.

Click to expand...

Vietnam could subcontract out to Chinese companies