It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China Ready To Use Military Force If US Violates Its Territorial Waters

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Isurrender73

So long as the ships are in international waters / planes in international airspace China can sit down and be quiet.


That is the mentality that starts WW3. When the Nuclear bombs start dropping pat yourself on the back.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

The goal would be to get China to abide by international law / UN agreements before going to the next level. Since China refuses to do that the ball is pretty much in their court as to how this proceeds.

The mentality that starts WWIII is where you ignore everything and make i up as you go along, like China is doing now.

Like I said an EEZ does not create sovereignty. Artificial Islands do not create Sovereignty. Escalations are occurring because of china and not the US. The US will conduct freedom of navigation exercises in international waters.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Isurrender73

There is nothing in your source saying they need these additional territories to act as a buffer zone against US aggression. Nothing. So no, no one but you and the other guy are saying it. Not the Chinese.


Are you intentionally being obtuse?

They are asking for the US to stay 12 miles away from the island. What is the 12 mile request for? That is a buffer zone
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

uhm no its not.

12 miles is the recognized boundary for sovereign territorial waters. Since the artificial islands are not sovereign, they have no 12 mile boundary, contrary to what China is claiming.

Its governed by UNCLOS and you should read up on it to get the answers you need to understand this.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

'twas but a simple comparison people could grasp that I tried


I understand your point. I have not justified China's actions. I have said I understand their actions. There is a huge difference between understanding someone and justifying them.

What I am saying is that if the Chinese are asking Aircraft Carriers to back down. I think at this time it is best to have the Aircraft Carriers back down.

We have not exhausted all diplomatic options. Don't sanctions cone before war? Or do we really want WW3?

No one wins WW3.

China has no validity in asking the US to avoid the area. As a matter of fact they know we have the exact OPPOSITE obligation to the area due to our allies.

China needs to learn it needs another 20 years before it can be a big boy.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Isurrender73

There is nothing in your source saying they need these additional territories to act as a buffer zone against US aggression. Nothing. So no, no one but you and the other guy are saying it. Not the Chinese.


Are you intentionally being obtuse?

They are asking for the US to stay 12 miles away from the island. What is the 12 mile request for? That is a buffer zone

..... One of us is obtuse.

They are not demanding the area to act as a buffer zone, they are demanding the US stay away and not challenge them on their illegal acquisition.

I never disputed they don't want the US there, I disputed why they are stealing the land. Your claim is they stole it because they need a buffer against US carriers. It's quite simply false. They stole it to gain the land and resources, and exert their power over their neighbors.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Isurrender73

The goal would be to get China to abide by international law / UN agreements before going to the next level. Since China refuses to do that the ball is pretty much in their court as to how this proceeds.



I think the goal is to get all nations to follow international law. No one is going to take the US seriously when it comes to international law. The US government has been the biggest violator of international law since the cold war.

The US is not above the law. We can't break international law in the middle east and believe we have any moral ground to tell China not to break international law in the South China Sea.

And to date only the US violations od international law have lead to genocide.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

This is my last post in this thread.

For all of you that are debating against me. You will all be able to pat yourselves on the back when nuclear bombs start dropping.

This pro-American BS needs to die before we all do.
edit on 17-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73
UNCLOS is your friend


EEZ

Article55

Specific legal regime of the exclusive economic zone

The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention.




EEZ

Article56

Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:

(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;

(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:

(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;

(ii) marine scientific research;

(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment;

(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.

2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.

3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.




Artificial Islands

Article60

Artificial islands, installations and structures

in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

(c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

2. The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such artificial islands, installations and structures, including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety and immigration laws and regulations.

3. Due notice must be given of the construction of such artificial islands, installations or structures, and permanent means for giving warning of their presence must be maintained. Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation, taking into account any generally accepted international standards established in this regard by the competent international organization. Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of other States. Appropriate publicity shall be given to the depth, position and dimensions of any installations or structures not entirely removed.

4. The coastal State may, where necessary, establish reasonable safety zones around such artificial islands, installations and structures in which it may take appropriate measures to ensure the safety both of navigation and of the artificial islands, installations and structures.

5. The breadth of the safety zones shall be determined by the coastal State, taking into account applicable international standards. Such zones shall be designed to ensure that they are reasonably related to the nature and function of the artificial islands, installations or structures, and shall not exceed a distance of 500 metres around them, measured from each point of their outer edge, except as authorized by generally accepted international standards or as recommended by the competent international organization. Due notice shall be given of the extent of safety zones.

6. All ships must respect these safety zones and shall comply with generally accepted international standards regarding navigation in the vicinity of artificial islands, installations, structures and safety zones.

7. Artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation.

8. Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.


When nations are in dispute over an EEZ UNCLOS requires the use of the International Court of justice. The Philippines tried using them with their dispute and China refused. My guess would be because had China used the court they would have lost their argument since they have no legal standing for what they are doing.



China is in the wrong and any military action that occurs over this issue resides with China. Why should the US / Asian nations back down when China is in the wrong?

To put it another way read up on the quote "Peace in our times" to understand what appeasement is.


edit on 17-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Again you support "bow to us or die" China and spew hate against "stop before it's too late" USA.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: lostbook

This is my last post in this thread.

For all of you that are debating against me. You will all be able to pat yourselves on the back when nuclear bombs start dropping.

This pro-American BS needs to die before we all do.

This ISN'T pro-American BS. It's what the world knows the US Navy does, what our ALLIES rely on us for. It's putting China in check saying NO you can't do that. And rightfully so, it's soooo far from American flexing that your point becomes so moot it doesn't matter in the slightest.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

He has said over and over this is not anti US .. then constantly says anti US things. It's clear from the start it was a USA hit piece with no regard or facts.

If China fires first it's the US starting a war ... I mean .. HUH??



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
And they see this as a necessary buffer zone. This is a UN problem. The US are not the world police.


How exactly do you suppose the UN will solve this when China sits on the UNSC and can veto anything that crosses their table?

China is encroaching on many of the neighbours in the region, ignores any attempt at arbitration and is actively building it's military capability to defend it's claims. Something has to give, at some point.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
And the US would tell the world to F off just like China is. We have bases all over the world that are pissing off neighbors. Are we going to remove our bases?

Again this is a UN problem. The US are not the world police, nor do our troops and their families want to be the world police.


The difference is, the US was invited and pays rent for those bases - they don't build them and claim it as sovereign territory to expand their claims over others land.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73
I follow a lot of what you post for a good reason. Its intelligent and thought out. Thank you.
It is laughable that they want to prove they are the biggest and hardest in the playground. USA have a lot to answer for and justice will prevail. The rest of the world are not calling your bluff.
THEY ARE STANDING UP TO YOU.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: chewi

So you support the illegal stealing of land and resources by China?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: Isurrender73
I follow a lot of what you post for a good reason. Its intelligent and thought out. Thank you.
It is laughable that they want to prove they are the biggest and hardest in the playground. USA have a lot to answer for and justice will prevail. The rest of the world are not calling your bluff.
THEY ARE STANDING UP TO YOU.


So according to you, the US is the bully here?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason
You are so wrong. They cause disruption and then station a force there. It is in the name of protection they allow these bases.
Face it USA are a massive part of the problem.
If the usa ceased to exist then would the world be better for it or would we descend into Neanderthal barbarity.
Wake up you are not the most advanced nation. Just the biggest bullies with the biggest stick.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
YES.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
The world would not need to find extra land and resources if it wasn't for the way in which the world powers distribute the wealth.
USA are the richest nation in the world. They cant even look after their own citizens but think they can sort out the worlds problems.
Charity begins at home. NO we want to further our world agenda and fox our citizens. They will be happy when they realise we have the most billionaires and millionaires.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join