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

Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The Obama administration is weak diplomatically and internationally.

The Chinese are ingenious in how they are pursuing their interests in the SCS. They are literally developing their own small reefs and holdings into substantial bases. Those moves are not overt towards others holdings.

Yet what they are doing is setting the stage for being able to dominate any crisis should it arise...and everyone knows it.

As I have said, the only way it could be countered would be for a group of allied nations to come together and similarly help all of the other parties to similarly develop their holdings.

But Obama does not have the respect, or IMHO, even the innate capability to put together such a coalition and get them to do it for "future's sake," when there would be very little direct economic incentive to do so for the nations that would have to invest the most.

China knows all of this...and is proceeding with its own will and determination and is in essence saying, "keep up with us if you think you can."
 
by78

by78

General
Geographer said:
The NYT is the largest, most respected newspaper in the United States so its front page stories carry a lot of weight. Perhaps in response to that article, President Obama criticized the reclamation projects.
Click to expand...

I hate discussing politics, and this is the very first time and hopefully the last time that I am saying anything political on this forum:

NYT is respected by some, especially those on the left. I personally gave up on it after the Judith Miller fiasco.

Obama didn't criticize the reclamation projects in reaction to the NYT article; it's the other way around. NYT is a mouthpiece for the left. In other words, it's far more likely that the White House requested that an article be written.

End OT post.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
Geographer said:
The New York Times had pictures of the reclamation at Mischief Reef on the front page today (April 9). The NYT is the largest, most respected newspaper in the United States so its front page stories carry a lot of weight. Perhaps in response to that article, President Obama criticized the reclamation projects. Here is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said that the islands are for civil and military purposes.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:
Click to expand...

A very simple and effective soft power play China could execute once those islands are completed would be having the CG perform more SAR and anti-piracy duties out there that even covers vessels of rival claimants as well as international shipping. In doing so, it would blunt the criticisms and even mollify nations that have no vested interested in the development if they see some good coming out of those newly established islands. However, will China use such level of soft power? We'll have to see.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
Jeff Head said:
The Obama administration is weak diplomatically and internationally.

The Chinese are ingenious in how they are pursuing their interests in the SCS. They are literally developing their own small reefs and holdings into substantial bases. Those moves are not overt towards others holdings.

Yet what they are doing is setting the stage for being able to dominate any crisis should it arise...and everyone knows it.

As I have said, the only way it could be countered would be for a group of allied nations to come together and similarly help all of the other parties to similarly develop their holdings.

But Obama does not have the respect, or IMHO, even the innate capability to put together such a coalition and get them to do it for "future's sake," when there would be very little direct economic incentive to do so for the nations that would have to invest the most.

China knows all of this...and is proceeding with its own will and determination and is in essence saying, "keep up with us if you think you can."
Click to expand...

If by "Obama administration" you mean the US then perhaps that is fair enough. Considering all the agony over budgeting and defense spending, the ingrained US-China economic relationship, and a certain level of war-weariness among the US public, I don't think any leader in the US under current circumstances can successfully pursue the build up you suggested.

It would also be unequivocal direct US (likely Japanese, maybe Australian, unlikely South Korean or Indian) involvement which is not necessarily readily welcomed by any claimant country other than the Philippines.

All these islands are just sitting ducks in a hot war anyways. If the US is going to spend the money and political capital to tilt the regional balance away from China then the best counter is to significantly increase arms sales to other SCS claimants and be willing to risk a hot war if it comes to that.

The real fundamental question is does the US have anything at risk in the SCS? I think the answer is a resounding no.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
The Obama administration is weak diplomatically and internationally.

The Chinese are ingenious in how they are pursuing their interests in the SCS. They are literally developing their own small reefs and holdings into substantial bases. Those moves are not overt towards others holdings.

Yet what they are doing is setting the stage for being able to dominate any crisis should it arise...and everyone knows it.

As I have said, the only way it could be countered would be for a group of allied nations to come together and similarly help all of the other parties to similarly develop their holdings.

But Obama does not have the respect, or IMHO, even the innate capability to put together such a coalition and get them to do it for "future's sake," when there would be very little direct economic incentive to do so for the nations that would have to invest the most.

China knows all of this...and is proceeding with its own will and determination and is in essence saying, "keep up with us if you think you can."
Click to expand...
Got it in one, Mr. Head!
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
So, Jeff if you were the president of the USA ... what would you do ?
Click to expand...

I wrote down what my policies as President would be on my JEFFHEAD.COM web site.

I will not discuss them on any open thread here on SD because they are mostly political in nature.

If you care to ask me questions about them, PM me and I will discuss them rationally with anyone who wants...but I will not argue or get into any type of heated, partisan argument over them.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
I wrote down what my policies as President would be on my JEFFHEAD.COM web site.
I will not discuss them on any open thread here on SD because they are mostly political in nature.
If you care to ask me questions about them, PM me and I will discuss them rationally with anyone who wants...but I will not argue or get into any type of heated, partisan argument over them.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff. I have read your "policies" .. I am not going to discuss it ... but I have to say it is extremely interesting policies ... I agreed only on a few but the majority I didn't

Actually what I was asking was related to South China Sea "conflict" ...
 
Last edited:
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
I wrote down what my policies as President would be on my JEFFHEAD.COM web site.

I will not discuss them on any open thread here on SD because they are mostly political in nature.

If you care to ask me questions about them, PM me and I will discuss them rationally with anyone who wants...but I will not argue or get into any type of heated, partisan argument over them.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Great blog site, Jeff ...

>>>>>>>>>> Moderator Comments <<<<<<<<<<​

Discussion of those points removed, as stated in the post. If you want to comment on them in this level of detail, as stated, use PM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top