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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

It's "whatever hurts the US trumps all". Hypocrisy is rank on this issue.




posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: NowWhat

You missed the point.

#1 - They are not building "just off their coast".
#2 - Building artificial islands is fine.

Artificial islands don't create sovereign territory and by extension there is no 12 mile territorial boundary.


In Your book it doesnt, but that has nothing to do With this at all. China will have that Island no matter what you claim and it will be there to further strengthen Chinas Territory. Even if the US in pease time vant to sail their millitary ships past the island in protest.

The US as a matter of fact do keep a distance already.


What happens if the U S stations a carrier fleet there to ensure CHina does not sink or detain any ships going by ? And By station i mean make it permanent rotation liek they did with the middle east.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

That is whats going to happen. We just stated the freedom of navigation exercises will increase in numbers / frequency.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

That is whats going to happen. We just stated the freedom of navigation exercises will increase in numbers / frequency.


If the US wants to stop China they need to stop all supply vessels and planes from coming, or going from the island itself. No gas, no power, no use.

Since the island doesn't truly exist, then internationally it shouldn't be an issue.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

That is whats going to happen. We just stated the freedom of navigation exercises will increase in numbers / frequency.


If the US wants to stop China they need to stop all supply vessels and planes from coming, or going from the island itself. No gas, no power, no use.

Since the island doesn't truly exist, then internationally it shouldn't be an issue.


Well actually that is a problem. seeing as how chinese soldiers are on the island and stopping ships going to the island would be a blockade. unless the UN approved it. now there are ways to get rid of the island. driling under it to weaken the sea floor under it could be a option. then we can claim wow...natural disaster. tough break.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


If China violated UN international laws for that area, then a claim to the UN might be fast track for action.

I see how China is claiming it already laid claim to the island in 200 bc, for fishing.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The stumbling block the UN would face is China's veto. Any military action taken as a response Chinese aggression would never be sanctioned by the UNSC (even though it would fall under Chapter VII article 51 of the UN Charter). Of course then we would have people bitching about acting without UN approval. China has already stated they are not going to abide by the ruling of the court next year.

To be honest I am in favor of a UN revamp when it comes to permanent members and how the VETO works. There is a push to change it where a nation with a VETO could not use it in instances that involved them. Russia's UN Ambassador has already come out in opposition to any changes dealing with the veto.

I wonder if something could be worked out where if something is vetoed it would go to the entire UN general assembly for a vote on overriding the veto.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: NowWhat

You missed the point.

#1 - They are not building "just off their coast".
#2 - Building artificial islands is fine.

Artificial islands don't create sovereign territory and by extension there is no 12 mile territorial boundary.


In Your book it doesnt, but that has nothing to do With this at all. China will have that Island no matter what you claim and it will be there to further strengthen Chinas Territory. Even if the US in pease time vant to sail their millitary ships past the island in protest.

The US as a matter of fact do keep a distance already.


What happens if the U S stations a carrier fleet there to ensure CHina does not sink or detain any ships going by ? And By station i mean make it permanent rotation liek they did with the middle east.


What will happen if the US do that? Nothing will happen.

China have not stated that they will prevent any vessels from passing. They have stated that they will prevent the US from commiting agressive action towards China useing the island. That is a big difference.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: NowWhat

You missed the point.

#1 - They are not building "just off their coast".
#2 - Building artificial islands is fine.

Artificial islands don't create sovereign territory and by extension there is no 12 mile territorial boundary.


In Your book it doesnt, but that has nothing to do With this at all. China will have that Island no matter what you claim and it will be there to further strengthen Chinas Territory. Even if the US in pease time vant to sail their millitary ships past the island in protest.

The US as a matter of fact do keep a distance already.


What happens if the U S stations a carrier fleet there to ensure CHina does not sink or detain any ships going by ? And By station i mean make it permanent rotation liek they did with the middle east.


What will happen if the US do that? Nothing will happen.

China have not stated that they will prevent any vessels from passing. They have stated that they will prevent the US from commiting agressive action towards China useing the island. That is a big difference.



So say the carrier drops anchor 10 miles off its coast then China wont do anything ? cool.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The stumbling block the UN would face is China's veto. Any military action taken as a response Chinese aggression would never be sanctioned by the UNSC (even though it would fall under Chapter VII article 51 of the UN Charter). Of course then we would have people bitching about acting without UN approval. China has already stated they are not going to abide by the ruling of the court next year.

To be honest I am in favor of a UN revamp when it comes to permanent members and how the VETO works. There is a push to change it where a nation with a VETO could not use it in instances that involved them. Russia's UN Ambassador has already come out in opposition to any changes dealing with the veto.

I wonder if something could be worked out where if something is vetoed it would go to the entire UN general assembly for a vote on overriding the veto.


The UN needs to be dissolved and a new body formed where NO ONE HAS A VETO that cannot be OVER RIDDEN. That will be fair. If china and russia object? leave them out of the new one.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

That is whats going to happen. We just stated the freedom of navigation exercises will increase in numbers / frequency.


If the US wants to stop China they need to stop all supply vessels and planes from coming, or going from the island itself. No gas, no power, no use.

Since the island doesn't truly exist, then internationally it shouldn't be an issue.


Well actually that is a problem. seeing as how chinese soldiers are on the island and stopping ships going to the island would be a blockade. unless the UN approved it. now there are ways to get rid of the island. driling under it to weaken the sea floor under it could be a option. then we can claim wow...natural disaster. tough break.

China has an actual blockade against the Philippines. Sounds fair to me.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Drill under it? Literally under mine it? Really? Starting from where? I mean come on...

Seriously, China won this already. Posession is 9/10ths of the law, and China went and got this little sand bar. The US blustering is mostly about, oddly enough, saving face. Beyond that, they are probably hoping to establish and maintain precedents about where ships can and can't go, despite a Chinese claim that these islands are now (have always been, lol) a part of China. Maintain in the sense that these were international waters before Chinese occupation, establish in the sense that it is foolish not to acknowledge that the reality is now different because of the new Chinese occupation.

Why? To some extent worth mentioning, there is a relevant strategic aspect. Think of WWII. Every little sandbar was worth its weight in blood if you could land airplanes on it. Now the world has gone way beyond that. A missile war is just like that, only now anything smaller is valuable if you could put missiles there.

But mostly, it's not even about war anymore. It's about the rules for economic zones. There's a large exclusive economic zone around your territory...the greater one is iirc something like 200 miles. That would give them the right to oil exploration in the immediate area.

Overall, China looks clever for running out and grabbing it before anyone else thought of doing that, and the US looks like a dunce for not thinking of that ahead of time. Bravo China. When the US drives by, just smile and wave and greet them warmly with a "welcome to China!"

Long run though, the real issue for China is that it has achieved some relatively minor economic and strategic gain compared to what they are probably losing: they're antagonizing their neighbors, in particular Vietnam and the Philippines. Whatever they gain from these islands is probably small over the long run by comparison to losing local good will from being perceived as a bad neighbor. This works against their long term goal of regional hegemony.

Of course, with a billion + mouths to feed and keep happy, it's not too surprising to see China choose the 'bird in hand' of some definable economic benefit vs the nebulous 'long run good will.' They simply couldn't afford to ignore the concrete and real assets they had a chance to grab.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 11andrew34

US just needs to claim some sandbars near China, nothing wrong with that, right?



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: 11andrew34
Drill under it? Literally under mine it? Really? Starting from where? I mean come on...

Seriously, China won this already. Posession is 9/10ths of the law, and China went and got this little sand bar. The US blustering is mostly about, oddly enough, saving face. Beyond that, they are probably hoping to establish and maintain precedents about where ships can and can't go, despite a Chinese claim that these islands are now (have always been, lol) a part of China. Maintain in the sense that these were international waters before Chinese occupation, establish in the sense that it is foolish not to acknowledge that the reality is now different because of the new Chinese occupation.

Why? To some extent worth mentioning, there is a relevant strategic aspect. Think of WWII. Every little sandbar was worth its weight in blood if you could land airplanes on it. Now the world has gone way beyond that. A missile war is just like that, only now anything smaller is valuable if you could put missiles there.

But mostly, it's not even about war anymore. It's about the rules for economic zones. There's a large exclusive economic zone around your territory...the greater one is iirc something like 200 miles. That would give them the right to oil exploration in the immediate area.

Overall, China looks clever for running out and grabbing it before anyone else thought of doing that, and the US looks like a dunce for not thinking of that ahead of time. Bravo China. When the US drives by, just smile and wave and greet them warmly with a "welcome to China!"

Long run though, the real issue for China is that it has achieved some relatively minor economic and strategic gain compared to what they are probably losing: they're antagonizing their neighbors, in particular Vietnam and the Philippines. Whatever they gain from these islands is probably small over the long run by comparison to losing local good will from being perceived as a bad neighbor. This works against their long term goal of regional hegemony.

Of course, with a billion + mouths to feed and keep happy, it's not too surprising to see China choose the 'bird in hand' of some definable economic benefit vs the nebulous 'long run good will.' They simply couldn't afford to ignore the concrete and real assets they had a chance to grab.


Horizontal drilling works wonders and can be done far enough out to not arouse suspicion. Park a science ship with a drilling rig set up on it and drill for the weakpoints in th e seabed under the reef its built on. ALso according to international law it was wrong to even build the island on a reef to begin with.

Also when we post ships there to gurantee passage china would be stupid to stop them or threaten them even if they pass within 1 mile of the coastline. POssesion is only 9/10ths the law if you didnt steal it first. International waters land/seabed was stolen to build that man made island.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: NowWhat

You missed the point.

#1 - They are not building "just off their coast".
#2 - Building artificial islands is fine.

Artificial islands don't create sovereign territory and by extension there is no 12 mile territorial boundary.


In Your book it doesnt, but that has nothing to do With this at all. China will have that Island no matter what you claim and it will be there to further strengthen Chinas Territory. Even if the US in pease time vant to sail their millitary ships past the island in protest.

The US as a matter of fact do keep a distance already.


What happens if the U S stations a carrier fleet there to ensure CHina does not sink or detain any ships going by ? And By station i mean make it permanent rotation liek they did with the middle east.


What will happen if the US do that? Nothing will happen.

China have not stated that they will prevent any vessels from passing. They have stated that they will prevent the US from commiting agressive action towards China useing the island. That is a big difference.



So say the carrier drops anchor 10 miles off its coast then China wont do anything ? cool.


That is such a stupid if, it is not even reasobable to argue. That will never happen. The US wont even park USS Lassen within 12 mile rang. The US wont even come Close without first giving China a Call.

There is nothing the US can do about this unless they want to og to war. A war the US would loose.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

US would win, and it would be costly, but a decisive victory that would devastate China.

Sadly China is telling the world they will do whatever they want to anyone they want and only War will stop them.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: spy66

US would win, and it would be costly, but a decisive victory that would devastate China.

Sadly China is telling the world they will do whatever they want to anyone they want and only War will stop them.




The US cant even show force in ME anymore. The US/Turkey outnumber the Russians in air Power at about 20 to 1 or even more, and still cant Project Power in the ME. And you think the US would win a war against China in the South China Sea.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You are right, they can't. It's not that their goal is different and they chose not to.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Can't or don't?

There is a difference, you know.

To say our international strategies, whether military or no, are idiotic at the moment would be an understatement.

Do not, however, equate won't, and don't, with can't.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: spy66

Can't or don't?

There is a difference, you know.

To say our international strategies, whether military or no, are idiotic at the moment would be an understatement.

Do not, however, equate won't, and don't, with can't.


Well i gues we have to wait and see how the US steps up to China than. USS Lassen sure aint going to do it for the US.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join