It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:27 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Please visit our local business partnersSite Terms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Allroos Cactus Jack's Saloon and Grill Dan Smith, Loan Officer Evergreen, Conifer Elevation Dental El Rancho Brewing Co. Evergreen Towing Ferellgas Lynn Brown Nerium RE/MAX Alliance Evergreen Tree Top Thai Massage & Spa Tupper's Team

 




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:08 pm
Posts: 17067
U.S. warns China its actions in sea disputes are straining relations

(Reuters) - Anti-China violence subsided in Vietnam on Friday after the prime minister called for calm, but the United States said China's "provocative" actions in maritime disputes were dangerous and had to stop.

Thousands of people attacked businesses and factories in Vietnam's industrial parks earlier in the week, targeting Chinese workers and Chinese-owned businesses after Beijing parked an oil rig in a part of the South China Sea claimed by Hanoi. Many Taiwanese-owned firms bore the brunt because the crowds believed they were owned by mainland Chinese.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/1 ... 3F20140516

_________________
Check a fact before it becomes a fact.
The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness. -- Annie Savoy

Owner, CEO and Founder of http://www.communitiesbound.com Founder of http://www.285bound.com
Graphics Design at www.gorgeouslygraphic.com
Colorado Native.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:45 pm
Posts: 10422
I actually applaud the Vietnamese for this. China should learn being a bully on the seas might hurt their land businesses.
Irony? Chinese are outsourcing jobs to Vietnam.

_________________
When given the choice between two evils, do the one you haven't done yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:38 am
Posts: 14831
[rolls eyes] I'm so glad you've assesed the situation in 30 seconds and shared your valuable opinion on the issue with us.....Interested in your thoughts on the South Sudanese conflict now?


Jeeezz

GTFOOH

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O1v_7T6p8U


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:05 pm
Posts: 5488
I haven't really been commenting much on the South China Sea, with China's development of artificial islands on reefs complete with runways and bases, their oil exploration and claims to littoral waters, the US Navy freedom of navigation cruises and overflights.

Image
The northwest side of Mischief Reef as of January 8, including a 1,900 foot seawall and newly-constructed infrastructure including housing, an artificial turf parade grounds, cement plants, and docking facilities.

Quote:
Joint naval patrols meant to dial down South China Sea tensions: US admiral
todayonline.com, Friday 12 February 2016, by Albert Wai

HONOLULU — Joint naval patrols by the United States and other countries in the disputed South China Sea are meant to decrease tensions, said America’s top military commander for Asia Pacific early yesterday (Wednesday, Hawaii time), adding that the mooted joint patrols between Washington and New Delhi reflect their confluence of interests in the regional maritime domain.

“The more patrols we (the US) have, singularly or jointly, not only in the South China Sea but across the region, I think that helps to decrease tensions, and increase stability,” said Admiral Harry Harris, Commander of the US Pacific Command.
(full article) http://www.todayonline.com/chinaindia/india/joint-naval-patrols-meant-dial-down-south-china-sea-tensions-us-admiral

Quote:
China warns on South China Sea as U.S., India consider patrols
reuters, Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:21am EST

China on Thursday responded to a Reuters report that the U.S. and India are discussing joint naval patrols in the disputed South China Sea, warning that interference from countries outside the region threatens peace and stability.

"No cooperation between any countries should be directed at a third party," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in an emailed statement to Reuters, in response to a request for comment on the report published on Wednesday. "Countries from outside the area must stop pushing forward the militarization of the South China Sea, cease endangering the sovereignty and national security of littoral countries in the name of 'freedom of navigation' and harming the peace and stability of the region."

The Indian navy has never carried out joint patrols with another country... Neither the United States nor India have claims to the area, but the United States says it is concerned about shipping lanes running through the South China Sea, which carry an estimated $5 trillion of trade every year.
(full article) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-idUSKCN0VK0WQ

The US admiral's positon is that joint patrols would reduce tension, and China's position is that more patrols increase tension. I suppose tension is relative. China seems determined to continue work aimed at increasing their influence and control throughout the region, which they have said they consider to be historically theirs. The Indian, Japanese, Australian, and US Navies might be the only credible opposition if China did decide to consider imposing control over ocean trade routes.

I don't believe anyone is looking for an all-out showdown, but I also don't believe China is likely to back down from aspirations for more control of the the waters far off their coastline, long-term.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 7:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:45 pm
Posts: 10422
Mr Tolerance 4 Ambiguity wrote:
[rolls eyes] I'm so glad you've assesed the situation in 30 seconds and shared your valuable opinion on the issue with us.....Interested in your thoughts on the South Sudanese conflict now?


Jeeezz

GTFOOH


rofllol Go back to your betting sheets and let the adults talk, Scooter.

China in the next decade is going to carve out a bigger piece of pie and I don't think America has the will or wealth to do much more than bitch about it. Anyone here want to see more American kids die in SE Asia? The best course might be giving away to Vietnam, Taiwan, and other nations our old military equipment, especially ships.

_________________
When given the choice between two evils, do the one you haven't done yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:05 pm
Posts: 5488
Mr Tolerance 4 Ambiguity wrote:
[rolls eyes] ... GTFOOH

I only scrutinize the US Navy and US Air Force because I believe in those guys (and gals!); in ways on days they are our foreign policy. Still, the military like society has its divisions and controversies, and as with all affairs of man, they sometimes also err and should be called on it.

One of the things I've been struggling with is how to best voice moral or ethical objections with passion without coming across as someone who doesn't want to cheer for the home team. Please understand that when I am at my most critical of an US operation or foreign policy, it is nearly always directed at the perceived foolishness of the domestic political underpinnings.

At the end of the day, I think we need to sacrifice for the peace. All this is informed by the conviction that our world is now too small, too sickly, and too interconnected for another total global war between great powers. My passion is informed by a rational set of fears for the sake of posterity. I'll admit, I'm also "into this" because some of this change is mesmerizing to watch play out after years or decades of status quo.

MR556 wrote:
China in the next decade is going to carve out a bigger piece of pie and I don't think America has the will or wealth to do much more than bitch about it. Anyone here want to see more American kids die in SE Asia? The best course might be giving away to Vietnam, Taiwan, and other nations our old military equipment, especially ships.

The US has resisted in recent years making large advanced weapon systems transfers to Taiwan, I suspect out of compromise with Chinese pressure. One of the questions I'm still trying to find convincing answers for is just what the longer-term US policy intent along East Asia is going to be in the coming decades as China's assertions grow in strength and number.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go-8ap-pf08[/youtube]
At 70 years old, Taiwan's World War II-era "Hai Pao" submarine would not be out of place in a museum, but the antique vessel is still part of the navy -- a sign of the island's ongoing struggle to strengthen its fleet. Taiwan’s submarine force is largely centered on two World War II era submarines, whose continued operation is a tribute to Taiwan’s shipwrights and engineers, but whose age imposes daunting demands upon its sailors to challenge growing Chinese sea power.

Image
Republic of China (Taiwan) Navy (ROCN) Hai Shih (SS-791) is the world's oldest active submarine – it is the ex-USS Cutlass (SS-478), built during WWII. (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cutlass_%28SS-478%29)

Quote:
...even Taiwan’s lone close friend, the United States, has shown itself an untrustworthy supplier. Eight diesel submarines the Bush administration offered Taipei in 2001 have yet to materialize, and they probably never will. No American shipyard has constructed diesel boats in decades. More recently, the Obama administration refused Taipei the late-model F-16 fighter jets for which it clamored. Nor is there much reason to expect Washington to prove more steadfast as Beijing’s diplomatic influence mounts.

Making the island into Fortress Taiwan—not sallying forth for a gallant but futile action on the high seas—represents Taipei’s best hope to deter or win. The ROCN must not relegate the sea-denial fleet to an afterthought... Taiwan’s defenders must distribute firepower in the waters around the island’s rugged periphery. Missile-toting fast patrol craft can prowl offshore waters, alone or in wolfpacks. They can fight in concert with land-based weaponry—mobile anti-ship missile batteries, long-range gunnery, and the like—that can strike out to sea. The Taiwanese military, in other words, can harness the logic of access denial—giving the PLA Navy a grim day should Beijing ordain a cross-strait attack.

Expanding the fleet will take resources, needless to say. To make the budgetary figures work, Taipei could and should boost the island’s defense budget beyond the paltry 2 percent of GDP it spends. That’s barely enough to put the armed forces on a sound peacetime footing, let alone enough to face down Asia’s strongest indigenous military power. President Tsai could also order the navy leadership to siphon resources from major warships—in effect Taiwan’s luxury fleet, pricey but mostly frivolous—into small combatants...
(full article) http://nationalinterest.org/feature/securing-taiwan-starts-overhauling-the-navy-15122

Taiwan is in a tough situation; they can't really compete directly with China's military on quantity, and their strategy may need to think more in terms of defensive and asymmetrical forms of warfare. It seems inevitable they would quickly fall to China if the US withdrew its quiet support... While they haven't received the diesel subs we promised them fifteen years ago, there has been some recent movement:

Quote:
(nationalinterest.org, December 24, 2015, Dean Cheng) Fast on the heels of the COP21 climate change conference, the Obama administration announced its first, and likely last, arms sale to Taiwan in this term. Totaling some $1.83 billion, the sale will include two decommissioned frigates, Javelin and TOW-2B anti-tank missiles, Stinger man-portable anti-aircraft missiles, amphibious vehicles and various support equipment.

While the decision to sell arms to an American friend is welcome, it raises the question of what the administration actually intends to do. While these systems are helpful in sustaining Taiwan, they do not address two of the most fundamental imbalances in the cross-strait security situation: the air and undersea situations.
(full article) http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/obamas-arms-sale-leaves-taiwan-vulnerable-14726

Neither here nor there, but it's interesting to consider how advanced infantry weapons like the TOW anti-tank missile have threatened to make old military mainstays like battle tanks obsolete. We've sent or will send many TOWs into Ukraine, Syria, Taiwan, and South Korea, for example. Perhaps in the end a few missiles are worth more than a frigate to Taiwan's defense... I'm not sure we can expect future wars to play out quite like past ones; as we've seen elsewhere, unconventional tactics are becoming the new convention... Are the rules of war being rewritten?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:05 pm
Posts: 5488
Quote:
What War With China Would Look Like
OpEd, TheDailyCaller, by David Archibald, 2016-01-28

...Ideally for China, they would attack in the Spratlys and the United States would not respond... The United States, under Obama, would be inclined to say that possession of some rocks doesn’t trigger their defence treaties in the region, but they won’t have a choice. Japan realises that if China is successful in seizing the South China Sea, they will be next on the agenda...

China’s question will be the same as Japan’s upon its entry into World War 2. Leave the United States alone in the hope that it doesn’t enter the war or mount a surprise attack at the outset to destroy as much as possible? Chinese military strategy favours surprise attack and so the answer will be the same – attack the United States at the outset. China, Japan and the United States would each have come to the conclusion that this is what is going to happen. The only thing that could stop that from happening is if the United States set out to stop Japan from coming to the aid of the Philippines. But that in turn would mean that most of the countries in Asia would acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves from China.

U.S. operational doctrine is to wait for the initial Chinese attack, absorb it and then go on the offensive straight away. This explains a remark by the head of U.S. Pacific Command on his appointment in May 2015,“If called upon, we would fight tonight,” on message with the deputy commander of U.S. Army Pacific’s words the previous day of “being ready to ‘fight tonight.’” The U.S. response will await the hours of darkness on day one because it will rely upon a lot of decoy and jammer cruise missiles to shield the aircraft carrying bombs.

The Allied cause was given a big boost by a decision of the Philippines Supreme Court on 12th January, 2016 to allow the United States the use of military bases in the country, dismissing an appeal by leftists. The facilities include the Antonio Bautista Air Base, with an 8,500 foot runway on Palawan, Fort Magsaysay Airfield (5,000 ft), Clark Air Base (10,000 ft), Basa Airbase (8,000 ft), and the Subic Bay Airfield (8,700 ft), on Luzon, and Benito Ebuen Air Base on Cebu (10,500 ft)...
(full article) http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/what-war-with-china-would-look-like/

While I'm not sure I agree entirely with their reasoning or conclusions, it's an interesting bit of speculation hung upon history and recent developments. The thing of it is, I'm not sure that much would compel China to take the offensive rather than the defensive as the pressure of their presence expands. What would be the consequence of allowing China to take the South China Sea? What are the limits of how much we want to sacrifice to stop them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:05 pm
Posts: 5488
Quote:
China sends missiles to contested South China Sea island: Taiwan
Reuters, Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:35pm EST, TAIPEI/WASHINGTON, By J.R. Wu and Andrea Shalal

China has deployed an advanced surface-to-air missile system to one of the disputed islands it controls in the South China Sea, Taiwan and U.S. officials said... Taiwan defense ministry spokesman Major General David Lo told Reuters the missile batteries had been set up on Woody Island. The island is part of the Paracels chain, under Chinese control for more than 40 year but also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.

A U.S. defense official also confirmed the "apparent deployment" of the missiles, first reported by Fox News. Images from civilian satellite company ImageSat International show two batteries of eight surface-to-air missile launchers as well as a radar system, according to Fox News.

"Woody Island belongs to China," said Ni Lexiong, a naval expert at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law. "Deploying surface-to-air missiles on our territory is completely within the scope of our sovereign rights. We have sovereignty there, so we can choose whether to militarize it." Taiwan President-elect Tsai Ing-wen said tensions were now higher in the region. China has said it would not seek militarization of its South China Sea islands and reefs, but that did not mean it would not set up defenses...
(full article) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-missiles-idUSKCN0VP2VT

Image
Chinese J-11BHS deployed to Woody Island

Quote:
Chinese J-11 Fighters Deployed To Woody Island In South China Sea
jalopnik/FoxtrotAlpha, Nov 1 2015, by Tyler Rogoway

China posted pictures of armed J-11* Flanker fighters operating from Woody Island located in the northern portion of the South China Sea. China has been totally remodeling its runway and aviation support facilities on the Paracel Islands outpost located about 200 miles south of Hainan Island, a project that appears to be complete.

Deploying these fighters to Woody Island gives China an air defense and strike capability ranging from Taiwan’s Pratas Island to the north, to the majority of Vietnam to the west, to the Philippines in the east, and down towards China’s South China Sea island building projects in and near the Spratly Island archipelago. With aerial refueling, the J-11’s range increases, and this does not take into account standoff attack weaponry in the strike role.

The fact that China is now operating some of its most capable fighters from Woody Island after the remote locales’ aviation facilities were upgraded, even if temporarily, serves as a likely preview of what is to come farther to the south at the country’s disputed island building projects...
(full article) http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/chinese-j-11-fighters-deployed-to-woody-island-in-south-1739919796

Image
Yongxing / Woody Island

Quote:
...A U.S. official told Fox News the images appeared to show an HQ-9** air defense system, which has a range of 125 miles and would pose a threat to airplanes flying close by. The news broke just as Obama was wrapping up two days of talks with 10 leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, at the Sunnylands retreat in California.

Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, said the deployment of missiles to the Paracels would not be a surprise but would be a concern, and be contrary to China’s pledge not to militarize the region, Reuters reported. Woody Island*** is part of the Paracels chain, which has been under Chinese control for more than 40 years but is also claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam.

During a state visit to the United States in September, China’s leader Xi Jinping pledged not to militarize the contested Spratly Islands, which lie to the south of the Paracels. But the foreign ministry in Beijing later acknowledged China was constructing “a limited amount of necessary military facilities for defense purposes only.”

Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, said China had been building up its military facilities on the Paracels for some years. “It is not as provocative as it could have been,” he said. “If they had deployed missiles on the Spratlys, that would have elicited a much stronger response from other countries in Southeast Asia. We’ll see a strong reaction from Vietnam, but I don't anticipate the other claimants will react strongly if at all.” Gregory Polling, director of the Asian Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for International and Strategic Studies, also drew the distinction between the Paracels and the Spratlys...
(full article) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-deploys-missiles-in-south-china-sea-as-obama-meets-rivals/2016/02/17/83363326-3e1b-4461-b97f-13406f6d104c_story.html

* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11)
** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9)
*** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Island_%28South_China_Sea%29)

Yongxing/Woody Island seems to typify the sort of island operations that China is realizing for itself across the regional sea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:05 pm
Posts: 5488
Quote:
Pentagon calls for parties to halt militarization of South China Sea
Reuters, Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:48pm EST

The U.S. Defense Department on Wednesday said commercial imagery indicated that China had deployed a surface-to-air missile system on a disputed outpost in the South China Sea, and said the action was increasing tensions in the region.
(full article) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-pentagon-idUSKCN0VQ324

I'm not sure how on the one hand you can propose a deployment of the THAAD mid-course ABM system, which the Chinese consistently and loudly consider to be an actual strategic threat, and then on the other hand you can suggest a site-defense SAM system is really the provocative gesture. The truth is more likely that they have been preparing for this for quite a while now. I suppose someone in DC simply felt obliged to say something to placate Vietnam.

Quote:
In 1956 North Vietnam formally accepted that the Paracel and Spratly islands were historically Chinese... After the forced reunification of Vietnam in April 1975, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam publicly renewed its claim to the Paracels, and the dispute continues to this day. Hanoi has even gone so far as to praise the South Vietnamese forces that took part in the battle.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands)

Having already previously sent a wing of their jet fighters, Yongxing Island is one that China has controlled since 1956, to the sustained objections of Vietnam and the National Republic of China AKA Taiwan. They're not giving it back, if I had to make a prediction.

One analyst suggested that if China had actually intended to be provocative, they might instead have installed a land-based anti-ship system they've developed... They could also have even have thrown this same system or the HQ-9 SAM system down on an island that's more hotly contested, such as Fiery Cross Reef (Yongshu Island).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:05 pm
Posts: 5488
Quote:
Australia says China "challenged" S.China Sea missile report
Reuters, Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:39pm IST

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, the first senior Western official to visit China since the missile reports, said she had raised the issue of the South China Sea's militarisation in her talks... after meeting China's top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi. Pressed on whether China was denying the presence of missiles, she said, "No, they did not deny, but nor did they admit that there were. It was challenged. The reports were challenged.

Yang, in a statement released by the Foreign Ministry after Bishop spoke to reporters, said he had explained to her that the islands in the South China Sea had been China's since ancient times. "The limited defensive facilities that China has deployed on its own territory have nothing do with militarisation," Yang told Bishop, according to the statement. Australia is not a party to the dispute, should stick to its promises not to take sides and "not participate in or take any actions to harm regional peace and stability or Sino-Australia ties", he said.

China has been angered by air and sea patrols the United States has conducted near artificial islands China has built in the Spratly islands chain farther south in the South China Sea, including some by two B-52 strategic bombers in November. Last month, a U.S. Navy destroyer sailed within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the Paracels, a move China condemned as provocative.

China needs to strengthen its "self-defence" in the South China Sea in the face of "more frequent provocations from the U.S. military," the influential state-run tabloid, the Global Times, wrote in an editorial on Thursday. "Jet fighters from the United States, an outside country, may feel uneasy when making provocative flights in the region. To us, that's a proper result," it said of the reported missile deployment.
(full article) http://in.reuters.com/article/southchinasea-china-idINL3N15X45B

So, China is doing what they're doing because they feel the US is provoking them, and the US is doing what they're doing because they feel China is provoking Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, who don't seem to like witnessing the change of living in the shadow of an ascendant Chinese superpower made potent by decades of US industrial and technological outsourcing. Well, they should have objected continuously beginning the moment that President Nixon made his play for establishing US-Chinese partnership; what did they think was going to happen? Did they believe China would renounce the significance of millennia of its own geopolitics? Why would anyone think that (besides arrogance and hubris)?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY