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.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by cavtrooper7
My god they have a carrier up and running? Full of those incompetent Kamikaze pilots?IN OPEN OCEAN!!!?
The carrier is an old Soviet one that was partially constructed. When the Soviet Union collapsed the carrier construction stopped. China has refurbished / outfitted it and they were conducting sea trials. It was supposedly purchased by a private individual in China to be used as a floating Casino if I remember right (Hong Kong zone).
The moment it hit territorial waters it was diverted to a naval base for refurbishment for the Army-Navy (or so the story goes).
The potential for damage is there since it gives them a bump in force projection however their inexperience in carrier doctrine coupled with an old carrier design I think negates that potential.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
It's chest puffing by China, nothing more.
The Obama administration .... dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Capitol Hill to argue for U.S. accession before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Defense Secretary Panetta argued that adhering to international conventions strengthens America's moral authority when it comes to pressuring other states to do likewise.
"If the U.S. approves the treaty, it would be forced to transfer billions of dollars in royalties generated from oil and gas production on the U.S. extended continental shelf to the U.N. International Seabed Authority for redistribution to the developing world..." said Republican Senator James Inhofe.
Secretary Clinton noted that, as a member of the convention, the United States would have veto rights over royalty distribution. And, she argued, the treaty's benefits far outweigh any costs. "Critics claim we would surrender U.S. sovereignty under this treaty. But, in fact, it is exactly the opposite. We would secure sovereign rights over vast new areas and resources," she said.
A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights.
Secretary Clinton noted that, as a member of the convention, the United States would have veto rights over royalty distribution. And, she argued, the treaty's benefits far outweigh any costs. "Critics claim we would surrender U.S. sovereignty under this treaty. But, in fact, it is exactly the opposite. We would secure sovereign rights over vast new areas and resources," she said.
As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for America’s audacity in perpetuating prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution.
Under current law, oil companies are required to pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury (typically at a rate of 12 ½% to 18%) for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and off the northern coast of Alaska. Treasury keeps a portion, and the rest goes to Gulf states and to the National Historic Preservation Fund. But if LOST is ratified, about half of those Treasury revenues, amounting to billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the ISA. We will be required to pay 1% of those “international royalties” beginning in the sixth year of production at each site, with rates increasing at 1% annual increments until the 12th year when they would remain at 7% thereafter.
Like the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body. The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free.
And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.
“The world ocean has been and is so to speak, our great laboratory for making a new world order.”
...President Reagan thought it was such a lousy idea that he not only refused to sign, but actually fired the State Department staff that helped negotiate it.
ISA would settle international maritime and jurisdictional disputes, possibly even to the extent of overriding our U.S. Navy’s freedom of navigation and governing where ships can and cannot go. ISA’s prerogative to do so would be entirely consistent with a “global test” definition advocated by key LOST proponent Senator John Kerry in 2004.
Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry has been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive. Republican Senator Luger, another strong treaty supporter and career globalist, apparently didn’t want to highlight that fact during the course of his hard-fought Indiana reelection campaign.
Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry has been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive. Republican Senator Luger, another strong treaty supporter and career globalist, apparently didn’t want to highlight that fact during the course of his hard-fought Indiana reelection campaign.