as i said before they either solve it peacefully or keep as it is. no country has the right to claim the entire south china sea.
Last edited:
What kind of a crazy article is this from UPI???
- Thread starter kwaigonegin
- Start date
as i said before they either solve it peacefully or keep as it is. no country has the right to claim the entire south china sea.
solarz
Brigadier
And you are wrong. You think the SCS is international waters right now when it clearly IS NOT.
And the fact that you think the US is willing to go to war to preserve a shipping lane that is far more vital to China than to the US is absurd. You really should look at a map before making such comments.
yes we all know several nation claim that area, but claim does not=its their territory. furthermore i didnt think anyone recognize any nations claims of that area. so if its not any nations territory, could you kindly explain to me what do we call that area?? neutral water, international water, or chinese water??
didn't I say it before depend on the scale of the war. US can EITHER SUPPORT INDIRECTLY OR DIRECTLY. i belief I said this Many many times now. for example US just had some navy drill with phillipine few weeks ago due to tension at south china sea. this could be seen by chinese as US involvement in that area. its all depend on the tension and the size of conflict in that area, US will have appropriate response.
now we are loopback to the claim you said US won't get involve, and I said unlikely. 1/3 to 1/2 worlds shipping go through there, how many ships do you think go to japan, S.korea, taiwan and other countries?? US said time from time again the right of sea passenge must be persevered.
why south china sea is important to US
Last edited:
vesicles
Colonel
There are many options for solving the problem. Military operation is the last one of them. China should be patient and bite its time now. When China's economic/military strength grow to the point that it could more or less match those of the US (note that they don't have to match the US exactly, only get close enough), its influence will automatically cover its own backyard, i.e. the SCS. All the ASEAN nations will be more willing to collaborate with China, like how they are willing to collaborate with the US. With more economic strength, China will have more to offer to the ASEAN nations. And if anything, they will be more willing to give up more since what they have to give will become less and less significant to them when they grow bigger and bigger. Note that China doesn't have to actually own the area. As long as it can get what they need in the area, it should be fine. And they can do that by collaborating with the ASEAN nations in a way that both sides can be happy, or make them an offer they can't refuse
Your assumption that sending CVBG's can solve the problem is solely based on what happened in 1996. In 1996, China did not have the kind of economic influence and military strength that it possesses now, in fact, far from it since they only began their economic development 4 years before that (1992). And now? Almost 20 years have passed and China is no longer the China in 1996. I would go out a limb and assume that China's economic/military strength will grow even bigger in the near future. So in the minds of politicians in Washington, the chance of China backing down again becomes slimmer and slimmer. You have to remember that it is the politicians who make the final decision whether to send in the CVBG, not military commanders. If that's the case, the chance that the US will use the CVBG to intimate China will also become slimmer in the minds of politicians in Washington. In my opinion, in the future, the US will not use its CVBG in the way they did in 1996 unless they have decided that they will go to war with China simply because they know China will not back down again.
Additionally, in 1996, the US sent its CVBG to the Taiwan strait and China stopped firing missiles. that was it. What would happen if China didn't stop firing its missiles? No one knows. Would the US fire missiles at Chinese missile sites, which are located on Chinese mainland and signifies a declaration of an open war with China? Would the US simply continue its normal path through the strait like nothing has happened? Would the US pull out the strait? Would both sides start a war of words, which would last a couple month and end with China stopping military communication again (if there was any back in 1996)? No one knows. So your assumption that sending in the CVBG will end all issues will not always work. It's equally likely that the US might back down and pull out vs. China backing down vs. an open war.
However, what was clear from the incident is that both sides maintained cool during a heated moment and did not let the situation escalate. I would assume both sides will adopt a similar approach in the future in case of another 1996 incident.
You seem to be sure that any conflict in the SCS will escalate. However, history tells us that both the US and China have been normally pretty careful about containing the damage. Korean war and Vietnam war would be two good examples. None of them got out of the initial area where the conflict first started. And whatever interests the SCS has cannot even compare with the strategic importance of Korea and Vietnam to China and the US. Yet, they were still careful not to push the envelop too much.
It's not so much as who started the discussion about the possible war, but your argument is less logical and more on the side of fantasy.
solarz
Brigadier
That area is called disputed territory.
Here is what you said:
The US can do two things when it sends in a CVBG into a theater of conflict in the SCS: take part in the fighting, or sit back and do nothing. The former means the US Navy will be directly confronting the PLA Navy. The latter means the CVBG will be twiddling its thumbs. What makes you think China *needs* to do anything to a US CVBG?
As for shipping, most of those ships passing through the area are headed for China. None are headed for the US. Do you honestly think the US is going to go to war with China over the remote possibility that China might blockade Japanese and Taiwan ships? Seriously?
Japan, Taiwan and SK all have trade surpluses with China. Why would China blockade their own suppliers??
There are many options for solving the problem. Military operation is the last one of them. China should be patient and bite its time now. When China's economic/military strength grow to the point that it could more or less match those of the US (note that they don't have to match the US exactly, only get close enough), its influence will automatically cover its own backyard, i.e. the SCS. All the ASEAN nations will be more willing to collaborate with China, like how they are willing to collaborate with the US. With more economic strength, China will have more to offer to the ASEAN nations. And if anything, they will be more willing to give up more since what they have to give will become less and less significant to them when they grow bigger and bigger. Note that China doesn't have to actually own the area. As long as it can get what they need in the area, it should be fine. And they can do that by collaborating with the ASEAN nations in a way that both sides can be happy, or make them an offer they can't refuse
Your assumption that sending CVBG's can solve the problem is solely based on what happened in 1996. In 1996, China did not have the kind of economic influence and military strength that it possesses now, in fact, far from it since they only began their economic development 4 years before that (1992). And now? Almost 20 years have passed and China is no longer the China in 1996. I would go out a limb and assume that China's economic/military strength will grow even bigger in the near future. So in the minds of politicians in Washington, the chance of China backing down again becomes slimmer and slimmer. You have to remember that it is the politicians who make the final decision whether to send in the CVBG, not military commanders. If that's the case, the chance that the US will use the CVBG to intimate China will also become slimmer in the minds of politicians in Washington. In my opinion, in the future, the US will not use its CVBG in the way they did in 1996 unless they have decided that they will go to war with China simply because they know China will not back down again.
Additionally, in 1996, the US sent its CVBG to the Taiwan strait and China stopped firing missiles. that was it. What would happen if China didn't stop firing its missiles? No one knows. Would the US fire missiles at Chinese missile sites, which are located on Chinese mainland and signifies a declaration of an open war with China? Would the US simply continue its normal path through the strait like nothing has happened? Would the US pull out the strait? Would both sides start a war of words, which would last a couple month and end with China stopping military communication again (if there was any back in 1996)? No one knows. So your assumption that sending in the CVBG will end all issues will not always work. It's equally likely that the US might back down and pull out vs. China backing down vs. an open war.
However, what was clear from the incident is that both sides maintained cool during a heated moment and did not let the situation escalate. I would assume both sides will adopt a similar approach in the future in case of another 1996 incident.
You seem to be sure that any conflict in the SCS will escalate. However, history tells us that both the US and China have been normally pretty careful about containing the damage. Korean war and Vietnam war would be two good examples. None of them got out of the initial area where the conflict first started. And whatever interests the SCS has cannot even compare with the strategic importance of Korea and Vietnam to China and the US. Yet, they were still careful not to push the envelop too much.
It's not so much as who started the discussion about the possible war, but your argument is less logical and more on the side of fantasy.
maybe you didn't understand my discussion clearly. as i said before, the chance of conflict in south china sea are small, everyone know that. I wrote my response base on the fact some member don't believe US will be involve in a navy conflict between china and ASEAN nations(this does not mean a direct military involvement, of course it depend on the size of conflict). So its not about how unlikely a conflict will start, but IF it did happen, what would US do about it. And as i said before depend on the scale of conflict US might involve directly or indirectly. US might give intel, supply, support to phillipines, or it might send CVBG to phillipine coast to send a clear message to china. my assumption is base on the scale of conflict and tension in that area. if a large navy conflict over there involve asean and china, US could send CVBG over there to give china a pause, on the other hand if its minior skirmish US could have another navy drill with phillipines.
if you read my previous post, its never about the likely hood of a conflict. its about US response if there is a conflict. this was started @post11
so if there is a navy conflict in that region as indicate in post 11. are you saying US won't get involve in anyway or what, since you seem to think my logic is fantasy, could you tell me your logic?
taiwan 96, US did involved, as result china back down. same could happen, US might just send a CVBG near phillipine or other locations during a conflict/high tension, and see chinese response. please tell me what part of this is fantasy.
now 20yrs from now, we don't know what would happen china military might be a match for US, US might withdraw compeletly. however right now and in the near future, US will try not to lose its influence in that area. the point no one would know 20-30 yrs from now, china might have control over south china sea due to growing power or they might have other issues to worry about economy,political etc.
Last edited:
US can send CVBG by sitting there between chinese area of interest and chinese fleet. back in 96 taiwan, US carriers didn't do thing either, it just sit there, and china back down. if US cvbg is at a critical location this will test chinese response toward US.
as for shipping it goess both ways, alot energy shipment go through there to japan and other nations, its not just china. did you even read the link i provide it?
if south china sea become part of china, this mean ALL ships from any nation travel there has to be approved by china. be military ships passing through, research ship, fishing boat etc etc.
you said south china sea is disputed territory instead international water, i said both are same
now could you tell me which nation has jurisdiction over south china sea? if no nations has jurisdiction over south china sea, isn't that call international waters?
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
Try this on for an election slogan: "We are going to war with China because we need to have control of a shipping lane on the other side of the world."
Yeah, that's gonna go over real well with the voters.
What is your CVBG going to do if China sends jets and missiles over to take out enemy vessels and military installations, and then sends Maritime Law Enforcement units over to occupy the contested reefs? Is the US CVBG going to intercept Chinese jets? Or shoot at Chinese police officers?
You assume that if the US simply arrived on the scene, China will either 1)back down, or 2)start attacking the US ships for no reason, thereby giving justification for the US to retaliate. THAT is your fantasy.
Well, one of your fantasies anyway. The other being the US sending in a CVBG in the first place.
Last edited:
right and US just gonna let the conflict continue and allow china to control that entire regions without do something about it. that sound more like fantasy to me. US cvbg has been used many time to give other countries a pause before those countries make a cooler decision. the arrival of CVBG itself during a conflict would give china a second thought. it might force china to cease fire or not. the thing is when 2 large navy face each other, many things could go wrong.
during cuba missile crisis, US navy force USSR back down by setting up a blockade around cuba. certainly chinese navy currently can't go head to head against US navy.
Last edited:
What did the British do when the Americans superseded them as the world's most powerful country, ceding territory, bases and other privileges to the US of A?
The fact is, every empire falls, no empire is perpetual and this includes the USA.
Also, you are thinking in a very American centric way, did the Americans force the soviet union down? Did the American navy know that the foxtrots they were practice torpedoing and hunting each carried a nuclear torpedo and had orders to fire them? The Cuban missile crisis is not a case where one triumphed over the other, but it is a case where very cool heads prevailed. If you read the memoirs you will find that we were seconds from a nuclear war.
Similarly what can a CVBG do in the contested waters? If the US blockades China, why do you not think that China can mine the American west coast? Do you not think that China can sink a CVBG or two?
How long can the USA sustain a full naval mobilization during peace time? you can simply wait our the CVBG.
Intimidation only works if you have a significant advantage, China only needs to equal the odds so that the cost is too high for the US to intervene. That is what China is trying to do nowadays with the ASBM and other program