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.

 

US navy to send destroyer within 24 hours to challenge China territorial claims.

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrepid

Yep, and it applies to all of them too. They're doing the same thing there China is doing in the South China Sea. They found major resources and suddenly everyone wants it.


How far away from the US is the South China Sea? I don't mean Guam.
Hawaii will do. Thus why is this any of their business?




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Isurrender73

You really should bother reading the history of this region. China has a history of firing on other countries in international waters they claim, or other nations EEZs, blockading areas near the islands, illegally working resources from them and then using force to prevent other nations from doing anything about it.


I have read. Regardless of any agreement China may have signed they have always claimed those islands belong to them and they have always done what they want there. They have always gone by the 9 dotted line they drew.

Personally it's not my concern who's islands they are. I don't care who our allies in the area are. I don't want WW3 over something we have been ignoring for a long time.

If this was such a big deal we should have done something a long time ago. I don't want the country I live in to play world police any longer.
edit on 26-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks Mod-Z, that means my wild idea can work.

Below link says nearly $500B of oil to be gained so Chinese are clever at spending only $2.8B. Although they could have gotten an AC for that price but bigger island will have drilling ops to loot oil also.

www.fool.com...

How much will that cost?

About a decade ago, Dubai spent $14 billion to build 12,800 acres of new land in its "The World" island-building project. That works out to about $1.4 million per acre in today's dollars. Multiply that by 2,000 acres, and it could cost China as little as $2.8 billion to build its islands -- a bargain considering the amount of oil the country will then control.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nightbringr

Yes they could, but that five minutes would be relatively distraction free, where missiles out of Cuba could have paralyzed the US government.

They were both idiotic moves at horrible times, but the advantage was with Russia for the sheer amount of damage they could have done.

Erm, im not seeing how the 4 or so minutes it would have taken the Turkish missiles to get to Moscow would have been any better spent than the Cuban missiles heading to DC, but agree on the idiocy of the whole matter.

I must say though, growing up in the early 80' with pre-'The Day After' Reagan was terrifying. Every time the air raid sirens went off on a test i lost it inside. The wall fell, and i felt much safer.

Starting to feel the old fear again.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Allies, it's called, my man,...of without which, in Canada's case, Russia would just take the Arctic.

Oh, of course, Canada is closer and is therefore, "qualified?"

Wasn't it Canada that kicked the Spanish fishermen off of the Grand Banks?? In violation of "International Law"?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrepid

Allies, it's called, my man,...of without which, in Canada's case, Russia would just take the Arctic.

Oh, of course, Canada is closer and is therefore, "qualified?"

Wasn't it Canada that kicked the Spanish fishermen off of the Grand Banks?? In violation of "International Law"?


What has this to do with the topic other than to swing Uncle Sam's slong and insult people?

As Zaph pointed out the US is playing the same game in the Arctic, THEIR BACK YARD, not way away from home because of "allies". Besides, wait a few years. The US' allies change with their whim.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Treaty obligation. Japan, Malaysia, and Indonesia will get shot at If they try. The Philippines doesn't have a Navy to try it with. Plus our ships, both Navy and civilian sail through that area almost daily. If China shuts that sea route down it'll hurt a lot more than the SEA nations.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

No they haven't. They agreed to give them up, and after resources were found said they were theirs again. But those aren't the same islands. These islands were built by China in the middle of nowhere and they claim that makes the region theirs.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr

That's not what I'm talking about. Russia could have hit Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee and paralyzed Washington for probably hours. Those missiles would have hit within about two minutes of launch. The warheads would be detonating before the launch warning hit. The shock alone would delay a response.
edit on 10/26/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrepid

Treaty obligation. Japan, Malaysia, and Indonesia will get shot at If they try. The Philippines doesn't have a Navy to try it with.


Curious. What does the US get out of those treaties? Port access?


Plus our ships, both Navy and civilian sail through that area almost daily. If China shuts that sea route down it'll hurt a lot more than the SEA nations.


There we go. What it's really about.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Isurrender73

No they haven't. They agreed to give them up, and after resources were found said they were theirs again. But those aren't the same islands. These islands were built by China in the middle of nowhere and they claim that makes the region theirs.


I'm not going to pretend to be an expert but from what I have read they never really honored the agreement.

To me it's rather simple

If we can't settle disputes without war or threat of war we might as well tell the elite to crawl into their bomb shelters and just blow the hole thing up.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Arguing international law in this situation is mere semantics, as all powers involved have shown an absolute willingness to bend, twist or otherwise outright ignore such laws to suit their agendas at the given time throughout history. The facts are that, one, China has heavily invested much money and resources into building these islands and will not simply walk away from them, and two, the United States appears to be designating itself the challenger to these territorial claims (their assistance has not been directly requested either by the UN or neighboring nations to China; correct me if I'm wrong?).

Sending out one small destroyer to poke this hornet's nest, to see if the Chinese will sting? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Almost seems like a setup. My only true concern with all of this is how it might affect the bigger global geopolitical landscape: Russia is thoroughly annoyed at the United States as it is, and if China starts having it's own military headaches with the stars and stripes those two might just look at each other and realize they have a common enemy.

I'm probably looking too far ahead into this, but it is a concern of mine. Much more concerning to me than a silly, tiny island with a building on it.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

Curious. What does the US get out of those treaties? Port access?



Plus our ships, both Navy and civilian sail through that area almost daily. If China shuts that sea route down it'll hurt a lot more than the SEA nations.



There we go. What it's really about.


If I am understanding China's request. We can stay 12NM away from the current island that is causing the dispute and still have access to the sea.

IMO it's time to threaten sanctions to being the Chinese to the table to negotiate. But I don't agree with the threat of war at this time.
edit on 26-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Basing, plus preferred supplier for military equipment.

It's always been about treaty obligations and freedom of navigation.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrepid

Basing, plus preferred supplier for military equipment.

It's always been about treaty obligations and freedom of navigation.


Oh believe me. I've got the picture now. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

The Senkaku Islands were claimed by Japan in 1895. After WWII they renounced their claims to territory and the islands were put under US trust, without objection by China.

In the 1970s under the San Francisco Treaty they were returned to Japanese control, again without objection. It was only after a huge resource field was found that both Taiwan and China invoked claims to the islands.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

And China has no right to claim a 12 mile limit as the islands are man made.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
This showoff is really unecessary and is just a way to create a gulf of Tonkin episode by provoking China, and it can escalate badly on multiple fronts. But if they end up firing something tomorrow it will be by mistake like playing with a loaded gun, the show isn't made to sink anything imho.

Let's not ignore that all the other contenders are members or potential members of the TPP, and China despite interested in signing was not considered a good option, so China is feeling seriously threatened from the US and the last year of events is pretty evident of that, on every front it was war from the economy to the cyberspace to the military to the media.
Basically by losing the Spratly presence they feel they would be cut out of the trade route to the new "axis controlled" persian gulf and red sea on top of having no way to exploit the oil fields.

Consider the situation in ME:
- Iran is playing big and it's not by chance that Yemen (oil and gulf of aden) is supported by Iran. The objective is probably to overcome the Saudi with their weaponized militants.
- Saudi may really get broken earlier than 5 years if they support IS and given the state of affairs in Syria it either goes nuclear or after that mess Iraq and Yemen will be cleaned up of Saudi backed assets.
- On the other side of the Red Sea we have Djibuti (bought by China) and the chinese east africa plus Egypt which is increasingly open to fighting ISIS.
- Iraq and Bahrein seem already on the Iran side in the new ME

China and its allies would have a red carpet to ship in Europe and in the ME. With an hostile zone basically extending down to Australia the western allies can literally single out China. So for them the stakes are much higher than we assume on the sole reason of oil profits.

The fact that Spratlys are so important to the USA is something telling. Risking some dirty retaliation by chinese hackers or traders, just to reiterate the supremacy over the SCS means to me that ME is basically lost to Iran-Russia and it's time to invest into the Siam block. The time is ticking for every player in this game and the first who gets broke collapses.

Say bye bye to Saudi and let's hope nothing happens tomorrow.

edit on 26 10 2015 by Mastronaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nightbringr

That's not what I'm talking about. Russia could have hit Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee and paralyzed Washington for probably hours. Those missiles would have hit within about two minutes of launch. The warheads would be detonating before the launch warning hit. The shock alone would delay a response.

And the Turkish missiles would strike then Soviet caucasus states in the same timeframe, causing the same confusion.

And seriously, do you think a detonation over Houson would actually DELAY an immediate, massive response or ensure it?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Isurrender73

The Senkaku Islands were claimed by Japan in 1895. After WWII they renounced their claims to territory and the islands were put under US trust, without objection by China.

In the 1970s under the San Francisco Treaty they were returned to Japanese control, again without objection. It was only after a huge resource field was found that both Taiwan and China invoked claims to the islands.


Then let the Japanese deal with them. They've been doing it for centuries.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join