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.

 

Are We Looking For A Fight In The South China Sea?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: criticalhit
Much nonsense about some "Law" which is in quotes because there is no actual "Law" there isn't truly a world Govt.


Except in this case there is UNCLOS, which China signed and ratified, binding it to certain behavior in areas like this. China in fact has violated the very treaty they ratified.

So yes there is a "law" in this case.
Yes China violated that "law".

There doesnt need to be a one world government. China is in the wrong and its actions are a violation of the "law".




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull




Neglecting the fact that the U.S. has the same weapons? ...and vastly more, unfortunately, experience at it.


Com on. You dont have more assets than China have in Asia. Get real.....

How experianced China are With their stuff is a mystery when it comes to Your knowledge. You dont know what they are capable of With their stuff.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Oh we "could" build the Islands, but we might offend someone lol, there would be the 83.00 hammers for every worker, a decade of debate in regards to testing the sea floor for undiscovered clams before it happened, a massive media debate, the religious right would question if it went against God to change the surface of the Earth, the cost would Triple to install housing for the poor, handicapped access because you know the handicapped build sky scrappers lol and above all companies that were afraid of competition from the new technologies we develop to make it happen would hold it back even longer and we'd be where they are in the China Sea by 2047



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Using equipment in training is a lot different than using it for real. When you use it in a real situation you find little things that don't come out in training.

Obviously China is an expert in their equipment, but when you ramp up to a war footing a lot of little things rear their ugly head. The US has had years of experience under those conditions to learn what nasty little bugs are going to rear up, what needed improving, what worked and what didn't work. China hasn't had that experience, so if a war started they'd have to find out the hard way.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

Using equipment in training is a lot different than using it for real. When you use it in a real situation you find little things that don't come out in training.

Obviously China is an expert in their equipment, but when you ramp up to a war footing a lot of little things rear their ugly head. The US has had years of experience under those conditions to learn what nasty little bugs are going to rear up, what needed improving, what worked and what didn't work. China hasn't had that experience, so if a war started they'd have to find out the hard way.


I agree. The US have shown the world how they plan and fight modern wars. I would not say that is in anyway in the US faviour at all when it comes to waging a war With China. China knows more about the US capability in a war than the US knows about China.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Please name the global conflict that was resolved by "Law" The Empire that was Established by following International "Law" or the War that was fought in which the "Law" was followed or at least not skirted around.

How is it relevant in reality?

Who made us the sole enforcer of said law and approved the sentence for the crime which would be attacking anyone or using Military force or was our cruise by simply the sole action of a single nation State? and that being the case doesn't that in all reality make it US law, how does someone from Brussels or France casting a vote in a NON ELECTED body make anything a "Law" for another nation when most of those votes come from another nations Military alliances?

There is no Law, not from the POV of Democracy, the people of most nations never elected the UN to any official "Rule" over them.

Our Military actions are solely the USA and solely our Military, no one in the world sentenced China for a crime nor authorizes us to make even displays of force let alone use force.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




Sorry but in the department of Navy's and airforce the USA will win hands down in a straight up fight with China. There really is no contest.


In all three departments, US will win comfortably. US starts with a combination of AF and Navy assets and sometimes later army is involved if boots on ground are needed. When army is involved then there can be few causalities.

Problem is Commie Chinese are trying to stretch the elastic on their cheap "sweat shop" made underwear in the South China Sea. Int'l community should not allow such demeanor and decades old maritime laws should hold firm.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: criticalhit




There is no Law, not from the POV of Democracy, the people of most nations never elected the UN to any official "Rule" over them.


So you want to abolish UN authority. Don't forget countries like Russia and China will lose their veto powers to stop the US and NATO from running a riot in places like Ukraine, Syria and others.

The moment UN is dissolved the world will slip into a chaos and WW3 will soon follow.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

We have also out maneuvered enemy eastern trained commands right and left.
Saddam had JUST finished fighting Iran and HOW long did it take for us to clean his clock?
HIS army was combat qualified and the 4th largest force on the planet.
3 days.
China ,maybe a month if we don't occupy.
Then if so ,about a year ...www.youtube.com...
But that would of course be a DECLARED war only, Congress would have to call it.


edit on 29-10-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: spy66

We have also out maneuvered enemy eastern trained commands right and left.
Saddam had JUST finished fighting Iran and HOW long did it take for us to clean his clock?
HIS army was combat qualified and the 4th largest force on the planet.
3 days.
China ,maybe a month if we don't occupy.


Right... how would you defeet and occupy China?

Taking on China would most likely demand every army,maratime and air asstes you have.

The Ironey is that you would probably be beaten Down by Cheep chinese Copies of US,Israel and Russian Tech. Long before you Reach Chinese shores.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You wouldn't have to occupy them. Destroy their ability to threaten their neighbors as they are now, and wreak havoc with their industrial base, and you win without putting a boot on the ground.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: criticalhit

China signed and ratified UNCLOS.
China violated UNCLOS by building artificial islands and then claiming territorial waters.
China violated UNCLOS by claiming territorial water status via an EEZ.

* - Oceans and Laws of the Sea - UN
* - UNCLOS - UN

There is no need to try and walk around the specific subject.

The info above is why China is in the wrong.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: criticalhit




There is no Law, not from the POV of Democracy, the people of most nations never elected the UN to any official "Rule" over them.


So you want to abolish UN authority. Don't forget countries like Russia and China will lose their veto powers to stop the US and NATO from running a riot in places like Ukraine, Syria and others.

The moment UN is dissolved the world will slip into a chaos and WW3 will soon follow.


lol, what I want is irrelevant.

Just like the UN



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's not the point, Treaties are all broken eventually, the UN has no actual power and not one person in the USA has ever voted to accept this world body as actual law neither has any one else.

Aside from that which we could debate i'm sure...

Anytime I have a speeding ticket, I get to go to court to fight it... If my fence crosses a neighbors boundaries a city worker issues me a summons to appear.

What is NOT legal is the cop driving his car through my yard and pointing a gun at me without a trial to determine the claim.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

All of that assumes the Chinese people would fight back. Its a myth that all Chinese love their government. China is having a lot of internal issues and have been for some years now. Its not to often you see a country lock down an entire province and refuse to allow people who dont live there in.

* - 2009 - China locks down western province after ethnic riots kill 140
* - 2012 - China lock-down seals off Tibetan unrest
* - 2014 - Xinjiang in lock down following riots
* - 2008 - City in China's west locks down after bombings

Its dangerous to assume the Chinese population would support the communist government should they be the ones who starts a war with the US. Secondly unlike Russia and China the US has no need to occupy China where as Russia and China's actions use occupation for control.
edit on 29-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Who said anything about occupy?

No way in the world would anyone be that foolish. Can't be done.

If, God forbid, it comes to a shooting conflict with China? Infrastructure goes bye-bye. It may take a bit to get things on line, but the US has shown, on a number of occasions that they can get assets where ever they're needed in rather short amounts of time. Once those assets are on line, it's all over but the shouting. It won't be bloodless, or painless, but it will be over.

Add to that, we have allies in the region? The US is hardly outgunned.
edit on 10/29/2015 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: criticalhit

It is the point in this instance. Chinas position is they claim jurisdiction and sovereignty over the region, which directly contradicts the treaty they signed.

Chinese actions have created the problem.

you cant use a specific country's law for your example since UNCLOS is an international "law" China agreed to abide by. Read the "law" I linked you to and compare it with China's actions.
edit on 29-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

You wouldn't have to occupy them. Destroy their ability to threaten their neighbors as they are now, and wreak havoc with their industrial base, and you win without putting a boot on the ground.


Yes, but that is only a subjective argument of what must be done. And it would have to be done without China doing anything about it in Return. In other Words China would have to let you do it to them without retaliation.

I know that the US have simulated this With their B2s and cruise missiles. But stealth attacks wont criple China from a instand retaliation. China is not blind towards US movements around Asia. They know what you have and how much you have of it.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Any strikes against China would be launched from the US mainland. There isn't a need to move bombers out to the Pacific until after the first strikes are over. They'd be launching from three or four different bases, using all three bomber types.

Of course China would retaliate, that's why it's called a war. But neither side would use anything but conventional weapons.
edit on 10/29/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull




Who said anything about occupy?



You did, here: Here you imply that you can take China in a moth if you dont accupy.


China ,maybe a month if we don't occupy.





If, God forbid, it comes to a shooting conflict with China?



Yes, you can say good by to just about everything if it goes that far.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join