My understanding was that some nautical limits for territorial purposes in such conditions are either a 3 or 4 nm limit.What is the significance of the 4nm limit?
My understanding was that some nautical limits for territorial purposes in such conditions are either a 3 or 4 nm limit.What is the significance of the 4nm limit?
The most powerful navy officer on earth, US Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Scott Swift, has fired... ...
Admiral Swift has some 250,000 sailors and marines, 2000 aircraft, 200 ships and 43 nuclear submarines under his direct command... ...
Admiral Swift: “There is no more direct path to ... ... on ‘might makes right’.”
China tested hypersonic glide vehicles capable of mach 10 ... ...
It was the fourth time the missiles had been tested in 18 months ... ...
... Countries like Australia risk being dragged into it — either directly in an all out war — or being caught in a ... ...
I agree with every one of your points on SCS, and I have said pretty much the same things. Your last point on leadership deserves deeper discussions, and I highly recommend Henry Kissinger's recent book, New World Order, for reference. It's an excellent read! I don't see Asia voting for Chinese leadership, but I could see China's gravity pulling them into its orbit regardless of their preferences.
Well, this isn't good. Previous Chinese leaders might seek face saving ways to smooth things, but Xi Jinping is a different kind of leader, and if he's confronted with "behave or else," he'll probably choose "else."7 days ago ... ...
China told to behave
in the South China Sea ... or else
US Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Scott Swift scouting South China Sea
Well, this isn't good. Previous Chinese leaders might seek face saving ways to smooth things, but Xi Jinping is a different kind of leader, and if he's confronted with "behave or else," he'll probably choose "else."
This is pretty much how I see it too. China is now the largest trading partner for all its Asian neighbors, and the gap is growing- even with TPP. Simply put, the region runs to China for economic development, and to the US for security. No country wants to see China and US at odds, and none but Japan wants to be forced to choose between US and China. I think US might be able to shape China as a co-leader, with genuine shared benefits as well as responsibilities of leading the region. But it means giving up some power to Beijing, and Washington simply isn't willing.Chinese status and influence is without doubt has grown considerably in line with its economic development. It is a major or leading trade partner of many of the Asian countries and so its influence is clearly there. Countries typically in their top list of priorities are the economy and security. The economic factor currently works well for China and historically the tributary system is essentially a trade off between dishing out economic benefits for allegiance. What we are seeing today in Asia is that when it comes to economic consideration there is significant Chinese influence but conversely when it comes to security, the countries are gravitating towards the US. The obvious question is why? If China wants to assume leadership then it needs to be more transparent with its actions and not brand it under the notion of Chinese characteristics. It needs to do a better job of articulating what does it mean especially between what it says and what it practices. Uncertainty breeds insecurity.
It's OT, aye, so I'll be short. Have you considered the notion China is doing a nice job of transforming from investment/manufacturing economy to an innovation/service/consumption economy? It's happening in force, and it started not on Xi's watch, but Hu Jintao final years. China is becoming a "fortress economy," following in the footsteps of the USA. I suspect we'll see econ experts say a lot more of that in the next few years.Finally I just want to say that relying on dishing out economic benefits only work so long as your economy can support such a program. Personally I think the double digit economic growth for China is over and unlikely to be repeated because of the causative nature of what drove it in the first place and the fiscal difficulties that lay ahead for a political economy. This is not a thread for such discussions and so I would end here. My view is not based on reading any of Gordon Chang's writings because frankly I have not read a single one.
Don't shoot ... ...I m just the messenger.
According to Street Talk ... ...
Scott Swift has very much down play and muted his emotions in public.
In private, Swift has expressed himself in even much more nastier expressions towards China.
Swift has been getting away with being brawny and tough all his life.
He is not an idiot. He has US 7th fleet to lead.
He will not damage and trash his solid personal reputation
by carelessly threatening China.
Basically, Scott Swift line of thinking is this ... ...
If China is = Monster,
then it is way better to obliterate the monster immediately,
while the monster is still in the kindergarten.
If one let the Monster grow until it becomes a young man,
then one will be at the mercy of the Monster.
And, that it is simply unacceptable for any self respecting American.
Plenty of those who are in Pentagon power circle are backing up Scott Swift and Ashton Carter.
They are not the only one to think this way.
Barry is a powerless peaceful nice guy.
Since 2008, the Pentagon Tail is wagging the White House Barry.
If things are not working out, then Barry will get all the blames.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, , while speaking to the Pacific 2015 expo in Sydney, Australia, has warned of all out war in the Pacific if ... ...
... in the audience were the naval officers of at least 12 Pacific nations. ...
I am aware of the idea of strategic space being advanced by some in the Beijing-Washington relationship. It is not an area that I am well informed and so I don't have an opinion on how this might possibly happen that it is seen as a win-win proposition. You probably have a better handle on it than me.I think US might be able to shape China as a co-leader, with genuine shared benefits as well as responsibilities of leading the region. But it means giving up some power to Beijing, and Washington simply isn't willing.
Clearly a capital induced economic growth model is not sustainable. The transformation is out of necessity and not of choice but there are substantial hurdles in the process too long to discuss at length here. An innovation/consumption base economy to my knowledge is the plan but I haven't seen any evidence of early success and so any claim of it may be highly premature. Innovation requires rule-of-law, strong property and intellectual rights protection that are reliably enforced, and an independent judiciary to fairly and reliably resolve commercial disputes. These are weak regimes in China and not likely to change in the foreseeable future. A consumer based economy requires wide income distribution across all sectors but had been highly skewed with capital access and economic opportunities going predominantly to state owned enterprises and giving rise to CCP elites holding vast economic wealth. This is a policy issue driven by politics. When considering measurements of income distribution such as the Gini coefficient, China has gone from being the most equal society in all of Asia to the least equal within a generation. I have not seen any economic case argument on how China plans to migrate to an innovation/consumer base economy against these backdrop.Have you considered the notion China is doing a nice job of transforming from investment/manufacturing economy to an innovation/service/consumption economy? It's happening in force, and it started not on Xi's watch, but Hu Jintao final years.
7 days ago ... ...
China told to behave
in the South China Sea ... or else
US Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Scott Swift scouting South China Sea