Metro Jacksonville

Per the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-china-fighter-jet-intercept-20140822-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-china-fighter-jet-intercept-20140822-story.html)

Chinese fighter jet intercepted Navy sub-hunter plane in South China Sea

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-53f7af3a/turbine/la-fg-china-fighter-jet-intercept-20140822-001/750/16x9)

An armed Chinese fighter jet conducted what Pentagon officials called an aggressive midair intercept of a U.S. Navy submarine-hunting aircraft during a routine patrol above international waters.

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said the incident occurred Aug. 19 about 135 miles east of Hainan island in the South China Sea and involved a Navy P-8 Poseidon plane.

He said the Chinese fighter made three passes dangerously near the U.S. plane. The jet also zoomed directly in front of the Navy plane at a 90-degree angle to reveal its belly, which was packed with weaponry, he said.

At one point, Kirby said, the Chinese warplane flew alongside the Navy aircraft, putting their wingtips as close as 30 feet apart. The encounter ended with the Chinese pilot doing a barrel roll over the top of the U.S. plane.

Kirby called the incident "very, very close" and "very dangerous."

Below is a picture of the harassing plane as seen from the P-8.

(http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20140822/376238_US-China.jpg)

The Obama administration has lodged a protest to China through official diplomatic channels.

"This kind of behavior not only is unprofessional, it's unsafe and it's certainly not in keeping with the kind of military-to-military relations that we'd like to have with China," Kirby told reporters.

He said the U.S. had "registered our strong concerns to the Chinese about the unsafe and unprofessional intercept, which posed a risk to the safety and the well-being of the air crew and was inconsistent with customary international law."

He said he was not aware of any radio communications between the American and Chinese pilots.

The Pentagon took several days to disclose the incident because officials were reviewing the details and wanted to register the protest with Beijing, Kirby said.

The incident comes during a tense period in the South China Sea, where Beijing's territorial claims over several resource-rich shoals overlap with those of neighboring nations.

In May, China placed an oil rig in waters claimed by Vietnam, which set off a round of anti-Chinese protests and deadly riots in Vietnam. China removed the rig last month.

Ministers from the 10-member Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, issued a statement expressing concern about the growing friction with China and called for increased talks with Beijing.

The Navy has called the P-8 Poseidon "the most advanced long-range anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare aircraft in the world."

Based on a heavily modified Boeing 737, the Poseidon typically flies at elevations of 5,000 to 10,000 feet and can stay aloft for about nine hours.

The plane is outfitted with advanced radar and electronic signal sensors to identify, find and track surface targets.

It also can drop sonar systems that send back signals indicating objects below the water's surface.

I wonder where they learned it.....  ;D

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KPxDoFbsvWA/maxresdefault.jpg)

Intercepts of Maritime Patrol aircraft are pretty common in this area.  What is not common is the aggressiveness of the intercepting pilot.  This was done to get a reaction... then measure it.  Poke the bear with a stick and see what happens...  8)

It was in the same area, east of Hainan Island that a PLAAF J-10 collided with a Navy patrol craft and caused it to emergency land.

A few months ago a USAF Rivet Joint was intercepted by a Russian Air Force Su-27 near Sakhalin Island and pilot did the same thing.

Now I am not aware if we treat any Russian "Bear" bomber the same way over the Bering Sea when we do intercepts, but based on our response to these behaviors I am thinking we dont.

What is the same as before is that they only send a single interceptor to harass. USAF only intercepts in pairs.

The PLAAF has been shadowing our U2 flights out of Kadena for years flying 30,000 feet below just to let us know they are watching.

They usually get testy when they are releasing a new ship, sub or war game and we come around to "sniff" the event from a distance.

There will be more of these events. The JSDF has picked up their patrols on the Senkaku's last month and it is a matter of time before they are tested.

Looking at it from the other side, I would hope that if a Chinese military plane came close the shores of Hawaii/Alaska/Pacific Coast we would be just as aggressive. To me the "diplomatic" route should be when we are the visiting team.

Quote from: JayBird on August 23, 2014, 06:58:19 PM
Looking at it from the other side, I would hope that if a Chinese military plane came close the shores of Hawaii/Alaska/Pacific Coast we would be just as aggressive. To me the "diplomatic" route should be when we are the visiting team.

Oh we do.  During the Cold War it was very common to have a Soviet "Bear" bomber come over from Siberia into the Bering Sea and we would scramble interceptors to meet them before they entered US airspace. This behavior declined as the Soviets migrated into today's Russia. The Russian Air Force has recently started up the "penetration" flights once again and make the trek to the Bering Sea to test our response times.

However a key difference between those flights and these done by the US forces is that our flight path is not into territorial airspace. We stay out over international airspace and run parallel. So we don't present ourselves as if we are attempting to make an overflight. (We haven't attempted a military overflight of Communist China since the early Sixties).

And the last time a set of Russian "Bear" bombers flew to Venezuela, it was over international airspace and we did not shadow them or bother them in the least. In fact US was criticized for NOT shadowing them. Our response was that they posed no threat to us as they remained in non-US airspace and therefore was really none of our business.

Now if a Russian AF sent a recon flight along the Alaskan coast and stayed in international airspace, I am sure they would be shadowed, however I don't think USAF would be doing barrel rolls over the top and cutting them off in the air and make it unsafe. But just like the PLAAF, we would let them know they were in our backyard.

I think that is the distinction DoD was making in the press conference.  "You have a right to shadow, you have the right to share the airspace...you do not have the right to endanger us and act unprofessionally"

China defends intercepting US Navy plane

http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/China-says-US-plane-intercept-was-professional-5708529.php#photo-6760747 (http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/China-says-US-plane-intercept-was-professional-5708529.php#photo-6760747)

BEIJING (AP) — China's Defense Ministry rejected U.S. accusations that a Chinese fighter jet conducted a "dangerous intercept" of a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft off the southern Chinese coast.

Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun called the U.S. accusations "groundless" in a statement issued Saturday night. He said the Chinese pilot conducted operations that were "professional and the Chinese jet kept a safe distance from the U.S. planes."

Yang called the Chinese flights "routine identification and verification."

Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby gave a different account Friday of the Aug. 19 encounter about 135 miles (220 kilometers) east of China's Hainan Island. He said the Chinese jet made several close passes by the Navy P-8 Poseidon plane, coming within 30 feet (9 meters) of it at one point.

Kirby said that included the Chinese jet doing a "barrel roll" maneuver over the top of the Poseidon — a modified Boeing 737 — and passing across the nose of the Navy plane apparently to show that it was armed. Kirby said the Chinese jet's maneuvering posed a risk to the safety of the U.S. air crew and was "inconsistent with customary international law."

He said it was the fourth such incident since March of "close intercepts" involving Chinese jets.

The Chinese statement also said that a Navy P-3 Orion, an anti-submarine and surveillance aircraft, flew alongside the Poseidon. The Pentagon did not mention the second aircraft.

Tensions between the two countries have risen in the South China Sea, as China disputes territorial claims with U.S. ally the Philippines, Vietnam and other neighbors.

In 2001, a Chinese jet collided with a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft off Hainan Island, killing the Chinese pilot and forcing the Navy plane to make an emergency landing on the island. Washington severed military relations with China after that episode.

In the latest encounter, Yang blamed "the large-scale and highly frequent close-in reconnaissance by the U.S. against China" as "the root cause of accidents endangering the sea and air military security between China and the United States."

To clarify... especially as someone who has flown those flights AND been intercepted... these flights happen on a regular basis and are nothing new.  They are more often than not nothing more than "show the flag" and freedom of navigation flights as these are conducted in international waters.  MPA aircraft DO NOT penetrate the territorial airspace of any country.  They do fly through various countries ADIZ and may be intercepted.  The interception is generally a peaceful and even friendly encounter.  The interceptor may well be armed but it is there for visual identification and escort through the zone.  We intercept to tell them... "we see you" and your passage through our ADIZ will not go unchallenged.

The interception is perfectly expected... we penetrate... they intercept.  The part that is unacceptable is the aggressive nature of the pilot in the interceptor.  This type of flying cost one chinese pilot his life a few years ago when he rammed the P-3 with his aggressive actions.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/46/ADIZ_Boundaries.jpg/300px-ADIZ_Boundaries.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Alaskan_ADIZ.jpg/300px-Alaskan_ADIZ.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/JADIZ_and_CADIZ_and_KADIZ_in_East_China_Sea.jpg/220px-JADIZ_and_CADIZ_and_KADIZ_in_East_China_Sea.jpg)

Wow, this is very interesting and I love/appreciate the comments.  A whole world that I am not familiar with - military relations.

Thanks spuwho and BridgeTroll for your feedback!

Quote from: simms3 on August 25, 2014, 12:46:44 PM
Wow, this is very interesting and I love/appreciate the comments.  A whole world that I am not familiar with - military relations.

Thanks spuwho and BridgeTroll for your feedback!

+1 - I am amazed at the wealth of knowledge possessed by the members of the MJ community.

Pay close attention to news articles regarding China and the South/East China sea.  China is flexing its new found naval power and wish to turn that area of the globe into their own private lake.  Unfortunately a huge amount of commerce travels those waters... not to mention the mineral and gas wealth located on the bottom.  They have already siezed islands and shoals belonging to the Phillipines and Vietnam...

Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel doesn't it?

They tried to plant an oil rig in Vietnamese waters. It caused huge anti Chinese riots across Vietnam and they pulled the rig out last month. They rip the US for being the bully and then give it a run themselves.

A much clearer legal viewpoint... some excerpts...

QuoteThe message being delivered by the U.S. following this incident is an important one. The U.S. did not object to the intercept itself, but rather to the manner in which it was conducted. This sets an important example of consistency for China and others and reinforces the U.S. commitment to two important issues in the maritime domain, safety of flight and freedom of navigation.

QuoteMore specifically, the Rules of the Air, Annex 2 to the Chicago Convention, advise states to operate with caution when executing intercepts. While these standards apply only to the intercept of civil aircraft, the concerns they illustrate are nonetheless relevant in the context of state aircraft. The Rules of the Air acknowledge the inherently hazardous nature of intercepts, emphasizing that interceptors must operate with due regard, avoiding "flying in such proximity to the intercepted aircraft that a collision hazard may be created" and avoiding crossing an aircraft's flight path.

QuoteSaturday's response from the Chinese Defense Ministry argued that "it is [America's] massive and frequent close-in surveillance of China that endangers the two sides' air and marine security, and is the root of accidents." Not only is this statement inaccurate in alleging that U.S. military aircraft have caused accidents over the South China Sea or pose a risk to international aviation, it also repeats the often advanced and incorrect position that military activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are unlawful.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/responding-to-chinas-air-intercept/

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/08/27/chinese-spy-planes-in-taiwanese-airspace/

QuoteChinese Spy Planes in Taiwanese Airspace

Taiwanese fighter jets have tracked Chinese spy planes several times this week as they crossed into Taiwan's airspace. The FT reports:


The Taiwanese military dispatched fighters twice on Monday when Chinese Y-8 spy aircraft entered its air defence identification zone, an early-warning area known as an ADIZ. China, which regards Taiwan as a renegade province, dismissed the issue by saying its aircraft were on "routine" flights. [...]

Taiwan's defence ministry said the Chinese aircraft spent roughly 10 minutes in the ADIZ before exiting the area. A Taiwanese military spokesman said Chinese military aircraft had previously flown into Taiwan's ADIZ but that it was not a common occurrence.

This is only the latest in what is becoming a pattern of Chinese aggression in the sky; China has had several tense airborne incidents with Japan in the past year, and only recently conducted a "dangerous intercept" of an American spy plane in international airspace near Hainan Island.

There is one slight upside to China flexing its muscles, however. Its rivals, from Japan and India to Australia and Indonesia, will draw closer together, and closer to the U.S. as well.

Published on August 27, 2014 12:51 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/us-china-usa-military-idUSKBN0GS2MZ20140828

QuoteChinese interceptions of U.S. military planes could intensify due to submarine base

Thu, Aug 28 2014
By Greg Torode and Megha Rajagopalan

HONG KONG/BEIJING (Reuters) - One Chinese naval officer has advice for fighter pilots intercepting U.S. surveillance planes in the wake of an incident over the South China Sea last week that Washington condemned as dangerous - fly even closer.

The comments by Rear Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong from the National Defense University in Beijing, reported in state media this week, reflect what Chinese military experts say is China's determination to shield its expanding ballistic missile submarine fleet from U.S. spy planes.

Risky intercepts off China's coast are likely to continue, even intensify, the experts said, adding that such actions could represent a directive from above rather than the actions of rogue pilots.

"We didn't give them enough pressure (before)," Zhang said in the Global Times, a popular tabloid under the official People's Daily newspaper that is known for its nationalist sentiments. "A knife at the throat is the only deterrence. From now on, we must fly even closer to U.S. surveillance aircraft."

Pentagon officials said a Chinese fighter buzzed a P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine and reconnaissance plane on Aug. 19, at one point flying 9 meters (30 feet) from its wing tip before doing a barrel role over the top of it.

China dismissed the criticism as groundless and said the pilot had kept a safe distance.

A likely target of the U.S. surveillance is China's submarine fleet operating from a base in southern Hainan island, the military experts said.

Among the submarines using the base are large Jin-class vessels capable of carrying nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that are expected to form a key plank in China's nuclear deterrence strategy.

The precise operational readiness of China's three or four Jin-class vessels, including their missile launching capabilities, is not publicly known, military analysts said.

"Long-term, these submarines are China's only hope for a meaningful deterrence ... they are everything to China," said Zhang Baohui, a mainland security specialist at Hong Kong's Lingnan University and author of a forthcoming book on Beijing's nuclear strategy and forces.

FIRST STRIKE

Ballistic missile submarines are more important to China's nuclear deterrent than other major powers due to Beijing's policy, dating back to the 1960s, of not deploying nuclear weapons unless attacked with them first, he said.

This means China's larger land-based missiles are considered vulnerable to a first strike if Beijing fulfills its "no first strike" pledge during a conflict.

Having submarines able to travel far into the Pacific Ocean undetected with missiles that can reach the United States was therefore China's "only hope of a credible nuclear deterrent, as it secures second strike capability", Zhang added.

"Their deployment will, of course, complicate U.S. strategic calculations – and we may already be seeing the impact of that," Zhang said.

The P-8 Poseidon was southeast of Hainan in international airspace when it was intercepted.

A U.S. defense official said the Chinese pilot was from the same Hainan unit that appeared to be responsible for other encounters in March, April and May, part of what he called a rising trend of "nonstandard, unprofessional and unsafe" intercepts of U.S. aircraft since the end of 2013.

Six state-of-the-art P-8s were deployed to Okinawa in Japan starting late last year, replacing Cold War-era EP-3 aircraft.

Within Asian and Western military circles there is much debate about the skill and discipline of Chinese pilots.

One retired Chinese military officer, speaking to Reuters, countered that standards were "very high".

Sending Chinese fighters out to "drive away" U.S. surveillance planes was an effective tactic, said Wang Yanan, a military analyst and a senior editor at China's Aerospace Knowledge magazine.

Over time, the U.S. military might reduce the frequency of its surveillance missions, Wang told the Global Times.

Added Zhang, the security specialist: "These are not rogue pilots. I believe we will continue to see them challenging U.S. surveillance planes at very close range as a concerted effort."

A senior U.S. official in Washington said the Obama administration was unclear on how far up China's chain of command authorization may have been given for the aggressive flying or whether local commanders or pilots were acting on their own.

U.S. and Chinese military officials have been holding talks in Washington this week on rules of behavior. While the discussions were planned before the latest incident, they touch on issues at the core of U.S. concerns: that a Chinese provocation could spiral into a broader crisis.

Tokyo has also criticized similar flying by Chinese pilots in a controversial Air Defence Identification Zone that Beijing created over the East China Sea last November.

Japan scrambled fighter jets against Chinese planes 104 times in the April-June period, up 51 percent on the year but down from 128 scrambles in the previous quarter.

Taiwan said on Tuesday it had sent jets to intercept two Chinese military aircraft which breached its airspace four times on Monday. China said it was a routine mission.

HIDDEN BERTHS

A report in the Global Times claimed the P-8 had dropped a sonar buoy from its undercarriage, triggering the interception.

Indeed, surveillance by the United States was seriously damaging to China's security, Yang Yujun, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence, said in a statement on Thursday.

Chinese media and Western military blogs have shown photographs in recent months of Jin-class submarines operating from the Hainan naval base, which includes hidden submarine berths built into a mountainside.

The submarines are eventually expected to be based permanently in Hainan, given its proximity to deep-water channels leading into the western Pacific.

Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said in March that China was continuing to produce submarines to be equipped with new missiles that had a range of more than 4,000 nautical miles.

China has 70 submarines, the United States 72 and Japan 18, according to The Military Balance 2014, a publication from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"This will give China its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent, probably before the end of 2014," Locklear said.

Those comments sparked debate among military experts about the effectiveness of the Jin-class, given reports they are noisy and thus easy to find. They are expected to be eventually replaced with a new generation of submarine.

P-8s routinely perform a range of maritime intelligence tasks that are part of a vast U.S. surveillance web across East Asia that includes satellites, undersea sensors, surface ships and nuclear-powered submarines the Pentagon bases in Guam.

The relatively shallow waters of the South China Sea are tricky operating conditions for U.S. submarines seeking to track rival vessels, putting extra importance on the P-8, said Asian and Western diplomats and military experts.

When asked if the United States would reduce surveillance flights to help the military relationship with China, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said current operations would continue along with efforts to build ties, without providing detail.

QuoteFor centuries China lay at the centre of things, the sun around which other Asian kingdoms turned. First Western ravages in the middle of the 19th century and then China's defeat by Japan at the end of it put paid to Chinese centrality. Today an American-led order in the western Pacific perpetuates the humiliation, in the eyes of Chinese leaders. Soon, they believe, their country will be rich and powerful enough to seize back primacy in East Asia.

China's sense of historical grievance explains a spate of recent belligerence. China has deployed ships and planes to contest Japan's control of islands in the East China Sea, grabbed reefs claimed by the Philippines in the South China Sea and moved an oil rig into Vietnam's claimed exclusive economic zone. All this has created alarm in the region. Some strategists say America can keep the peace only if it is firm in the face of Chinese expansionism. Others urge America to share power in East Asia before rivalries lead to a disaster.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21613263-after-bad-couple-centuries-china-itching-regain-its-place-world-how-should?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

Good article...  8)

During the Cold War the Soviets and NATO constantly sniffed each other and by the late 70's they acquired a good sense of protocol about how to behave around each other.

However the PLA never acquired that protocol and so it is back to square one with them. Once we reach a level where both believe it's Ok to sniff on each other as part of the peace, then P-8 flyby will of no consequence.

For the PLA, no one is trying to humiliate them anymore. They got Hong Kong and Macau back peacefully under the agreed treaties. Taiwan is a different situation that again, will just need to be worked out through rational dialog. Not by lobbing missile tests across the strait 2 days before elections.

Yes, everyone including the Japanese agree that what happened in Nanking and Manchuria was wrong.

But exacting penance through military action will not recover a loss of face almost 80 years ago.

One must convince the PLA that face can best be restored through their economic capacities and their ability to dialog on even the most difficult of subjects.

However it is well known that the PLA embraced a new level of military capacity after NATO bombed their embassy in Belgrade during the meltdown of Yugoslavia. Never mind that Chinese intelligence was allowing Serbian intelligence to use their antennas to communicate with the field. The PLA did take that as a direct loss of face and they have vowed not to allow it again.

Their feelings about it are the same as our embassy taking in Tehran when the Shah fell. When you think of it in those terms, then you see why they get worked up.

The dialog with them must continue.

All that said... detecting and tracking submarines in international waters is SOP for the rest of the world.  Pretty standard stuff.  Better yet... if you don't want your submarines tracked... keep them at home... or make them more undetectable.  8)

Agreed. Our sonar tracking network has the Jin subs well documented. Screw profile, magnetic profile, etc. etc.

But we have to keep our data current and that requires updated recon. Hence, more P8 flights. They upgrade, we recon.

Outstanding article from BBC... describes the actions of the Chinese vs Phillipines and Vietnam.  These claims will boil over one day...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8701/index.html

Great BBC video!

http://www.youtube.com/v/fZgvqE89KvQ


Below... Chinese outpost on Phillipine reef...
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8701/media/700x500_slide3-lr_1.jpg)

Building another...
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8701/media/700x500_slide4-lr_1.jpg)

More...
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8701/media/700x500_south_johnson_1-lr_1.jpg)

A mere year later...

(http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/02/Chinese-artificial-island-landing-strip-1024x457.jpg)

QuoteWASHINGTON: What began with a tiny artificial island built by China to stake a concrete claim in the South China Sea is fast on its way to becoming 600 acres of at least seven islands spread across the South China Sea. One of the most impressive is so-called Fiery Cross Island, the permanent structure above complete with an air strip and, perhaps, the ability to permanently station advanced weapon systems there to patrol the skies and seas. Sen. John McCain made a point of asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about the Chinese actions just before the end of this morning Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on worldwide threats, calling the Chinese actions a rather dramatic change. DNI Clapper told the SASC this is a worrisome trend of the Chinese because of the tensions this is going to create in the South China Sea. They have been very aggressive about it. The biggest worry about these efforts by the Chinese is that they could base advanced aircraft and ships at some of these locations, trying to enforce their so-called Nine-Dash Line claiming most of the South China Sea. That would grant them the presumptive ability to block international shipping in an area every other country in the region  including the United States.

The US has been trying to get all parties to sit down and discuss a framwork on the South China Sea. China was being passive aggressive about it until the Phillippines announced a big military buy with the US. China had fit about it and have pretty much accelerated their island grabs ever since.

It will boil over when they start detaching military units there.

The PLAN has been harassing US Navy ships passing through this area when they are alone. They stay clear when a carrier task force comes around however.

China will soon control one of the worlds busiest shipping lanes...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/look-how-quickly-china-is-building-its-island-bases-out-1691571576

Quote
Look How Quickly China is Building Its Island Bases Out Of Nothing
Tyler Rogoway

China isn't just expanding its military reach into the South China Sea, it's rapidly building completely new islands, and as you'd expect, that's generating plenty of anxiety from the other nations in the neighborhood.
China is taking desolate reefs among the Spratly Islands and building them into man-made bases. Some see this as no more than a navigational headache and a regional issue with little impact. Others, however, believe it's a much more subversive activity, giving China the ability to claim a vast economic exclusion zone where it could control shipping, fishing, energy production, and even air travel over one of the busiest transportation corridors in the world.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--cBrJpqrE--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ksdhnw9gopl1rmrlmbzb.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--pKTo6Xu2--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/tbfc66kjgqu1azdflili.jpg)
Some of China's newly built islands are rumored to eventually become highly defended stationary "aircraft carrier battle groups" where they could house fighter aircraft, long range sensors, and missile systems – both of the surface-to-surface and surface-to-air variety. In doing so, China would be in the process of creating a fortress-like network of sea bases where it could project power and literally control the flow of a large portion of the world's shipping.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--9qvATfGy--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/gtwuvbmnw59ni4ths992.png)
Currently, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei lay claim to some part of the Spratly Islands. None of these nations recognize China's claim on any of this territory, nor does the US. But short of a war, what can be done? Some of these emerging islands are already said to be occupied by highly trained Chinese commandos, and China is already building a long-range Coast Guard apparatus to protect their creations, in addition to it rapidly expanding naval forces, which includes a carrier strike group, at its disposal.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2EOiJwPj--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/tw8dhsb51v8hdrkbfqkn.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--_8J7QU8U--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/aju3mlatqqqzjf2n0l8d.jpg)

China has recently acquired some highly unique naval capabilities that are tailored for island-to-island and sea-to-island logistics, most notably and peculiarly purchasing Zubr Class hovercraft, and a license to produce them indigenously from Ukraine. Between an extremely long-range "Coast Guard" naval capability and the Zubr Class' ability to provide island accessible logistics on an unprecedented scale, it's clear that China is preparing to stake its claim on the Spratly Islands in a long-term, militarized way.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--vDvj0hKj--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/npzfuknofjqsk45zf9jt.jpg)
Although China's mainland coast is over 500 miles to the north of the Spratly Islands, China insists it has a cultural and historical claim on the territory. China has proclaimed that their sea-going ancestors discovered the islands long ago, and since then Chinese fisherman have harvested the waters as their own. Many view these claims as possibly relevant when it comes to maintaining China's fishing access in the region, but building artificial territory for strategic purposes is another story.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ma0FCj17--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/gjbdu7o5hte2nmy9hevp.jpg)

The reality is that under the UN's Law and Sea Convention, an island, even a small one, gets 12 nautical miles out to sea of territory to call its own and another 200 miles in any direction of mineral and fishing rights. You can imagine that if China has a string of these reefs-turned-sea-base-islands, they can claim a continuous swath of control ranging over hundreds of miles. With proven oil reserves measured in the billions of barrels and trillions of cubic feat of natural gas, China's man-made island chain also could end up greatly offsetting its ferocious appetite for energy, the vast amount of which the Chinese are relegated to importing.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--mapyOXvc--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/qeqj7ylbmlwjpisokgsk.jpg)

As far as what can be done about China's potentially geopolitical norm-shattering island production campaign, there are few options that don't involve armed confrontation.

Washington has played the issue very softly, mentioning it from time to time, but not doing much in terms of confronting the Chinese on the issue directly. If Washington were to change course, which is possibly under a new Administration, the best way to do so would be to work with neighboring nations to pressure China into making a deal to share the territory in a way that's mutually beneficial. The only question is why would China sign on to such an agreement if it's already highly invested in commandeering the territory and growing its military might far exceeding that of all the nations with claims on the territory combined?
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--N_8lECGk--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/bugrcrakd1p2ctuvsext.jpg)

In the end, the US and the rest of the world may only confront China on the issue once Flanker fighter jets are flying from these man-made islands and missile batteries are being installed on them. At that point, short of dabbling in the possibility mutually assured economic destruction, whereby the Chinese could dump US bonds if America were to threaten high tariffs on Chinese goods, or other acts of negative reinforcement, it will probably be too late.

In actuality, China has every reason not to make a deal to share this highly strategic territory with its neighbors, including energy, fishing, shipping and air travel control, and will most likely just rely on the passive threat posed by its massive military as a deterrent against aggression and intervention. The only way to really have a shot at reversing what could be the biggest and most volatile territorial dispute of our time is to engage with China directly on the issue now, before construction on these islands is complete.

Considering how distracted the Obama Administration is with a whole slew of other issues, both external and internal, it's doubtful that this will happen. Meanwhile, the play clock is ticking down, and China is well aware of this.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--krjjv3k5--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/bnbsjiei2swrbvbyai3f.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--n4qvKxTa--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/fpaxzq1ohvmaoe9ad23g.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--C1NcXAFh--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/jqzwuqmfcgdays3r4cxr.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jHRVL0MS--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ccetyn5dwtwdyjfrawd1.jpg)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--i2Rr3dJE--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/wux7azxwne5x6ezdcjmq.jpg)

Its 1923 all over again. Except its not the Japanese Imperial government looking for natural resources, its the DPRC.

People may have forgotten but the Chinese oil company CNOOC tried to buy US based Union Oil to get access to proven reserves, but Congress didnt like the CNOOC ownership structure (mostly military) and blocked it on national security grounds.

So for the DPRC it really comes down to what is the most readily available resource that isnt already owned or controlled by a nuclear club member? I am jot justifying the acts, just explaining the motives.

The fact that they wont joint venture with anyone says more than the militaristic approach to keeping these islands.

Something bad will happen before its gets adequate attention.

Nation building with a twist.  Let's not piss off China, since we get so much cheap clothing, and other products.  Sort of a love hate relationship, without benefits.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-18/u-s-navy-urges-joint-southeast-asia-patrols-of-south-china-sea

QuoteU.S. Navy Urges Southeast Asian Patrols of South China Sea

Bloomberg) -- The commander of the U.S. Navy Seventh Fleet called on Southeast Asian nations to form a combined maritime force to patrol areas of the South China Sea where territorial tensions flare with China.

Countries could streamline cooperation on maritime security while respecting sovereignty and coastal space, as in the case of counter-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden, Vice Admiral Robert Thomas said Tuesday at the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition in Malaysia.

The U.S. has reassured allies in the region it will back them against China's assertions to about four-fifths of the sea. China has ratcheted up pressure on some Association of Southeast Asian Nations members, and has accelerated reclamation work on reefs in the waters criss-crossed by claims from Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia.

"Perhaps easier said than done, from both a policy and organization perspective, such an initiative could help crystallize the operational objectives in the training events that Asean navies want to pursue," Thomas said at a panel session with navy chiefs. "If Asean members were to take the lead in organizing something along those lines, trust me, the U.S. 7th Fleet would be ready to support."

India, Japan

Singapore Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen said in an interview on March 16 that his country would welcome India playing a greater role in the South China Sea. In January, Thomas said the U.S. would encourage an extension of Japanese air patrols into the area. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott signed an agreement today to host Vietnam forces for training.

Both countries "support freedom of navigation by air and by sea in the South China Sea, we both deplore any unilateral change to the status quo," he said in Canberra.

At Langkawi, the U.S. is exhibiting two F/A-18F Super Hornets, a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, as well as the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh equipped with a MH-60R helicopter. The scale of the U.S. delegation to the show held every two years underscores its increased focus on the region.

''There's a lot of competition I would say in the South China Sea, but for the United States our goal is just peaceful resolution of any conflict,'' said Captain John Enfield, a deputy Navy commander who flies one of the F/A-18F Super Hornets. ''The U.S. doesn't get dragged'' into a discussion about resources, he said in an interview.

Code of Conduct

China agreed to talks with Asean over a code of conduct for the South China Sea in July 2013, but little progress has been made. The government in Beijing signed a non-binding declaration of conduct in 2002, which calls on parties to refrain from ''inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays and other features.''

The maritime force is ''a nice idea, but it'll never be anything meaningful,'' said Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

''Creating interoperability will be a nightmare, you need common communications equipment, intelligence-sharing agreements,'' he said. ''Above all you need a common threat perception.''

Asean has consistently called for parties to show restraint on the South China Sea and preserve freedom of navigation. The 10-member bloc has avoided singling out China, its largest trading partner.

In May last year, rioters damaged Chinese businesses and factories in Vietnam after China parked an oil exploration rig in contested waters near the Paracel Islands. China warned of a hit to trade and investment ties unless the protests were halted. Several months later it withdrew the rig.

Asean nations are consistently occupied with managing conflicting boundary claims in the South China Sea, Malaysia Defense Minister Hussein Hishammuddin said Tuesday. This remains a major obstacle to upholding Asean's zone of peace, freedom and neutrality, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Sharon Chen in Singapore at schen462@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rosalind Mathieson at rmathieson3@bloomberg.net Andy Sharp

Quote from: spuwho on March 17, 2015, 01:23:34 PM
Its 1923 all over again. Except its not the Japanese Imperial government looking for natural resources, its the DPRC.

...

Something bad will happen before its gets adequate attention.

Good thing the USA had not outsourced their manufacturing capabilities to Japan and Germany back then....

U.S. Navy alarmed at Beijing's 'Great Wall of Sand' in South China Sea

China is building "a great wall of sand" through an unprecedented program of land reclamation in the South China Sea, raising concerns about the possibility of military confrontation in the disputed waters, according to the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Admiral Harry Harris Jr. told a naval conference in Australia late Tuesday that competing territorial claims by several nations in the South China Sea are "increasing regional tensions and the potential for miscalculation," the Associated Press reported.

"But what's really drawing a lot of concern in the here and now is the unprecedented land reclamation currently being conducted by China," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-navy-alarmed-at-beijings-great-wall-of-sand-in-south-china-sea/2015/04/01/dda11d76-70d7-4b69-bd87-292bd18f5918_story.html

So people are offended by the "Great Wall of Sand", so the Chinese are offended by the Philippines rebuilding a old military installation in the same area. Lots of "offended" people it seems.

Per Reuters:

Philippines dismisses China concerns over South China Sea military repairs

(http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20150328&t=2&i=1036069391&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=LYNXMPEB2R03B)
Members of the Philippine marines are transported on a rubber boat from a patrol ship, after a mission at the disputed Second Thomas Shoal, part of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, as they return to a naval forces camp in Palawan province, southwest Philippines...

(Reuters) - The Philippines dismissed concerns by China over its plan to repair military facilities in South China Sea, a foreign ministry spokesman said on Saturday, insisting Manila has sovereign rights over territories in the disputed areas.

The possible repair "is no way comparable to China's massive reclamation activities, which not only violate international law...but also unnecessarily raise regional tensions", spokesman Charles Jose said in a statement.

"China's recent statement expressing concern over what the Philippines plan to do should not distract us from the real issues in the South China Sea, which are China's illegitimate 'nine-dash line' claim," Jose said.

Maritime lawyers note Beijing routinely outlines the scope of its claims with reference to the so-called nine-dashed line that takes in about 90 percent of the 3.5 million square kilometers South China Sea on Chinese maps.

The South China Sea is believed to be rich in oil and gas. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan lay claim to parts of the sea, where about $5 trillion of ship-borne trade passes every year.

The territorial dispute is seen as one of Asia's hot spots, carrying risks that it could spiral out of control and result in conflict as countries aggressively stake their claims.

On Friday, China's foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said it was "seriously concerned" by the remarks by Philippine Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario on the possible resumption of repairs on an airstrip on Thitu Island.

"This is not only a serious infringement of China's sovereignty, but it also exposes the Philippines' hypocrisy," she told a daily news briefing, calling on the Philippines to withdraw from the islands.

Manila had halted activities last year over concerns about the effect on an international arbitration complaint it filed against China in 2013. A decision is expected in early 2016. Hua repeated that China would not participate in the case.

Manila called on all claimant-states last October to stop construction work on small islands and reefs in the South China Sea. China itself is undertaking massive reclamation works in the area, while Taiwan, Malaysia and Vietnam have also been improving their facilities.

http://www.janes.com/article/50714/china-s-first-runway-in-spratlys-under-construction

QuoteChina's first runway in Spratlys under construction

(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/714/50714/SCS_-_main.jpg)

Key Points
•Satellite imagery shows that China has begun building a runway on reclaimed parts of Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands
•The imagery, provided by Airbus Defence and Space, also shows China building islands on Subi Reef that if linked up would provide enough land for another airstrip

China has begun to build its first airstrip in the Spratly Islands, according to IHS Jane's analysis of Airbus Defence and Space satellite imagery taken in March.

The 23 March images show a paved section of runway 503 m by 53 m on the northeastern side of Fiery Cross Reef, which China began to turn into an island in late 2014. Paving and ground preparation of other sections of the runway has also begun further along the island. In addition, workers have paved about 400 m by 20 m of apron.

(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/714/50714/Satim_-_main.jpg)

Other imagery taken in March also shows China could be building a second airstrip-capable island on Subi Reef.

China's island building at Fiery Cross Reef has created a landmass that is capable of housing a runway about 3,000 m long. This would be well within the parameters of existing People's Liberation Army Air Force runways on mainland China, which vary in length from about 2,700 m to 4,000 m at most.

The runway at Woody Island in the Paracel Islands was about 2,300 m before upgrade work started there in 2014; satellite imagery suggests China is also expanding that to be about 3,000 m long.

The 23 March imagery of Fiery Cross Reef also shows further dredging on the new island's southwestern side, close to the extant platform that China originally built on the reef. The imagery also shows floating cranes consolidating the integrity of new island's harbour by placing concrete blocks on the interior walls; an exterior sea wall has also been extended, presumably to provide better protection for ships in port.

Airbus imagery taken of Subi Reef – also in the Spratlys – on 6 February and 5 March shows land reclamation on this site too. The 6 February image shows three islands being created. By 5 March, at least nine dredgers are creating larger landmasses on the reef that if joined together could create enough land for another 3,000 m-long airstrip.

While Fiery Cross Reef is to the west of the Spratly Islands archipelago, Subi Reef is on the north side of the island group and is only 25 km from Thitu/Pagasa island, which is occupied by the Philippines and has a civilian population.

The Chinese own all the planes the US have, so they were just doing an inspection of their property.

One land boring torpedo from a submerged submarine would decimate that runway pretty easily being so close to the shoreline.  Having compacted sand on top of a coral reef makes for easy unavailability. (in military terms)

I might add that along with the US, the Philippines, ROC Taiwan and now DRPC China will have runways in some fashion or form in the area.  It's not like they are the first ones, just currently the busiest.

"Land boring torpedo"??  Really??  ::)

Check out the map... closely...  Notice where the Chinese landmass is... then notice their claimed territorial seas.

Notice the Blue diamond... this is the area in question... specifically the north east corner of the diamond.

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--9qvATfGy--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/gtwuvbmnw59ni4ths992.png)

Here is another map... illustrating the importance of the area...

(http://www.southchinasea.org/files/2013/02/LNG_trade_flows-US-EIA-2011.png)

or this one...

(http://www.southchinasea.org/files/2013/02/oil_trade_flows_map-US-EIA-2011.png)

Spuwho... you mentioned US airfields in the area...The nearest US airbase is in Okinawa, Guam or Thailand.  We are sometimes granted usage of fields in the Philippines and Singapore.  Certainly none in the "islands" we are talking about...

The US has no active airfields in the Spratlys today, however there are a few US built airfields on a couple of reefs. I believe one is used by a local island council and the other is abandoned.

There is a torpedo designed to penetrate certain ocean defenses, similar to a bunker buster but water borne. I tried to find a link on one but couldnt. I saw it in a documentary.

Quote from: spuwho on April 23, 2015, 07:48:49 AM
The US has no active airfields in the Spratlys today, however there are a few US built airfields on a couple of reefs. I believe one is used by a local island council and the other is abandoned.

There is a torpedo designed to penetrate certain ocean defenses, similar to a bunker buster but water borne. I tried to find a link on one but couldnt. I saw it in a documentary.

There is no such torpedo... nor is their airfields... certainly none capable of military use.  When you find the torpedo or the airfield please post.

Did you notice where mainland China was with respect to the Spratleys?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2015, 08:02:36 AM

Quote from: spuwho on April 23, 2015, 07:48:49 AM
The US has no active airfields in the Spratlys today, however there are a few US built airfields on a couple of reefs. I believe one is used by a local island council and the other is abandoned.

There is a torpedo designed to penetrate certain ocean defenses, similar to a bunker buster but water borne. I tried to find a link on one but couldnt. I saw it in a documentary.

There is no such torpedo... nor is their airfields... certainly none capable of military use.  When you find the torpedo or the airfield please post.

Did you notice where mainland China was with respect to the Spratleys?

Johnston Atoll is one

Of course... since Hawaii is so close to China...

(http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_australia_and_oceania/maps_of_johnston_atoll/johnston_atoll_detailed_location_map.jpg)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2015, 08:02:36 AM

Quote from: spuwho on April 23, 2015, 07:48:49 AM
The US has no active airfields in the Spratlys today, however there are a few US built airfields on a couple of reefs. I believe one is used by a local island council and the other is abandoned.

There is a torpedo designed to penetrate certain ocean defenses, similar to a bunker buster but water borne. I tried to find a link on one but couldnt. I saw it in a documentary.

There is no such torpedo... nor is their airfields... certainly none capable of military use.  When you find the torpedo or the airfield please post.

Did you notice where mainland China was with respect to the Spratleys?

Went back and looked and got the wrong island chain. US had no presence in Spratly/Paracel archipelago.

During WWII the Japanese had garrisons theoughout, but no airfields.

I am still looking up that torpedo, I know I wasnt dreaming it. I am checking Janes.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2015, 08:22:46 AM
Of course... since Hawaii is so close to China...

(http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_australia_and_oceania/maps_of_johnston_atoll/johnston_atoll_detailed_location_map.jpg)

I never said it was, just an example of a US built reef base.

Quote from: acme54321 on April 23, 2015, 03:49:26 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 23, 2015, 08:22:46 AM
Of course... since Hawaii is so close to China...

(http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_australia_and_oceania/maps_of_johnston_atoll/johnston_atoll_detailed_location_map.jpg)

I never said it was, just an example of a US built reef base.

Well sort of... Johnston was always an island... while the Chinese are actually building an island first... where one never existed... then building an airbase and port facilities.

Here are some other new South China sea islands now becoming... China...

https://johnib.wordpress.com/tag/fiery-cross-reef/

Before and After... Gaven Reefs
(https://i1.wp.com/si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-HA040_0218cr_J_20150218122354.jpg)

Before... Johnson South Reef
(https://i1.wp.com/si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-HA031_0218cr_J_20150218121920.jpg)

After Johnson South Reef
(https://i0.wp.com/si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-HA026_0218cr_J_20150218121920.jpg)

China tell SoS Kerry, our islands in the China Sea are "unshakable".

Per NYTimes:

China Stands by Its Claims Over South China Sea Reefs (//http://)

(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/05/17/world/DIPLO/DIPLO-master675.jpg)

BEIJING — China's top diplomat, emerging from talks here with Secretary of State John Kerry, suggested Saturday that Beijing had no intention of scaling back island-building efforts in the South China Sea that have aggravated tensions in waters claimed by a number of neighboring governments.

At a news conference, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Chinese claims over a collection of uninhabited reefs off the coast of the Philippines were "unshakable," suggesting that Mr. Kerry's message that China help reduce tensions in the region had fallen on deaf ears.

"The determination of the Chinese side to safeguard our own sovereignty and territorial integrity is as firm as a rock," Mr. Wang said.

Mr. Kerry, on his fifth visit to China as secretary of state, is ostensibly here to discuss plans for a White House summit meeting between President Obama and President Xi Jinping, and an annual gathering of Chinese and American officials that is scheduled to take place next month in Washington.

During their talks Saturday morning, the two men said they had covered a range of issues that both sides have cooperated on in the past: climate change, Iran's nuclear program and improved military relations between Washington and Beijing.

"There is no question but that our nations share extraordinary opportunities that are looking at us as we build the history of this century," Mr. Kerry said. "We have a lot to accomplish together in the coming years."

But China's ramped-up dredging efforts in the South China Sea, which began after Mr. Xi took power three years ago, have become an increasingly nettlesome issue for Washington. Although the United States does not have a position on the overlapping territorial claims by China and five other governments, it says it is committed to freedom of navigation in the area, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.

The most recent surge of land reclamation in the atolls and outcroppings known as the Spratlys is 1,000 miles from China's southernmost point, Hainan Island, but just off the coast of the Philippines, an American treaty ally.

Recent satellite images show that the Chinese have vastly expanded a number of reefs in the Spratlys, and that they are building a concrete runway on one island capable of handling military aircraft.

State Department officials said last week that Mr. Kerry would deliver a tough message to Chinese leaders, although his public comments on Saturday were subdued.

"I urged China through Foreign Minister Wang to take actions that will join everybody in helping to reduce tensions and increase the prospect of a diplomatic solution," Mr. Kerry said.

The news conference was carefully scripted, with Chinese officials allowing only two questions: one from a Western news outlet directed at Mr. Kerry, and another posed to Mr. Wang by a reporter from China's state news media.

Mr. Kerry, however, declined to respond to what was undoubtedly the most anticipated question of the day: what were his thoughts on the news that the Pentagon was considering sending military aircraft and ships to within 12 nautical miles of the Spratlys as a show of American resolve.

It was Mr. Wang, however, who responded to the question, broaching the agreed-upon protocol and suggesting that the presence of American military aircraft in the region would have little effect on China's island-expanding venture. "It is the people's demand of the government and our legitimate right," he said.

https://www.youtube.com/v/4eSOMcpLdyk

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/politics/south-china-sea-navy-flight/index.html

QuoteExclusive: China warns U.S. surveillance plane

By Jim Sciutto, Chief National Security Correspondent

Updated 8:13 AM ET, Thu May 21, 2015


Above the South China Sea (CNN)—The Chinese navy issued warnings eight times as a U.S. surveillance plane on Wednesday swooped over islands that Beijing is using to extend its zone of influence.

The series of man-made islands and the massive Chinese military build-up on them have alarmed the Pentagon, which is carrying out the surveillance flights in order to make clear the U.S. does not recognize China's territorial claims. The militarized islands have also alarmed America's regional allies.

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell told CNN's Erin Burnett Wednesday night that the confrontation indicates there is "absolutely" a risk of the U.S. and China going to war sometime in the future.

A CNN team was given exclusive access to join in the surveillance flights over the contested waters, which the Pentagon allowed for the first time in order to raise awareness about the challenge posed by the islands and the growing U.S. response.

CNN was aboard the P8-A Poseidon, America's most advanced surveillance and submarine-hunting aircraft, and quickly learned that the Chinese are themselves displeased by the U.S. pushback.

"This is the Chinese navy ... This is the Chinese navy ... Please go away ... to avoid misunderstanding," a voice in English crackled through the radio of the aircraft in which CNN was present.

This is the first time the Pentagon has declassified video of China's building activity and audio of Chinese challenges of a U.S. aircraft.

The aircraft flew at 15,000 feet in the air at its lowest point, but the U.S. is considering flying such surveillance missions even closer over the islands, as well as sailing U.S. warships within miles of them, as part of the new, more robust U.S. military posture in the area.

Soon after the Chinese communication was heard, its source appeared on the horizon seemingly out of nowhere: an island made by China some 600 miles from its coastline.

The South China Sea is the subject of numerous rival -- often messy -- territorial claims over an area that includes fertile fishing grounds and potentially rich reserves of undersea natural resources. China is increasingly showing that even far from its mainland, it sees itself as having jurisdiction over the body of water.

Wednesday's mission was specifically aimed at monitoring Chinese activities on three islands that months ago were reefs barely peaking above the waves. Now they are massive construction projects that the U.S. fears will soon be fully functioning military installations.

China's alarming creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is one part of a broader military push that some fear is intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the region. Beijing is sailing its first aircraft carrier; equipping its nuclear missiles with multiple warheads; developing missiles to destroy us warships; and, now, building military bases far from its shores.

That's exactly what Morell warned may be coming if China continues down its current path. He warned on CNN that "there's a real risk, when you have this kind of confrontation, for something bad happening."

He added that China's aggressive growth hints at a broader trend as the Asian economic superpower continues to expand its influence and strength -- one that Morell said could "absolutely" lead to war between the U.S. and China.

"China is a rising power. We're a status quo power. We're the big dog on the block ... They want more influence," he said. "Are we going to move a little bit? Are they going to push? How is that dance going to work out? This is a significant issue for the next President of the United States."

War is "not in their interests, (and) it's not in our interests," Morell acknowledged.

"But absolutely, it's a risk," he said.

"I'm scratching my head like everyone else as to what's the (Chinese) end game here. We have seen increased activity even recently on what appears to be the building of military infrastructure," Capt. Mike Parker, commander of the fleet of P8 and P3 surveillance aircraft deployed to Asia, told CNN aboard the P8.

"We were just challenged 30 minutes ago and the challenge came from the Chinese navy, and I'm highly confident it came from ashore, this facility here," Parker said of the Chinese message for the U.S. plane to move away, as he pointed to an early warning radar station on an expanded Fiery Cross Reef.

In just two years, China has expanded these islands by 2,000 acres -- the equivalent of 1,500 football fields -- and counting, an engineering marvel in waters as deep as 300 feet.

In video filmed by the P8's surveillance cameras, we see that in addition to early warning radar, Fiery Cross Reef is now home to military barracks, a lofty lookout tower and a runway long enough to handle every aircraft in the Chinese military. Some call it China's "unsinkable aircraft carrier."

In a sign of just how valuable China views these islands to be, the new islands are already well protected.

From the cockpit, Lt. Cmdr Matt Newman told CNN, "There's obviously a lot of surface traffic down there: Chinese warships, Chinese coast guard ships. They have air search radars, so there's a pretty good bet they're tracking us."

The proof was loud and clear. The Chinese navy ordered the P8 out of the airspace eight times on this mission alone.

Each time, the American pilots told them calmly and uniformly that the P8 was flying through international airspace.

That answer sometimes frustrated the Chinese radio operator on the other end.

Once he responds with exasperation: "This is the Chinese navy ... You go!"

This is a military-to-military stand-off in the skies, but civilian aircraft can find themselves in the middle.

As was heard on the first of several Chinese warning on the radio, the pilot of a Delta flight in the area spoke on the same frequency, quickly identifying himself as commercial. The voice on the radio then identified himself as "the Chinese Navy" and the Delta flight went on its way.

The more China builds, U.S. commanders told CNN, the more frequently and aggressively the Chinese navy warns away U.S. military aircraft.

Over Fiery Cross Reef and, later, Mischief Reef, fleets of dozens of dredgers could be seen hard at work, sucking sand off the bottom of the sea and blowing it in huge plumes to create new land above the surface, while digging deep harbors below.

"We see this every day," Parker said. "I think they work weekends on this because we see it all the time."

Having the press ride along in a P8 right after Kerry brings it up at the diplomatic level means the US is ready to ratchet up the pressure.

Something bad will happen before common sense prevails.

The last country that tried to claim a vast quantity ocean as theirs didnt fare so well. The US did the same thing. Sent the fleet through it and they stop making claims.

What really concerns me was the Delta pilot whose flight who was in radio range of the argument. He declared his purpose so he wouldnt be mistaken as a target.

The next commerciial flight may not fare as well.

The US... Japan... Vietnam... Taiwan... Philippines... Malaysia... Australia... Singapore

And right on cue... here come the Chinese...

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-lethal-bombers-fly-over-japanese-strait-12943

QuoteChina's Lethal Bombers Fly Over Japanese Strait

Zachary Keck

May 21, 2015

China's Air Force conducted its first-ever drill in a strategic strait near Japan on Thursday.

According to China's Ministry of National Defense [4], the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAFF) conducted its first exercise over the Miyako Strait. PLAAF spokesperson Shen Jinke said that the drill aimed to "level up the PLA Air Force's mobility and combativeness."

The press release on the Ministry of National Defense's website stressed that the drill was not aimed at any country, and Shen was quoted as saying— according to the Shanghai Daily [5]— that: "In line with international laws and practices, offshore drills by the PLA Air Force beyond the First Island Chain will proceed in consideration of actual situations."

Although the press release did not specify which aircraft was used in the drills, the pictures revealed the pilots flew China's new Xian H-6K bomber. The H-6K is the most advanced  [6]variant of the H-6 bomber, which is a locally built version of the Russian Tupolev Tu-16 Badger [7] that Moscow first deployed during the 1950s. The PLAAF first received [8] a TU-16 bomber from the Soviet Union in 1958 and has been modifying it ever since.

Chinese state-owned media have previously described [9] the H-6K, which entered into service in 2013, as a "medium-sized craft designed for long-range attacks, stand-off attacks and large-area air patrol. Unlike its predecessor, the H-6K can carry cruise missiles under its wings. The H-6K also maneuvers more deftly than the H-6 and requires a smaller crew to operate."

Among the H-6K's greatest advancements is [10] "its use of two Russian-made 12-ton thrust D-30-KP2 turbofans and lighter-weight composites have reportedly extended its range by 30 percent to a combat radius of 3,500 km." With that range the bomber, which is nuclear capable, could be able to reach all the way to Hawaii.

The location of the latest drill is almost certain to unnerve Japanese officials. To begin with, the flyover was near the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, which Japan administers but China contests.

More importantly, the Miyako Strait is a gap 160 miles wide between Japan's Miyako and Okinawa islands. It provides the crucial gateway for China's North and East Sea Fleets to access the wider Western Pacific.

The Miyako Strait would also be a crucial battleground in any war between Japan and China, and Tokyo would likely use its favorably geography around the Strait to execute an anti-access/area-denial strategy against China.

As Kyle Mizokami has previously described [11] on The National Interest:

Japan, which spends roughly a quarter as much on defense as China, could use the Ryukyus to execute an Anti-Access, Area Denial (A2/AD) plan in the Miyako Strait. Like any good A2/AD strategy, such a plan in the Strait would require a fraction of the spending necessary to overcome it.

The PLAAF's drill over the Miyako Strait is a tacit recognition of this crucial weakness. It also shows a determination on the part of China to try and overcome this weakness over time. At the same time, the drill is also indicative of the Chinese Air Force's desire to conduct training exercises further away from the mainland. Back in March, the PLAAF conducted its first ever drill over the Western Pacific. That one was conducted over the Bashi Channel, a waterway between Taiwan and the Philippines.

The new drill comes just a day after China issued eight warnings to a U.S. Navy surveillance plane flying over Beijing's man-made islands in the South China Sea.

"This is the Chinese navy ... This is the Chinese navy ... Please go away ... to avoid misunderstanding," the Chinese Navy warned the P8-A Poseidon, according to CNN [12], which had reporters embedded on the U.S. Navy plane.

(http://nationalinterest.org/files/main_images/Picture_131.jpg)

More information from P-8 flight including raw video...

http://amti.csis.org/flight-of-the-poseidon-new-navy-footage-released/

QuoteThe U.S. Navy has released video of a P-8A flight over China's artificial islands in the South China Sea. Some of this video has been released via a CNN exclusive, but it also includes additional, stunning footage of aerial patrols in the Spratlys.  In these video clips, sailors assigned to Patrol Squadron (VP) 45 conduct flight operations aboard a P-8A Poseidon over the South China Sea. During the flight, the crew of the P-8A documented several warnings, issued by China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), to leave the area.

A handwritten transcript shown by one of the communications officers in the video reads:

Chinese facility: "Foreign military airplane you are approaching my military secure ... please go away quickly in order to (indiscernable)... Station calling U.S. military aircraft, please identify yourself."

P-8A Poseidon: "I am a United States military aircraft conducting lawful military activities acting outside national airspace. I am with due regard in accordance with international law."

The mission documented the continued expansion of reefs which have been turned into man-made islands with airport infrastructure in the South China Sea. Dozens of dredgers and naval craft are visible operating within the lagoons and harbors of Subi Reef, Mischief Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef. VP-45 is on deployment supporting U.S. 7th Fleet operations in the Pacific.

https://www.youtube.com/v/PeKnUKeVDMo


https://www.youtube.com/v/4IRMFRZZUJ4

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 21, 2015, 01:18:15 PM
The US... Japan... Vietnam... Taiwan... Philippines... Malaysia... Australia... Singapore

I was thinking of Libya and the Gulf of Sidra.

Quote from: spuwho on May 21, 2015, 07:10:05 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 21, 2015, 01:18:15 PM
The US... Japan... Vietnam... Taiwan... Philippines... Malaysia... Australia... Singapore

I was thinking of Libya and the Gulf of Sidra.

you said...

Quotethe US is ready to ratchet up the pressure.

I listed many of the other countries who have already been upping the pressure... as for the Gulf of Sidra... I have a couple hundred hours flying through there... same with south china sea... it is all international airspace.  8)

Quote from: spuwho on May 21, 2015, 12:20:21 PM
Something bad will happen before common sense prevails.

That's my fear as well.  Or worse, something bad will happen that starts a chain reaction of even worse things.

Going through the press appears to have worked. Chinese file protest over US Navy overflight.  The Chinese equivalent of Fox News speaks out.

Per Reuters:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN0OA0DY20150525?irpc=932

China lodges complaint with U.S. over spy plane flight

BEIJING (Reuters) - China said it had lodged a complaint with the United States over a U.S. spy plane that flew over parts of the disputed South China Sea in a diplomatic row that has fuelled tension between the world's two largest economies.

Friction in the region has grown over China's land reclamation in the Spratly islands. China last week said it was "strongly dissatisfied" after a U.S. spy plane flew over areas near the reefs, with both sides accusing each other of stoking instability.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said on Monday China had lodged a complaint and that it opposed "provocative behaviour" by the United States.

"We urge the U.S. to correct its error, remain rational and stop all irresponsible words and deeds," she said. "Freedom of navigation and overflight by no means mean that foreign countries' warships and military aircraft can ignore the legitimate rights of other countries as well as the safety of aviation and navigation."

China had noted "ear-piercing voices" from many in the U.S. about China's construction on the islands and reefs.

The nationalist Global Times, a tabloid owned by the ruling Communist Party's official newspaper, the People's Daily, said war was "inevitable" between China and the United States unless Washington stopped demanding Beijing halt the building of artificial islands in the disputed waterway.

It said China was determined to finish its construction work, calling it the country's "most important bottom line".

Such commentaries are not official policy statements, but are sometimes read as a reflection of government thinking.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims.

The United States has routinely called on all claimants to halt reclamation in the Spratlys, but accuses China of carrying out work on a scale that far outstrips any other country.

Washington has also vowed to keep up air and sea patrols in the South China Sea amid concerns among security experts that China might impose air and sea restrictions in the Spratlys once it completes work on its seven artificial islands.

China has said it has every right to set up an Air Defence Identification Zone in the South China Sea but that current conditions did not warrant one.

The Global Times said "risks are still under control" if Washington takes into account China's peaceful rise.

"We do not want a military conflict with the United States, but if it were to come, we have to accept it," the newspaper said.

China's state media has stepped up its rhetoric against the United States, warning that the row over the South China Sea could hurt broader relations. But there appears to be little popular anger among the Chinese population so far, judging from sentiment expressed on Weibo, China's version of Twitter.

Quote from: finehoe on May 22, 2015, 08:08:04 AM

Quote from: spuwho on May 21, 2015, 12:20:21 PM
Something bad will happen before common sense prevails.

That's my fear as well.  Or worse, something bad will happen that starts a chain reaction of even worse things.

And "common sense" would be...?

http://time.com/3895715/the-south-china-seas-ticking-time-bomb/

(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/combo-map.png?w=560&h=363)

QuoteThe South China Sea's Ticking Time Bomb

Mark Thompson @MarkThompson_DC
May 25, 2015

Beijing is bulldozing sand into the eyes of the world

When it comes to international relations, there are many ways to change the situation on the ground. But the Chinese are trying a new one far off their coast: they are creating new ground.

It's part of Beijing's plan to extend its claim to 90% of the South China Sea, and now the Chinese government is ordering the U.S. and other nations to steer clear, or at least to seek permission before visiting the neighborhood.

Sure, it's not a whole lot of land. China has dredged about 2,000 acres of once-submerged sand to enlarge five islets in the Spratly Islands between Vietnam and the Philippines. That's a 0.00009% increase in the country's total land mass of 2.3 billion acres or roughly three times the size of New York City's Central Park.

But if China continues on its present course—and the international community doesn't back down—military confrontation seems likely. Luckily, China must reinforce its military claims to the disputed islands before such a showdown, which gives each side time for negotiation.

China said Monday that it had formally complained to Washington about its "provocative behavior" following the flight of a U.S. Navy surveillance plane over the region last week. The Chinese had warned the a U.S. Navy P-8 surveillance plane eight times to leave Chinese airspace as it flew near Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys. The Navy plane refused.

"We urge the U.S. to correct its error, remain rational and stop all irresponsible words and deeds," foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Monday. "Freedom of navigation and overflight by no means mean that foreign countries' warships and military aircraft can ignore the legitimate rights of other countries as well as the safety of aviation and navigation."

China's claim of extended sovereignty is upsetting its neighbors, including the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam, as well as Washington. But their denunciations will be little match for the changes coming to the South China Sea sandscape. Unlike U.S. and allied rhetoric about international law, the Chinese are literally making concrete claims in the Spratlys.

"They have manufactured land there at a staggering pace just in the last months," U.S. Navy Admiral Harry Harris, who becomes commander of U.S. Pacific Command on Wednesday, tells Time. "They're still going," he adds. "They've also made massive construction projects on artificial islands for what are clearly, in my point of view, military purposes, including large airstrips and ports."

So far, beyond words of warning to those getting too close to what China contends is its territory, it has only dredging gear, bulldozers and graders to enforce its claim. So the U.S. is ignoring it. But that, Pentagon officials believe, is all but certain to change. And as it changes, the stakes, and resulting tensions, will grow.

The U.S. Navy is weighing dispatching additional warships to the region to buttress its claim that these are international waters. Washington insists that contested sovereignty claims must be resolved through diplomacy and not dredging.

The Chinese digging is happening atop "submerged features that do not generate territorial claims," David Shear, the Pentagon's top Pacific civilian, told a Senate panel May 13. "So, it is difficult to see how Chinese behavior in particular comports with international law."

Such legal niceties are not deterring Beijing. China is building built a long airstrip and has deployed an early-warning radar on the Spratly's Fiery Cross Reef. That will give the Chinese improved detection of what it claims are intruders into its national airspace.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has pushed China's claim of sovereignty further out into the South China Sea, where it conflicts with claims of local U.S. allies like the Philippines. The U.S. says it can fly within 12 miles of a nation's coast, while China says its permission is needed for any flights coming within 200 miles.

The early-warning radar, U.S. officials believe, is only the first step in China's quest to control one of the world's most vital waterways. More than $5 trillion in goods passes through the South China Sea every year. It contains rich fishing grounds, and potentially great reserves of oil and other natural resources.

The sea is speckled with more than 30,000 islands, making conflicting territorial claims common. The Spratlys consist of some 750 islets and atolls. While spread across 164,000 square miles—the size of California—they total only 1.5 square miles.

The Chinese are likely to bolster their early-warning radar on Fiery Cross Reef with air-defense radars, U.S. Navy officials believe. Once early-warning radars detect incoming aircraft, they will hand off that information to the air-defense radars, which would allow the Chinese to track—and target—any incoming aircraft.

But air-defense radars and the blips they reveal on China's radar screens are worthless without anything to back them up. So the air-defense radars, U.S. officials believe, ultimately will be tied into a network of air-defense missiles. They'll be capable of shooting down any interlopers.

Once an air-defense network is in place, China will probably reinforce its claim to what it views as its growing archipelago by basing fighter aircraft there.

Shear, the Pentagon official, noted that China's land grab is different than Russia's now underway in Ukraine. "China is not physically seizing territory possessed by or controlled by another country," he said. "They're not evicting people from contested land features. They're not nationalizing territory."

But they are building an aircraft carrier some 1,000 miles from the Chinese mainland. No one knows better than the U.S. Navy the value of an airfield in the middle of an ocean.

Sure, it won't be moveable. But it also won't be sinkable.

The Chinese double down. Announce new military and navigational enhancements in the Spratlys.

Per Reuters:

China to extend military reach, build lighthouses in disputed waters


BEIJING (Reuters) - China outlined a strategy to boost its naval reach on Tuesday and held a groundbreaking ceremony for two lighthouses in disputed waters, developments likely to escalate tensions in a region already jittery about Beijing's maritime ambitions.

In a policy document issued by the State Council, the Communist-ruled country's cabinet, China vowed to increase its "open seas protection", switching from air defense to both offense and defense, and criticized neighbors who take "provocative actions" on its reefs and islands.

China has been taking an increasingly assertive posture over recent years in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, where Beijing has engaged in land reclamation in the Spratly archipelago.

China, which claims most of the South China Sea, criticized Washington after a U.S. spy plane flew over areas near the reefs last week, with both sides accusing each other of stoking instability.

It has overlapping claims with the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei in the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year.

Defence Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun said China's reclamation in the Spratlys was comparable with construction of homes and roads on the mainland.

"From the perspective of sovereignty, there is absolutely no difference," he told reporters.

Some countries with "ulterior motives" had unfairly characterized China's military presence and sensationalized the issue, he said. Surveillance in the region was increasingly common and China would continue to take "necessary measures" to respond.

"Some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs. A tiny few maintain constant close-in air and sea surveillance and reconnaissance against China," the strategy paper said in a thinly veiled reference to the United States.

OFFENSE AND DEFENSE

It said China's air force would shift its focus from territorial air defense to both offense and defense, and building airspace defenses with stronger military capabilities.

China also hosted a groundbreaking ceremony for the building of two lighthouses in the South China Sea, broadcast on state television, defying calls from the United States and the Philippines for a freeze on such activity.

The construction was to help maritime search and rescue, disaster relief, environmental protection and navigational security, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.

Wu Shicun, president of the government-affiliated National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said the lighthouses were among the first of planned civilian-use facilities in the region.

"The reefs are located near an important commercial shipping route, so there will be continued development to maintain the security of those shipping lanes," he said in an interview with Reuters.

The People's Liberation Army's nuclear force, known as the Second Artillery Corps, would also strengthen its capabilities for deterrence and nuclear counterattack as well as medium- and long-range precision strikes, the paper said.

"China faces many complex maritime security threats and challenges and requires a navy that can carry out multifaceted missions and protect its sovereignty," Wang Jin, a senior colonel, told reporters.

The paper also cited "grave threats" to China's cyber infrastructure, adding that China would hasten development of a cyber military force.

Self-ruled Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province, called on all South China Sea claimants to shelve their disagreements to enable talks on sharing resources before a conflict breaks out.

Japan meanwhile will join a major U.S.-Australian military exercise for the first time in a sign of growing security links between the three countries as tensions fester over China's moves.

All three nations have said they are concerned about freedom of movement through the South China Sea and air space.

China's Ministry of Defence said on Tuesday it had carried out military training for party cadres from border and coastal areas on border defense, among other topics.

The trainees, who visited military combat units, developed a better understanding of the "national security situation", said a statement on the ministry's website.

More audio of radio transmissions...  The phrase... "I'm a U.S. military aircraft conducting lawful military activities outside national airspace; I'm operating with due regard as required under International Law." is standard for our aircraft.  I have been on P-3's using the same reply to the Iranians... the Libyans... the N. Koreans... the Soviets... and of course...the Chinese.  8)

https://www.youtube.com/v/gwgdp-jDtEM

QuoteA P-8A Poseidon from Patrol Squadron (VP) 45 captures surveillance footage of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) conducting land reclamation operations in the South China Sea.

On May 20, a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft belonging to Patrol Squadron (VP) 45 conducted a routing surveillance flight over the South China Sea, where has started building an airstrip on the disputed Spratly Islands in the waters claimed by the Philippines.

During the flight, the crew of the P-8A documented several warnings, issued by China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), most probably on the International Emergency ("Guard") frequency 121.5 MHz, to leave the area as the U.S. military plane was approaching their military alert zone.

Interestingly, the U.S. aircraft replies to the Chinese Navy operators urging it to leave their area "quickly" as follows:

"Station calling U.S. military plane, please identify yourself".

Then, after receiving confirmation that it was a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) operator, the answer is always the same: "I'm a U.S. military aircraft conducting lawful military activities outside national airspace; I'm operating with due regard as required under International Law."

The audio seems to be disturbed by some kind of jamming.

I guess having Chinese bombers fly through the Sea of Japan got some attention.

Per Reuters:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OA1GE20150526?irpc=932

Japan to join U.S., Australia war games amid growing China tensions


SYDNEY (Reuters) - Japan will join a major U.S.-Australian military exercise for the first time in a sign of growing security links between the three countries as tensions fester over China's island building in the South China Sea.

While only 40 Japanese officers and soldiers will take part in drills involving 30,000 U.S. and Australian troops in early July, experts said the move showed how Washington wanted to foster cooperation among its security allies in Asia.

The Talisman Sabre biennial exercises, to be held in locations around Australia, will encompass maritime operations, amphibious landings, special forces tactics and urban warfare.

"I think the U.S. is trying to get its allies to do more," said Euan Graham, director of the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute in Sydney.

"There is an obvious symmetry between Japan as the upper anchor of the Western Pacific alliance and ... Australia as the southern anchor."

All three nations have said they were concerned about freedom of movement through the seas and air in the disputed South China Sea, where China is creating seven artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago, a vital shipping corridor.

Some security experts say China might impose air and sea restrictions in the Spratlys once it completes construction work that includes at least one military airstrip. China has said it had every right to set up an Air Defence Identification Zone but that current conditions did not warrant one.

China claims most of the South China Sea. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei also have overlapping claims.

The Japanese personnel will embed with U.S. forces while 500 New Zealand troops will join Australian contingents, according to the Australian Defence Force website.

Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani rebuffed suggestions the exercises were aimed at China, telling Reuters that Japan simply wanted to improve military cooperation with the United States and Australia.

China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, asked if Beijing was concerned the exercises appeared to be targeted toward China, said it was "not worried".

"We believe the relevant countries should all play a proactive and constructive role to strengthen mutual trust and cooperation between countries in the region," she said at a regular news briefing.

Secretary of Defense weighs in...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/05/27/defense-secretarys-warning-to-china-u-s-military-wont-change-operations/

QuoteDefense secretary's warning to China: U.S. military won't change operations
By Craig Whitlock May 27 at 5:45 PM

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter bluntly warned China Wednesday to stop its buildup of man-made islands in the South China Sea and vowed that the U.S. military would continue to patrol international waters and airspace in the region.

Carter's comments, made at a ceremony in Hawaii to recognize Adm. Harry B. Harris, the new commander of U.S. military forces in the Pacific, further escalated a simmering rhetorical conflict between Washington and Beijing over access to the South China Sea and other Asian waters.

"There should be no mistake: the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world," Carter said at the U.S. military's joint base at Pearl Harbor.

China asserts sovereignty over 80 percent of the resource-rich sea, which includes some of the world's busiest shipping lanes, and has been aggressively staking its claims by building large artificial islands. The United States and its Asian allies have vigorously opposed China's territorial moves. With no one backing down, the impasse has raised the specter of a localized military conflict.

Last week, China tried to order a U.S. Navy Poseidon P-8A surveillance aircraft to leave an area near the disputed Spratly Islands where China has been turning a reef into an artificial island. The Navy spy plane, which was carrying a CNN news crew on board, ignored multiple Chinese warnings to change its course.

China's Foreign Ministry later blasted the U.S. military for "very irresponsible and also dangerous" actions. The Pentagon insisted the plane was flying in international airspace.

In his remarks Wednesday, Carter made clear that U.S. warships and planes would continue to patrol the region and ignore China's attempts to extend its maritime territorial limits. He accused China of raising tensions in an area where the U.S. Navy and Air Force have operated largely unfettered since the end of World War II.

"China is out of step with both international norms that underscore the Asia-Pacific's security architecture, and the regional consensus in favor of non-coercive approaches to this and other long-standing disputes," he said.

Carter's message was equally aimed at U.S. allies and partners in Asia who have wondered how Washington would react to China's military buildup and its attempts to exercise more influence on the region.

"China's actions are bringing countries in the region together in new ways," Carter said. "And they're increasing demand for American engagement in the Asia-Pacific. We're going to meet it. We will remain the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come."

Carter's visit to Hawaii marked the start of a 10-day trip to the Pacific region. He will speak at a regional security conference in Singapore, where the U.S.-China rivalry is expected to take center stage.

The Pentagon chief is also scheduled to visit Vietnam – whose territorial claims in the South China Sea are at odds with Beijing – and India.

No doubt, he is right.  Where opposition was fractured before, its coalescing now.

Its 1931 all over again. Hopefully it wont lead to another Mukden Incident and another Lytton Report.

At the planned Shangri-La conference in Singapore, it seems everyone got the stress off their chest.  After the US criticized some of the other countries involved, China applauded our attitude adjustment.

Per Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/31/us-asia-security-china-idUSKBN0OG02320150531 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/31/us-asia-security-china-idUSKBN0OG02320150531)

China, U.S. tone down rhetoric but far from South China Sea solution

(http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20150531&t=2&i=1052499980&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=LYNXMPEB4U00V)

After a months-long row over Beijing's island-building in the South China Sea, the United States and China were relatively restrained at Asia's top security forum this weekend, but no closer to any solution.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore that China was threatening security in the region with its maritime construction work, but acknowledged other claimant countries to the disputed sea were also at fault.

"There's no progress in the South China Sea (dispute), but the atmosphere has calmed a bit, thanks to reasonable consideration by all parties," said Major General Jin Yinan of China's National Defense University, a delegate at the conference. "The U.S. has adjusted its stance a little."

Admiral Sun Jianguo, a deputy chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army who headed the Chinese delegation, refrained from singling out the United States for criticism in his address and emphasized China's commitment to peaceful relations.

"China has always kept in mind the larger interests of maritime security," Sun said, reiterating that his country's "indisputable" claims over the waters were based on legal and historical evidence.

Nevertheless, Washington is under huge pressure to respond forcefully to the Chinese land reclamation, with Republican Senator John McCain, one of the participants at the dialogue, suggesting that U.S. ships and aircraft ignore the 12-nautical mile zone around the artificial islands.

"If we respected a 12-mile zone, then we would be making a mistake of enormous proportions because that would be de facto recognition of Chinese sovereignty," said McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

If U.S. vessels enter the zone, tensions would escalate sharply and there is no saying how Chinese forces based there would respond.

"If you look at the rhetoric, they are going to fight back," said Jia Qingguo, Dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University. "If you look at their interests, they may opt for rhetoric instead of action. But here the danger is of an accident-led conflict."

Admiral Harry Harris, newly appointed chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters his forces would continue to operate in the region "without limitation and in accordance with international law."

But he also said he wanted increased military-to-military ties with China, including the U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) joint naval exercises in 2016.

McCain and other critics of the administration have said China should be barred from RIMPAC to show U.S. disapproval of its actions.

AIR DEFENSE ZONE PROSPECTS

China also signaled it was not considering declaring an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which requires overflying aircraft to identify themselves, around the disputed islands anytime soon.

Such a move, which some U.S. military experts have seen as increasingly likely, would be viewed as provocative by Washington.

Sun said a decision on an ADIZ would be taken after an assessment of the security situation and taking "extensive factors" into consideration.

Jin, the major general, told Reuters Beijing was not planning such a move, although he added: "It's not a permanent promise, it's just China is not considering it at the moment."

Other countries participating in the dialogue warned the row could spiral out of control and called for responsible action.

Washington wants more Asian countries, including those from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to be more assertive against what it sees as Chinese expansionism.

But even Vietnam, which claims islands in the area where China is doing the reclamation work, said the major powers should have good relations with each other, otherwise smaller nations would suffer.

"No country in the region wants to choose between China and the United States," said Bonnie Glaser, a senior adviser at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"If the United States is too tough on China, then we run the risk of losing some of the members, especially ASEAN."

China is not the only country reclaiming land in South China Sea

It's time to get the facts straight on the military activities of all countries in the Spratly Islands before Washington intensifies its confrontation with China over Beijing's intentions.

The headlines have been about China's reclamation of some 2,000 acres from the South China Sea over the past 18 months and building military facilities on them.

Less attention has been paid — except by the Chinese — to smaller but similar reclamation and military construction efforts over the years and currently by Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, related to islands they claim in the Spratlys.

Taiwan, for example, has claimed Itu Aba Island since 1955, one of the largest in the Spratlys. It served as a Japanese submarine base during World War II and today tankers carrying most of China's imported oil pass nearby.

In 2008, Taiwan announced a new 3,900-foot airstrip had been completed on the island that would support search and rescue operations. It also could support military aircraft, as Taiwan's president proved that year when he landed in a C-130 transport plane.

The island now has a radar station, meteorological center and permanent troop support facilities for a Taiwanese marine unit.

More recently, Taiwan has begun a modest reclamation effort near the airstrip, which may be part of a proposed $100 million port designed to handle frigates and coast guard cutters.

Vietnam also has been expanding its holdings in the Spratlys, which lie just seven miles east of Taiwan's Itu Aba Island and were first occupied in 1975. On Sand Cay and West London Reef, Vietnam has been reclaiming land from the sea to build military facilities but at about one-tenth the size of China's project.

West London Reef's eastern sandbank has been expanded by two square miles and work on a harbor facility is underway, according to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). On the southern portion a fourth structure is joining three multi-story military facilities. Another is going up in the northern portion.

A surveillance facility sits at the eastern side of Sand Cay with a heliport next to it. The Vietnamese are also constructing a pier and a complex of defense structures, including what may be artillery emplacements bunkers, according to the CSIS .

On the Spratly Island of Zhongye Dao, the Philippine government has had a military airstrip since 1975 known as Ranudo Air Field. The Philippine air force announced in June 2014 that $11 million had been allocated to upgrade the 4,200-foot runway and navy port facilities. Aside from the air field, which has been able to accommodate C-130s since 2002, the island has a military detachment and small civilian population.

Malaysia is also in the Spratly picture. In early 2013, the Chinese held naval exercises near James Shoals, a reef some 50 miles off Malaysia's Borneo state of Sarawak, which Malaysia claims and is considered part of the Spratlys. In October 2013, Malaysian Defense Minister Hishamuddin Hussein announced his country's plan to establish a marine corps that would be stationed at a new naval base to be constructed at Bintulu in Sarawak.

On Saturday, at the International Institute for Strategic Studies Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter acknowledged, "It's true that almost all the nations that claim parts of the South China Sea have developed outposts over the years . . . of differing scope and degree."

Although Carter described China as "one country [that] has gone much further and much faster than any other," he added, "We also oppose any further militarization of disputed features."

Carter meant China and everyone else, but that may prove difficult for the United States to accomplish.

As the defense secretary pointed out, as Asian-Pacific "nations develop, as military spending increases, and as economies thrive — we expect to see changes in how countries define and pursue their interests and ambitions."

The United States, for example, is increasing its military presence in the area, though its mainland is 7,000 miles away and its closest states, Alaska and Hawaii, are 4,500 and 6,000 miles away respectively.

On Wednesday, Carter pointed out the "tremendous" U.S. forces already in the region: more than 350,000 military and civilian personnel, nearly 2,000 aircraft and 180 naval vessels.

On Saturday, he said, "As the United States develops new systems, [the Defense Department] will continue to bring the best platforms and people forward to the Asia-Pacific."

Meanwhile, the Chinese in their military white paper released Tuesday took a different view of the U.S. presence and its activities. In the paper, Beijing took aim at "some external countries" — no names mentioned — that "are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs," along with "a tiny few [who] maintain constant close-in air and sea surveillance and reconnaissance against China."

Should Americans be surprised that China says it is reorienting "from theater defense to trans-theater mobility," from solely "offshore waters defense" to "open seas protection" and moving from "territorial air defense to both [air force] defense and offense?"

The Defense Department's report on China's military, released May 8, calmly says, "China seeks to ensure basic stability along its periphery and avoid direct confrontation with the United States in order to focus on domestic development and smooth China's rise."

If true, it appears that Carter will prove correct when he said Wednesday in Hawaii: "We will remain the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/china-is-not-the-only-country-reclaiming-land-in-south-china-sea/2015/06/01/38817a58-0569-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html

It's the Marco Polo Bridge -v- Kwantung Army all over again!

The biggest difference is that Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Phillippines do not warn overflying aircraft they are in a military zone. They have been around for various amounts of time, but they dont threaten people when they come around.

That is what differentiates the Chinese response.

Quote from: spuwho on June 02, 2015, 01:36:09 PM
The biggest difference is that Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Phillippines do not warn overflying aircraft they are in a military zone. They have been around for various amounts of time, but they dont threaten people when they come around.

That is what differentiates the Chinese response.

Well that... and those countries are geographically close to the reefs being destroyed.  Many of them within actual territorial waters...  The article fails to mention most of the disputed reefs are 400-500 miles from China...  A simple look at the map shows those small countries claims as fairly reasonable while China's claim is... outlandishly huge. 

The pink line is China's claim...

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--9qvATfGy--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/gtwuvbmnw59ni4ths992.png)

http://www.janes.com/article/51939/philippines-making-progress-with-new-naval-base-near-spratlys

QuotePhilippines making progress with new naval base near Spratlys

Michael Cohen, Manila and James Hardy, London - IHS Jane's Navy International

01 June 2015

The Philippine Navy (PN) has released images of the first major access road to a pier being built in Oyster Inlet on the South China Sea side of Palawan Island.

Oyster Inlet, which is in Ulugan Bay and 18 km from Naval Station Carlito Cunanan, has been the site of a small pier and fresh water station since the 1950s. It is being expanded into a major naval anchorage along with three other nearby coves.

The expansion of Oyster Inlet was announced during a 2013 visit to the Ulugan Bay area by President Benigno Aquino. A PN statement released on 29 May described the building of the road network as a part of a three-year development that will make Oyster Inlet a major naval anchorage for the PN and "visiting allies".

A project development programme report describes a facility that will have a secure helipad, barracks, and amphibious jungle warfare training centre in the surrounding area of the peninsula. A coast watch radar station and communications centre is to be built on hills overlooking the site along with a defensive network of armed outposts and monitoring systems.

While most of the plans are classified, sources have suggested that an area forward joint operations centre for visiting "security and treaty partners" of the Philippines will also be built.

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1533861/philippines-us-fortifying-military-base-near-disputed-islands-amid-chinese?comment-sort=recommended&edition=hong-kong

Quote

Philippines turning Ulugan Bay, Palawan, from sleepy village to military base

Manila seeks to shore up its South China Sea defences - with the help of its US allies

As fears grow that China is on an aggressive South China Sea territorial grab, a sleepy Philippine village is being transformed into a major naval base that may host US warships.

Ulugan Bay, a small, picturesque cove encircled by thick mangroves, has suddenly become a vital part of the Philippine military's efforts to shore up its defence of contested South China Sea islands and waters.

Ulugan is on the west coast of the large western Philippine island of Palawan, only 160 kilometres from a small group of islands and islets within the Spratly archipelago known locally as the Kalayaan group.

The Spratlys are among the most prized assets in the decades-long but increasingly hostile struggle for control of parts of the South China Sea.

"This is the frontline of our territorial defence operations in the Kalayaan island group," President Benigno Aquino declared last month as he inspected the progress of a recently announced upgrade of a tiny naval station on the bay.

The sea has such importance because roughly half the world's shipping trade passes through it, while it is believed to contain enormous deposits of natural gas and has rich fishing grounds.

China and Taiwan say they have sovereign rights to nearly all of the sea, conflicting with the claims of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei to areas closer to their coasts.

The Philippines and Vietnam have expressed growing alarm in recent years at China's increasingly assertive tactics to stake its claims.

Most recently, the Philippines has accused China of reclaiming land at tiny reefs in the Spratlys to in effect create artificial islands that may be used to build air strips and other military installations.

US security blanket

In direct response to the fears over China, the Philippines has sought help from long-time ally the United States to bolster its poorly equipped armed forces with new hardware and training.

The Philippines and the United States also signed a new security pact when US President Barack Obama visited Manila in April that would soon allow a much greater American military presence on Filipino soil, including on expanded bases.

At Ulugan Bay, there is currently just a tiny naval station that serves as the command centre for the Filipino military unit responsible for safeguarding its South China Sea waters.

A small pier stands at the bay's most prized asset, a deep inlet called Oyster Bay with rich fishing grounds that help sustain the 1,700 residents of the nearby village of Macarascas.

As part of the upgrade, a much bigger pier, harbour and support facilities are being built to serve as a base for the navy's largest vessels, including two ex-US frigates acquired since 2011.

Aquino said the upgrade would also allow the navy to monitor ships by radar and conduct maritime surveillance through a satellite-based system.

However just 500 million pesos (US$11.4 million) is being spent on the Ulugan upgrade and analysts say the Philippines will not come close to having the capabilities to deter China, which spent US$119.5 billion on its military last year.

"I expect the strategy will allow the Philippine Navy to conduct limited defensive, small-boat missions," Roilo Golez, a former legislator and national security adviser, said.

A potential game changer, however, could be the addition of American troops and hardware, along with extra US money to further expand the facility.

Under the "enhanced defence cooperation agreement" signed between the treaty allies in April, US forces will have access to five Philippine military bases, allowing them to build facilities and rotate through thousands of troops. It will also allow the United States to deploy more aircraft, ships and equipment to these bases.

The Philippines has so far publicly offered the United States renewed access to Subic Bay, a former US naval base about 100 kilometres north of Manila that also projects onto the South China Sea.

It has not yet said Ulugan Bay will be used, and an announcement on which five bases have been chosen is not expected before October. But there are signs that Ulugan Bay will be chosen.

Macarascas residents said the US military had already built a gymnasium, a multi-purpose building and a water storage facility, suggesting this was part of their bedding-in with the community.

(https://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/486w/public/2014/06/16/a958f34c8c7d5e1d8f0dc0ad5abfdd2d_0.jpg?itok=rn0Dj2L6)

Best graphic I have found...  8)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dm1GtAa3QTU/VV89cieCfUI/AAAAAAAAVy0/JjjYocaBCyg/s1600/South_China_Sea_vector.svg.png)

^^^Where's it from?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:South_China_Sea_vector.svg

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48951000/gif/_48951920_south_china-sea_1_466.gif

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-warns-japan-stay-out-south-china-sea-13102

QuoteChina Warns Japan to Stay out of South China Sea
Zachary Keck
June 12, 2015

China is "gravely concerned and indignant" over Japan's plans to step patrols in the South China Sea.

In a regular scheduled press conference on Friday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Hong Lei, warned Japan to stay out of the South China Sea dispute.

"The Chinese side is gravely concerned and indignant about the negative moves of the Japanese side. We have lodged multiple solemn representations with Japan," Hong stated.

He went on to say:

Japan is not a party concerned to the South China Sea issue. Recently it has behaved in an abnormal way, deliberately thrust a hand in the South China Sea issue, driven a wedge among regional countries and maliciously created tensions in the South China Sea. Japan's moves do no good to solve the South China Sea disputes, or safeguard peace and stability of the South China Sea. It also severely damages the political and security mutual trust between China and Japan, and runs counter to the momentum of improving bilateral relations. We once again urge the Japanese side to abide by its commitment of not taking sides on the South China Sea disputes, put an immediate end to the hyping up of the South China Sea issue and groundless accusations against China, stop provoking conflicts among different parties for self-serving interests, genuinely maintain the momentum of improving Sino-Japanese relations and respect the efforts by China and ASEAN countries to safeguard peace and stability of the South China Sea.

The spokesperson's comments come on the heels of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Forces announcing it will hold a joint military exercise with the Philippines in the South China Sea later this month.

"We will announce the details such as the schedule and assets we will send as soon as the plan is fixed," Tomohisa Takei, chief of staff for the Maritime Self-Defense Force, told Japanese reporters earlier this week. Nonetheless, Japanese media outlets have reported that Tokyo will dispatch a P3-C Orion patrol aircraft for the exercise.

Last month, Japan sent two destroyers to the South China Sea to hold a one-day exercise with the Philippines, which reportedly had one of its newest warships participate. That exercise took place just 300 kilometers away from the Scarborough Shoal, which China seized from the Philippines in 2011.

The United States strongly backs Japan's participation in the South China Sea, and in fact has reportedly proposed joint U.S.-Japanese patrols in the area.

In an interview with Reuters earlier this year, Admiral Robert Thomas, America's top naval officer in the Western Pacific, said that "I think that JSDF (Japan Maritime Self Defense Forces) operations in the South China Sea makes sense in the future." Thomas noted that Chinese capabilities in the region currently outmatch those of its neighbors, and therefore Southeast Asian nations see Japan as a stabilizing force.

The United States has also increased its calls for China to stop its reclamation projects in the South China Sea.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is currently trying to pass legislation that would give the JSDF the right to engage in "collective self-defense." This would significantly reduce the legal barriers inhibiting Japan's ability to play a military role in the South China Sea dispute.

Zachary Keck is managing editor of The National Interest. You can find him on Twitter: @ZacharyKeck.

Nothing riles the Chinese more than the Japanese.

We can fly B52's through their ADIZ with a collective yawn, but if the JDSF does anything the Chinese does the diplomatic blitz.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/joint-japan-philippine-flight-over-south-china-sea-riles-china/

QuoteJoint Japan-Philippine Flight Over South China Sea Riles China

Once again, China is calling for Japan to stay out of the South China Sea issue.

By Shannon Tiezzi
June 25, 2015

A Japanese surveillance plane flew over disputed waters in the South China Sea on Tuesday, as part of joint drills with the Philippines. As The Diplomat reported previously, the Philippines is holding separate drills with the United States and Japan this week, with both exercises held near the South China Sea. The Japan-Philippine drill, only the second ever between the two countries, simulated maritime search and rescue operations, part of the drill's larger focus on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

As part of the drill, a Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) P3-C Orion surveillance plane flew past Reed Bank, an area claimed by both China and the Philippines. The Japanese plane carried three Philippine crew members on board as guests, and was accompanied by a Philippine patrol aircraft, Reuters reported.

Philippine Marine Colonel Jonas Lumawag, describing the drill, told reporters, "We practiced search and rescue patterns, which are essential in any humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations." According to Yomiuri Shimbun, the drill involved a mock search for a shipwrecked vessel. However, Yomiuri also noted that the Philippine officers on board were "apparently greatly impressed by the P-3C's excellent ability to detect submarines" – exactly the capability that makes China most nervous about U.S. P-3 patrols. In the post-drill press conference, Lumawag said that the Philippines is eager to learn from Japanese experience operating such surveillance planes.

Still, the Philippines was quick to note that the drills (both with Japan and with the United States) are not aimed at any specific country. "The Philippines has had these exercises before with our strategic partners. It should not be taken as an affront to any other and is an expression of cooperation and learning from all those involved," Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte told The Philippine Star. A Navy spokesperson agreed, saying, "We are doing this for interoperability" – not to send a message about the maritime disputes.

Still, experts believe the joint drill could be a precursor to Japanese joint patrols over the South China Sea, something the United States has expressed interest in before. "It's likely we will see Japan doing joint surveillance and reconnaissance in the South China Sea in the coming years... It is going to be with the U.S., Australia, the Philippines, and others," Narushige Michishita of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo told the Associated Press.

China, for its part, continues to repeat its basic message to Japan: stay out of the South China Sea. A Xinhua commentary published before the joint drill actually took place called the exercise "the latest sequel to Tokyo's meddling in the South China Sea." The author, Wang Haiqing, noted several reasons for "Tokyo's recent obsession to meddle in the South China Sea": seeking to force China to divert resources from the East China Sea (where it has a territorial dispute with Japan) to the South China Sea; hoping to portray China as an aggressive "bully" in order to win more domestic support for the Abe administration's security and defense reforms; and trying to distract the world from historical issues regarding Japan's actions in World War II. "Japan, which is not a party to the disputes in South China Sea, should abandon all attempts to stir waves in the area," Wang concluded.

When asked if China is concerned about the joint Japan-Philippines drills, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang noted that "what the regional countries care most [about] is still the issue of development." He added, "We hope that relevant sides would not deliberately hype up or even create so-called tension in the region."

(http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/thediplomat_2015-06-24_20-02-52-386x255.jpg)

What happens to a coral reef when an island is built on top?

Marine biologist John McManus, who has been studying Pacific coral reefs for the past 30 years, remembers a two-day boat journey a few years ago to a remote part of the Spratly Islands, a chain of low-lying coral and rocky reefs in the South China Sea.

"You are traveling along in open ocean waters, then you come upon a place where the waves are breaking, then everything beyond the reef is flat, like a giant pool," said McManus, who is director of the National Center for Coral Reef Research at the University of Miami.

Today, seven such coral reefs are being turned into islands, with harbors and landing strips, by the Chinese military. Not only is this work threatening China's relations with the United States and several other Pacific nations, it is also destroying a rich ecological network, according to McManus.

"This is devastating," he said. "It's the worst thing that has happened to coral reefs in our lifetime." U.S. officials estimate that the Chinese military has built up the shallow tropical seafloor with reclaimed sand, steel, wood and concrete barriers to create 2,000 acres of new territory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-happens-to-a-coral-reef-when-an-island-is-built-on-top/2015/07/06/d409493c-168b-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html

http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/regaining-the-initiative-in-the-south-china-sea/

QuoteRegaining the Initiative in the South China Sea

How the U.S. and its partners could provide a robust counter to the growing PRC presence in the South China Sea.

By Col Michael W. "Starbaby" Pietrucha
August 05, 2015

To endeavor to seize the strategic initiative in military struggle, proactively plan for military struggle in all directions and domains, and grasp the opportunities to accelerate military building, reform and development.

- Chinese Military Strategy, Chinese Ministry of National Defense, May 26, 2015.

On May 26, the State Council Information Office released an English-language version of the Chinese Military Strategy. Short, sweet, and immensely more readable than its American counterpart, the PRC's military strategy is notable for its transition to an overt, "active defense" posture for Chinese military forces. Among the many salient points is the emphasis on gaining the strategic initiative, which is one of eight specified strategic tasks for the Chinese military.

This is not a new development, but recent activities in the South China Sea (SCS) illustrate the reality that China has already seized the strategic initiative in those waters. Force dispositions in the SCS make it clear that the PRC has no intention of surrendering the initiative. A passive U.S. response will only continue to demonstrate to China the usefulness of its approach, while traditional flexible deterrent options are both unnecessarily provocative and likely to be ineffective. A comprehensive, long-term engagement and modernization strategy focused on Partner Nation (PN) and U.S. airpower may provide an opportunity for the U.S. to reverse PRC gains in the SCS and prevent further gains.

Airpower, particularly airpower employed by partner nations, is the necessary backbone of a strategy to effectively neutralize the political effectiveness of the PRC's island forts in the South China Sea. A robust engagement strategy, combined with a modernized American bomber force, will allow the United States to credibly project power or assist local defense efforts, even in cases where local basing for U.S. forces is unavailable. This proposed U.S. strategy has three elements; new defense relationships, a revised toolkit for building up partner nation air and seapower capabilities, and a modernized long-range bomber force.

Geography

Any discussion of the South China Sea has to start with the geography. China's claims essentially encompass the entire sea, based on the remnants of the 11-dash line inherited from the Republic of China in 1947. Now referred to as the "nine-dash line" (two were deleted by Zhou Enlai), the line encompasses territory that has historically been claimed or occupied by other nations, including marginal reefs, shoals, and sandbars. Some of those marginal points have been occupied by China and other nations with claims, and a number have been expanded into artificial islands complete with military facilities, including airfields.

While much has been said in the press about China's militarized artificial islands, fortified islands have all of the disadvantages of an aircraft carrier, without the mobility that makes the carrier worthwhile. As the Japanese discovered in WWII, fortified islands are locations where forces are dangerously concentrated into tight spaces with limited materiel, fuel and munitions. Militarily, small island bases are easy to isolate, hard to defend, and they concentrate forces in the most unfavorable manner – when they are most vulnerable to attack. They can easily be turned into a liability. In peacetime, by contrast, the bases are effective at expanding the ability of the PRC to observe, act and intimidate neighbors. The challenge, then, is how to neutralize their effect in peacetime.

(http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/thediplomat_2015-08-05_06-40-08-386x478.png)
Figure 1: PRC Map of the SCS showing the 9-dash line, submitted to the UN in 2009 (English labels added)

The South China Sea is commanded by the landmasses around it. No collection of small, static island bases will provide command of it. Vietnam, Borneo, Luzon and Palawan dominate the geography. South of the Paracels, Vietnam and the Philippines have a positional advantage over the SCS compared to mainland China or Hainan Island. Countries with substantial nearby territory, notably Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei, have the potential to offset some of China's military advantages – but only if they can hold Chinese military elements at risk.

A New Defense Architecture

If we are to successfully contain the PRC's ambitions in the SCS, we will have to change the defense architecture in the region. Only four countries hold a commanding position over the SCS: China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. Arguably, the PRC pairs the largest military with the poorest geographical position. A U.S. containment policy can be immeasurably improved with the addition of the active participation of one or more of these critical neighboring nations. Even without U.S. permanent basing, established defense relationships and an improved PN military posture can provide a bulwark against PRC aggression.

Vietnam, which has a thousand years of Chinese occupation in its history, is also the most recent victim of full-scale Chinese military aggression, having suffered an invasion by the PRC in 1979. Vietnam has also suffered more casualties in the South China Sea in direct conflict with China than any other nation. With a commanding position over the SCS, claims to the Paracel Islands and a robust basing structure, Vietnam is logically the highest-payoff country in the region with which to improve a defense relationship, with or without forward basing accessible to the U.S. The future of military cooperation is currently somewhat limited because Title 22 CFR 126.1 prohibits lethal military aid to Vietnam; waiving this prohibition with respect to maritime weapons systems has already allowed an expanded, if limited, defense relationship with Vietnam. The waiver could be expanded to encompass aviation capabilities, and Senator John McCain has announced a plan to introduce legislation that would remove CFR 126.1 restrictions on Vietnam.

Malaysia, which already has an existing security cooperation relationship with the U.S., commands the south approaches to the SCS via the island of Borneo. It maintains claims to some of the Spratly Islands, and exerts control over a number of reefs, shoals, and the airfield on Swallow Reef. There are seven militarily significant Malaysian airfields on Borneo, making it substantially more robust than any PRC landfill basing structure. The Royal Malayan Air Force operates a mix of modern U.S., Russian and European aircraft covering a wide range of roles. From an aviation standpoint, Malaysia has a small but capable Air Force, and a defense doctrine that has focused heavily on self-reliance.

The Philippines is the only one of the three partners bordering the SCS that has a mutual defense treaty with the United States, dating from 1961. Unfortunately, the Philippine Air Force is a shadow of the organization that the U.S. helped build up after Vietnam. Despite a 20-year old modernization plan, the Philippine Air Force lost its ability to operate jet fighters ten years ago and suffers from aging equipment, poor infrastructure, an ad hoc military procurement system and poor morale. In effect, the PAF is an internal security force and the Philippines is entirely dependent on the U.S. for external defense.

The Wolverine Strategy

The process of strengthening local partners to compete with a regional hegemon is often referred to as the "hedgehog" strategy. A hedgehog is a difficult challenge for a predator intent on a quick meal. A hedgehog doesn't have to be impossible to eat, it just has to be more difficult and less worthwhile than the other meal options. A wolverine, on the other hand, is a nasty, aggressive predator that is not only difficult to eat, but dangerous to be around and worth avoiding. A "wolverine" strategy, intended to improve the offensive counterair and countermaritime capabilities of partner nations, would hold part of the key to neutralizing China's initiative.

The PRC's claims in the SCS have no standing in international law, and only very tenuous historical backing. Many of the islands have been only occasionally inhabited for centuries, some remain claimed by the Republic of China, and some have been seized by force by the PRC. In 1974, the PRC seized the Crescent Group of the Paracels from the Republic of Vietnam. In 1994, Mischief Reef was occupied during a lull in Philippine Navy patrols and in 2012 the PRC abrogated a U.S.-brokered agreement which would have pulled back PLAN and Philippine Navy vessels. A three-year blockade of the Philippine Marine detachment on Second Thomas Shoal is ongoing. The PRC has been aggressive in pursuing SCS claims, not only within the 200-nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of other nations, but also within the territorial 12-mile limit of the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia.

China is a signatory of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but believes that it does not apply in the SCS. To date, none of the adjacent countries has resisted PRC encroachment militarily, with the notable exception of Vietnam. This can only change if those countries become strong enough to make PRC advances costly or easily reversed. For local defense within a country's EEZ, land-based airpower is the decisive force because Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia could all potentially maintain air superiority within 200nm of their shores, while China would be challenged to operate at a much longer distance. If the countries surrounding the SCS had robust, offensive air and sea capabilities, not only would they be better prepared to resist PRC aggression, they would also be able to reverse temporary gains and raise the costs of Chinese intervention.

U.S. participation in developing offensive air and sea capabilities is critical, but at this juncture not particularly feasible. The U.S. has no lethal, affordable and transferable air or naval systems that our regional partners can afford to purchase, operate and maintain in sufficient numbers. In the 1970s, the U.S. Air Force provided a large number of air forces worldwide with Vietnam-surplus aircraft to provide an effective bulwark against a common Communist-inspired threat. A-37s, F-5s, A-7s, C-7s, C-119s, C-123s, O-1s, O-2s and OV-10s were provided to a number of air forces. Those aircraft are now only marginally operational, if at all. The U.S. now have few alternatives to offer while, at the same time, demand for U.S. assistance with air forces is only growing. If a PN cannot afford an F-16 with a midlife upgrade, we cannot supply them with combat aircraft. Similarly, we do not build naval vessels that can be used effectively by less-capable partners – our best options are retired FFG-7 frigates and the occasional long-endurance cutter. Littoral combat ships are too expensive by an order of magnitude, and we do not build a surface combatant like the Pegasus-class hydrofoil, Skjold-class corvette, or Type 022 fast missile boat. If we were to attempt to execute a Wolverine Strategy, we are short the necessary tools – the U.S. will have difficulty providing common hardware, effective training, and the most important aspect of all – a long-term relationship that helps shape partner militaries to be a key ally for a global effort with values common to both.

(http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/thediplomat_2015-08-05_06-40-33-386x289.gif)
Figure 2: PRC Claims in the SCS overlaid on 200 nm EEZ lines (Goran tek-en)

This is an acute problem in Southeast Asia, as U.S.-built combat aircraft have reached the end of their service lives. The last U.S. export fighter, the F-5E Tiger II, has so far been replaced by non-U.S. fighters, forfeiting a major security cooperation opportunity. The last remaining F-5s in Southeast Asia will retire in the next five years with no American replacement options except the much more expensive F-16, F-18 and F-15E.

If we are to successfully execute a Wolverine Strategy, we will have to do something about both our air advisory capability and our stable of available aircraft. Combat variants of the T-X trainer (AT-X and FT-X) might well serve as a mid-term, exportable fighter in the mid 2020s. Similarly, ACC's OA-X (AT-6B or A-29B) could help rebuild the essential skills needed by the Philippines to allow an effective transition to a multirole force – and those aircraft are ready today. If the U.S. were also to design and build small missile combatants akin to the PLAN's Type 022 Houbei-class, partner nations could add small, lethal combatants to the list of capabilities used to offset the PRC's current maritime superiority over other regional navies. Most importantly, we must accompany any advisory effort with a long-term commitment akin to Plan Colombia, which took a decade, but resulted in a well-equipped, thoroughly professional Fuerza Aérea Colombiana.

The Bombers

The final ingredient is a modernized long-range bomber force, consisting of LRS-B, B-2, and upgraded B-52J. (The B-1B is simply too fuel inefficient, and has such low availability ratings, to be cost-effective to keep in the inventory. The loss of B-1s will be offset by new LRS-B and by moving additional B-52 from storage into operational units.) The long distances typical of combat in the Pacific, and the increasing range of the PRC's missile threat, may necessitate operating from well outside the region. Bombers may operate from foreign locations such as RAAF Tindall or Diego Garcia, but a re-engined B-52J could also operate unrefueled into the SCS from distant bases like RAAF Amberly or U.S. territory such as Wake, Guam, or even Hawaii. With modernized sensor systems including inverse synthetic aperture (for ship identification) and pulse-Doppler (for air to air situational awareness) modes, the bombers will be able to support countermaritime operations in and around the South China Sea.

Against the Soviet Navy, a three-ship flight of Harpoon-armed B-52Gs was a formidable force, and might well have proven a dominant force in the North Atlantic. Armed with modern antiship weapons such as the Naval Strike Missile or improved Harpoon, a loaded flight of B-52s has the salvo size to overwhelm naval air defenses from standoff range. In addition to antisurface warfare, the large capacity of the bombers could allow effective isolation of PRC military island installations by direct attack from standoff, or employment of precision standoff aerial mining capabilities exemplified by Quickstrike-ER and Quickstrike-P. Isolating island bases by preventing their resupply could effectively neutralize them – airbases require a lot of fuel to be effective, and air defenses require power generation, which is also fuel-intensive. Island bases isolated by standoff mining of the nearby waters may not be able to redeploy their heavy military equipment, which can then be attacked at leisure.

The small, congested conditions on fortified islands limit the effectiveness of active defenses, which cannot rely on a mobility doctrine due to the small area and cannot rely on tight emissions control due to the lack of supporting, land-based infrastructure. Moreover, bases built on landfill cannot be effectively hardened with underground facilities – a condition that also bedevils U.S. island bases in the region. Any hit by a weapon on an artificial island base is likely to have an outsized effect due to the congestion of assets.

Conclusion

The steady advance of the PRC's territorial claims in the South China Sea has put the U.S. and partner nations at a disadvantage. China's incremental approach relies more on the advantages of position and the threat of military force, which is often threatened but rarely used. China is able to get away with this kind of behavior because the competing nations do not have a regional defense arrangement and because the imbalance in force size and capabilities is substantial. However, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines do have substantial geographical advantages over China in that each of them, alone, has a commanding position over parts of the South China Sea. The three of them together, properly equipped and supported by the U.S., could provide a robust counter to any isolated military presence that the PLA might establish outside the Chinese EEZ.

A combination of improved defense relationships and U.S.-built air and sea capabilities backed by a modernized long-range strike capability from USAF bombers would require a substantial investment in time and resources, but does not place the burden for offsetting China's advances solely upon the United States. Given the rebalance to the Pacific, a robust engagement strategy is a necessary component of any U.S. effort to contain the PRC and assure Asian partners and allies that the rebalance is more than empty words. Airpower is a key component of this strategy and well-suited to the maritime challenges posed in the South China Sea.

The F5 Tigershark was not the last plane built for export. It maybe the last plane some of those countries purchased.

The F16 has been exported to UAE, Netherlands. F18 to Canada, Australia. F15 to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea.

We could export yet more F16's as there are hundreds stored in a boneyard at Davis-Monathan, the same ones they are bringing to Cecil to convert to drones.

While the F35 could be considered an export since the RAF are getting the ones made in Forth Worth, the first F35 made in Italy just rolled off the Alenia production line. With so many F35 parts sourced globally, its something less than an export.

In other news, Russia planted a sub-Arctic flag under the North Pole ice and is claiming it as their territory now.

Look for another flap as USAF does a North Pole flyover to contest the new Russian claim.

I used to think that new territorial claims stopped in the late 1800's because everything known was claimed. So who is going to claim the center of the earth now?

The author was referring to the F-5's in Asia and the price to replace them with the more expensive models such as F-16...

QuoteThis is an acute problem in Southeast Asia, as U.S.-built combat aircraft have reached the end of their service lives. The last U.S. export fighter, the F-5E Tiger II, has so far been replaced by non-U.S. fighters, forfeiting a major security cooperation opportunity. The last remaining F-5s in Southeast Asia will retire in the next five years with no American replacement options except the much more expensive F-16, F-18 and F-15E.

The maps in this article clearly identify the issue though... Chinese rather ridiculous claims (9 dash) next to the UNCLOS agreement which is certainly more logical...

(http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/thediplomat_2015-08-05_06-40-08-386x478.png)

(http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/thediplomat_2015-08-05_06-40-33-386x289.gif)

I get it. F5 is at end of life. Cant afford to replace at current new prices. Hence I was suggesting a refurb of a F16, since we are making then airworthy for drone use anyway.

"So far replaced by non-US fighters".

Not to parse to death, but this is very inaccurate.

We have interfaced with many non-NATO aircraft to this day through Tiger Meets or Red Days.

Having a future ally require the use of US made aircraft is silliness. There are many legacy non-US aircraft they can acquire. Panavia Tornado or BAE Jaguar all have years of cooperative use with US assets.

Even the newer Russian MiG's for export come with the option of NATO supported analog data buses (if not dated) But as noted, they are too expensive.

Quote from: spuwho on August 11, 2015, 01:38:05 PM
I get it. F5 is at end of life. Cant afford to replace at current new prices. Hence I was suggesting a refurb of a F16, since we are making then airworthy for drone use anyway.

"So far replaced by non-US fighters".

Not to parse to death, but this is very inaccurate.

We have interfaced with many non-NATO aircraft to this day through Tiger Meets or Red Days.

Having a future ally require the use of US made aircraft is silliness. There are many legacy non-US aircraft they can acquire. Panavia Tornado or BAE Jaguar all have years of cooperative use with US assets.

Even the newer Russian MiG's for export come with the option of NATO supported analog data buses (if not dated) But as noted, they are too expensive.

The f5 or replacement was really not the gist of the article...

http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/29569/3-chinese-ships-attack-vietnamese-fishermen-off-hoang-sa-paracels

QuoteVietnamese fishermen say attacked by 3 Chinese ships off Hoang Sa (Paracels)

A Vietnamese fishing boat from the central province of Quang Ngai was operating in the Vietnamese waters in the East Vietnam Sea on Friday when it was reportedly attacked by three Chinese ships, local authorities said.

These Chinese ships got close to the QNg 96507 TS, with 16 fishermen on board, when it was fishing off Vietnam's Hoang Sa (Paracel) archipelago, the authorities of the province's Ly Son District said on Saturday, citing a report from the attacked boat's captain, Nguoi Lao Dong (Laborer) newspaper reported.

Crew members of the foreign ships, which were in white and coded with 46102, 45101 and 37102, got on board the local boat, with AK assault rifles and electric batons in their hands,  said captain Nguyen Loi.

These Chinese then beat a number of the fishermen with their weapons, causing injuries to them, Loi said.

The foreigners also smashed navigation equipment and fishing tools on the local ship, and took away all the aquatic products from it.

Many fishermen had managed to photograph the illegal acts of the foreigners during their attack, Loi said.

After the attackers left, the fishermen repaired their ship and returned to An Hai Commune, Ly Son District, he added.

After receiving a report from the An Hai Commune Fisheries Trade Union, the Vietnam Fisheries Trade Union (VFTU) on Friday evening issued a statement vehemently objecting to the attack as well as recent other attacks by Chinese ships on Vietnamese fishermen operating in Vietnamese waters.

The VFTU demanded that Chinese authorities take measures to stop such wrongful acts that have affected normal operations of Vietnamese fishermen and seriously threatened their lives and property.

The VFTU also requested that relevant Vietnamese agencies investigate aggressive actions Chinese ships direct at Vietnamese fishermen, and take effective measures to protect lives and assets of fishermen.

The Friday attack is the latest in a series of similar cases that have happened to Vietnamese fishermen and their vessel in recent times.

On July 9 night, a fishing boat coded QNg 90559, also from Quang Ngai, was reportedly scared away and sank by two Chinese vessels when the local vessel was fishing off Hoang Sa (Paracels) with 11 fishermen on board, local authorities said.

The Chinese ships approached the local vessel, directed high-powered lights at the Vietnamese boat and used loudspeakers to demand it to leave the waters, said Truong Van Duc, the boat owner.

Duc ran his ship away, fearing a possible attack, but was run after by the foreign ships, which eventually rammed the fishing boat to sink at 11:00 pm, according to the report.

The Chinese ships then left the scene, leaving all the 11 fishermen floating at sea while clinging to the lifebuoys from their sunken ships.

The fishermen were rescued and taken ashore after several other Vietnamese fishing boats found them at about 2:00 am on the next day.

Phillippine Air Force re-positions air wing to former NAS Cubi Point.

Per Business Insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-philippines-to-station-warplanes-frigates-at-former-us-base-facing-disputed-sea-2015-7 (http://www.businessinsider.com/r-philippines-to-station-warplanes-frigates-at-former-us-base-facing-disputed-sea-2015-7)

The Philippines is parking warplanes at a US naval base in the South China Sea that's been dormant for 23 years

MANILA (Reuters) - The Philippines will station new fighter jets and two frigates at the former U.S. naval facility in Subic Bay from early next year, officials said, the first time the massive installation has functioned as a military base in 23 years.

Using Subic Bay would allow the Philippine air force and navy to respond more effectively to Chinese moves in the disputed South China Sea, security experts said. Subic Bay's deep-water harbor lies on the western side of the main Philippine island of Luzon, opposite the South China Sea.

"The value of Subic as a military base was proven by the Americans. Chinese defense planners know that," said Rommel Banlaoi, a Philippine security expert.

Once one of the biggest U.S. naval facilities in the world, Subic Bay was shut in 1992 after the Philippine Senate terminated a bases agreement with Washington at the end of the Cold War.

Manila converted the facility, which was never home to the Philippine military, into an economic zone.

Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino told Reuters the Philippine military signed an agreement in May with the zone's operator, the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, to use parts of the installation under a renewable 15-year lease.

U.S. warships have called regularly at Subic Bay since 2000, but only to dock during exercises with the Philippine military or to use its commercial facilities for repairs and resupply.

Officials said once Subic Bay was a military base again, the U.S. Navy could have much greater access to it under a year-old agreement that gives U.S. troops broad use of local military facilities, although that deal is on ice after it was challenged in the Philippine Supreme Court.

Using Subic would be the latest Philippine military move to combat China's maritime ambitions.

Besides beefing up security cooperation with the United States, Japan and Vietnam, the military plans to spend $20 billion over the next 13 years to modernize its armed forces, among the weakest in Southeast Asia.

China, which claims nearly all of the South China Sea, said it was aware of reports of the arms buildup.

"We hope that the Philippines does more to benefit regional peace and stability," the defense ministry said in a statement faxed to Reuters.

Air wing relocating
Two FA-50 light attack fighters made by Korea Aerospace Industries, the first among a dozen ordered last year, would be based at the former Cubi Naval Station in Subic Bay from early 2016, two Philippine generals told Reuters. The two planes arrive in December.

The full squadron of FA-50s would be based at Subic, as well as the 5th Fighter Wing, which would relocate from a rundown base in northern Luzon, said the generals, who declined to be identified.

Two naval frigates would be stationed at Subic Bay's Alava Port.

The generals cited proximity to the South China Sea and the ease in making the base operational as reasons for the move.

"There are existing facilities in Subic Bay. We need only to refurbish them," one officer said.

Since Subic Bay hasn't functioned as a military base for more than two decades, it was not among eight locations the Philippine armed forces has said the U.S. military could use under the stalled 2014 defense deal.

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement would allow the U.S. military to deploy at Philippine bases for longer periods than under existing accords as well as build barracks and facilities for logistics purposes.

The agreement has been frozen since left-wing politicians challenged its constitutionality last year. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming months.

"(Subic) could be one of the locations ... under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement," Batino said.

The Pentagon has said there were informal talks about Philippine base locations but that no plans would be implemented until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.

Strategic shoal
Security experts noted that Subic Bay is only 145 nautical miles (270 km) from Scarborough Shoal, which China seized from Manila in 2012 after a three-month standoff with the Philippine navy.

The disputed Spratly islands, where China is building seven man-made islands, some with military facilities, lie further to the southwest of the shoal.

China might one day also turn Scarborough Shoal into an artificial island, which could make it harder for the Philippines to protect its 200-nautical mile (370 km) exclusive economic zone off Luzon, said Patrick Cronin, a regional expert at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

"New Korean-built light fighter aircraft could reach Scarborough Shoal in just minutes, and maritime patrol aircraft or drones could eventually provide persistent coverage of Chinese movements in the area," Cronin said.

"A return to Subic Bay, this time led by the Philippine air force, would seem to be a prudent defensive response."

Ah the memories... flying out of Cubi... and Olangapo at night... the next generation.  8)

Quote from: spuwho on August 13, 2015, 05:27:34 PM
Phillippine Air Force re-positions air wing to former NAS Cubi Point.

Per Business Insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-philippines-to-station-warplanes-frigates-at-former-us-base-facing-disputed-sea-2015-7 (http://www.businessinsider.com/r-philippines-to-station-warplanes-frigates-at-former-us-base-facing-disputed-sea-2015-7)

The Philippines is parking warplanes at a US naval base in the South China Sea that's been dormant for 23 years

MANILA (Reuters) - The Philippines will station new fighter jets and two frigates at the former U.S. naval facility in Subic Bay from early next year, officials said, the first time the massive installation has functioned as a military base in 23 years.

...

Manila converted the facility, which was never home to the Philippine military, into an economic zone.

It would be interesting to see if there has already been any Chinese investment in the Subic Bay freeport zone.

Not as much as the Koreans.

Hanjin and NYK have built huge logistics hubs at Subic. Subic is also attracting other shippers (like Brazilian firm, Vale) because many of the Chinese ports cant take some of the super size ore ships, so they are transloading at Subic and hub and spoking products on smaller freighters.

With the Port of Manila totally congested, Subic is turning into a major logistics opportunity.

Analysts: China's Missile Program the Greatest Long-Term Threat to U.S. Security

The advancement of China's ballistic missile modernization program may pose the greatest risk to the United States' long-term security, analysts said Aug. 19. "Deterrence of China is absolutely critical," said Mark Schneider, a senior analyst for the National Institute for Public Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "It's not the largest current threat to the United States but it will in the foreseeable future become that." According to the Pentagon's annual report to congress, "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2015," the current Chinese arsenal includes 1,200 short-range ballistic missiles and 50 to 60 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). "I expect all these numbers understate actual Chinese capability," Schneider said, noting that it is hard to pinpoint a precise number because most nuclear weapons are sheltered in a 3000-mile tunnel known as China's underground "Great Wall." China has introduced double-digit increases in defense spending in 18 of the last 20 years, he said during a panel discussion at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. A 2013 report from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center found the Pacific nation has the most "active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world," expected to expand in both size and variety.

www.ndia.org

Quote from: finehoe on August 24, 2015, 11:15:11 AM
Analysts: China's Missile Program the Greatest Long-Term Threat to U.S. Security

The advancement of China's ballistic missile modernization program may pose the greatest risk to the United States' long-term security, analysts said Aug. 19. "Deterrence of China is absolutely critical," said Mark Schneider, a senior analyst for the National Institute for Public Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "It's not the largest current threat to the United States but it will in the foreseeable future become that." According to the Pentagon's annual report to congress, "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2015," the current Chinese arsenal includes 1,200 short-range ballistic missiles and 50 to 60 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). "I expect all these numbers understate actual Chinese capability," Schneider said, noting that it is hard to pinpoint a precise number because most nuclear weapons are sheltered in a 3000-mile tunnel known as China's underground "Great Wall." China has introduced double-digit increases in defense spending in 18 of the last 20 years, he said during a panel discussion at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. A 2013 report from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center found the Pacific nation has the most "active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world," expected to expand in both size and variety.

www.ndia.org

In other words, a growing threat but not as big as Russia in shear numbers.

The biggest gains by China has been in 2 areas. ASBM's and their expansion of Beidou.

The ASBM's are now accurate and powerful enough to cripple a US carrier (if they can circumvent our counter measures)

Their Beidou (GPS) cluster, while not global yet,  is growing and will permit the same if not better accuracy than our GPS guided arsenal.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/chinese-admiral-south-china-sea-belongs-to-china/

QuoteChinese Admiral: South China Sea 'Belongs to China'

At a recent naval conference a Chinese Vice Admiral did not mince words.

By Franz-Stefan Gady September 16, 2015

Speaking at this year's First Sea Lord/RUSI International Sea Power Conference in London, Chinese Vice Admiral Yuan Yubai, commander of the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN) North Sea Fleet, did not shy away from controversy. He emphatically stated that the South China Sea belongs to China.

"The South China Sea, as the name indicates, is a sea area that belongs to China. And the sea from the Han dynasty a long time ago where the Chinese people have been working and producing from the sea," he said through an interpreter, according to Defense News.

Yubai was sitting on a panel with the U.S. Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Rear Adm. Jeff Harley and the President of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force's Command and Staff College, Vice Admiral Umio Otsuka, discussing the role of naval power in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Yubai's statement came in response to Otsuka criticizing the land reclamation activities of "certain state actors"  in the region. "Land reclamation conducted by some countries has been a problem in the South China Sea (and) we have to admit that the rule of law is at risk in this region. The JMSDF will secure the credibility of a deterrence capability and seek a multilateral framework in the Indo-Pacific region," he said.

Otsuka also expressed his worries that commercial fishing fleets are used as maritime militias defending territory claimed by Beijing. "This may provoke, sooner or later, a debate how the conflict between military and maritime militia, if any, should be handled," he stated. The Japanese admiral warned that China's activities could turn the area from "an ocean of peace" to an "ocean of war." However, Yubai cautioned:

I'm firmly convinced that the problems around the South China Sea, so far, can be successfully solved with the joint efforts and consultation of the hosting countries around the South China Sea.

He added:

China has conducted consultation with countries in the South China Sea... the principle we adopt is peaceful utilization and joint development (of the sea). The real situation is that safety of navigation can now be assured.

He also mentioned that China and the United States are working on a code of conduct for aircraft encounters, which will reduce the likelihood of conflict, according to Yubai.

Meanwhile, according to satellite photographs taken on behalf of a D.C.-based think tank, China is set to begin construction of a third airstrip on the on Mischief Reef, an artificial islands Beijing has created in the Spratly archipelago.

(http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/thediplomat_2014-02-18_16-59-51-386x475.png)

"Consultation with the other countries"

Not according to the Phillippines. The Phillippine Govt. Has been trying for over 20 years to have some sort of "consultation" on jurisdiction in the South China Sea and has been rebuffed everytime.

That is why they went and filed a legal complaint through UNESCO. A complaint that the Chinese has ignored repeatedly.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinese-jet-in-second-near-collision-with-u-s-spy-plane/

Quote
Chinese Jet in Second Near-Collision with U.S. Spy Plane

PLA jet flies close to nose of RC-135 over East China Sea

(http://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2015/09/US-RC-135.jpg)
   
BY:  Bill Gertz   
September 22, 2015 5:00 am

A Chinese interceptor jet conducted a second dangerous pass near a U.S. surveillance aircraft over Asian waters—weeks before a state visit to the United States by Chinese leader Xi Jinping that begins Tuesday.

The latest incident took place over the East China Sea near Japan's Senkaku Islands when a Chinese interceptor flew in front of an RC-135 electronic intelligence-gathering jet, nearly colliding with the aircraft.

It was the second time a Chinese aircraft nearly collided with a U.S. surveillance jet. The last incident took place in August 2014 over the nearby South China Sea.

Pentagon and U.S. Pacific Command spokesmen declined to provide details of the latest encounter but did not dispute that it took place.

"I have nothing for you regarding the incident you mention," said Cmdr. Bill Urban, a Pentagon spokesman.

The latest U.S.-China aerial confrontation was mentioned indirectly by Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, during Senate Armed Services Committee testimony last week.

Harris called the 2014 incident "a very dangerous event," referring to the barrel roll conducted by a Chinese jet over the top of a P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft as "a dangerous maneuver in acrobatic circles, let along in an intercept regime in an open ocean."

"And we most recently have seen that again, but I'll give the system credit for that intervening period of time, we've seen very few dangerous activities by the Chinese following that August 2014 incident," Harris said.

Harris, without mentioning the RC-135 incident, said the decline in dangerous aerial encounters until the latest incident was due to military and political relationships worked out with the Chinese.

Asked about a second recent dangerous aerial encounter mentioned by the admiral, a Pacific Command spokesman at first said "there is no new P-8 incident."

Questioned later about the RC-135 incident, the spokesman, Capt. Darryn James, refused to provide details and referred questions to the Pentagon.

Two Pentagon officials, speaking on background, described the East China Sea encounter as a dangerous and unprofessional aerial intercept that was similar to the 2014 near collision between a Chinese J-11 interceptor and Navy P-8 maritime patrol aircraft in the nearby South China Sea.

The J-11 came within 50 feet of the P-8 as it was conducting surveillance, in an attempt to coerce the surveillance aircraft to depart.

In the recent East China Sea incident, the Chinese interceptor crossed very close to the nose of the RC-135 near the Senkaku Islands—the location of a major dispute over ownership of the islands located south of Japan's Okinawa and north of Taiwan.

Disclosure of the dangerous Chinese jet encounter comes a day before Xi begins an official state visit to the United States. The incident is likely to embarrass the Communist Party secretary who arrives in Seattle on Tuesday. He is scheduled to meet President Obama later this week.

Xi's visit is also expected to raise two contentious issues: large-scale Chinese hacking of U.S. government and private-sector databases and the theft of data on tens of millions of Americans. China also has raised tensions as a result of disputes over maritime claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea.

Xi is also contending with a wavering Chinese economy that has caused stock markets around the world to drop sharply in recent weeks.

The Chinese leader, who recently was seen in a major military parade riding in the back of a limousine as he reviewed thousands of Chinese troops, tanks, missiles, and aircraft, will be hosted at a White House state dinner, an honor normally reserved for U.S. allies.

The dangerous aerial encounter is a setback for the Pentagon's aggressive military diplomacy with China, which President Obama has made a centerpiece of Pentagon policy.

Critics in Congress, including Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on sea power, have called on the Obama administration to cut back on military exchanges that are not producing results.

The Pentagon recently concluded an agreement outlining what it calls rules of the road for encounters at sea that are designed to prevent further dangerous ship-to-ship incidents like the 2013 near-collision in the South China Sea.

On Dec. 5, 2013, a Chinese amphibious ship sailed directly in front of the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens and stopped, forcing the Cowpens to sharply alter course to avoid hitting the Chinese vessel.

The Obama administration announced at the November 2014 summit between Obama and Xi that the Pentagon and Chinese military had concluded a memorandum of understanding on "rules of behavior" for the safety of air and sea encounters.

Pentagon officials have said the rules for maritime encounters are clearer than those for aerial intercepts.

Talks in Beijing on the aerial rules have been bogged down in Chinese demands that the United States halt all aerial surveillance near China's coasts, something the Pentagon so far has refused to accept.

Harris, the Pacom commander, said last week that he has ordered his component commanders to continue to conduct operations when challenged by Chinese jets or naval forces.

What I've told the component commanders of the Pacific fleet and Pacific air forces to tell their pilots and crews to do is to continue to insist on our right to operate in international airspace and maritime space," Harris said.

"When challenged by Chinese fighter aircraft, our aircraft ought to maintain a professional flight profiles, predictable flight profiles, and we have the means to record that activity and then we'll see what happens."

The area where the incident occurred has been the focus of a major dispute between Beijing and Tokyo over the ownership of the Senkakus.

Senior U.S. officials, while claiming neutrality in Asian maritime disputes, have invoked the U.S.-Japan defense treaty several times in recent years, stating that U.S. forces would defend Japan if the islands are attacked.

Further heightening tensions, China in November 2013 unilaterally imposed an air defense identification zone over the East China Sea, claiming control over a security zone covering the Senkakus and several South Korean islands.

China is claiming ownership of the Senkakus, which it calls the "Diaoyu Islands," though they have been under Japanese authority for decades. The waters around the islands are believed to contain large reserves of undersea gas and oil coveted by both countries.

The Chinese have demanded that all aircraft entering the zone seek permission and submit flight plans. China has threatened to use military forces to enforce the zone, but so far has not done so.

The United States, Japan, and South Korea have said they do not recognize the air defense zone.

Officials said the most recent aerial encounter between the United States and China was less dangerous than the 2014 encounter between the J-11 and the P-8.

The Pentagon called the 2014 intercept "aggressive" and "dangerous" and threatened to cut off military relations with the People's Liberation Army unless the maneuvers were halted.

Defense officials have said that aerial intercepts remain an unresolved issue between the two countries. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, during a visit to Beijing last fall, was told by Chinese officials that China is demanding that the United States halt all surveillance flights along Chinese coasts.

Urban, the Pentagon spokesman, while not providing details of the East China Sea incident, defended the Pentagon's efforts to seek to lower the risk of dangerous encounters.

"The department has made tremendous progress with respect to reducing risk between our operational forces and those of the People's Republic of China (PRC)," Urban said.

"Over the past year, we have seen improvements in PRC behavior, specifically the safety and professionalism with which they intercept our aircraft."

Additionally, the Pentagon has "robust, existing mechanisms to deal with incidents between our operating forces, such as the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement," he said.

Rick Fisher, a China military analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the latest aerial encounter should not go unchallenged.

"Threatening intercepts over the East and South China seas require a very firm U.S. response," Fisher said.

"The first step should be increased flights. But there must also be a deliberate program of expanding air defense cooperation with Japan and the Philippines."

Fisher urged states in the region to conduct joint aircraft deployments to Japanese air fields in the Sakishima Islands and said that the United States should offer the Philippines air defense systems and training to bolster its defenses.

Lets see....we will stop listening on you if you stop hacking us.

We will stop a legal activity in international airspace so you can stop doing something illegal.

Yep, makes sense to me!  :)

Looks like we finally have a much needed agreement regarding air to air intercepts with the Chinese... I hope it works...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-and-china-agree-to-rules-for-air-to-air-intercepts-1733269855

QuoteWith President Xi Jinping in the U.S. for a state dinner, hardcore diplomacy is underway trying to solve some very big problems — one of them relating to the sometimes dangerous intercepts of American surveillance aircraft operating in international airspace. Now, it looks like Beijing and Washington have come up with a way of potentially stopping such incidents in the future.

The problem is nothing new, as Chinese jets aggressively maneuvered around U.S. military aircraft operating near the Chinese territory for years. On April 1, 2001 a collision between a U.S. Navy EP-3 Aeries spy aircraft and a Chinese J-8 fighter made for a huge, Cold War-like diplomatic flash point. Almost 15 years later, aggressive Chinese intercepts are still a major concern, and the problem seems to be getting worse as Chinese-U.S. relations sputter.

With this in mind, both sides have supposedly agreed to new set of rules for air-to-air intercepts. These include everything from the way each aircraft is to physically perform in close proximity to another to the proper radio frequencies to use during distress calls. Even the crews' gestures and radio language will be tightly controlled under this new agreement.

A new emergency hotline will also be set up to provide communications between high-level military personnel in each country at a moment's notice. The hope is that by having such a capability in place, a situation or misunderstanding can be de-escalated before becoming highly volatile.

You can find drafts of both agreements http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/US-CHINA_AIR_ENCOUNTERS_ANNEX_SEP_2015.pdf (http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/US-CHINA_AIR_ENCOUNTERS_ANNEX_SEP_2015.pdf) and http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/US-CHINA_CRISIS_COMMUNICATIONS_ANNEX_SEP_2015.pdf (http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/US-CHINA_CRISIS_COMMUNICATIONS_ANNEX_SEP_2015.pdf).

It will be interesting to see if these initiatives are followed once put to the test. If they are, it would mark a significant development in U.S.-Chinese military relations. If they are not closely adhered to by the Chinese, it would be a clear sign that they have no intention of following through with any military-to-military agreements. Such a failed test would be especially troubling, considering that even larger issues like cyber attacks, hacking and electronic intellectual property theft — all tactics that China has been deploying with fervor over the last decade — may not be solvable via written agreements. As such, the only other option would be military inaction or reaction, both of which could end badly for both parties.

From the WSJ:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-12-mile-naval-test-1444348609 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-12-mile-naval-test-1444348609)

A 12-Mile South China Sea Test

Senior American officials leaked word this week that the U.S. Navy will soon conduct freedom-of-navigation operations within 12 nautical miles of China's newly built artificial islands in the South China Sea's Spratly archipelago. This means the Administration may finally be willing to challenge Beijing's baseless sovereignty claims in distant waters.

The caveat is that leaks from this Administration are unreliable signals of intent. Before Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Washington last month, U.S. officials told reporters they were considering sanctioning China for cyber abuses. Sanctions never materialized, as Messrs. Obama and Xi announced a toothless bilateral pledge not to hack trade secrets.

China's island-building dates at least to 2013, and last year the Philippines revealed evidence of Chinese military facilities under construction at Johnson South Reef. China illegally claims air and sea sovereignty around the islands by warning planes and ships away. In May the Pentagon assessed that China had built 2,000 acres of new land. With China's neighbors growing alarmed, Pentagon chief Ashton Carter said the U.S. "will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world."

But not where such operations were needed most, within 12 miles of China's artificial islands. China went on dredging and building, even after it said it was stopping. By August it had amassed nearly 3,000 acres of new Spratly territory.

Washington's hesitant response has allowed controversy to build around freedom-of-navigation missions that should be routine. Beijing's strategy in the South China Sea is to bully its neighbors and achieve regional hegemony through coercive means short of war. Turning peaceful naval patrols into diplomatic hot potatoes is exactly the sort of change Beijing seeks.

And right on time on Friday, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said China is "seriously concerned" about the reports of U.S. Navy action. China "will absolutely not permit any country to infringe on China's territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly Islands in the name of 'protecting freedom of navigation and overflight.'" she said.

Such threats are all the more reason for the U.S. to defend international naval norms, and to make this the beginning of a persistent challenge to China's false claims. The U.S. has put too much hope in a "code of conduct" led by the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a group that has been routinely manipulated and stymied by Beijing. The better U.S. course is to start joint maritime patrols with willing partners, possibly including Japan, the Philippines, Australia, Singapore, Vietnam and others.

Two decades ago, then Philippines President Fidel Ramos said the Spratly Islands would be "a litmus test of whether China as a great power intends to play by international rules, or make its own." Beijing has shown that it scorns those rules. The question is whether the U.S. intends to do what is necessary to uphold them.

LOL.. "baseless sovreignty claims in distant waters". I guess the "liberal media" isn't the only one that suffers from bias.

China's claims over these islands are as sound as those of any other country.

A view from Australia...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/peter-hartcher-south-china-sea-us-dips-its-toe-in-troubled-waters-but-its-too-little-too-late-20151019-gkczpm.html

QuoteSouth China Sea: US dips its toe in troubled waters, but it's too little, too late

Date October 20, 2015 - 12:08AM

The countries of the Asia-Pacific are tensing for the moment, expected any day now, when the US navy confronts China's claim to own the islands in the middle of the world's busiest shipping route.

You might have heard some people dismiss the tensions over the ownership of contested reefs and outcrops in the South China Sea as trivial, arguments over "a few rocks in the middle of the ocean".

In fact this is momentous, a defining power struggle between the reigning world power and the rising one. The history of our region is being written in each decision from Washington and Beijing.

Every government in the region, and around the world, is watching closely and asking three central questions. One, does the US have the strength of will to uphold the international order? Two, just how aggressive is the new China going to be? Three, which country should we be aligning ourselves with now? The Chinese took a string of contested reefs and rocks in the South China Sea, built them up into islands, and have started adding ports, runways, garrisons and lighthouses. Beijing claims them to be "indisputable sovereign territory" although this  is vigorously disputed by the other countries that claim  parts of them: the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.

The US Navy is now reportedly planning to sail right into the 12nautical mile zone that defines territorial limits around one of the major points of dispute, the Spratly Islands, defying the Chinese claim and asserting freedom of navigation for international vessels.

Beijing has warned that this would be a "grave mistake for the United States to use military means to challenge China".  The official Xinhua newsagency said last week that "China has every right to defend its rights and strategic interests, and will respond to any provocation appropriately and decisively".

Beijing would have no option but to build up its defences on the islands, Xinhua said. Indeed, an unnamed Chinese military official told Time magazine: "There are 209 land features still unoccupied in the South China Sea and we could seize them all ... and we could build on them in 18 months."

China is very consciously implementing a new national strategy of assertiveness towards the rest of the world. The late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping set out the national stance in the 1990s as one of "hide your brightness, bide your time". It was a philosophy of restraint to allow China to concentrate on an economic and military build-up.

But China's current president, Xi Jinping, has decided that is time to show China's brightness and no longer bide its time. In October 2013, he convened the highest level meeting on foreign policy since the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, according to a leading Chinese scholar, Yan Xuetong.

At that meeting, he promulgated a new national strategy – "strive for achievement" as China seeks national restoration as the greatest power in Asia.    But what Xi calls striving for achievement, other countries consider to be coercive diplomacy.

Barack Obama in June described it as "throwing elbows and pushing people out of the way".

Beijing ignored him. China's assertiveness was vindicated when the US did nothing in response. China had achieved what traditional strategy considers the ultimate in warfare: "Defeating the enemy without ever fighting," as Sun Tzu's The Art of War puts it.

But now, after protracted internal American government debate, US media report that the US Navy is on the brink of acting, and the region awaits. The US, like Australia, takes no side in the territorial dispute but insists that it not be settled forcibly.

Ministers from Australia and the US discussed this issue at length in the annual AUSMIN consultations last week. Julie Bishop told the media that Washington and Canberra were "on the same page" on the matter of freedom of navigation.

But, contrary to some media reports, participants tell me that the US proposed no specific measures and Australia agreed to take no specific measures of its own. To now, the US has not decided precisely what it will do.

To sail into the 12 nautical mile territorial claim is something that the US Navy has never done. To do it now would be seen to be provocative, and aimed squarely at Beijing.

Yan, who is a sometime adviser to the government in Beijing, says that "the competition for power is a zero sum game and structural conflicts between the rising power and the existing power are inevitable.

In a telling phrase, he adds: "When the strategy of annexation is not available, the competition will turn to how to make more allies." For now, Beijing seems to consider annexation to be very available.

But the US and China are not the only great powers with a deep national interest in the question of who controls the world's busiest shipping route and the Asia's central maritime hub.   At  the weekend, Japan and India joined the US in naval exercises centred on hunting and killing submarines. It was important to have "naval partners who are like-minded friends and allies" said a Pentagon official, Amy Searight.

The Chinese worry deeply that there is an incipient alignment of these three great powers against China. Of course, this is something that Beijing can influence by its behaviour. They will align against China if they see it as necessary to manage Chinese aggression.

The three big questions remain to be answered in the days ahead. Does the US have the strength of will to uphold the international order? Just how aggressive is the new China going to be? And which country should we be aligning ourselves with now?     


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/peter-hartcher-south-china-sea-us-dips-its-toe-in-troubled-waters-but-its-too-little-too-late-20151019-gkczpm.html#ixzz3p1VSye00
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-court-case-strip-china-its-south-china-sea-claims-14558

QuoteCould this Court Case Strip China of Its South China Sea Claims?

From November 24 to 30, the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) convened in The Hague to hear oral arguments on merit [4] in the The Republic of Philippines v The People's Republic of China [5] case over competing claims in the South China Sea. After ruling at the end of October that the international tribunal had the jurisdiction [6] to hear the case, the first round of arguments saw the Philippines present their claims to the tribunal supported by evidence and witnesses [7]. The PCA is currently expected to hand down a final judgment in the case as early as mid-2016, and that judgment—even though it will focus narrowly on the specific issue of competing Chinese–Philippine entitlements—is widely anticipated to discredit the majority [8] of China's claims in the South China Sea.

If the tribunal does hand down an unfavorable judgment for China, what happens next? The PCA has no enforcement mechanism, so to what lengths will the Philippines, the U.S. and other stakeholders go to ensure China abides by the ruling? The South China Sea disputes are far from being just a collection of bilateral issues, so what happens post-arbitration in the South China Sea has serious implications for the future of the regional order. With June 2016 only six months away, let's take a quick look at three potential ways the situation could play out if China is handed an unfavorable ruling.

1: China abides by the ruling

The ideal situation (for the Philippines, other claimant states, and the US) would see China abide by an unfavorable ruling. Under Article 288 (4) of UNCLOS [9], the ruling of the tribunal is binding, even with China's non-participation in the tribunal proceedings [8], and as a UNCLOS signatory, China has an obligation to act in good faith by upholding whatever ruling the tribunal reaches. Abiding by the ruling would therefore demonstrate that China intends to respect and uphold international law, something naturally reassuring to its nervous neighbors.

As desirable as it would be, China is highly unlikely to abide by such a ruling. It would be extremely difficult at home for a legitimacy challenged CCP [10] to loudly proclaim sovereignty over the islands for decades, vow to uphold and protect China's territorial integrity and then turn around to admit that UNCLOS has ruled their claims are null and void. Abiding by such a ruling might even call into question China's commitment to upholding its other 'core interests' (including Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet). For a party that has relied on the twin pillars of economic growth and a strong nationalist message for its legitimacy post-Tiananmen, abiding by the ruling will be nearly impossible for the CCP.

2: China doesn't abide by the ruling, but the status quo stays somewhat the same

A more likely situation is that China will ignore the ruling, and continue to dismiss the entire tribunal proceedings and any subsequent ruling [11]. That second scenario would see China ignore the ruling but the status quo remain effectively the same, with the region judging the risks of forcing China to uphold the ruling to be too high. China would continue its drive to exercise de facto control over the South China Sea. If China doesn't abide by the PCA's ruling and the international community doesn't step in to uphold it, the ramifications of that scenario would be, in effect, an international acknowledgement that China plays by its own rules. Hopes of engaging China as a responsible stakeholder in the current regional and international orders would be dealt a heavy blow.

3: China doesn't abide by the ruling, and the US or a coalition of countries in the region take a stand

A third scenario that could eventuate is that China ignores the ruling, and the United States—either alone or in tandem with other regional countries—ramps up international pressure on China to comply with the ruling. Such a situation could see a dramatic increase in U.S. 'Freedom of Navigation' operations through the South China Sea, with other countries joining in. International support for the Philippines to enjoy its legal entitlements in the South China Sea would escalate dramatically. The idea that countries like the United States and Australia have sheltered behind previously—that they take no position on who owns which islands—would become much harder to sustain. Furthermore, the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea may well be covered by the U.S.-Philippines Security Treaty [12], risking U.S. military escalation.

Whatever judgment the tribunal hands down as early as June 2016 will represent a watershed moment: how China responds to the ruling and the subsequent actions of the international community will shape the future global order. Will we see the continuation of a system based on international law and norms, or the emergence of a more Thucydian world where the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must? A major decision point looms before us in the South China Sea.

Good article, thanks. It does seem unlikely China would abide by any ruling that doesn't involve China getting everything it wants, but there's hope. They'd hurt themselves in the long run. If they don't abide by the ruling, hopefully we support the other countries in taking a stand.

Quote...the United States—either alone or in tandem with other regional countries—ramps up international pressure on China to comply with the ruling. Such a situation could see a dramatic increase in U.S. 'Freedom of Navigation' operations through the South China Sea, with other countries joining in.

And this would accomplish exactly what?  China still has their bases.

QuoteFurthermore, the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea may well be covered by the U.S.-Philippines Security Treaty, risking U.S. military escalation.

Would the US risk war with China over a Philippine claim?  I wouldn't take that bet.

Quote from: finehoe on December 09, 2015, 11:46:00 AM

Quote...the United States—either alone or in tandem with other regional countries—ramps up international pressure on China to comply with the ruling. Such a situation could see a dramatic increase in U.S. 'Freedom of Navigation' operations through the South China Sea, with other countries joining in.

And this would accomplish exactly what?  China still has their bases.

QuoteFurthermore, the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea may well be covered by the U.S.-Philippines Security Treaty, risking U.S. military escalation.

Would the US risk war with China over a Philippine claim?  I wouldn't take that bet.

I wouldn't take that bet either but it would clearly demonstrate that China does not care much about their neighbors claims and that it should not be trusted.  If I was Taiwan... I would sit up and take notice... If I was Vietnam... I would sit up and take notice... If I was Australia, India, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and many others... I would take notice.  My bet is these counties would be more willing to accept US bases or landing rights or port calls.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 09, 2015, 11:52:48 AM
I wouldn't take that bet either but it would clearly demonstrate that China does not care much about their neighbors claims and that it should not be trusted.  If I was Taiwan... I would sit up and take notice... If I was Vietnam... I would sit up and take notice... If I was Australia, India, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and many others... I would take notice.  My bet is these counties would be more willing to accept US bases or landing rights or port calls.

I don't think any of those countries are under any delusions about China.  And don't they all (except maybe India) already accept US bases or landing rights or port calls?

Quote from: finehoe on December 09, 2015, 11:56:22 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 09, 2015, 11:52:48 AM
I wouldn't take that bet either but it would clearly demonstrate that China does not care much about their neighbors claims and that it should not be trusted.  If I was Taiwan... I would sit up and take notice... If I was Vietnam... I would sit up and take notice... If I was Australia, India, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and many others... I would take notice.  My bet is these counties would be more willing to accept US bases or landing rights or port calls.

I don't think any of those countries are under any delusions about China.  And don't they all (except maybe India) already accept US bases or landing rights or port calls?

Who said anything about delusions?  What may be delusional is that China appears to think the neighbors in the SCS will accept China's version of might makes right...

Just found this today as a matter of fact...

http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/us-singapore-agree-spy-plane-deployment-amid-south-china-sea-tensions/

QuoteSingapore has granted the United States permission to fly surveillance aircraft out of its territory.

In a joint statement after their meeting in Washington, D.C. on Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and visiting Singapore Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen welcomed the inaugural deployment of the U.S. P-8 Poseidon aircraft to Singapore from December 7 to December 14.........

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 09, 2015, 12:07:08 PM
Who said anything about delusions? 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 09, 2015, 11:52:48 AM
...it would clearly demonstrate that China does not care much about their neighbors claims and that it should not be trusted... 

They would be delusional if they didn't already realize this, which as I said, I'm pretty sure they do.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 09, 2015, 11:52:48 AM

Quote from: finehoe on December 09, 2015, 11:46:00 AM

Quote...the United States—either alone or in tandem with other regional countries—ramps up international pressure on China to comply with the ruling. Such a situation could see a dramatic increase in U.S. 'Freedom of Navigation' operations through the South China Sea, with other countries joining in.

And this would accomplish exactly what?  China still has their bases.

QuoteFurthermore, the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea may well be covered by the U.S.-Philippines Security Treaty, risking U.S. military escalation.

Would the US risk war with China over a Philippine claim?  I wouldn't take that bet.

I wouldn't take that bet either but it would clearly demonstrate that China does not care much about their neighbors claims and that it should not be trusted.  If I was Taiwan... I would sit up and take notice... If I was Vietnam... I would sit up and take notice... If I was Australia, India, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and many others... I would take notice.  My bet is these counties would be more willing to accept US bases or landing rights or port calls.

What it accomplishes is on the one hand, the ability to continue peaceful operations though the area, and on the other, pressuring China to ease off its claims that other countries can't sail through the area. When the U.S. held a "Freedom of Navigation" operation recently, China whined about it, but then opened up talks with the U.S. Navy, which was a good result (including for China in the long term).

China has already notified everyone that they will not abide by the ruling of the court. They didnt even send counsel to some of the preliminary hearings.

It wasnt until jurisdiction was established that they actually started appearing and arguing against the petition by the Phillippines.

If China used its might diplomatically to work on a joint treaty with the nations involved, which usually entails opening their checkbook, they might get more cooperation.

But in this case, if they have to pay, they want to call all the shots too.

So by placing themselves on these artificial islands. They improve their seat at the table before hand.

Quote from: Tacachale on December 09, 2015, 12:34:55 PM
What it accomplishes is on the one hand, the ability to continue peaceful operations though the area, and on the other, pressuring China to ease off its claims that other countries can't sail through the area.

I just saying that in the context of the article

3: China doesn't abide by the ruling, and the US or a coalition of countries in the region take a stand

continuing what we're already doing isn't much of a "stand".

http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/did-australia-secretly-conduct-its-own-freedom-of-navigation-operation-in-the-south-china-sea/

QuoteDid Australia Secretly Conduct Its Own Freedom of Navigation Operation in the South China Sea?
An accidental scoop by a BBC reporter suggests so.

By Shannon Tiezzi December 16, 2015

On December 14, the BBC ran a story chronicling reporter Rupert Wingfield-Hayes' attempt to fly near some of China's artificial islands in a Cessna. The piece is fascinating in its own right – not least for its implication that Wingfield-Hayes was basically conducting his own mini-freedom of navigation operation. When Chinese radio broadcasts warn the aircraft away, Wingfield-Hayes convinces his pilots to ignore the warnings: "We are not breaking any laws, the Chinese are not going to shoot us down. You must hold your course, and you must respond to them and tell them we are a civilian aircraft flying in international airspace."

But toward the end of the piece is an inadvertent scoop by Wingfield-Hayes. While flying over the South China Sea, his plane's radio picks up a broadcast from another source:

China Navy, China Navy. We are an Australian aircraft exercising international freedom of navigation rights, in international airspace in accordance with the international civil aviation convention, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – over.

Though Wingfield-Hayes says his aircraft was warned away repeatedly (and aggressively) by the Chinese navy, he didn't catch any Chinese response to the Australian broadcast. Details released later provided a specific date for the radio transmission (November 25) and identified the aircraft as an RAAF AP-3C Orion.

As Wingfield-Hayes explains, Australia has never publicly announced its own freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. Yet here was a radio transmission that suggested Australia was doing just that. In response to the highly-publicized U.S. FONOP near Subi Reef in late October, Australia expressed strong support for the rights of freedom of navigation and overflight, but was coy about whether it would conduct its own such operations, either independently or with the United States.

ABC picked up the story from there, including a clip of the audio recording from Wingfield-Hayes. According to ABC, the Australian government still has not announced that it undertook a freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea. The Department of Defense confirmed some of the details, however, telling ABC that "a Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion was conducting a routine maritime patrol in the region as part of Operation GATEWAY from 25 November to 4 December."

"Operation Gateway is Australia's enduring contribution to the preservation of regional security and stability in South East Asia," according to the Australian Ministry of Defense. It consists of "maritime surveillance patrols in the North Indian Ocean and South China Sea" by the Australian Defense Force. There is no mention of preserving freedom of navigation as a primary purpose; rather, the operation is described as "part of the support to Australia's efforts to counter people smuggling in the region."

If Australia did conduct a patrol aimed at establishing freedom of navigation rights in the South China Sea (and, critically, there's no clarity on exactly where the AP-3C Orion was flying at the time, and whether it entered the 12 nautical mile zone around any Chinese-held features), it did so as quietly as possible. Compare that to the U.S. FONOP of October 27, which was preceded by months of built-up anticipation, based on both public and anonymous comments from U.S. officials.

There's no question as to which approach China would prefer – which explains its relatively muted response to the reports. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei answered a question on the possible Australian FONOP by emphasizing China's stance that "there is no problem with navigation and overflight freedom in the South China Sea."

"We hope other countries, especially those outside the region, will watch their words and actions, rather than bringing up troubles and deliberately complicating the situation in the South China Sea," Hong continued. As Chinese official critiques go, that's about as mild as they come. In response to the U.S. FONOP, remember, China accused the United States of having "threatened China's sovereignty and security interests... and endangered regional peace and stability."

Meanwhile, the United States itself is apparently not planning to conduct another FONOP near China's artificial islands in 2015, despite earlier reports to the contrary. Reuters cites U.S. defense officials as saying that the next such operation was likely to come in January.

Different countries. Different politics. Different styles.

China sees Australia as a local but weaker player in the argument.

But the US style of telegraphing, blustering, and uncontrolled media hyping of the smallest of moves clearly rankles them.

That Poseidon that carried a CNN reporter for the ride significantly upset the Chinese leadership. To them, making a media event out of a freedom of navigation issue was a provocation and attempt to embarrass them.

^And it worked, so good.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/china-rejects-latest-us-fonop-in-the-south-china-sea/

QuoteChina Rejects Latest US FONOP in the South China Sea
The second U.S. FONOP had a different legal rationale than the first — and sparked a different Chinese response.

By Shannon Tiezzi February 02, 2016

As The Diplomat previously reported, the United States has conducted a second freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) within 12 nautical miles of a disputed island in the South China Sea. On January 30, the USS Curtis Wilbur, a guided-missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the Paracels, which is controlled by China but also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan. This particular FONOP was designed to assert the right of innocent passage through territorial waters without having to give advance notice (something both China and Vietnam demand when foreign vessels transit through territorial waters in the Paracels.

China's Foreign Ministry responded sternly to the FONOP, saying that "the U.S. navy vessel violated the relevant Chinese law and entered China's territorial sea without authorization." As spokesperson Hua Chunying explained, "According to the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, foreign ships for military purposes shall be subject to approval by the Government of the People's Republic of China for entering the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China."

It's precisely this law requiring prior approval, even for innocent passage, that the U.S. FONOP was designed to counter.  As U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said in a statement:

This operation challenged attempts by the three claimants, China, Taiwan and Vietnam, to restrict navigation rights and freedoms around the features they claim by policies that require prior permission or notification of transit within territorial seas. The excessive claims regarding Triton Island are inconsistent with international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention.

On Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang rejected that explanation, claiming that the "so-called" FONOP "is conducted in disregard of sovereign security and maritime rights and interests of coastal states, causing severe damage to regional peace and stability."

"It is, in essence, the pursuit of maritime hegemony by the U.S. under the cloak of 'freedom of navigation,'" Lu added, calling "the flexing of military muscles and creating of tension by the U.S. under the pretext of the freedom of navigation is the biggest cause of militarization in the South China Sea."

Lu also said that Chinese troops, "naval ships and airplanes made an immediate response" to the Curtis Wilbur's presence. However, a Pentagon spokesperson said that no Chinese naval vessels had escorted the Curtis Wilbur during the mission, unlike during the USS Lassen's FONOP near Subi Reef last October.

Vietnam, meanwhile, responded by saying that it respects the right to innocent passage through its territorial waters in accordance with international law. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Le Hai Binh also reiterated Vietnam's "indisputable sovereignty over Hoang Sa [Paracel] as well as Truong Sa [Spratly] archipelagoes."

Though the USS Lassen's patrol near Subi Reef in October and the USS Curtis Wilbur's transit near Triton Island are both categorized as FONOPs, the legal rationale behind each was quite different. The USS Lassen passed within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef, which has been artificially enlarged by China, to demonstrate the United States' belief that the feature is still legally considered a low-tide elevation, not an island.

Accordingly, China's official response was angry but also intentionally vague – China, in effect, scolded the United States from breaching the 12 nautical mile zone around Subi without explicitly claiming that Subi is, in fact, entitled to a territorial sea (see Graham Webster's detailed parsing of the language that was used).

By contrast, the FONOP around Triton is more clear-cut – China does explicitly claim a territorial sea around the Paracels. The U.S. FONOP in the area was designed to counter two aspects of China (and Vietnam's) claims: the requirement for foreign warships to seek prior authorization before transiting near the feature, and the way territorial baselines are drawn around the Paracels. As James Kraska of the Naval War College explained to USNI, "China has established unlawful straight baselines around all the [Paracel] islands — which is illegal."

This FONOP is more straightforward because it's clear precisely what is being claimed – and that the United States rejects those claims as "excessive" and "inconsistent with international law." It's potentially more destabilizing for the same reason – unlike at Subi Reef, China has clearly claimed a territorial sea around the Paracels, and thus could react more strongly to a perceived U.S. incursion (although as of yet, there's no indication China will up the ante).

The transit by the USS Curtis Wilbur will not be the end of U.S. FONOPs in the region. Admiral Harry B. Harris, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, recently told a Washington, D.C. audience that "as we continue down the path of freedom of navigations, you will see more of them, and you will see them increasing in complexity and scope in areas of challenge."

Good to hear.

Adm. Harris has been requesting meets with the PLAN for years to discuss FONOP's and engagement protocols.

I see this as forcing their hand. In other words, "if you would engage us in protocols, then we wouldnt need to have diplomatic rows constantly"

The chess game continues.

China deploys surface to air missiles in the Paracels.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/asia/china-missiles-south-china-sea/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/asia/china-missiles-south-china-sea/index.html)

This was entirely predictable...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 17, 2016, 10:56:52 AM
This was entirely predictable...

They have had planes fly into Wood Island (Xinshi) in the Paracels often, but this is the first time they have  established a SAM system.

The usual postering.

China says its a normal defensive activity and that the press are having a slow day. Red China has occupied Wood Island continuously since 1949.

Japan expresses outrage and calls it an express provocation.

Taiwan calls for calm and tells everyone to chill out.

If China puts SAM's on Fiery Reef, that will bring the house down probably.

The Hague is about to rule on the Phillippines arbitration case with China.  You can pretty much expect a noisy response from China, odd since they have ignored the hearings since the start.

Quote from: spuwho on February 17, 2016, 02:46:06 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 17, 2016, 10:56:52 AM
This was entirely predictable...

They have had planes fly into Wood Island (Xinshi) in the Paracels often, but this is the first time they have  established a SAM system.

The usual postering.

China says its a normal defensive activity and that the press are having a slow day. Red China has occupied Wood Island continuously since 1949.

Japan expresses outrage and calls it an express provocation.

Taiwan calls for calm and tells everyone to chill out.

If China puts SAM's on Fiery Reef, that will bring the house down probably.

The Hague is about to rule on the Phillippines arbitration case with China.  You can pretty much expect a noisy response from China, odd since they have ignored the hearings since the start.

In fairness... this was in fact an island all along.  This was not part of the destruction of fishing reefs closer to the Philippines than China.  It certainly is not a good sign that China is now adding surface to air missiles to the area... because once they militarize all of their occupations... they are there to stay.  They will control the worlds busiest piece of ocean is Asia...  As you can see from the map below the differences between the locations of the Paracel Islands and the reefs of the Spratlys...

(http://www.southchinasea.org/files/2013/02/oil_trade_flows_map-US-EIA-2011.png)

The Chinese are now reporting that they have had SAM's at Xinshi Island for over 20 years. Hence their surprise at the press "outrage".

Quote from: spuwho on February 17, 2016, 08:09:50 PM
The Chinese are now reporting that they have had SAM's at Xinshi Island for over 20 years. Hence their surprise at the press "outrage".

Chess game continues.

Per Reuters:

Admiral Harris told a Congressional hearing yesterday that US Navy FONOPS will increase in frequency and complexity in the near future.

Just to be clear that China is not a special case... The USN performs FONOPS 365 days a year all over the globe.  This area (SCS) has notoriety because China is claiming that we do not or no longer have freedom to navigate these waters.  Another rather famous example of this is the "Line of Death" Gaddaffi claimed by drawing a line across the Gulf of Sidra and claiming it as sovereign Libyan waters.  the USN most certainly did not stop sailing or flying through these waters because of some declaration or claim.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 24, 2016, 12:50:19 PMAnother rather famous example of this is the "Line of Death" Gaddaffi claimed by drawing a line across the Gulf of Sidra and claiming it as sovereign Libyan waters.  the USN most certainly did not stop sailing or flying through these waters because of some declaration or claim.

Just that China isn't Libya - it's a lot easier to ignore a line drawn in the sand by a scrawny kid.

^Yes, but the Chinese aren't nearly so blinkered and crazy as Qaddafi.

China gearing up for East Asia dominance: U.S. commander

China is "changing the operational landscape" in the South China Sea by deploying missiles and radar as part of an effort to militarily dominate East Asia, a senior U.S. military official said on Tuesday.

China is "clearly militarizing the South China (Sea)," said Admiral Harry Harris, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, adding: "You'd have to believe in a flat Earth to think otherwise."

Harris said he believed China's deployment of surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the South China Sea's Paracel chain, new radars on Cuarteron Reef in the Spratlys and its building of airstrips were "actions that are changing in my opinion the operational landscape in the South China Sea."

Soon after he spoke, U.S. government sources confirmed that China recently deployed fighter jets to Woody Island. It was not the first time Beijing sent jets there but it raised new questions about its intentions.

U.S. Navy Captain Darryn James, spokesman for U.S. Pacific Command, said China's repeated deployment of advanced fighter aircraft to Woody Island continued a disturbing trend.

"These destabilizing actions are inconsistent with the commitment by China and all claimants to exercise restraint from actions that could escalate disputes," he said. "That's why we've called for all claimants to stop land reclamation, stop construction and stop militarization in the South China Sea."

(http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20160224&t=2&i=1119835338&w=976&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC1N044)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-missiles-idUSKCN0VX04O

Quote from: Gunnar on February 24, 2016, 01:30:43 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 24, 2016, 12:50:19 PMAnother rather famous example of this is the "Line of Death" Gaddaffi claimed by drawing a line across the Gulf of Sidra and claiming it as sovereign Libyan waters.  the USN most certainly did not stop sailing or flying through these waters because of some declaration or claim.

Just that China isn't Libya - it's a lot easier to ignore a line drawn in the sand by a scrawny kid.

Not sure what you mean by"China isn't Libya".  Freedom of navigation is pretty clear and universal... Btw...the Gulf of Sidra is ocean.  I fully expect the USN to continue FONOPS for a very long time.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 24, 2016, 08:14:35 PM
Not sure what you mean by"China isn't Libya".

No doubt what Gunnar means is that dealing with a sand gnat is a lot easier than dealing with a nuclear-tipped dragon, regardless of the "universal" principles involved.

Quote from: finehoe on February 25, 2016, 08:19:06 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 24, 2016, 08:14:35 PM
Not sure what you mean by"China isn't Libya".

No doubt what Gunnar means is that dealing with a sand gnat is a lot easier than dealing with a nuclear-tipped dragon, regardless of the "universal" principles involved.

We dealt with the USSR just fine... worked out plenty of these types of issues.  We need to "deal" with China... hence the continued FONOPS..

Quote from: finehoe on February 25, 2016, 08:19:06 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 24, 2016, 08:14:35 PM
Not sure what you mean by"China isn't Libya".

No doubt what Gunnar means is that dealing with a sand gnat is a lot easier than dealing with a nuclear-tipped dragon, regardless of the "universal" principles involved.

Yup, that's what I meant. While Libya could never really fight back, China can  - both militarily and economically, something the USSR never could.

Now, I am not saying an armed conflict is something either China or the US would want, but a simple mistake could start the shooting.

Plus, one should not underestimate the Chinese' hurt pride from the colonial days.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 25, 2016, 10:29:56 AM

Quote from: finehoe on February 25, 2016, 08:19:06 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 24, 2016, 08:14:35 PM
Not sure what you mean by"China isn't Libya".

No doubt what Gunnar means is that dealing with a sand gnat is a lot easier than dealing with a nuclear-tipped dragon, regardless of the "universal" principles involved.

We dealt with the USSR just fine... worked out plenty of these types of issues.  We need to "deal" with China... hence the continued FONOPS..

YouTube is rife with FONOP videos in the Black Sea with the Russian Navy and Air Force challenging us.

The last one I knew about was when we sent a destroyer to Georgia after the Russians invaded North Ossetia to provide medical supplies.

Nothing like having a MiG buzz your deck at Mach 2.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 25, 2016, 10:29:56 AM
We dealt with the USSR just fine...

The USSR was never the biggest holder of US debt, nor was it ever the USA's biggest trading partner.

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html
http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

Both give China considerably more options than the Soviet Union (or Libya) ever had.

oooo... scary... ::)

Per SkyNews Australia:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/asiapacific/2016/02/26/us-the-real-prompter-of-militarisation--china.html (http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/asiapacific/2016/02/26/us-the-real-prompter-of-militarisation--china.html)

US the real prompter of militarisation: China

China 'really needs' its defences in the South China Sea in the face of a militarisation process being pushed by the United States, and can deploy whatever equipment it wants on its own soil, China's Defence Ministry says.

China and the US have sparred repeatedly over the past week following reports China is deploying advanced missiles, fighters and radar equipment on islands in the South China Sea, especially on Woody Island in the Paracels.

The US has accused China of militarising the disputed waters. Beijing, for its part, has been angered by 'freedom of navigation' air and sea patrols the US has conducted near islands China claims in the South China Sea.

Those have included one by two B-52 strategic bombers in November and by a US navy destroyer that sailed within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the Paracels last month.

'The United States is the real promoter of the militarisation of the South China Sea,' defence ministry spokesman Wu Qian told a regular monthly news briefing on Thursday.

'China's construction of military facilities on the islands and reefs of the South China Sea is really needed.'

The Paracel Islands are China's 'inherent territory', he added.

'It is China's legitimate right to deploy defence facilities within our own territory, no matter in the past or at present, no matter temporarily or permanently, no matter what equipment it is,' Wu said.

People are being 'dazzled' by the endless hyping up by US media of equipment China is deploying in the South China Sea, he added.

'One minute it's air defence missiles, then radars, then various types of aircraft - who knows what tomorrow will bring in terms of new equipment being hyped up.'

Even the US has said some of this equipment had been placed there in the past, Wu said.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which more than $US5 trillion ($A6.94 trillion) in global trade passes every year.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan have rival claims.

This week, coinciding with a visit to Washington DC by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Admiral Harry Harris, head of the US Navy's Pacific Command, said the US would step up freedom-of-navigation operations in the South China Sea and that China was trying to militarily dominate East Asia.

Wu said the US was employing double standards, asking why US patrols in the South China Sea should not also be considered militarisation.

Fiery Cross Reef -2014-aug14
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2014-aug14.jpg)

Fiery Cross Reef-2014-sep26
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2014-sep26.jpg)

Fiery Cross Reef-2014-nov05
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2014-nov05.jpg)

Fiery Cross Reef-2014-dec13
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2014-dec13.jpg)

Fiery Cross Reef-2015-feb14
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2015-feb14.jpg)

Fiery Cross Reef-2015-mar18
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2015-mar18.jpg)

Fiery Cross Reef-2015-apr02
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2015-apr02.jpg)

Fiery Cross Reef-2015-may13
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2015-may13.jpg)

Fiery Cross Reef-2015-sep03
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/c9624cdef9cdc059edeb7616a87726fc6a71032e/stepper/fierycross/desktop/fierycross-2015-sep03.jpg)

"Tourists" visiting Fiery Cross Reef

(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/127C/production/_87523740_7bd3c0b7-cdf0-4427-97e8-62a1aab6c26c.jpg)

Great article... explains things well... great graphics...  8)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea-2016.html?_r=0

Quote from: finehoe on March 01, 2016, 01:14:24 PM
"Tourists" visiting Fiery Cross Reef

(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/127C/production/_87523740_7bd3c0b7-cdf0-4427-97e8-62a1aab6c26c.jpg)

Oh yeah, thats right.....its a combo resort/cruise terminal.

The only cruise terminal with active radar, a munitions barn and designs for revetments in case those pesky Somalian pirates show up.

The U.S. just sent a carrier strike group to confront China

The U.S. Navy has dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea.

The carrier John C. Stennis, two destroyers, two cruisers and the 7th Fleet flagship have sailed into the disputed waters in recent days, according to military officials. The carrier strike group is the latest show of force in the tense region, with the U.S. asserting that China is militarizing the region to guard its excessive territorial claims.

Stennis is joined in the region by the cruisers Antietam and Mobile Bay, and the destroyers Chung-Hoon and Stockdale. The command ship Blue Ridge, the floating headquarters of the Japan-based 7th Fleet, is also in the area, en route to a port visit in the Philippines. Stennis deployed from Washington state on Jan. 15.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/03/stennis-strike-group-deployed-to-south-china-sea/81270736/

Quote from: finehoe on March 04, 2016, 03:32:47 PM
The U.S. just sent a carrier strike group to confront China

The U.S. Navy has dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea.

The carrier John C. Stennis, two destroyers, two cruisers and the 7th Fleet flagship have sailed into the disputed waters in recent days, according to military officials. The carrier strike group is the latest show of force in the tense region, with the U.S. asserting that China is militarizing the region to guard its excessive territorial claims.

Stennis is joined in the region by the cruisers Antietam and Mobile Bay, and the destroyers Chung-Hoon and Stockdale. The command ship Blue Ridge, the floating headquarters of the Japan-based 7th Fleet, is also in the area, en route to a port visit in the Philippines. Stennis deployed from Washington state on Jan. 15.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/03/stennis-strike-group-deployed-to-south-china-sea/81270736/

This is probably less than it appears. We have sent carrier groups through the South China Sea before, especially those transiting to and from the middle east.

Now.....if the carrier group transits 11.75 miles from a disputed reef, probably will pick up a shadow from the Chinese Coast Guard at the worse.  A radio notification at the best.

Should not be a big deal at all.  These are international waters.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 04, 2016, 04:55:23 PM
These are international waters.

The USS Liberty was in international waters too, yet 34 crew members were killed and another 171 were wounded when it was attacked.  "International waters" don't magically prevent bad things from happening.

Quote from: finehoe on March 04, 2016, 11:59:48 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 04, 2016, 04:55:23 PM
These are international waters.

The USS Liberty was in international waters too, yet 34 crew members were killed and another 171 were wounded when it was attacked.  "International waters" don't magically prevent bad things from happening.

Why limit yourself to that poor example.  Liberty was a spy ship in a war zone.  It was considered a friendly fire incident.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2016, 07:25:49 AM
Liberty was a spy ship in a war zone. 

And these are warships in an area with multiple competing claims of sovereignty.  Do you really think that lessens the potential for a mishap?

I'm sure in your typical fashion you interpret my concerns as sympathy for the PLA Navy, but I'm just noting that there are events going on in the world that could potentially have far-reaching consequences. While the American public is fixated on the penis-size of presidential candidates, little attention is being paid to some important happenings on the other side of the world where some other 'mine is bigger than yours' posturing is occurring.

While there may be multiple countries with competing claims only China is behaving as a belligerent.  You should not be ashamed of your sympathy for the PLA.  Perhaps you can spare some for the Philippines... or the Taiwanese... or any of the peasant fishermen of the neighboring countries who have been chased off their traditional fishing grounds by your PLA.

QuoteEven were China not filling in the sea so enthusiastically, its military build-up would probably provoke a reaction. In particular the rapid expansion of its navy, with the apparent intention of eventually upsetting American primacy in the western Pacific, represents a big shift in the strategic order. Other regional navies are also modernising—above all by buying submarines. Besides Vietnam's purchases, India has ordered six from France, and Pakistan has bought eight from China, which is also providing two to Bangladesh. Germany is to deliver two to Singapore and five to South Korea, which has sold three of its own manufacture to Indonesia. Australia is to buy between eight and 12, with fierce competition for the order between France, Germany and Japan.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21693619-asia-pacific-region-peacebut-it-buying-lot-weapons-taking-arms

Good article... it certainly highlights the issues.  From north to south... Japan is threatened by North Korea and China.  South Korea is threatened by the same.  Taiwan by China...Vietnam by China...Philippines by China...Singapore is tiny and sits at a major strategic junction. Thailand has a huge shoreline... and India and Pakistan...hate each other.

Aside from the traditional sparring by India and Pakistan... China is the bull in the "china" shop by occupying reefs within the territorial waters of its neighbours.  It is likely too late to do anything about the occupation but freedom of navigation demonstrations are crucial.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2016, 07:32:05 PM
Good article... it certainly highlights the issues.  From north to south... Japan is threatened by North Korea and China.  South Korea is threatened by the same.  Taiwan by China...Vietnam by China...Philippines by China...Singapore is tiny and sits at a major strategic junction. Thailand has a huge shoreline... and India and Pakistan...hate each other.

Aside from the traditional sparring by India and Pakistan... China is the bull in the "china" shop by occupying reefs within the territorial waters of its neighbours.  It is likely too late to do anything about the occupation but freedom of navigation demonstrations are crucial.

It's never to late just listen to Cruz he wants a big military build up. To show countries around the world that 'AMERICA' is once again the BOSS. 

Australia, looking toward China, beefs up military

QuoteA stronger Australian navy would please U.S. naval commanders, who want more firepower to offset the Chinese buildup in the South China Sea, where China's decision to construct bases on disputed islands has raised fears of an inadvertent clash.

The commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, last month publicly urged the Australian government to conduct naval patrols within 12 nautical miles of the occupied islands — a test of international sovereignty that the Chinese government would probably regard as provocative.

Australia's new defense minister, Marise Payne, was noncommittal about the suggestion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-looking-toward-china-beefs-up-military/2016/03/20/0e8e4cfe-ec8a-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html

Quote from: finehoe on March 21, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Australia, looking toward China, beefs up military

QuoteA stronger Australian navy would please U.S. naval commanders, who want more firepower to offset the Chinese buildup in the South China Sea, where China's decision to construct bases on disputed islands has raised fears of an inadvertent clash.

The commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, last month publicly urged the Australian government to conduct naval patrols within 12 nautical miles of the occupied islands — a test of international sovereignty that the Chinese government would probably regard as provocative.

Australia's new defense minister, Marise Payne, was noncommittal about the suggestion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-looking-toward-china-beefs-up-military/2016/03/20/0e8e4cfe-ec8a-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html

For a country completely dependent on freedom of navigation Australia certainly needs to upgrade its navy.  Submarine fleet needs replacement... P-3 Patrol planes are adequate for patrol but inadequate for ASW... Surface fleet needs more numbers and upgrades...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 21, 2016, 03:00:09 PM

Quote from: finehoe on March 21, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Australia, looking toward China, beefs up military

QuoteA stronger Australian navy would please U.S. naval commanders, who want more firepower to offset the Chinese buildup in the South China Sea, where China's decision to construct bases on disputed islands has raised fears of an inadvertent clash.

The commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, last month publicly urged the Australian government to conduct naval patrols within 12 nautical miles of the occupied islands — a test of international sovereignty that the Chinese government would probably regard as provocative.

Australia's new defense minister, Marise Payne, was noncommittal about the suggestion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-looking-toward-china-beefs-up-military/2016/03/20/0e8e4cfe-ec8a-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html

For a country completely dependent on freedom of navigation Australia certainly needs to upgrade its navy.  Submarine fleet needs replacement... P-3 Patrol planes are adequate for patrol but inadequate for ASW... Surface fleet needs more numbers and upgrades...

RAN (Royal Australian Navy) is currently upgrading their ANZAC frigates with current tech and in 2014 acquired 4 Perry class frigates from the US Navy, which are also being updated.

There is a contract out with Saab Defense to upgrade their Collins class submarines.

They have an active development arrangement to upgrade their F/A 18 Hornets and are currently integrating their new EA-18 Growlers into their defense intelligence network.

The RAAF is currently in line for the F35 JSF, but have been acquiring Hornets due to F35 delays.

Quote from: spuwho on March 22, 2016, 12:05:41 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 21, 2016, 03:00:09 PM

Quote from: finehoe on March 21, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Australia, looking toward China, beefs up military

QuoteA stronger Australian navy would please U.S. naval commanders, who want more firepower to offset the Chinese buildup in the South China Sea, where China's decision to construct bases on disputed islands has raised fears of an inadvertent clash.

The commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, last month publicly urged the Australian government to conduct naval patrols within 12 nautical miles of the occupied islands — a test of international sovereignty that the Chinese government would probably regard as provocative.

Australia's new defense minister, Marise Payne, was noncommittal about the suggestion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-looking-toward-china-beefs-up-military/2016/03/20/0e8e4cfe-ec8a-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html

For a country completely dependent on freedom of navigation Australia certainly needs to upgrade its navy.  Submarine fleet needs replacement... P-3 Patrol planes are adequate for patrol but inadequate for ASW... Surface fleet needs more numbers and upgrades...

RAN (Royal Australian Navy) is currently upgrading their ANZAC frigates with current tech and in 2014 acquired 4 Perry class frigates from the US Navy, which are also being updated.

There is a contract out with Saab Defense to upgrade their Collins class submarines.

They have an active development arrangement to upgrade their F/A 18 Hornets and are currently integrating their new EA-18 Growlers into their defense intelligence network.

The RAAF is currently in line for the F35 JSF, but have been acquiring Hornets due to F35 delays.

No one is happier than me that we are able to sell our really old and retired equipment to someone else to squeeze a out little more life... but an updated Perry... is still a retired outclassed Perry.  The Collins was a bad experiment and the Saab upgrade is to buy them time to replace them.  They are looking at the newest Japanese AIP subs as a possible replacement...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 22, 2016, 12:31:16 PM

Quote from: spuwho on March 22, 2016, 12:05:41 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 21, 2016, 03:00:09 PM

Quote from: finehoe on March 21, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Australia, looking toward China, beefs up military

QuoteA stronger Australian navy would please U.S. naval commanders, who want more firepower to offset the Chinese buildup in the South China Sea, where China's decision to construct bases on disputed islands has raised fears of an inadvertent clash.

The commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, last month publicly urged the Australian government to conduct naval patrols within 12 nautical miles of the occupied islands — a test of international sovereignty that the Chinese government would probably regard as provocative.

Australia's new defense minister, Marise Payne, was noncommittal about the suggestion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-looking-toward-china-beefs-up-military/2016/03/20/0e8e4cfe-ec8a-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html

For a country completely dependent on freedom of navigation Australia certainly needs to upgrade its navy.  Submarine fleet needs replacement... P-3 Patrol planes are adequate for patrol but inadequate for ASW... Surface fleet needs more numbers and upgrades...

RAN (Royal Australian Navy) is currently upgrading their ANZAC frigates with current tech and in 2014 acquired 4 Perry class frigates from the US Navy, which are also being updated.

There is a contract out with Saab Defense to upgrade their Collins class submarines.

They have an active development arrangement to upgrade their F/A 18 Hornets and are currently integrating their new EA-18 Growlers into their defense intelligence network.

The RAAF is currently in line for the F35 JSF, but have been acquiring Hornets due to F35 delays.

No one is happier than me that we are able to sell our really old and retired equipment to someone else to squeeze a out little more life... but an updated Perry... is still a retired outclassed Perry.  The Collins was a bad experiment and the Saab upgrade is to buy them time to replace them.  They are looking at the newest Japanese AIP subs as a possible replacement...

Fortunately, while Australia has increased their defense spending considerably, it is still behind their developed nation peers.

With almost 75 percent of the population on the east coast, it makes defense of the north west difficult. Just getting assets to help with the MH370 search was time consuming.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-p-8-poseidon-locates-castaways-on-a-deserted-islan-1770066529

QuoteNavy P-8 Poseidon Locates Castaways On A Deserted Island In The Pacific

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BO5nQ4vY--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/sjeqvwrcal2bvauanqgy.jpg)

The Navy's ultra-versatile P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft has risen to all-star status both within the halls of the Pentagon and on the export market. It has been at the center of the search for MH370 and at the tip of the growing dispute over China's man-made islands in the South China Sea. Now it has has made headlines once again, locating marooned men on a deserted island in the Pacific.

For nearly three days, the three men had been stranded on the Pacific island of Fanadik after their 19-foot skiff capsized. They had originally set out from Pulap island on April 4 and after they were thrown from their skiff, they swam through night before finding temporarily refuge on Fanadik island. Once there, they constructed a large "HELP" sign out of palm leaves on the deserted island's small beach area, a move that likely saved their lives.

The men were reported missing after not checking into a flight they were scheduled to leave on the next day. The U.S. Coast Guard promptly requested support from Maritime Patrol Squadron Five, the "Mad Foxes," and their P-8s that are currently deployed to Misawa Air Base in Japan. Once the P-8 spotted the men and their make-shift signal, a boat was sent to recover them.

The rescue assist is just another notch in the P-8s belt in the Pacific Theatre, and with India, Australia, and now the UK ordering the multi-role militarized 737 derivative the question is what will Poseidon do to impress next?

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--umUg8mxZ--/dz5gmxvjmji23zptsd0v.jpg)

How China's fishermen are fighting a covert war in the South China Sea

In the disputed waters of the South China Sea, fishermen are the wild card.

China is using its vast fishing fleet as the advance guard to press its expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea, experts say. That is not only putting Beijing on a collision course with its Asian neighbors, but also introducing a degree of unpredictability that raises the risks of periodic crises.

In the past few weeks, tensions have flared with Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam as Chinese fishermen, often backed up by coast guard vessels, have ventured far from their homeland and close to other nations' coasts. They are just the latest conflicts in China's long-running battle to expand its fishing grounds and simultaneously exert its maritime dominance.

"The Chinese authorities consider fishermen and fishing vessels important tools in expanding China's presence and the country's claims in the disputed waters," said Zhang Hongzhou, an expert at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/fishing-fleet-puts-china-on-collision-course-with-neighbors-in-south-china-sea/2016/04/12/8a6a9e3c-fff3-11e5-8bb1-f124a43f84dc_story.html

Defense Secretary Ash Carter cancelled his meeting with his Chinese counterpart after it was determined there was nothing the meeting could produce for public consumption.

However, the PLAN is still scheduled to participate in a large US sponsored joint naval manuevers in the Pacific with various foreign navies.

Quote from: finehoe on April 13, 2016, 11:17:31 AM
How China's fishermen are fighting a covert war in the South China Sea

In the disputed waters of the South China Sea, fishermen are the wild card.

China is using its vast fishing fleet as the advance guard to press its expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea, experts say. That is not only putting Beijing on a collision course with its Asian neighbors, but also introducing a degree of unpredictability that raises the risks of periodic crises.

In the past few weeks, tensions have flared with Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam as Chinese fishermen, often backed up by coast guard vessels, have ventured far from their homeland and close to other nations' coasts. They are just the latest conflicts in China's long-running battle to expand its fishing grounds and simultaneously exert its maritime dominance.

"The Chinese authorities consider fishermen and fishing vessels important tools in expanding China's presence and the country's claims in the disputed waters," said Zhang Hongzhou, an expert at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/fishing-fleet-puts-china-on-collision-course-with-neighbors-in-south-china-sea/2016/04/12/8a6a9e3c-fff3-11e5-8bb1-f124a43f84dc_story.html

China's fishing fleet is an indirect arm of their navy /coast guard.  Their fishing fleet routinely violates other countries rules and regulations.  Argentina got tired of it... and sank one of em...

http://www.ticotimes.net/2016/03/15/argentina-coast-guard-sinks-chinese-fishing-boat-in-south-atlantic

You guys will like this:  http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/chinas-maritime-disputes/p31345#!/

US to retain military assets in Philippines after joint ops is complete. Kind of funny because the Chinese keep saying the islands are not for military purposes, and the increased joint movements with the Philippines is not to antagonize the Chinese. But yet each do exactly that.  A kind of diplomatic "say what we want, not what we do" approach.

Per NBCNews:

U.S. Sending Commandos, Combat Aircraft to Philippines

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-sending-commandos-combat-aircraft-philippines-n556091 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-sending-commandos-combat-aircraft-philippines-n556091)

The United States on Thursday revealed for the first time that American ships have started conducting joint patrols with the Philippines in the South China Sea, a somewhat rare move not done with many other partners in the region.

At the same time, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced at a joint news conference with Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmi that the United States will be keeping nearly 300 troops, including Air Force commandos armed with combat aircraft and helicopters, in the Philippines through the end of the month.

It's part of a military build-up sure to inflame tensions with Beijing in the South China Sea.

The U.S. will also begin sending forces on increased rotations into the Philippines, it was disclosed, to beef up training and to support increased military operations in the region.

Speaking in the guest house of the presidential complex, Carter said the U.S. military moves are not meant to provoke anyone, but instead said "we're trying to tamp down tensions here.."

According to the Pentagon, the U.S. forces that will remain here are already in the Philippines participating in the Balikatan or shoulder-to-shoulder combat exercises which will end Friday. About 200 airmen, including special operations forces will remain at Clark Air Base, along with three of their Pave Hawk attack helicopters, an MC-130H Combat Talon II special mission aircraft and five A-10 combat aircraft.

This initial contingent will provide training to increase the two militaries' ability to work together, laying the groundwork for forces to do joint air patrols as well as the ship movements.

Also, up to 75 Marines will stay at Camp Aguinaldo to support increased U.S. and Philippine combined military operations in the region.

The troops and aircraft are expected to leave at the end of the month, but other U.S. forces and aircraft would do similar rotations into the Philippines in the future. A defense official would not say how frequently those rotations would happen, but said the size schedule and makeup would fluctuate. The official was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity.

The increased troop presence is part of a broader U.S. campaign to expand its assistance to the Philippines, as America shores up its allies in the Asia Pacific. And it comes as territorial disputes with China, including Beijing's increasing effort to build manmade islands in the South China Sea, roils nations across the region.

The U.S. and others have consistently said the military exercises and assistance packages are not aimed at China but represent America's continued support for its allies in the region. But China views any increased U.S. military presence and activities in the region as a threat.

China... Russia... not all intercepts are the same...  Great analysis!

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/why-russia-harasses-us-aircraft

QuoteWhy Russia Harasses U.S. Aircraft
Analysis APRIL 20, 2016 | 09:00 GMT

Summary

Since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, tension with the West has been high, affecting eastern Ukraine, Syria and hot spots across the former Soviet sphere. Less overtly, Moscow has been working to protect areas vital to Russian interests by raising the stakes of U.S. operations there. This has manifested in numerous aggressive interceptions of U.S. military aircraft in flight, especially over the Black and Baltic seas. The interceptions, which are reportedly occurring more frequently, aim to dissuade Washington from operating in that airspace.

Analysis

On April 14, a Russian Su-27 fighter jet performed a barrel roll maneuver over a U.S. Air Force RC-135 spy plane flying in international airspace over the Baltic Sea. Just three days earlier, two Russian Su-24 bombers flew dangerously and repeatedly close to a U.S. destroyer, also in the Baltic Sea. The most recent intercept came less than a week before the NATO-Russia Council is set to convene for the first time since 2014. Along with the fighting in Ukraine and Afghanistan, military transparency and risk reduction — timely and relevant topics given the interception incidents — will be up for discussion at the meeting.

Not all interceptions are aggressive. In fact, the tactic is standard practice among militaries, both in the air and at sea. Around the world, aircraft and ships from a multitude of countries routinely intercept, visually inspect and escort other aircraft and maritime vessels passing through sensitive airspace or waters. Air forces, navies and coast guards worldwide regularly perform intercepts of this kind to enforce an air defense identification zone such as that in the East China Sea, to police operations such as NATO's Baltic Air Policing mission or, as necessary, to conduct ad hoc tactics. In these capacities, interceptions are almost invariably non-threatening; they are simply a means by which nations enhance their situational awareness and protect against contingencies.

But some interceptions deviate from the norm. In a deliberate ploy to deter a nation's forces from transiting a specific space, aircraft or ships may display aggressive maneuvers, harassing and intimidating targets. These interceptions resemble a high-stakes game of chicken, daring the foreign craft to continue on its route, despite the increased risk of collision, or back down.

(https://www.stratfor.com/sites/default/files/styles/stratfor_large__s_/public/main/images/Russian-Flybys-041916.png?itok=9wARkoWQ)

Though the tactic carries a risk of damage to both sides, the initiator holds the advantage. Usually in aerial interceptions, a sleek, fast fighter jet targets a lumbering bomber or reconnaissance plane. The initiator of the encounter is often far less valuable — in monetary cost and in the number of flight crew aboard — than the intercepted target, raising the stakes for leaders (and crew) as they decide how to respond. As a fighter jet carries out dangerous maneuvers around it, the target is left to wonder about the interceptor's intentions and skill.

For Russia, close interceptions offer a means to deter U.S. craft without sparking outright combat. The tactic has worked for Moscow already: In July 2014, a Russian jet's aggressive flight so alarmed the crew of a U.S. RC-135 over the Baltic Sea that it accidentally fled into Swedish airspace to evade the interceptor.

But close intercepts do not always go as planned. In the April 2001 Hainan Island incident, for example, a collision during a close intercept left a Chinese pilot dead, his J-8II interceptor destroyed and a U.S. EP-3E signals intelligence aircraft seriously damaged. A number of Cold War-era close intercepts also caused collisions, particularly between ships. This led to the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Incidents at Sea Agreement, which sought to reduce the chances of collision and manage escalation when collisions did occur. Further efforts to limit the risk of escalation produced the 2014 Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, which included Russia and China, as well as a 2014 agreement between the United States and China to regulate incidents between the two.

But the past few years have demonstrated that the agreements are not enough to stop such dangerous close encounters, at least not between the United States and Russia. And given the substantial tension between the two countries, a midair or at-sea collision resulting from a close interception could trigger retaliatory measures, leading to an escalation that neither side wants. Even so, as long as tension persists between Russia and the United States, the interceptions are likely to continue.

Legislation introduced by 4 senators (2 republicans, 2 democrats) to step it up in the region:
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/cardin-gardner-menendez-schatz-introduce-asia-pacific-maritime-legislation-to-enhance-us-regional-leadership-support-allies-

QuoteThe legislation:

   * Authorizes the Secretary of State to provide Foreign Military Financing assistance and International Military and Education Training activities in the Asia-Pacific for maritime security capacity building;
   * Authorizes appropriations for the State Department's Southeast Asia Maritime Law Enforcement Initiative;
   * Authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in concurrence with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance for the purpose of increasing maritime security and domain awareness for countries in the Asia-Pacific region;
   * Upgrades the Philippines' military procurement status to the same level that our closest allies enjoy under U.S. law;
   * Prioritizes Asia-Pacific regional allies and maritime ASEAN member states for the transfer of excess defense articles: and
   * Requires the administration to report on plans for freedom of navigation assertions, maritime security partner capacity building and China's activities in the South China Sea.

Ready for more war?

Those A-10's we left behind in the Philippines have already started patrols over Scarborough Shoal. As many remember, the PLA-CG recently kicked out Filipino fisherman so they could survey the shoal for reclamation.

Being only 120 miles from the Philippine mainland was enough to trigger action.

The staus quo is clearly under duress. Its a matter of time before an incident occurs.

It just went up a notch today.

Per Reuters:

The guided missle destroyer USS William P Lawrence traveled within 12 miles of Fiery Cross Reef just now and was met by a scramble of PLAF fighters and 3 PLAN warships notifying it to leave.

Both sides are stating their positions.

China says the US is justifying why they have to be there.

The US says that they are proving freedom of the seas.

The fact that Obama will be in Asia (Vietnam) next week may have something to do with the increase in bluster as well.

China is calling it a "blatant disregard of their sovereignty".

Just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Quote from: spuwho on May 10, 2016, 03:28:14 PM
It just went up a notch today.

Per Reuters:

The guided missle destroyer USS William P Lawrence traveled within 12 miles of Fiery Cross Reef just now and was met by a scramble of PLAF fighters and 3 PLAN warships notifying it to leave.

Both sides are stating their positions.

China says the US is justifying why they have to be there.

The US says that they are proving freedom of the seas.

The fact that Obama will be in Asia (Vietnam) next week may have something to do with the increase in bluster as well.

China is calling it a "blatant disregard of their sovereignty".

Just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

The only country "blatantly disregarding sovereignty" is China...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 09:59:23 AM

Quote from: spuwho on May 10, 2016, 03:28:14 PM
It just went up a notch today.

Per Reuters:

The guided missle destroyer USS William P Lawrence traveled within 12 miles of Fiery Cross Reef just now and was met by a scramble of PLAF fighters and 3 PLAN warships notifying it to leave.

Both sides are stating their positions.

China says the US is justifying why they have to be there.

The US says that they are proving freedom of the seas.

The fact that Obama will be in Asia (Vietnam) next week may have something to do with the increase in bluster as well.

China is calling it a "blatant disregard of their sovereignty".

Just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

The only country "blatantly disregarding sovereignty" is China...

Whose sovereignty is China disregarding?

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 10:01:02 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 09:59:23 AM

Quote from: spuwho on May 10, 2016, 03:28:14 PM
It just went up a notch today.

Per Reuters:

The guided missle destroyer USS William P Lawrence traveled within 12 miles of Fiery Cross Reef just now and was met by a scramble of PLAF fighters and 3 PLAN warships notifying it to leave.

Both sides are stating their positions.

China says the US is justifying why they have to be there.

The US says that they are proving freedom of the seas.

The fact that Obama will be in Asia (Vietnam) next week may have something to do with the increase in bluster as well.

China is calling it a "blatant disregard of their sovereignty".

Just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

The only country "blatantly disregarding sovereignty" is China...

Whose sovereignty is China disregarding?

When they kicked out Filipino fishermen off Scarbourough Shoal, it was Phillippine sovereignty that was broached. The shoal falls inside the Phillippine 200 mile economic zone and is subject to Phillippine jurisdiction.

Fiery Cross Reef has several claimants in this case.

As noted in other posts, foreign navies have traversed the Bering Strait and we dont scramble warships and tell them to leave. They pass quietly.

Philippines primarily... Vietnam also...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
Philippines primarily... Vietnam also...

How so? Or are you arguing that their claims to these islands are somehow more legitimate than China's?

Their claims are just as legitimate or spurious as China's. But, I suppose how one interprets that depends on one's own biases.

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 10:53:05 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
Philippines primarily... Vietnam also...

How so? Or are you arguing that their claims to these islands are somehow more legitimate than China's?

Their claims are just as legitimate or spurious as China's. But, I suppose how one interprets that depends on one's own biases.

An honest glance at a map shows this not to be true...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 11:06:32 AM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 10:53:05 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
Philippines primarily... Vietnam also...

How so? Or are you arguing that their claims to these islands are somehow more legitimate than China's?

Their claims are just as legitimate or spurious as China's. But, I suppose how one interprets that depends on one's own biases.

An honest glance at a map shows this not to be true...

I guess that's why Argentina has the "Malvinas" and Hawaii belongs to Kiribati.

Quote from: spuwho on May 11, 2016, 10:26:41 AM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 10:01:02 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 09:59:23 AM

Quote from: spuwho on May 10, 2016, 03:28:14 PM
It just went up a notch today.

Per Reuters:

The guided missle destroyer USS William P Lawrence traveled within 12 miles of Fiery Cross Reef just now and was met by a scramble of PLAF fighters and 3 PLAN warships notifying it to leave.

Both sides are stating their positions.

China says the US is justifying why they have to be there.

The US says that they are proving freedom of the seas.

The fact that Obama will be in Asia (Vietnam) next week may have something to do with the increase in bluster as well.

China is calling it a "blatant disregard of their sovereignty".

Just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

The only country "blatantly disregarding sovereignty" is China...

Whose sovereignty is China disregarding?

When they kicked out Filipino fishermen off Scarbourough Shoal, it was Phillippine sovereignty that was broached. The shoal falls inside the Phillippine 200 mile economic zone and is subject to Phillippine jurisdiction.

Fiery Cross Reef has several claimants in this case.

As noted in other posts, foreign navies have traversed the Bering Strait and we dont scramble warships and tell them to leave. They pass quietly.

Chinese claims to these islands predate the claims of the Philippines.

As far as scrambling warships, etc - that isn't 'violating sovereignty' (it's arguably defending one's own).

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 11:18:01 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 11:06:32 AM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 10:53:05 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
Philippines primarily... Vietnam also...

How so? Or are you arguing that their claims to these islands are somehow more legitimate than China's?

Their claims are just as legitimate or spurious as China's. But, I suppose how one interprets that depends on one's own biases.

An honest glance at a map shows this not to be true...

I guess that's why Argentina has the "Malvinas" and Hawaii belongs to Kiribati.

completely different circumstances...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 12:15:44 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 11:18:01 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 11:06:32 AM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 10:53:05 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
Philippines primarily... Vietnam also...

How so? Or are you arguing that their claims to these islands are somehow more legitimate than China's?

Their claims are just as legitimate or spurious as China's. But, I suppose how one interprets that depends on one's own biases.

An honest glance at a map shows this not to be true...

I guess that's why Argentina has the "Malvinas" and Hawaii belongs to Kiribati.

completely different circumstances...

You said "an honest glance at a map". All the map shows is geographic proximity. Don't change horses mid-stream.

How long does a claim last?

How does a claim originate?

How is a claim maintained?

What keeps Greece from claiming Syria because Alexander the Great conquered it.

What motivated Germany to take Sudetenland in 1939?

What keeps Genoa from attempting to reclaim Istabul and calling Constantinople again?

I dont really care if China wants to occupy an island in the middle of no where.

But to claim a reef, pile a bunch of sand on it and call it a sovereign part of your country, when you havent maintained a claim nearby in nearly a thousand years?

Seems different to me.

it is...

The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 01:15:05 PM
The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 01:20:47 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 01:15:05 PM
The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Sure thing, mate.

I don't take a side in the conflict. I think all the involved parties have elements of their claims that are compelling. As I said earlier, they're equally legitimate or spurious.

You just parrot the US position. The US position is one borne out of foreign policy aims, nothing more. If China were located where the PI are, you can guarantee that the US would be endorsing the PI claims anyway. That's because the US views China as a threat.

I don't agree with the way the Chinese have acted (more often that not), but I also acknowledge the fact that the US "freedom of navigation" missions are nothing more than a provocation. It's an attempt to reinforce the US view on the sovereignty of the islands under the guise of being about freedom of navigation.

So the reason I know you guys are just typical US chauvinists is because you so uncritically adhere to the US view of this dispute and don't give any creedence whatsoever to the Chinese (or ROC) claims. Dismissing everything out of hand reveals your true motives.

You certainly are taking a side... I have also said... there could easily be a negotiated settlement of these "spurious claims"  Unsurprisingly... China is the party who refuses to participate.  I hear a parrot but it is speaking chinese... mate.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
You certainly are taking a side... I have also said... there could easily be a negotiated settlement of these "spurious claims"  Unsurprisingly... China is the party who refuses to participate.  I hear a parrot but it is speaking chinese... mate.

I don't take a side - I've been very consistent in that. But I guess in your narrow view of things, calling out your bias is the same as "taking a side".

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 02:38:17 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
You certainly are taking a side... I have also said... there could easily be a negotiated settlement of these "spurious claims"  Unsurprisingly... China is the party who refuses to participate.  I hear a parrot but it is speaking chinese... mate.

I don't take a side - I've been very consistent in that. But I guess in your narrow view of things, calling out your bias is the same as "taking a side".

So in your "broadminded view" why does China not negotiate with PI, Vietnam, Malaysia etc?  Seems fairly simple... we keep these... you get those... these stay open for fishermen.  Seems to me reasonable people could divvy these mostly submerged sandbars up in a day or two.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 02:45:45 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 02:38:17 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
You certainly are taking a side... I have also said... there could easily be a negotiated settlement of these "spurious claims"  Unsurprisingly... China is the party who refuses to participate.  I hear a parrot but it is speaking chinese... mate.

I don't take a side - I've been very consistent in that. But I guess in your narrow view of things, calling out your bias is the same as "taking a side".

So in your "broadminded view" why does China not negotiate with PI, Vietnam, Malaysia etc?  Seems fairly simple... we keep these... you get those... these stay open for fishermen.  Seems to me reasonable people could divvy these mostly submerged sandbars up in a day or two.

Well, I have no idea what the PRC's motivations are (or the ROC's for that matter). I assume they refuse to negotiate because they either a) feel they have an unassailable claim and don't feel a moral obligation to compromise or b) they don't want to give compromise because they just don't want to compromise. Perhaps their longstanding enmity towards Vietnam keeps them from negotiating. Who knows. Maybe they're just confident that they don't have to.

Or perhaps they're evil bastards who just like to make things difficult for everyone else. Or are greedy.

But regardless,  even if their actions are "wrong", that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the basis of their claims to the islands. As I said before, there are compelling aspects of the Chinese arguments, just as there are compelling aspects of the other nations' arguments.

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 02:03:53 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 01:20:47 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 01:15:05 PM
The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Sure thing, mate.

I don't take a side in the conflict. I think all the involved parties have elements of their claims that are compelling. As I said earlier, they're equally legitimate or spurious.

You just parrot the US position. The US position is one borne out of foreign policy aims, nothing more. If China were located where the PI are, you can guarantee that the US would be endorsing the PI claims anyway. That's because the US views China as a threat.

I don't agree with the way the Chinese have acted (more often that not), but I also acknowledge the fact that the US "freedom of navigation" missions are nothing more than a provocation. It's an attempt to reinforce the US view on the sovereignty of the islands under the guise of being about freedom of navigation.

So the reason I know you guys are just typical US chauvinists is because you so uncritically adhere to the US view of this dispute and don't give any creedence whatsoever to the Chinese (or ROC) claims. Dismissing everything out of hand reveals your true motives.

PRC already has possession of an island and no one disputes that. (Took it in 1946)

ROC also has posession of an island. No one disputes that.

Phillippines posess several islands, no one is disputing that.

These reefs all fall outside any countries EEC zones (200 miles) and have been up to now navigation hazards as well as great fishing zones.

The US hasnt been an innocent party in the past to the use of these islands and reefs (1896 Guano Act) but we dont claim them as sovereign territory when they spend 80 percent of their time underwater.

So while you may think of me as some US policy cheerleader, the Phillipines did make a peaceful and legitimate petition to the UN and World Court to resolve the situation. A petition the PRC refuses to even engage or acknowledge.

Generally speaking I think the US wants to do the right thing, but if the PRC wants to be a bully about it and not be a leader in resolution, then yes, we have to remind them that there are others in the world and they cant be ignored.

Quote from: spuwho on May 11, 2016, 03:45:54 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 02:03:53 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 01:20:47 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 01:15:05 PM
The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Sure thing, mate.

I don't take a side in the conflict. I think all the involved parties have elements of their claims that are compelling. As I said earlier, they're equally legitimate or spurious.

You just parrot the US position. The US position is one borne out of foreign policy aims, nothing more. If China were located where the PI are, you can guarantee that the US would be endorsing the PI claims anyway. That's because the US views China as a threat.

I don't agree with the way the Chinese have acted (more often that not), but I also acknowledge the fact that the US "freedom of navigation" missions are nothing more than a provocation. It's an attempt to reinforce the US view on the sovereignty of the islands under the guise of being about freedom of navigation.

So the reason I know you guys are just typical US chauvinists is because you so uncritically adhere to the US view of this dispute and don't give any creedence whatsoever to the Chinese (or ROC) claims. Dismissing everything out of hand reveals your true motives.

PRC already has possession of an island and no one disputes that. (Took it in 1946)

ROC also has posession of an island. No one disputes that.

Phillippines posess several islands, no one is disputing that.

These reefs all fall outside any countries EEC zones (200 miles) and have been up to now navigation hazards as well as great fishing zones.

The US hasnt been an innocent party in the past to the use of these islands and reefs (1896 Guano Act) but we dont claim them as sovereign territory when they spend 80 percent of their time underwater.

So while you may think of me as some US policy cheerleader, the Phillipines did make a peaceful and legitimate petition to the UN and World Court to resolve the situation. A petition the PRC refuses to even engage or acknowledge.

Generally speaking I think the US wants to do the right thing, but if the PRC wants to be a bully about it and not be a leader in resolution, then yes, we have to remind them that there are others in the world and they cant be ignored.

Land reclamation is common and it's something lots of countries do within what they consider to be their national boundaries. In practical terms, if the Spratlys are Chinese (and lie within Chinese territorial waters, as China maintains the case to be), then their reclaimed reefs don't really differ from Zeeland.

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 04:00:03 PM

Quote from: spuwho on May 11, 2016, 03:45:54 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 02:03:53 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 01:20:47 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 01:15:05 PM
The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Sure thing, mate.

I don't take a side in the conflict. I think all the involved parties have elements of their claims that are compelling. As I said earlier, they're equally legitimate or spurious.

You just parrot the US position. The US position is one borne out of foreign policy aims, nothing more. If China were located where the PI are, you can guarantee that the US would be endorsing the PI claims anyway. That's because the US views China as a threat.

I don't agree with the way the Chinese have acted (more often that not), but I also acknowledge the fact that the US "freedom of navigation" missions are nothing more than a provocation. It's an attempt to reinforce the US view on the sovereignty of the islands under the guise of being about freedom of navigation.

So the reason I know you guys are just typical US chauvinists is because you so uncritically adhere to the US view of this dispute and don't give any creedence whatsoever to the Chinese (or ROC) claims. Dismissing everything out of hand reveals your true motives.

PRC already has possession of an island and no one disputes that. (Took it in 1946)

ROC also has posession of an island. No one disputes that.

Phillippines posess several islands, no one is disputing that.

These reefs all fall outside any countries EEC zones (200 miles) and have been up to now navigation hazards as well as great fishing zones.

The US hasnt been an innocent party in the past to the use of these islands and reefs (1896 Guano Act) but we dont claim them as sovereign territory when they spend 80 percent of their time underwater.

So while you may think of me as some US policy cheerleader, the Phillipines did make a peaceful and legitimate petition to the UN and World Court to resolve the situation. A petition the PRC refuses to even engage or acknowledge.

Generally speaking I think the US wants to do the right thing, but if the PRC wants to be a bully about it and not be a leader in resolution, then yes, we have to remind them that there are others in the world and they cant be ignored.

Land reclamation is common and it's something lots of countries do within what they consider to be their national boundaries. In practical terms, if the Spratlys are Chinese (and lie within Chinese territorial waters, as China maintains the case to be), then their reclaimed reefs don't really differ from Zeeland.

And that is where we will disagree.

Spratlys are not the Netherlands. Not even a close compare.

Quote from: spuwho on May 11, 2016, 05:07:05 PM
And that is where we will disagree.

Spratlys are not the Netherlands. Not even a close compare.

Sure, you don't think so. I know that.

But if one (say a Chinese citizen, for example) were to consider the Spratlys to lie within Chinese territorial waters, then the analogy is sound. You think there is no comparison because you reject Chinese claims to those waters out of hand. But, in the eyes of a Chinese person, the activities of the Chinese state are completely normal and legal. To them, it's no different than if the US were to start reclaiming land around the Hawaiian islands.

Quote from: Adam White on May 11, 2016, 05:22:34 PM

Quote from: spuwho on May 11, 2016, 05:07:05 PM
And that is where we will disagree.

Spratlys are not the Netherlands. Not even a close compare.

Sure, you don't think so. I know that.

But if one (say a Chinese citizen, for example) were to consider the Spratlys to lie within Chinese territorial waters, then the analogy is sound. You think there is no comparison because you reject Chinese claims to those waters out of hand. But, in the eyes of a Chinese person, the activities of the Chinese state are completely normal and legal. To them, it's no different than if the US were to start reclaiming land around the Hawaiian islands.

You seem to enjoy assigning behaviors and thoughts to me.

If the PRC wants to make a claim, they should do so in a peaceful manner in cooperation with the surrounding nations.

Why did it take over 60 years for the PRC to suddenly discover their lost need to reclaim sovereignty over an area that has only the influence of some fishermen?

The PLAN could have tried any action they wanted shortly after they detonated their first nuke in 1956. But they didnt, so even if in their eyes they think they own it, they havent supported it with their acts until now.

So that clearly has undermined their position regardless of how they feel about it historically.

If only we were Chinese the proper perspective would become perfectly clear.  Damn... If only.  Hey Adam... are you Chinese?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 07:48:46 PM
If only we were Chinese the proper perspective would become perfectly clear.  Damn... If only.  Hey Adam... are you Chinese?

No, I'm American. And if you want to get picky, I'm an Irish national. I've never been to China, don't have a drop of Chinese (or any kind of Asian) blood in me. I've never dated a Chinese girl. I don't even really care for Chinese food all that much (aside from a few dishes).

And once again, you're being obtuse on purpose. I didn't say the Chinese perspective was proper. I'm trying to point out that there are many ways to look at this. But you Team America guys just assume the China = Bad posture. But I really shouldn't be surprised by that.

Quote from: Adam White on May 12, 2016, 01:28:23 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 07:48:46 PM
If only we were Chinese the proper perspective would become perfectly clear.  Damn... If only.  Hey Adam... are you Chinese?

No, I'm American. And if you want to get picky, I'm an Irish national. I've never been to China, don't have a drop of Chinese (or any kind of Asian) blood in me. I've never dated a Chinese girl. I don't even really care for Chinese food all that much (aside from a few dishes).

And once again, you're being obtuse on purpose. I didn't say the Chinese perspective was proper. I'm trying to point out that there are many ways to look at this. But you Team America guys just assume the China = Bad posture. But I really shouldn't be surprised by that.

lol... obtuse on purpose??  Some might consider making brilliantly obvious statements like "there are many ways to look at this" is purposely obtuse also.  Some might even consider your assumption that "Team America" people reflexively are anti China or are unable to read articles from the "many points of view" and form their own non automatic opinion...  But I would never consider you to be purposely obtuse Adam.  I apologize for assuming you were possibly chinese...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 12, 2016, 06:36:06 AM

Quote from: Adam White on May 12, 2016, 01:28:23 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 11, 2016, 07:48:46 PM
If only we were Chinese the proper perspective would become perfectly clear.  Damn... If only.  Hey Adam... are you Chinese?

No, I'm American. And if you want to get picky, I'm an Irish national. I've never been to China, don't have a drop of Chinese (or any kind of Asian) blood in me. I've never dated a Chinese girl. I don't even really care for Chinese food all that much (aside from a few dishes).

And once again, you're being obtuse on purpose. I didn't say the Chinese perspective was proper. I'm trying to point out that there are many ways to look at this. But you Team America guys just assume the China = Bad posture. But I really shouldn't be surprised by that.

lol... obtuse on purpose??  Some might consider making brilliantly obvious statements like "there are many ways to look at this" is purposely obtuse also.  Some might even consider your assumption that "Team America" people reflexively are anti China or are unable to read articles from the "many points of view" and form their own non automatic opinion...  But I would never consider you to be purposely obtuse Adam.  I apologize for assuming you were possibly chinese...

Apology accepted, though I don't view being considered possibly Chinese as an insult ;)

(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/56c630fa2e5265b6008b8153-840-686/south%20china%20seas.jpg)

The two china's seem a bit greedy dont you think?

Gets even more interesting every day:

Taiwan Asserts Island Claim in Philippines's South China Sea Hague Case

A private group in Taiwan has filed to intervene in a case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, asserting that at least one territory in the South China Sea belongs to neither the Philippines nor China, but to the "Republic of China," Taiwan.

The Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law has filed an intervening submission, asserting they have a solid argument that Itu Aba, part of the Spratly Islands, does not belong to any of the parties to the case at the Hague, but it is rightfully an island of Taiwan.

The court has accepted the submission and is reviewing the claim, which asserts not only that the territory belongs to Taiwan, but that Itu Aba is legally an island with the right to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) within it maritime borders. The Philippines is arguing that Itu Aba is a "rock" and therefore not entitled to such privileges in the South China Sea. Vietnam also claims Itu Aba as its own.

The Chinese government claims most of the South China Sea, including the Spratly and Paracel Islands. The territory China has unilaterally taken over includes areas within the borders of the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei, and Malaysia, and borders Natuna Island, an Indonesian territory. Among the contested areas of the Spratlys are Fiery Cross Reef and Johnson South Reef, home to a number of new Chinese constructions its neighbors say are illegal.

China does not consider Taiwan a sovereign nation and considers all territory belonging to Taiwan to be under the control of Beijing. Some fear that the Hague court asserting Itu Aba is an island will be used by China to claim its rights over the region. "If even one of the Spratlys is found to be an island entitled to a 200 mile EEZ, China will be able to plausibly claim that it owns that feature and the 200 mile entitlement that comes with it, a claim that, while not as large as the nine-dash line, would still be quite substantial," the magazine The Diplomat asserts.

To do so, however, China would have to acknowledge the Hague case at all, which it has refused to do. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has asserted that it will ignore any verdict out of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, even a favorable one. Its continued construction of artificial islands on reefs in the region — and military complexes on the artificial islands — stands as a testament to their refusal to acknowledge the case.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry did give Reuters a statement on Taiwan's submission to the court, however, offering some veiled support for the move. "Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait all have a responsibility to jointly protect the ancestral property of the Chinese people," the statement read, once again acknowledging Taiwan only as a province of China.

It has made similar supportive moves towards Taiwan on this issue, while ignoring that Taiwan is seeking to control its part of the Spratly Islands for Taipei and not Beijing. In January, President Ma Ying-jeou visited Itu Aba to bring attention to its status as a rightful island internationally, not a rock or other formation not eligible for an EEZ. "Many of his policies don't live up to the expectations of the Chinese mainland, but his unwavering stance on the South China Sea regardless of Washington's pressurizing is worth praise," Chinese state-run Global Times said of the excursion. The government of the United States called the visit "very unhelpful."

Taiwanese President-elect Tsai Ing-wen turned down a chance to visit with Ma, a sign that she is not interested in behavior that may be used by Beijing to bolster its claims in the region. The Global Times column made note of "Tsai's different stance on the issue," as well. Tsai will assume the office of the presidency on May 20.

In March, the Taiwanese government made a final international appeal to assert its claims by bringing a group of reporters to Itu Aba, showing them the facilities on the island as proof that it is a habitable territory. Taipei asserted that the presence of a local population, agriculture, and constructions should solidify its international legal status and allow it to be part of the debate over which nations control which territories in the region.

And here is how Taiwan got involved, basically they took an island as a part of evicting the Japanese from Taiwan in WWII as they were using it as a sub base.  Can this get any more complicated? The sovereignty argument was actually worked out by the Nationalists, not the PLA.  But seeing that the PRC considers themselves the "sole" China, by extension they now believe they can execute on it.

Per Wikipedia:

China first asserted sovereignty in the modern sense to the South China Sea's island when it formally objected to France's efforts to incorporate Itu Aba and other islands and rocks into French Indochina during the 1884 – 1885 Sino-French war. The 1887 boundary convention signed between France and China places the Spratly and Paracel islands under Chinese rule.[citation needed] Chinese maps since then have consistently shown China's claims, first as a solid and then as a dotted line.

At first, France recognized Chinese sovereignty of Spratly and Paracel islands, in exchange for Chinese recognition of Vietnam as a French territory.[citation needed] In 1932, a year after the Japanese formally invaded northeast China (Manchuria), France formally claimed both the Paracel and Spratly Islands. China and Japan both protested. In 1933, France seized the Paracels and Spratlys, announced their annexation, formally included them in French Indochina, and built a couple of weather stations on them, but did not disturb the numerous Chinese fishermen it found there. In 1938 Japan took the islands from France, garrisoned them, and built a submarine base at Itu Aba (now Taiping / 太平) Island. In 1941, the Japanese Empire made the Paracel and Spratly islands part of Taiwan, then under its rule.

In 1945, in accordance with the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and with American help, the armed forces of the Republic of China government at Nanjing accepted the surrender of the Japanese garrisons in Taiwan, including the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Nanjing then declared both archipelagoes to be part of Guangdong Province. The island was claimed by the French as part of French Indochina in 1887. They occupied it in 1932 to assert control, and in reaction to a 1932 protest by the Chinese of their sovereignty of the Paracels.[13] During World War II, it was invaded by Japan and converted to a submarine base.[14] It was administratively attached to the municipality of Takao (Kaohsiung) in the Japanese colony of Taiwan.

On 6 November 1946, the ROC government sent four warships to the South China Sea to secure islands within the region, commanded by Lin Zun and Yao Ruyu (姚汝鈺): ROCS Chung-Yeh (中業號), ROCS Yung-hsing (永興號), ROCS Tai-ping (太平號) and ROCS Chung-chien (中建號). The warships departed from Guangzhou and headed towards the Spratly and Paracel island groups. On 12 December the two ships led by Lin Zun, ROCS Tai-ping and ROCS Chung-Yeh, arrived at Taiping Island. In commemoration of the island being secured, the island was chosen to be named after the ROCS Tai-ping warship, and thus a stone stele reading "Taiping island" was erected on a breakwater tip southwest of the island.[6] The other three ships likewise had their names used: Woody Island (in the Paracels) was named Yongxing (Yung-hsing) Island (presently PRC-occupied), Triton Island (Paracels) was named Zhongjian (Chung-chien) Island (presently PRC-occupied), and Thitu Island (Spratlys) was named Zhongye (Chung-Yeh) Island (presently Philippines-occupied).

Chinese jets intercept U.S. recon plane, almost colliding over South China Sea

Two Chinese tactical fighters intercepted a U.S. Navy reconnaissance aircraft over the South China Sea earlier this week, a Pentagon spokeswoman announced Wednesday.

The U.S.EP-3E Aries, a propeller driven aircraft capable of intercepting radio communications, was flying in international airspace Tuesday when it was approached by two Chinese J-11 jets. The Chinese aircraft came within roughly 50 feet of the U.S. plane and were so close that the U.S. EP-3E was forced to descend to avoid collision, according to a report from the Associated Press.

The Pentagon described the incident as "unsafe." In 2001, a U.S. EP-3 collided with a Chinese J-8, killing the pilot and forcing the American plane to make an emergency landing in China.

"Over the past year, [the Pentagon] has seen improvements in [Chinese] actions, flying in a safe and professional manner," Baldanza said in a written statement.

Earlier this month, Chinese jets and warships scrambled to intercept a U.S. destroyer that sailed within 12 miles of a disputed island in the South China Sea. The island, known as Fiery Cross Reef and situated in the Spratly Island Chain, was once a cluster of rocks before being turned into a fully functional military base complete with a port and runway by the Chinese.

The small island has been claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines and is emblematic of the current struggle between countries attempting to secure portions of the resource-rich waters of the South China Sea.

While the United States has maintained its distance in the territorial disputes, the Pentagon has consistently said it will not be deterred by China's militarization of the region.

"The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows," Cmdr. Bill Urban, a Pentagon spokesman, said earlier this month. "That is [as] true in the South China Sea as in other places around the globe."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/05/18/chinese-jets-intercept-u-s-recon-plane-almost-colliding-over-south-china-sea

The ONLY reason for this plane...
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_20/1542281/150623-china-military-j-11-mn-1740_fc862104ed188a4319d0fc3b63784910.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg)

To fly within 50 feet of this plane...
(http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_20/1542291/160518-navy-ep-3-mn-1745_c1104ebd07bdd07313a4602ede9b9f85.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg)
Is to intimidate and imply aggression...

Quote from: spuwho on May 12, 2016, 08:33:09 PM
Gets even more interesting every day

The New 'X Factor' in South China Sea Crisis: Rodrigo Duterte

Rodrigo Duterte's victory in the Philippines' Presidential elections has introduced new uncertainty into Asia's security outlook.

The populist strongman from Davao, which is the largest city in Mindanao, is nicknamed 'The Punisher' and 'Duterte Harry' for his alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings of around 1,000 criminals in that city during the late 1990s. Duterte secured 38.49% of the presidential vote, ahead of 23.46% and 21.66% for his rivals Manuel Roxas and Grace Poe, respectively.

Duterte's foreign policy rhetoric suggests that under his Presidency, the Philippines could suddenly shift its position on the South China Sea crisis in a manner that would generate uncertainty, and  weaken ASEAN's ability to develop a common position against an assertive China. The Philippines will be the chair of ASEAN in 2017, and so Duterte's position on the growing crisis in the South China Sea really matters. The problem is that his rhetoric is confused—on one hand he suggests a willingness to engage China bilaterally over the crisis in exchange for Chinese economic investment, on the other he proposes a multilateral roundtable discussion that China would oppose. And then there is loose talk of confronting China at Scarborough Shoal on a jet ski—the maritime equivalent of a shirtfront!

The shifting policy position of the President-elect is likely to reinforce the risk of miscalculation on both sides of the dispute and generate further provocations. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague is currently assessing a crucial legal case presented by the Philippines against China on the issue of disputed territories in the South China Sea. Its finding is likely to be handed down in June, and could favor the Philippines. China is vowing that it will ignore the PCA's finding, and in doing so, weaken legal norms such as UNCLOS. Duterte has indicated he's not a strong supporter of international legal solutions to disputes stating: 'I have a similar position as China's. I don't believe in solving the conflict through an international tribunal'. His stance could embolden China to be more assertive. Under Duterte, the dynamics of this crisis look set to change in China's favor.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-new-x-factor-south-china-sea-crisis-rodrigo-duterte-16166

Quote from: finehoe on May 19, 2016, 10:58:38 AM

Quote from: spuwho on May 12, 2016, 08:33:09 PM
Gets even more interesting every day

The New 'X Factor' in South China Sea Crisis: Rodrigo Duterte

Rodrigo Duterte's victory in the Philippines' Presidential elections has introduced new uncertainty into Asia's security outlook.

The populist strongman from Davao, which is the largest city in Mindanao, is nicknamed 'The Punisher' and 'Duterte Harry' for his alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings of around 1,000 criminals in that city during the late 1990s. Duterte secured 38.49% of the presidential vote, ahead of 23.46% and 21.66% for his rivals Manuel Roxas and Grace Poe, respectively.

Duterte's foreign policy rhetoric suggests that under his Presidency, the Philippines could suddenly shift its position on the South China Sea crisis in a manner that would generate uncertainty, and  weaken ASEAN's ability to develop a common position against an assertive China. The Philippines will be the chair of ASEAN in 2017, and so Duterte's position on the growing crisis in the South China Sea really matters. The problem is that his rhetoric is confused—on one hand he suggests a willingness to engage China bilaterally over the crisis in exchange for Chinese economic investment, on the other he proposes a multilateral roundtable discussion that China would oppose. And then there is loose talk of confronting China at Scarborough Shoal on a jet ski—the maritime equivalent of a shirtfront!

The shifting policy position of the President-elect is likely to reinforce the risk of miscalculation on both sides of the dispute and generate further provocations. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague is currently assessing a crucial legal case presented by the Philippines against China on the issue of disputed territories in the South China Sea. Its finding is likely to be handed down in June, and could favor the Philippines. China is vowing that it will ignore the PCA's finding, and in doing so, weaken legal norms such as UNCLOS. Duterte has indicated he's not a strong supporter of international legal solutions to disputes stating: 'I have a similar position as China's. I don't believe in solving the conflict through an international tribunal'. His stance could embolden China to be more assertive. Under Duterte, the dynamics of this crisis look set to change in China's favor.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-new-x-factor-south-china-sea-crisis-rodrigo-duterte-16166

The Filipino Donald Trump?

Quote from: spuwho on May 19, 2016, 01:12:59 PM
The Filipino Donald Trump?

That's what they call him...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Filipino+Donald+Trump&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

U.S. 'hypocrisy' and Chinese cash strengthen Beijing's hand in South China Sea

The latest was Kenya. Before that: Lesotho, Vanuatu and Afghanistan.

The list of countries backing Beijing's stance in the South China Sea just keeps growing — China's Foreign Ministry boasted last week that nearly 60 had swung behind the country's rejection of international arbitration in a case brought by the Philippines.

The numbers are questionable, and the idea of gaining the support of distant, landlocked Niger in a dispute about the South China Sea could seem faintly ludicrous.

Yet China's frantic efforts to rally support ahead of a ruling from an international tribunal in The Hague may not be as meaningless as they might seem. Cold, hard Chinese cash and what many see as American double standards are undermining efforts to build a unified global response to Beijing's land reclamation activities in the disputed waters and employ international law to help resolve the issue.

The lure of Chinese money is having an impact in the Philippines, where President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has made wildly contradictory comments on the issue but has suggested some openness to bilateral negotiations — if China builds railways there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-hypocrisy-and-chinese-cash-strengthen-beijings-hand-in-south-china-sea/2016/06/18/6907943a-330a-11e6-ab9d-1da2b0f24f93_story.html

Quote from: finehoe on June 20, 2016, 08:33:18 AM



The numbers are questionable, and the idea of gaining the support of distant, landlocked Niger in a dispute about the South China Sea could seem faintly ludicrous.

Kind of like the USA's so-called "Coalition of the Willing" for the invasion of Iraq, which included the Marshall Islands, etc.

Since when did the US stop or harass a foreign navy from transiting international waters?

If the World Court is so meaningless and weak to the point that China didnt even send a delegation, why do they need a coalition of anyone to offset it?

The new President of the Phillippines has the right idea, its not just about the cash, its about some level of cooperation.  If the Chinese find oil and the cash flows, then in the Phillippines mind that the same as having it themselves if China uses the wealth to help fund Filipino infrastructure.

China is looking for an uncontested grab, Phillippines is looking for leverage.

Quote from: spuwho on June 20, 2016, 12:35:44 PM
Since when did the US stop or harass a foreign navy from transiting international waters?

Did someone say that happened?

Quote from: finehoe on June 20, 2016, 12:44:58 PM

Quote from: spuwho on June 20, 2016, 12:35:44 PM
Since when did the US stop or harass a foreign navy from transiting international waters?

Did someone say that happened?

References to US hypocrisy are mentioned liberally. I was trying to determine what we were being judged on.

Quote from: spuwho on June 20, 2016, 01:05:23 PM
References to US hypocrisy are mentioned liberally. I was trying to determine what we were being judged on.

All you have to do is read the article linked to.

QuoteAnd this is where American double standards come in. Despite efforts by the Bush and Obama administrations, the Senate has never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

So when the United States, the European Union and Japan urge China to respect a "rules-based" international system, the admonishments often come across here as insincere.

Japan, experts point out, has ignored a 2014 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against its whaling operations, and the United States ignored a 1986 ICJ ruling against the Reagan administration's support for contra rebels in Nicaragua.

"More importantly, because the United States has never ratified UNCLOS, countries that have maritime disputes with it are unable to take it to legal arbitration," said Storey, arguing that the issue has become "even more glaringly apparent" in the run-up to the ruling.

Although the U.S. government says it follows UNCLOS as "customary international law," its failure to submit itself formally to its provisions rankles many nations — especially China.

"China is trying to emulate components of American exceptionalism that place the U.S. above other nations and international law," said Yanmei Xie, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group. "The U.S. not ratifying UNCLOS just proves China's point."

Wang Dong, an associate professor in the School of International Studies at Peking University, underlined China's frustration with American "hypocrisy."

Sorry, I thought your post quoted the entire article, hence the gap in the commentary.

China begs diplomacy with their words by aggregating other nations to stand with them, but cant raise a finger to talk to the countries directly involved.

Lots of hypocrisy in the air it seems.

yet more diplomacy...

https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/19/things-heat-up-near-south-china-sea-two-u-s-aircraft-carriers-b-52s-and-ea-18g-growler-detachment/

(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Two-carriers-in-South-China-Sea-706x471.jpg)

QuoteThings heat up near South China Sea: two U.S. aircraft carriers, B-52s and EA-18G Growler detachment

Some interesting photographs have been arriving from the troubled waters of Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

The most recent ones, released on Jun. 18, show the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) carrier strike groups (CSG 3 and CSG 5) crusing close each other during dual carrier flight operations in the Philippine Sea.

Such operations included air combat training, long-range strike training, air defense drills as well as sea surveillance.

The CSG 3, that started operations in the Western Pacific on Feb. 4, consists of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay (CG 53) and guided-missile destroyers of Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 21, USS Stockdale (DDG 106), USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93) and USS William P. Lawrence (DDG 110), and the aircraft of Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9.

CSG 5, begun its summer patrol of the Indo-Asia Pacific, on Jun. 4, and consists of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), guided-missile cruisers USS Shiloh (CG 67) and USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) and guided-missile destroyers from Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 15, USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), USS McCampbell (DDG 85), USS Benfold (DDG 65); the aircraft of Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5, is forward-deployed to Yokosuka, Japan and routinely, patrols the Western Pacific.

Click the link above for more...

Despite China's massive investments in military modernization, U.S. armed forces will retain superiority over potential adversaries for decades to come, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said June 20. His remarks came at a time when defense officials and analysts are sounding the alarm that U.S. technological superiority is eroding as Beijing continues to beef up its military capabilities. While not directly naming China as a potential challenger, the Pentagon chief made it clear that he doesn't foresee any rising powers overtaking Uncle Sam anytime soon. "Thanks to the investments and planning we're undertaking as part of President Obama's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, the United States will have the people, the platforms and the posture to remain the most powerful military and main underwriter of security in the region for decades," Carter said at a conference hosted by the Center for a New American Security in Washington, D.C.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2225

But how much of it will be made in China to increase profits  ;)

Quote from: finehoe on June 21, 2016, 08:40:41 AM
"Thanks to the investments and planning we're undertaking as part of President Obama's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, the United States will have the people, the platforms and the posture to remain the most powerful military and main underwriter of security in the region for decades,"

My insightful contribution to this post:

(http://i.imgur.com/8JrHJ7f.gif)

From People's Daily Online:

QuoteThe United States is a country outside the territory of the South China Sea, coming from one side of the Pacific Ocean all the way to the other side of the Pacific Ocean to demonstrate their military power is for the purpose of intensifying the situation and to provoke disturbances and break peaceful stability and then to fish in troubled water and make an effort to maintain hegemony thereat at all costs. This deceitful business is despised in the regard of international law, and it is also harmful to the security benefits of the country.

http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0622/c90000-9075995.html

China believes it is the real victim in the South China Sea dispute

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/11/china-believes-it-is-the-real-victim-in-the-south-china-sea-dispute/  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/11/china-believes-it-is-the-real-victim-in-the-south-china-sea-dispute/)

After months of posturing and news releases, Beijing on Monday published what may be its definitive domestic statement on the South China Sea arbitration case. And, boy, is it revealing.

In a front-page editorial published the day before the Permanent Court of Arbitration is set to rule, the People's Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece, argues that it is China, not the Philippines, that is the "real victim," casting the case as a foreign "plot" to weaken and humiliate China.

"The facts have proved clearly that the Philippines South China Sea arbitration case is completely a "trap" targeting China, which is hyped and manipulated by the U.S., led by the Philippines, and with cooperation from the arbitration courtroom," it says.

If you've been following the very loud run-up to Tuesday's ruling, some of this is old news. In recent weeks, Chinese authorities have launched a massive, multilingual push aimed at discrediting the arbitration and disseminating the Chinese point of view.

A former diplomat preemptively labeled the ruling a piece of "trash paper." State media called the court "law abusing." One paper accused The Hague of "playing the fool" by allowing the Philippines to air its claims.

What's interesting about the People's Daily piece is how it merges a story about law with one of the Communist Party's most potent narratives: national humiliation.

If you are following China from outside the country, particularly from the United States, you are probably used to hearing China discussed in terms of its "rise." The U.S. tends to talk about China as a country growing ever-richer and stronger, as a soon-to-be superpower about to supplant Uncle Sam. (See, for instance, Donald Trump's comments in the early Republican debates.)

Not here. When the ruling Communist Party talks about China's place in the world, it is less likely to talk about the country's rise than its "rejuvenation" after a century of humiliation that started with Qing losses to the barbarian British during the Opium Wars and lasted until the founding of the People's Republic in 1949.

President Xi Jinping, who came to power in 2012, has made the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation" one of his signature slogans, drawing a rhetorical line between the humiliation and suffering of the past and the strong, proud China of the future.

In a major speech last September, he called Japan's defeat in World War II a "great triumph" that "crushed the plot of the Japanese militarists to colonize and enslave China and put an end to China's national humiliation of suffering successive defeats at the hands of foreign aggressors in modern times."

State media are now using similar language to describe the maritime disputes that have pitted China against smaller, less prosperous neighbors, most notably the Philippines.

A recent China Daily editorial headlined "China will not swallow bitter pill of humiliation" drew a direct link between the suffering of the Opium War era and the as-yet-revealed findings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

"The days have long passed since the country was referred to as the 'sick man of East Asia' whose fate was at the mercy of a few Western powers," it read.

The People's Daily on Monday takes that emotional appeal a step further. "China is growing, but the humiliating experiences of being invaded by outside enemies and bullied by hegemonic powers in more than a century are the inerasable memories of Chinese people," it says.

"Chinese people who have walked through such historical memories will absolutely not allow the replay of 'the humiliating past' even in part."

Having set the tone, Beijing's challenge is to respond to the ruling in a way that will affirm nationalist sentiment, but also keep the peace. When you convince the body politic that dignity and destiny turn on victory, it becomes dangerous to lose.

Tribunal Rejects Beijing's Claims in South China Sea

An international tribunal in The Hague delivered a sweeping rebuke on Tuesday of China's behavior in the South China Sea, including its construction of artificial islands, and found that its expansive claim to sovereignty over the waters had no legal basis.

The landmark case, brought by the Philippines, was seen as an important crossroads in China's rise as a global power and in its rivalry with the United States, and it could force Beijing to reconsider its assertive tactics in the region or risk being labeled an international outlaw. It was the first time the Chinese government had been summoned before the international justice system.

In its most significant finding, the tribunal rejected China's argument that it enjoys historic rights over most of the South China Sea. That could give the governments of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam more leverage in their own maritime disputes with Beijing.

The tribunal also said that China had violated international law by causing "irreparable harm" to the marine environment, endangering Philippine ships and interfering with Philippine fishing and oil exploration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html

^Can't wait to see China's butthurt response to this...

For a country that says the tribunal decision is "worthless" and has no value, they sure are making a show out of it.

I thought the Chinese got a pretty favorable ruling... the new "continental shelf and EEZ" area still screws Vietnam from half of their coastline.

https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-map/

Very good analysis...

https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-ruling-analysis/

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2016, 02:25:10 PM
Very good analysis...

https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-ruling-analysis/

Good read. Thanks for posting.

Looking at the interactive maps I would agree Vietnam got shafted. As soon as you exit their EEZ, you are in China's EEZ.

Vietnam has a weak Navy and right now has had troubles going up against the PLAN-CG.

I cant see them putting up much push back right now.

And the beat goes on.....

Vietnam moves new rocket launchers into disputed South China Sea

Per Reuters:

(Reuters) - Vietnam has discreetly fortified several of its islands in the disputed South China Sea with new mobile rocket launchers capable of striking China's runways and military installations across the vital trade route, according to Western officials.

Diplomats and military officers told Reuters that intelligence shows Hanoi has shipped the launchers from the Vietnamese mainland into position on five bases in the Spratly islands in recent months, a move likely to raise tensions with Beijing.

The launchers have been hidden from aerial surveillance and they have yet to be armed, but could be made operational with rocket artillery rounds within two or three days, according to the three sources.

Vietnam's Foreign Ministry said the information was "inaccurate", without elaborating.

Deputy Defence Minister, Senior Lieutenant-General Nguyen Chi Vinh, told Reuters in Singapore in June that Hanoi had no such launchers or weapons ready in the Spratlys but reserved the right to take any such measures.

"It is within our legitimate right to self-defense to move any of our weapons to any area at any time within our sovereign territory," he said.

The move is designed to counter China's build-up on its seven reclaimed islands in the Spratlys archipelago. Vietnam's military strategists fear the building runways, radars and other military installations on those holdings have left Vietnam's southern and island defenses increasingly vulnerable.

Military analysts say it is the most significant defensive move Vietnam has made on its holdings in the South China Sea in decades.

Hanoi wanted to have the launchers in place as it expected tensions to rise in the wake of the landmark international court ruling against China in an arbitration case brought by the Philippines, foreign envoys said.

The ruling last month, stridently rejected by Beijing, found no legal basis to China's sweeping historic claims to much of the South China Sea.

Vietnam, China and Taiwan claim all of the Spratlys while the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei claim some of the area.

"China has indisputable sovereignty over the Spratly islands and nearby waters," China's Foreign Ministry said in a faxed statement on Wednesday. "China resolutely opposes the relevant country illegally occupying parts of China's Spratly islands and reefs and on these illegally occupied Spratly islands and reefs belonging to China carrying out illegal construction and military deployments."

The United States is also monitoring developments closely.

"We continue to call on all South China Sea claimants to avoid actions that raise tensions, take practical steps to build confidence, and intensify efforts to find peaceful, diplomatic solutions to disputes," a State Department official said.

STATE-OF-THE-ART SYSTEM

Foreign officials and military analysts believe the launchers form part of Vietnam's state-of-art EXTRA rocket artillery system recently acquired from Israel.

EXTRA rounds are highly accurate up to a range of 150 km (93 miles), with different 150 kg (330 lb) warheads that can carry high explosives or bomblets to attack multiple targets simultaneously. Operated with targeting drones, they could strike both ships and land targets.

That puts China's 3,000-metre runways and installations on Subi, Fiery Cross and Mischief Reef within range of many of Vietnam's tightly clustered holdings on 21 islands and reefs.

While Vietnam has larger and longer range Russian coastal defense missiles, the EXTRA is considered highly mobile and effective against amphibious landings. It uses compact radars, so does not require a large operational footprint - also suitable for deployment on islets and reefs.

"When Vietnam acquired the EXTRA system, it was always thought that it would be deployed on the Spratlys...it is the perfect weapon for that," said Siemon Wezeman, a senior arms researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

There is no sign the launchers have been recently test fired or moved.

China took its first Spratlys possessions after a sea battle against Vietnam's then weak navy in 1988. After the battle, Vietnam said 64 soldiers with little protection were killed as they tried to protect a flag on South Johnson reef - an incident still acutely felt in Hanoi.

In recent years, Vietnam has significantly improved its naval capabilities as part of a broader military modernization, including buying six advanced Kilo submarines from Russia.

Carl Thayer, an expert on Vietnam's military at the Australian Defence Force Academy, said the deployment showed the seriousness of Vietnam's determination to militarily deter China as far as possible.

"China's runways and military installations in the Spratlys are a direct challenge to Vietnam, particularly in their southern waters and skies, and they are showing they are prepared to respond to that threat," he said. "China is unlikely to see this as purely defensive, and it could mark a new stage of militarization of the Spratlys."

Trevor Hollingsbee, a former naval intelligence analyst with the British defense ministry, said he believed the deployment also had a political factor, partly undermining the fear created by the prospect of large Chinese bases deep in maritime Southeast Asia.

"It introduces a potential vulnerability where they was none before - it is a sudden new complication in an arena that China was dominating," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/us-underwater-drone-china.html?_r=0

QuoteU.S. Demands Return of Drone Seized by Chinese Warship
By HELENE COOPER DEC. 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said on Friday it had issued a formal protest to Beijing demanding the return of an underwater drone seized by a Chinese warship in the South China Sea, an incident that risked increasing tensions in a region already fraught with great-power rivalries.

A Defense Department official said that the unmanned underwater vehicle was discovered missing on Thursday when the crew of the United States Navy vessel Bowditch tried to retrieve it.

The Bowditch, an oceanographic ship, was operating in international waters and carrying out scientific research, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a potentially delicate international incident.

American officials said they were still trying to determine whether the seizure was a low-level action taken by Chinese sailors who spotted the drone or a strategic-level action ordered by more senior Chinese leaders.

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Whatever the case, the Pentagon said that China had no right to seize the drone.

"This is not the sort of conduct we expect from professional navies," said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

The incident is the second this week in the South China Sea, coming just after China signaled on Thursday that it had installed weapons on disputed islands that it would use to repel threats. The latest moves complicate already testy relations between China and the United States, ties that have been further complicated by President-elect Donald J. Trump's phone call with the president of Taiwan.

Mr. Trump angered Chinese officials by holding a phone conversation with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, an island that Beijing deems a breakaway province of China. It had been nearly four decades since a United States president or president-elect had such direct contact with a Taiwanese leader.

In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Mr. Trump also criticized China over its trade imbalance with the United States, its military activities in the South China Sea and its ties to North Korea.

Defense officials said on Friday that they were trying to determine if the seizure of the underwater drone had anything to do with Mr. Trump's comments.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2016, 02:14:34 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/us-underwater-drone-china.html?_r=0

QuoteU.S. Demands Return of Drone Seized by Chinese Warship
By HELENE COOPER DEC. 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said on Friday it had issued a formal protest to Beijing demanding the return of an underwater drone seized by a Chinese warship in the South China Sea, an incident that risked increasing tensions in a region already fraught with great-power rivalries.

A Defense Department official said that the unmanned underwater vehicle was discovered missing on Thursday when the crew of the United States Navy vessel Bowditch tried to retrieve it.

The Bowditch, an oceanographic ship, was operating in international waters and carrying out scientific research, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a potentially delicate international incident.

American officials said they were still trying to determine whether the seizure was a low-level action taken by Chinese sailors who spotted the drone or a strategic-level action ordered by more senior Chinese leaders.

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Whatever the case, the Pentagon said that China had no right to seize the drone.

"This is not the sort of conduct we expect from professional navies," said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

The incident is the second this week in the South China Sea, coming just after China signaled on Thursday that it had installed weapons on disputed islands that it would use to repel threats. The latest moves complicate already testy relations between China and the United States, ties that have been further complicated by President-elect Donald J. Trump's phone call with the president of Taiwan.

Mr. Trump angered Chinese officials by holding a phone conversation with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, an island that Beijing deems a breakaway province of China. It had been nearly four decades since a United States president or president-elect had such direct contact with a Taiwanese leader.

In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Mr. Trump also criticized China over its trade imbalance with the United States, its military activities in the South China Sea and its ties to North Korea.

Defense officials said on Friday that they were trying to determine if the seizure of the underwater drone had anything to do with Mr. Trump's comments.

I doubt it had anything to do with Trump.

More in line to see if US oceanographic activities are truly for science or intelligence gathering.

For all they know it was a CIA crew using USOS as a cover for their underwater drone which records sonographic information on submarine screws.

Yet more intrigue.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/explained-tension-south-china-sea/

(http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/south-china-sea-cotw.jpg)

QuoteExplained by Graphics: Tension in the South China Sea

CLAIMS ON THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, THE RECENT RULING, AND WHY CHINA IS IGNORING IT

The Chart of the Week is a weekly Visual Capitalist feature on Fridays.

Tension in the South China Sea reached a potential inflection point this week.

Days ago, an international tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, dismissing China's sweeping territorial claims to the hotly contested waters in the South China Sea.

Since then, it has become clear that China plans to ignore the ruling, while Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin has threatened to declare an air defense identification zone over the waters to help protect the country's interests.

But how did we get to this point? How was this ruling determined, and what does it mean moving forwards?

WHY THE SOUTH CHINA SEA MATTERS

The South China Sea is home to 250 small islands, shoals, reefs, sandbars, and other tiny landmasses.

The South China Sea is the second most used sea lane in the world, and home to:

$5 trillion of annual trade
11 billion barrels of oil
266 trillion cubic ft of natural gas
Six countries claim parts of the South China Sea as their own: China, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei.

However, China has the boldest claim, insisting that over 80% of the sea is their territory based on historical maps.

ISLAND OR ROCK?

The ruling in the Philippines vs. China hearing is based on the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into force in 1994. All countries disputing claims in the South China Sea are signatories.

UNCLOS defines three types of landmasses, and whether something is a "rock" or an "island" has huge implications for territorial claims.

Low-tide elevation: A landmass above water only at low tide.
Rock: A landmass permanently above water, but unable to sustain human habitation or economic life on its own.
Island: A landmass permanently above water that can sustain human habitation and economic life on its own.
Rocks get some territorial benefits, but islands get 200 nautical miles (370 km) of special economic rights around them in each direction.

Low-tide elevation: Not entitled to any separate maritime zone.
Rock: Entitled to territorial sea and contiguous zone. Each are up to 12 nautical miles (22 km) from base line.
Island: Entitled to territorial sea and contiguous zone, but also entitled to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles (370 km), and continental shelf rights.
The economic zone confers rights for fishing, drilling, energy production, and other economic activities.

THE RULING

The tribunal ruled that Scarborough Shoal, along with areas occupied by China in the Spratly Islands do not count as "islands", and therefore do not justify 200 nautical mile (370 km) economic zones around them.

China has rejected the ruling calling it "ill-founded". Taiwan, which has administered Taiping Island since 1956, also rejected the ruling.

China has argued that the tribunal has no legitimate jurisdiction on this issue since it concerns "sovereignty" – which the text of the UNCLOS explicitly prohibits tribunals from addressing.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

If China continues to ignore the ruling, likely there will be a "hit" to China's reputation, but that's it.

Going back in history, there is a long list of situations where superpowers have ignored international rulings. It is also worth noting that China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and has veto power.

Tension will continue to increase in the South China Sea, creating a situation that could boil over at any time.

It should be noted the US has never ratified UNCLOS.

Quote from: finehoe on January 06, 2017, 02:26:07 PM
It should be noted the US has never ratified UNCLOS.

Well, like China, Russia and every other major power, the USA only cares about the UN when it is in its best interest to do so.

Tillerson says China should be barred from South China Sea islands

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state has set a course for a potentially serious confrontation with Beijing, saying China should be denied access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.

In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing on Wednesday before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was "akin to Russia's taking Crimea" from Ukraine.

Asked whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China, he said: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

The former Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands it has built up from South China Sea reefs, equipped with military-length airstrips and fortified with weapons.

Trump's transition team did not immediately respond to a request for specifics on how China might be blocked from the artificial islands.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-congress-tillerson-china-idUSKBN14V2KZ

Steve Bannon: 'we're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'

The United States and China will fight a war within the next ten years over islands in the South China Sea, and "there's no doubt about that". At the same time, the US will be in another "major" war in the Middle East.


Those are the views – nine months ago at least – of one of the most powerful men in Donald Trump's administration, Steve Bannon, the former head of far-right news website Breitbart who is now chief strategist at the White House.

In the first weeks of Trump's presidency, Bannon has emerged as a central figure. He was appointed to the "principals committee" of the National Security Council in a highly unusual move and was influential in the recent travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, overruling Department of Homeland Security officials who felt the order did not apply to green card holders.

While many in Trump's team are outspoken critics of China, in radio shows Bannon hosted for Breitbart he makes plain the two largest threats to America: China and Islam.

"We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," he said in March 2016. "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it's an ancient territorial sea."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-were-going-to-war-in-the-south-china-sea-no-doubt/ar-AAmwFbi?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

Quote from: finehoe on February 02, 2017, 09:20:15 AM
Steve Bannon: 'we're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'

The United States and China will fight a war within the next ten years over islands in the South China Sea, and "there's no doubt about that". At the same time, the US will be in another "major" war in the Middle East.


Those are the views – nine months ago at least – of one of the most powerful men in Donald Trump's administration, Steve Bannon, the former head of far-right news website Breitbart who is now chief strategist at the White House.

In the first weeks of Trump's presidency, Bannon has emerged as a central figure. He was appointed to the "principals committee" of the National Security Council in a highly unusual move and was influential in the recent travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, overruling Department of Homeland Security officials who felt the order did not apply to green card holders.

While many in Trump's team are outspoken critics of China, in radio shows Bannon hosted for Breitbart he makes plain the two largest threats to America: China and Islam.

"We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," he said in March 2016. "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it's an ancient territorial sea."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-were-going-to-war-in-the-south-china-sea-no-doubt/ar-AAmwFbi?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

Pre-Trump, he was armchair quarterbacking.

Post-Trump, it will establish a negotiation position.

It always easy to prognosticate the worse scenarios when you have nothing to risk, but once your life is at risk, positions tend to change.

Quote from: spuwho on February 02, 2017, 01:44:19 PM

Quote from: finehoe on February 02, 2017, 09:20:15 AM
Steve Bannon: 'we're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'

The United States and China will fight a war within the next ten years over islands in the South China Sea, and "there's no doubt about that". At the same time, the US will be in another "major" war in the Middle East.


Those are the views – nine months ago at least – of one of the most powerful men in Donald Trump's administration, Steve Bannon, the former head of far-right news website Breitbart who is now chief strategist at the White House.

In the first weeks of Trump's presidency, Bannon has emerged as a central figure. He was appointed to the "principals committee" of the National Security Council in a highly unusual move and was influential in the recent travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, overruling Department of Homeland Security officials who felt the order did not apply to green card holders.

While many in Trump's team are outspoken critics of China, in radio shows Bannon hosted for Breitbart he makes plain the two largest threats to America: China and Islam.

"We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," he said in March 2016. "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it's an ancient territorial sea."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-were-going-to-war-in-the-south-china-sea-no-doubt/ar-AAmwFbi?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

Pre-Trump, he was armchair quarterbacking.

Post-Trump, it will establish a negotiation position.

It always easy to prognosticate the worse scenarios when you have nothing to risk, but once your life is at risk, positions tend to change.

I hope you're right - I think you're very optimistic. Bannon, et al, aren't statesmen. I guess that's why Trump appealed to so many. But he and his crew seem very dangerous. And a bit stupid, I think. Or maybe it's just blind arrogance.

At least as optimistic as the previous administration... The process was begun with the "Pivot to the Pacific"...

So your assertion is that the "Pivot" was to lay the groundwork for a war with China?

Quote from: finehoe on February 02, 2017, 04:30:31 PM
So your assertion is that the "Pivot" was to lay the groundwork for a war with China?

Lol... of course not.  It was however a direct response to Chinese actions in the region.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/10/us_chinese_aircraft_unsafe_encounter_over_south_china_sea_110786.html

QuoteU.S., Chinese Aircraft "Unsafe" Encounter Over South China Sea
By Gillian Wong
February 10, 2017

BEIJING (AP) — A Chinese early warning aircraft and a U.S. Navy patrol plane had an "unsafe" encounter over the South China Sea this week, the U.S. Pacific Command said Friday, in the first such incident known to have taken place under President Donald Trump's administration.

The interaction between a Chinese KJ-200 and a U.S. Navy P-3C plane took place on Wednesday in international airspace, Pacific Command spokesman Robert Shuford said. He did not say what was unsafe about the encounter, although the term usually implies planes flying too close to one another.

Shuford says the U.S. plane was on a routine mission and operating according to international law. The Department of Defense and the Pacific Command "are always concerned about unsafe interactions with Chinese military forces," he said.

The Chinese Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to a faxed request for comment.

However, the website of the Communist Party newspaper Global Times quoted an unidentified ministry official as saying that the Chinese pilot had responded in a "legal and professional manner."

"We hope the U.S. side will focus on the relationship between the two countries and two militaries in their entirety, adopt concrete measures and eliminate the root causes of accidental incidents between the two countries on sea and in the air," the unidentified official was quoted as saying.

Philippine Defense Department spokesman Arsenio Andolong also expressed concern because the incident happened near Scarborough Shoal, which is located within the Philippines' 200-mile exclusive economic zone but claimed by China, which seized it in 2012 after a tense standoff with Philippine vessels.

"We're worried of possible miscalculation and it's good to know that nothing untoward happened," Andolong said by telephone. If such foreign aircraft venture into Philippine airspace, "we deserved to be told out of courtesy."

Such incidents have occurred occasionally over and within the South China Sea, which China claims virtually in its entirety. Although China says it respects freedom of navigation in the strategically vital area, it objects to U.S. military activities, especially the collection of signals intelligence by U.S. craft operating near the coast of its southern island province of Hainan, home to several military installations.

In recent years, the sides have signed a pair of agreements aimed at preventing such encounters from sparking an international crisis, as happened in April 2001 when a Chinese jet fighter collided with a U.S. surveillance plane over the South China Sea, leading to the death of the Chinese pilot and China's detention of the 24 U.S. crew members for 10 days.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2017, 01:04:13 PM
The interaction between a Chinese KJ-200 and a U.S. Navy P-3C plane took place on Wednesday in international airspace, Pacific Command spokesman Robert Shuford said. He did not say what was unsafe about the encounter, although the term usually implies planes flying too close to one another.

It's those damn P3 cowboys... Driving mom's station wagon likes it's a Porche.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 10, 2017, 07:42:41 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 10, 2017, 01:04:13 PM
The interaction between a Chinese KJ-200 and a U.S. Navy P-3C plane took place on Wednesday in international airspace, Pacific Command spokesman Robert Shuford said. He did not say what was unsafe about the encounter, although the term usually implies planes flying too close to one another.

It's those damn P3 cowboys... Driving mom's station wagon likes it's a Porche.

Future Ryan Air employees.

http://www.atimes.com/article/china-edge-us-carrier-strike-group-exercises-south-china-sea/

QuoteChina on edge as US carrier strike group exercises in South China Sea
While the Pentagon insists its warship maneuvers – the first under President Donald Trump – are routine, Beijing has denounced them as a threat
By BILL GERTZ FEBRUARY 21, 2017 10:59 PM (UTC+8)

The aircraft-carrier strike group led by USS Carl Vinson conducting naval and air operations in the South China Sea this week is the first challenge to Beijing's expansive maritime claims to the waters since Donald Trump took office.

The US Navy announced that the operations began on February 18, describing them as "routine," while Chinese state media quickly called the warships' freedom-of-navigation activities a threat to China.

A Pentagon official said the naval maneuvers were not freedom-of-navigation but exercises of the kind the US Navy has been doing for a hundred years.

The exercises were ordered by US Defense Secretary James Mattis, who is said to be concerned that a lack of regular US naval and air maneuvers in the sea has undermined regional stability.

The carrier operations put Beijing on notice that the new president likely will continue US policy in seeking to bolster regional allies that have become increasingly alarmed at China's assertiveness in the region.

China has been creating islands on a number of atolls and rocky outcrops in the sea, and over the past 12 months has begun adding military facilities.

US analysts say the Chinese military buildup in the area has been subtle and gradual, and designed to avoid provoking a direct confrontation with Washington.

For example, naval missile emplacements have been spotted on several of China's new islands in the Spratly archipelago. The missiles seen in intelligence imagery are assessed to have ranges of less than a mile and thus unlikely to threaten passing US warships. Intelligence analysts at the Pentagon, however, noted that the missile emplacements were built to be interchangeable with much more advanced and long-range anti-ship cruise missiles – weapons that would pose threats to US warship patrols through the waters.
(http://static.atimes.com/uploads/2017/02/SouthChinaSea-02.png)
Mattis is a staunch believer in Trump's "Peace through Strength" policies. Thus he is likely to abandon the previous administration's policy of seeking to avoid upsetting China. That led to a diminution of freedom-of-navigation operations in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Mattis made clear in policy questions posed during his confirmation by the US Senate that China's activities required bolstering regional allies in Southeast Asia.

"China's behavior has led countries in the region to look for stronger US leadership," he stated, adding that once in office he would seek to strengthen alliances and review US military capabilities in the region.

"We must continue to defend our interests there – interests that include upholding international legal rights to freedom of navigation and overflight," he added.

Mattis said upholding freedom of navigation and overflight was "vital to the defense of our other national-security interests" – a blunt and direct statement of the strong US commitment to preventing any attempt to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also weighed in on the dispute, promising during his confirmation that the United States would block China from further militarizing the islands.

In addition to the Vinson and its warplanes, the guided-missile destroyer USS Meyer is taking part in the South China Sea operations. Strike aircraft that will be flying over the sea include F/A-18 Super Hornet jets, helicopters, and electronic-warfare jets.

Before entering the sea, the ships conducted training off Hawaii and Guam to improve their military capabilities and "develop cohesion as a strike group," the US Navy said in a statement.

"The training completed over the past few weeks has really brought the team together and improved our effectiveness and readiness as a strike group," said Rear Admiral James Kilby, the strike-group commander. "We are looking forward to demonstrating those capabilities while building upon existing strong relationships with our allies, partners and friends in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region."

Last week, China's Foreign Ministry warned the United States against challenging its claims to the waters.

"China respects and upholds the freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea, which countries enjoy under international law, but firmly opposes any country's attempt to undermine China's sovereignty and security in the name of the freedom of navigation and overflight," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said.

On Sunday, Global Times, an often strident mouthpiece of China's Communist Party,  said "The deployment of the US aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson to the South China Sea on Saturday is a military threat to China." However, the usually over-the-top anti-US rhetoric of the paper was absent from the recent article. Instead of calling the exercises an act of war or other hostile action, the newspaper stated only that the naval maneuvers would increase the risk of unspecified "interference."

Retired US Navy Captain Jim Fanell said the carrier deployment was a routine occurrence in the post-World War II US Pacific Fleet.

"Likewise, this carrier strike group's operations in the South China Sea is neither unprecedented or provocative," Fanell said. "Quite to the contrary, and despite protests from Beijing, it is encouraging to see the new US administration physically demonstrate America's continued commitment to the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters."

A 44 page study...

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/28/tiptoeing_around_the_nine-dash_line_110877.html

https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/tiptoeing-around-the-nine-dash-line-southeast-asia-after-asean/Tiptoeing_9dash_line.pdf

QuoteTiptoeing Around the Nine-Dash Line

By Amelia Long & Peter Chalk
February 28, 2017
Indonesian President Joko Widodo's visit to Australia marked a significant leap forward for a bilateral relationship characterised by its fluctuations. The reduction of restrictions on some exports between the countries and the full restoration of defence cooperation after January's bump in the road are indicators of the 'robust relationship' between Australia and Indonesia that Jokowi described in Sydney.

For both Indonesia and Australia, maintaining neutrality and navigating that fine line between China and the United States remains a first-order priority. Although reports of potential joint TNI-ADF patrols in the South China Sea surfaced last week, they remained absent from the official joint statement—likely due to Indonesia's concern over the message that partnering with a US treaty ally would send to China. But such reports, as well as the importance both leaders placed on maintaining peace, security and stability in Southeast Asia, indicate the extent to which strategic competition between the US and China is being felt across the region.


Southeast Asia finds itself at the heart of the US­–­China rivalry, which has placed greater strategic weight and heightened attendant stresses on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. ASEAN member states now face a dilemma over collective action that challenges not only perceptions of ASEAN's efficacy but also Southeast Asia's overall security. How those states and other interested actors—including the People's Republic of China, the US, Australia and Japan—choose to act will shape the region for decades to come.

The most significant factor in ASEAN's failure to make concerted progress on security issues is its core principle of consensus-based decision-making. As a result of the association's significant growth in membership over the 1990s, reaching unanimous agreement on sensitive political issues has proven increasingly elusive. While some of that difficulty stems from the simple problem of reaching consensus within a wider membership, in large part it's also due to varying levels of Chinese economic support to individual ASEAN states.

Those difficulties have been glaringly evident in efforts to resolve competing territorial claims in the South China Sea—an issue that has clearly stretched ASEAN's capacity to take a unified, concrete stance on a common security problem. Its failure to speak and act with one voice on those disputes has major importance, as they directly relate to the PRC's rise and increased assertiveness in the Asia–Pacific.

The US, Australia and Japan have all been active in seeking to curb Beijing's influence in Southeast Asia. While the three countries recognise the inevitability of China's heightened status, they appear to share a common concern that, if left unchecked, China could achieve its goal of overturning the regional status quo.

If ASEAN can't be relied upon to act as a forceful collective body to address threats and concerns associated with a more outwardly aggressive China—and in the absence of the emergence of a network of like-minded, activist states (of which there's currently no sign)—it's essential that the US, Australia and Japan further develop and consolidate strategies that go beyond ASEAN for achieving their security and economic interests in the region. In our Strategy report released today, Tiptoeing around the nine-dash line: Southeast Asia after ASEAN, Peter Chalk and I examine some possible tactics those three countries could employ to accomplish their goals.

Of course, the distinct lack of clarity surrounding the new US administration's perception of the Asia–Pacific is a prominent theme throughout the report, and one of the main variables that both Australia and Japan must contend with. While the absence of a unified ASEAN means that the US will have little choice but to return to its traditional policy of interacting with Southeast Asian countries on a bilateral 'hub and spokes' basis, Australia and Japan must shoulder the additional burden of drawing the attention of America's transactional leader back to Southeast Asia should it waver. Those include forging ties at senior levels with the Trump administration early into its tenure, staying firm on the defence spending target of 2% of GDP (for Australia) and committing to a small increase in host-nation support funds (for Japan). Realistically, the only country able to actually act as a credible and forceful counterweight to China is the US. As such, it's essential that President Trump and his close advisers are convinced early on that they can play a leading role in Asia and develop a proper, effective working relationship with Beijing.

Due to ASEAN's consensus-based decision-making, it's likely that we will continue to see its inaction on regional security issues, particularly those that relate directly or indirectly to the geopolitical struggle taking place between Washington and Beijing. As Peter and I argue, it will become increasingly important, in this contested environment, that countries sharing the experience of striking a fine balance between the US and China use every opportunity at their disposal to bolster their bilateral relationships.

Amelia Long is a researcher at ASPI and an editor of The Strategist. Peter Chalk is an adjunct senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation in the United States. Their Strategy report, Tiptoeing around the nine-dash line: Southeast Asia after ASEAN, was published today.

I guess we cant monitor the DPRK either.

Per Washington Post:

BEIJING — Two Chinese fighter jets have buzzed a U.S. spy plane that sniffs out nuclear radiation as it flew over the East China Sea, underlining Beijing's discomfort with American surveillance in its neighborhood.

The incident, reported Friday, also comes amid disagreement between the two countries on how to confront the nuclear and missile programs of North Korea, which depends on China as its main economic lifeline.

The American plane, a WC-135 Constant Phoenix, collects samples from the air to detect nuclear explosions. The U.S. Air Force said it was on a routine mission in international airspace. An American official told CNN, however, that the plane has been regularly deployed in Northeast Asia to gather evidence of possible further nuclear tests by North Korea.

The Chinese military has become increasingly unhappy with American surveillance in the East China Sea and South China Sea, where Beijing claims full sovereignty in an ongoing dispute with U.S. allies in the region such as the Philippines.

Intercepts are not uncommon in both areas. But the latest incident appeared an unusually tight encounter.

Two Chinese Su-30 fighters flew up close to an American WC-135 on Wednesday, the U.S. Air Force said in a statement. The American aircrew described the intercept as "unprofessional," it said, based on the Chinese pilot's maneuvers and the speeds and proximity involved.

"The issue is being addressed with China through appropriate diplomatic and military channels," said Lt. Col. Lori Hodge, an Air Force spokeswoman. A U.S. military investigation into the intercept is underway, she added.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying declined to comment on the specific incident, referring questions to the Defense Ministry, which has not yet commented.

"But as we said before, for a long time, the surveillance activities of U.S. military planes and ships near China's territory are very likely to lead to misunderstanding, miscalculation and accidents on the sea or in the air," she told reporters at a news conference.

"So we hope the U.S. side can respect China's reasonable national security concerns."

Whether the close encounter was meant to send a signal to the Americans or was merely the action of overly zealous pilots is not clear, experts said.

The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane.

"U.S. military aircraft routinely transit international airspace throughout the Pacific, including the East China Sea," Hodge said. "This flight was no exception."

China is also deeply unhappy about the deployment in South Korea of a U.S. missile defense system, which is meant to protect the country against attack from North Korea but which Beijing fears will also be used to spy on its territory.

There is no issue with the act of intercepting aircraft... we do it... they do it... It is a normal practice among all nations.  The problem is with aggressive, "unprofessional", hostile, or dangerous maneuvers.  "The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane. "
This is a misguided attempt to intimidate or dissuade US flights through the area... It will not work and may get someone killed...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 19, 2017, 12:40:22 PM
There is no issue with the act of intercepting aircraft... we do it... they do it... It is a normal practice among all nations.  The problem is with aggressive, "unprofessional", hostile, or dangerous maneuvers.  "The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane. "
This is a misguided attempt to intimidate or dissuade US flights through the area... It will not work and may get someone killed...

Whatever - Americans have been doing that for years. I remember a particular Lt Pete "Maverick" Mitchell doing that to a MiG in the Indian Ocean in the mid-80s.

Quote from: Adam White on May 19, 2017, 01:37:31 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 19, 2017, 12:40:22 PM
There is no issue with the act of intercepting aircraft... we do it... they do it... It is a normal practice among all nations.  The problem is with aggressive, "unprofessional", hostile, or dangerous maneuvers.  "The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane. "
This is a misguided attempt to intimidate or dissuade US flights through the area... It will not work and may get someone killed...

Whatever - Americans have been doing that for years. I remember a particular Lt Pete "Maverick" Mitchell doing that to a MiG in the Indian Ocean in the mid-80s.

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/54907381e4b08b67b0f30c8b/1418752898518/why-youre-wrong-about-top-gun-video-essay?format=750w)

Hmm, I wonder what would happen if 2 F-22's were shadowing 10k above the RC-135?

Being low RCS, while the Su-30's dance with the RC-135, they just quietly come up behind them and watch.

Not a likely scenario, but I do wonder how much signet the US picks up when the Sukhoi's come out to dance.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 19, 2017, 02:11:17 PM

Quote from: Adam White on May 19, 2017, 01:37:31 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 19, 2017, 12:40:22 PM
There is no issue with the act of intercepting aircraft... we do it... they do it... It is a normal practice among all nations.  The problem is with aggressive, "unprofessional", hostile, or dangerous maneuvers.  "The U.S. official told CNN that the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the Su-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane. "
This is a misguided attempt to intimidate or dissuade US flights through the area... It will not work and may get someone killed...

Whatever - Americans have been doing that for years. I remember a particular Lt Pete "Maverick" Mitchell doing that to a MiG in the Indian Ocean in the mid-80s.

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/54907381e4b08b67b0f30c8b/1418752898518/why-youre-wrong-about-top-gun-video-essay?format=750w)

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0824/6367/products/because-inverted-tee_grande.png?v=1445035457)

Per The Intercept:

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/10/snowden-documents-reveal-scope-of-secrets-exposed-to-china-in-2001-spy-plane-incident/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/04/10/snowden-documents-reveal-scope-of-secrets-exposed-to-china-in-2001-spy-plane-incident/)

"Burn After Reading"

(For those wanting to read the actual NSA document assessing the impact of the Hainan Island Incident can read the report here:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3546567-10th-Anniversary-Edition-EP-3-Damage-Assessment.html#document/p1 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3546567-10th-Anniversary-Edition-EP-3-Damage-Assessment.html#document/p1)  )



WHEN CHINA boldly seized a U.S. underwater drone in the South China Sea last December and initially refused to give it back, the incident ignited a weeklong political standoff and conjured memories of a similar event more than 15 years ago.

In April 2001, just months before the 9/11 attacks gripped the nation, a U.S. Navy spy plane flying a routine reconnaissance mission over the South China Sea was struck by a People's Liberation Army fighter jet that veered aggressively close. The mid-air collision killed the Chinese pilot, crippled the Navy plane, and forced it to make an emergency landing at a Chinese airfield, touching off a tense international showdown for nearly two weeks while China refused to release the two-dozen American crew members and damaged aircraft.

The sea drone captured in December was a research vessel, not a spy craft, according to the Pentagon, so its seizure didn't risk compromising secret military technology. That wasn't the case with the spy plane, which carried a trove of surveillance equipment and classified signals intelligence data.

For more than a decade, U.S. officials have refused to say what secrets China might have gleaned from the plane. Two years after the incident, journalists saw a redacted U.S. military report, which revealed that although crew members had jettisoned documents out an emergency hatch as they flew over the sea and had managed to destroy some signals-collection equipment before the plane fell into the hands of the Chinese, it was "highly probable" China had still obtained classified information from the plane. Attempts by journalists and academics to learn more over the years have been unsuccessful.

But now, a comprehensive Navy-NSA report completed three months after the collision, and included among documents obtained by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, finally reveals extensive details about the incident, the actions crew members took to destroy equipment and data, and the secrets that were exposed to China — which turned out to be substantial though not catastrophic.

The unredacted Navy report, supplemented by a 2001 Congressional Research Service summary of the incident, as well as The Intercept's interviews with two crew members on board during the collision, presents the most detailed picture yet of the P-3 incident, a critical moment in U.S.-China military relations.

Although the Navy report cites a number of problems with what turned out to be ineffective efforts to destroy classified information, it vindicates the crew as well as pilot and mission commander, Navy Lt. Shane Osborn, who was hounded by critics for years — in and out of the military — who thought he should have ditched the plane and its sensitive equipment in the sea rather than land it in enemy territory. Osborn was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for showing "superb airmanship and courage" in stabilizing and landing the damaged aircraft, but in 2014 when he made a failed bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Nebraska, former military personnel popped up in the press again to revive the criticism against him.

"He was flying one of the crown jewels of the reconnaissance force," Capt. Jan van Tol, a retired Navy officer and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told the Omaha World-Herald. "I think the right answer is he should have ditched it at sea, or taken it anyplace but China."

Asked whether he stood by that comment today, van Tol told The Intercept that he's hesitant to question the judgment of a pilot who was on the scene and understood the conditions better than he does, but he still feels Osborn had an obligation to better safeguard the aircraft's secrets.

"I think there may have been another option [to land in Vietnam]," he said, trying to recall the events in 2001. "It would have been better to go to Vietnam than China."

The collision occurred about 70 miles southeast of Hainan Island, where Osborn landed the plane; Vietnam was about 180 miles away. Although the latter wasn't a great distance, it would have been the less attractive option to the crew, according to Osborn, given the shaky condition of the aircraft and their loss of critical flight instruments and altitude from the collision.

But the investigators who produced the Navy-NSA report didn't fault the crew for the most part. In their assessment, they praised Osborn and his flight crew for saving the lives of everyone on board as well as the $80 million aircraft. And although they found fault with the crew's demolition efforts and with supervisors onboard who failed to effectively coordinate and communicate with crew members during the incident, they mostly blamed the military for failing to properly prepare officers and crew for such an event.

The 117-page report, prepared by a team of investigators from the Navy and NSA, is based on interviews conducted with the crew right after their release from China and on physical re-enactments of their destruction methods — in some cases recreated with scientific precision — to determine how effective the methods might have been in preventing the Chinese from gleaning secrets.

The report describes the crew's haphazard and jury-rigged efforts to destroy equipment without proper tools and the woefully inadequate training they received for dealing with a scenario the Navy should have considered inevitable. Even though several close encounters with Chinese fighter jets had occurred in the region before, procedures for dealing with such a situation were insufficient, and the crew never underwent emergency destruction drills. As a result, they were left scrambling in the heat of the moment to determine what needed to be destroyed and how to do it. Although the crew had about 40 minutes between the moment of collision and the landing in China — plenty of time to jettison or destroy all sensitive material, investigators concluded — there "were no readily available means or standard procedures for timely destruction of computers, electronic media, and hardcopy material." This deficiency, along with the lack of training, investigators wrote, "was the primary cause of the compromise of classified material."

Another stumbling block? The crew hadn't maintained a comprehensive inventory of classified material on the plane. This made it difficult for them to ensure that everything got destroyed, and it meant that investigators had to rely on the recollections of crew members about what they had carried on the plane to determine what the Chinese might have seen.

Jeffrey Richelson, author of a number of books on the intelligence community and a senior fellow with the National Security Archive, is one person who has sought for years to uncover more information about the incident. He told The Intercept that the report adds important context and understanding to the historical record around it, adding that although the aerial confrontation may not have been a seismic event in terms of intelligence losses, it was a significant geopolitical moment in the history of U.S.-China relations. A key part of understanding this "is [knowing] what was lost and the damage assessment." To that end, he said, the report is a "valuable document."

Wow... fantastic document in that link.  I knew the flight engineer on that flight.

When DoD sends out an unarmed, undefended signals intelligence aircraft, it should have some form of contingency planning.

Essentially we had gotten so used to uncontested signet collection, that we got a little lazy. The PLAAF may have done us a favor by waking us up from our stupor.

Quote from: spuwho on May 22, 2017, 07:05:22 AM
When DoD sends out an unarmed, undefended signals intelligence aircraft, it should have some form of contingency planning.

Essentially we had gotten so used to uncontested signet collection, that we got a little lazy. The PLAAF may have done us a favor by waking us up from our stupor.

Agreed.  We got complacent because during the Cold War we had the INCSEA agreement ( https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4791.htm )with the Soviets. 

Specifically, the agreement provides for:

-steps to avoid collision;
-not interfering in the "formations" of the other party;
-avoiding maneuvers in areas of heavy sea traffic;
-requiring surveillance ships to maintain a safe distance from the object of investigation so as to avoid "embarrassing or endangering the ships under surveillance";
-using accepted international signals when ships maneuver near one another;
-not simulating attacks at, launching objects toward, or illuminating the bridges of the other partys ships;
-informing vessels when submarines are exercising near them; and
-requiring aircraft commanders to use the greatest caution and prudence in approaching aircraft and ships of the other party and not permitting simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing aerobatics over ships, or dropping hazardous objects near them.

Additionally... the some of the "spooks" doing the sigint analysis were not really trained aircrew.  My bet is they are now.  That document outlined some of the crew deficiencies particularly with regard to the destruction of equipment and data.

Well, the Cold War on navigation has restarted.

After Trump was elected, we had a brief moratorium on unprofessional air encounters and FON's.

Now that a RC-135 Constant Phoenix was harassed by PLAAF jets, we send an Arleigh Burke (USS Dewey) 12 miles from Fiery Cross Reef.

Let the diplomatic protests re-continue in earnest.

Per Reuters:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSKBN18K353  (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSKBN18K353)

Reuters

China scolds U.S. over South China Sea naval patrol
X
By Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart | WASHINGTON
A U.S. Navy warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built up by China in the South China Sea, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, the first such challenge to Beijing in the strategic waterway since U.S. President Donald Trump took office.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the USS Dewey traveled close to the Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands, among a string of islets, reefs and shoals over which China has territorial disputes with its neighbors.

China said its warships had warned the U.S. ship and it lodged "stern representations" with the United States. China said it remained resolutely opposed to so-called freedom of navigation operations.

The U.S. patrol, the first of its kind since October, marked the latest attempt to counter what Washington sees as Beijing's efforts to limit freedom of navigation in the strategic waters, and comes as Trump is seeking China's cooperation to rein in ally North Korea's nuclear and missile programs.

Territorial waters are generally defined by U.N. convention as extending at most 12 nautical miles from a state's coastline.

One U.S. official said it was the first operation near a land feature which was included in a ruling last year against China by an international arbitration court in The Hague. The court invalidated China's claim to sovereignty over large swathes of the South China Sea.

The United States has criticized China's construction of islands and build-up of military facilities in the sea, and is concerned they could be used to restrict free movement.

U.S. allies and partners in the region had grown anxious as the Trump administration held off on carrying out South China Sea operations during its first few months in office.

Last month, top U.S. commander in the Asia-Pacific region, Admiral Harry Harris, said the United States would likely carry out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea soon.

Still, the U.S. military has a long-standing position that the operations are carried out throughout the world, including in areas claimed by allies, and they are separate from political considerations.

"We operate in the Asia-Pacific region on a daily basis, including in the South China Sea. We operate in accordance with international law," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said in a statement.

The Pentagon gave no details of the latest mission.

'ERRANT WAYS'

Chinese defense ministry spokesman Ren Guoqiang told a monthly briefing two Chinese guided-missile warships had warned the U.S. vessel to leave the waters, and China had complained to the United States.

"The U.S. side's errant ways have caused damage to the improving situation in the South China Sea, and are not conducive to peace and stability," Ren said.


Ren was referring to a recent of easing of tension between China and other claimants, in particular the Philippines.

China's extensive claims to the South China Sea, which sees about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade pass every year, are challenged by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, as well as Taiwan.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said such patrols were "very likely to cause unexpected sea and air accidents".

Under the previous U.S. administration, the Navy conducted several such voyages through the South China Sea. The last operation was approved by then-President Barack Obama.

The latest U.S. patrol is likely to exacerbate U.S.-China tensions that had eased since Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping for a summit in Florida resort last month.

Trump lambasted China during the 2016 presidential campaign, accusing it of stealing U.S. jobs with unfair trade policies, manipulating its currency and militarizing parts of the South China Sea.

In December, after winning office, he upended protocol by taking a call from the president of self-ruled Taiwan, which China regards as its own sacred territory.

But since meeting Xi, Trump has praised him for efforts to restrain North Korea, though it has persisted with ballistic missile tests.

U.S.-based South China Sea expert Greg Poling of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the operation was the first conducted by the United States close to an artificial feature built by China not entitled to a territorial sea under international law.

Previous freedom of navigation operations have gone within 12 nautical miles of Subi and Fiery Cross reefs, two other features in the Spratlys built up by China, but both of those features are entitled to a territorial sea.

Mischief Reef was not entitled to a territorial sea as it was underwater at high tide before it was built up by China and was not close enough to another feature entitled to such a territorial sea, said Poling.

He said the key question was whether the U.S. warship had engaged in a real challenge to the Chinese claims by turning on radar or launching a helicopter or boat - actions not permitted in a territorial sea under international law.

Otherwise, critics say, the operation would have resembled what is known as "innocent passage" and could have reinforced rather than challenged China's claim to a territorial limit around the reef.

Stakes go up a notch.

2 PLAAF J-10 fighters intercepted and harassed a Navy P-3 Orion in the South China Sea early today. One J-10 got 300 yards in front of the Orion.

I suspect we will see in the near future 2 Navy combat aircraft involved soon.

The PROC keep complaining about probable miscalculations and unplanned engagements, but we have been as predictable as ever, yet no one knows when they send planes out to us.

After harassment by PLAN ships of a US destroyer passing through the South China Sea last week, the USAF sent 2, B1-B bombers through the airspace of Mischief Reef yesterday.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry was not so defiant this time saying, "there was nothing preventing the US from navigating the area" but ripped the US for using FON as a way to hurt China's sovereignty.

Hmmm. Trump meets the Chinese president at the G20 this week.

Good. Perhaps we can use these overflights as leverage to get some help with the north Koreans

http://news.trust.org/item/20170724134615-qhl7j

QuoteChinese jets intercept U.S. surveillance plane - U.S. officials
by Reuters
Monday, 24 July 2017 14:02 GMT

WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) - Two Chinese fighter jets intercepted a U.S. Navy surveillance plane over the East China Sea over the weekend, with one coming within about 300 feet (91 meters) of the American aircraft, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said initial reports showed one of the Chinese J-10 aircraft came close to the U.S. EP-3 plane on Sunday, causing the American aircraft to change direction. (Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 24, 2017, 10:21:36 AM
http://news.trust.org/item/20170724134615-qhl7j

QuoteChinese jets intercept U.S. surveillance plane - U.S. officials
by Reuters
Monday, 24 July 2017 14:02 GMT

WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) - Two Chinese fighter jets intercepted a U.S. Navy surveillance plane over the East China Sea over the weekend, with one coming within about 300 feet (91 meters) of the American aircraft, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said initial reports showed one of the Chinese J-10 aircraft came close to the U.S. EP-3 plane on Sunday, causing the American aircraft to change direction. (Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/china-fires-back-at-us-accusations-over-aerial-encounter/2017/07/25/ed2521bc-711e-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/china-fires-back-at-us-accusations-over-aerial-encounter/2017/07/25/ed2521bc-711e-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html)

(http://www.wearethemighty.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/EP-3E_DN-SD-07-09322-1024x536.jpeg)

(https://www.wearethemighty.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/J-10a_zhas-Featured-1024x535.jpg)

Quote...approached at a high rate of speed from beneath the American plane, then slowed and pulled up...

I'm pretty sure it was a maneuver like that that got Goose killed. 

I guess we're lucky no one was injured.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/15/a_constructive_year_for_chinese_base_building_112784.html

QuoteA Constructive Year for Chinese Base Building
By CSIS/AMTI
December 15, 2017
International attention has shifted away from the slow-moving crisis in the South China Sea over the course of 2017, but the situation on the water has not remained static. While pursuing diplomatic outreach toward its Southeast Asian neighbors, Beijing continued substantial construction activities on its dual-use outposts in the Spratly and Paracel Islands. China completed the dredging and landfilling operations to create its seven new islands in the Spratlys by early 2016, and seems to have halted such operations to expand islets in the Paracels by mid-2017. But Beijing remains committed to advancing the next phase of its build-up—construction of the infrastructure necessary for fully-functioning air and naval bases on the larger outposts......

A squadron from NAS Jax...  8)

https://theaviationist.com/2018/07/12/u-s-military-is-on-a-roll-with-dramatic-international-rescue-missions-at-sea/

QuoteU.S. Military Is On A Roll With Dramatic International Rescue Missions At Sea.
Jul 12 2018

By Tom Demerly
U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon Locates Missing Fishing Vessel in Search Off Sri Lanka. Dramatic Rescue Adds to List of Recent Humanitarian Successes by U.S. Aircraft.
A U.S. Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon has located a missing civilian fishing boat and its six-man crew in the vast open ocean south of the island of Sri Lanka in the Luccadive Sea north of the Indian Ocean. The long-range multi-mission maritime patrol and anti-submarine aircraft was from Patrol Squadron 45 (VP-45) the "Pelicans" originally from Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida and flying out of Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia.

(https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/p-8_poseidon-top.jpg)

The U.S. Navy P-8A joined the search at the request of the Sri Lankan Navy after the fishing vessel went missing on Sunday, July 8, 2018.

Photos released by the U.S. Navy taken from the P-8A Poseidon show the fishing vessel after it was located with no engine wake and what may be a series of improvised sails rigged on its bow, suggesting the vessel may have lost steerage and power possibly resulting in it drifting south into the open ocean.

(https://i1.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/adrift_10.jpg?resize=706%2C423&ssl=1)

The region is known as dangerous for sailors and aircraft due to severe weather, the threat of piracy and other hazards to navigation in the remote maritime environment. Part of the unsuccessful search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that disappeared without a trace in March, 2014 was in this region.
A Sri Lankan Navy vessel is underway to the location of the lost fishing boat as directed by the U.S. Navy P-8A that located it hours after joining the three-day search.

This successful search is the second victory for U.S. long range search and rescue efforts requested by a foreign nation following a similar incident on June 25, 2018 when a U.S. Air Force B-52H crew flying out of Andersen AFB, Guam and originally from Barksdale, Louisiana located a missing indigenous Polynesian canoe that was lost for six days near Guam in the Pacific. The crew of that B-52H were also able to direct rescue efforts to the location of the lost ocean canoe.

In an official U.S. Navy statement about the rescue operation, Navy Commander Mark E. Zematis, commanding officer of the 45th Patrol Squadron, said, "As we continue to explore the operational reach and agility of the P-8A Poseidon, the trust and relationships we build with our multi-national partners becomes more and more apparent in such a complex and broad Indo-Pacific region. The positive relationship between Sri Lanka and the United States is what allowed our aircrew and maintenance team to effectively launch and assist with the recovery of their countryman."

The Boeing P-8A Poseidon is a new long-range patrol, surveillance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft that is based on the highly successful civilian Boeing 737-800ERX long range, twin-engine jet airliner. It first flew in April, 2009. The P-8A is the U.S. Navy's replacement for the aging Lockheed P-3 Orion turboprop aircraft that performed the same mission. It is also in service with the Australian Air Force and the Indian Navy where it is known as the P-8I Neptune. England, Norway and New Zealand have also ordered versions of the highly successful P-8 Poseidon.

An interesting feature of the P-8A is its planned integration with the Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton ultra-long range remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicle. This capability will enable the P-8 and MQ-4C to combine their surveillance areas significantly.

Gonna revive this thread as we will be hearing more and more about this in the next few years...

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202103/1219869.shtml

CHINA / MILITARY
PLA aircraft again surround Taiwan in drills with US intervention on mind
By Liu Xuanzun
Published: Mar 30, 2021 07:46 PM

Warplanes of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) again surrounded the island of Taiwan from both west and east in an exercise on Monday after a similar drill on Friday, and this time additional aircraft crossed the Miyako Strait to reach Taiwan's eastern side.

The recent exercises show that the PLA is continuing to increase its combat preparedness by making its routine exercises more complex and realistic and taking possible US and Japanese interventions into consideration, Chinese mainland analysts said on Tuesday.

Some 10 PLA aircraft - four J-16 and four J-10 fighter jets, a KJ-500 early warning aircraft and a Y-8 anti-submarine warfare aircraft - entered Taiwan's self-proclaimed southwest air defense identification zone on Monday, with the Y-8 anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying across the Bashi Channel to the southeast to the island before returning, the island's defense authorities said....

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202103/1219869.shtml

Scary times!  Keep us updated

TAIPEI (Reuters) -China sent more fighter jets into Taiwan's air defence zone on Wednesday in a stepped-up show of force around the island Beijing claims as its own, and Taiwan's foreign minister said it would fight to the end if China attacks...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-defence-idUSKBN2BU0HJ

Historically China is much more divided than united.  For our sake, hopefully the US is doing things behind the scenes to contribute to that division.

Quote from: bl8jaxnative on April 12, 2021, 10:13:09 AM


Historically China is much more divided than united.  For our sake, hopefully the US is doing things behind the scenes to contribute to that division.

Providing insight...

https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/how-chinese-nationalism-is-changing/

China will soon try to reunite Taiwan with the mainland. Coercion if possible but force if needed but I believe this will come to a head within 5 years.

This article explains the many viewpoints within China and Taiwan but also among the Asian nations. I believe the peaceful unification is not possible after Taiwan has watched what China has done to Hong Kong.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-06-03/china-taiwan-war-temptation

Before I retired, I was part of an Integrated Training Team that ran 20 different simulations for Fleet Intelligence Training Center San Diego as part of a proof of concept for new data sets and training software developed by the Naval Research Lab. "We" failed to defend Taiwan in all 20 simulations and this was back in 2012 early 2013. 

Not surprised. RAND came to the same conclusion

Hong Kongs last pro democracy newspaper is shut down...

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/when-a-free-society-becomes-a-police?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNzE2OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzgwODA5MDYsIl8iOiJWOWV6cCIsImlhdCI6MTYyNDgwMTI2MSwiZXhwIjoxNjI0ODA0ODYxLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjYwMzQ3Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.d0Y-S7zy8

When China invades Taiwan... should the US aid the Taiwanese?

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3203525/ww3-fears-chinese-state-media-three-stage-battle-plan/

Taiwan is watching. We all should be watching and getting ready...

This is what totalitarian communists do...

QuoteOver 50 groups gone in 11 months – how Hong Kong's pro-democracy forces crumbled

https://hongkongfp.com/2021/11/28/explainer-over-50-groups-gone-in-11-months-how-hong-kongs-pro-democracy-forces-crumbled/

Editorial from Global Times... Red China's mouthpiece...

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202111/1239861.shtml

Quote
It is obvious that almost everyone is sure that the army on the Taiwan island dares not open fire if the mainland's warplanes fly over the island because that will mean the outbreak of a war, and the PLA will definitely carry out a destructive strike on the island's armed forces. The mainland is already fully prepared in many ways to deal with possible reactions from the US. It has created huge pressure on the US which wants to intervene with high intensity in the Taiwan Straits. The mainland is determined and confident to overwhelm the US and Taiwan.

We have noticed that the US and Taiwan have become more and more afraid of the mainland's will to oppose Taiwan secessionism and promote reunification. They have already believed that the Chinese mainland is not bluffing, but is seriously preparing for a showdown in the Taiwan Straits. Thus, they need to stay away from the mainland's red line and stop thinking that there will be any chance for them.

The general public on the mainland is getting increasingly impatient with the actions of Taiwan secessionists that have been dissipating our energy. And the voices that demand the country's reunification by force are getting louder and louder. The US and the secessionist forces in Taiwan must understand that no matter whether Beijing sends its military aircraft over the island, shoots down some of Taiwan's warplanes, or sends a ship to ram a provocative US warship, it will surely be welcomed by the people on the mainland.

The government of the mainland has already been authorized by its people in advance to punish Taiwan secessionists by force. 

China threatens Japan...

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240559.shtml

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240643.shtml

Does the US government officially recognize the islands of Taiwan to be part of the People's Republic of China?

Apparently not, at least since 1971.
The Taiwan government, the Republic of China, obviously does not rule the mainland. But, what about recognizing it as an independent country, instead of a province of the PRC?

Quote
In most circumstances, the obvious solution to this situation would be for Taiwan to simply become its own country, independent of the rest of China. However, while Taiwan met most of the eight essential qualifications for nationhood, there remained one major complication: One of the required steps for a territory to be promoted to full U.N. member status (widely considered the most important step in officially becoming a sovereign nation), is to be approved by all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: Russia, the United States, France, the United Kingdom ... and [the Peoples Republic of] China.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan

And, obviously, that is never going to happen.  So, what is the USA to do?

Quote from: Charles Hunter on December 05, 2021, 08:37:44 AM
Does the US government officially recognize the islands of Taiwan to be part of the People's Republic of China?

Apparently not, at least since 1971.

AFAIK, the USA does not formally recognise ROC independence. I think the USA has more formal relations with the ROC now, but I am not sure it has been officially recognised as an independent country. I think there are two main obstacles - the big one is that the PRC views Taiwan as a rebellious province. The other is that the ROC (or since the brutal military dictatorship ended in 1987, some in Taiwan) considers the PRC to be illegitimate and views itself as the 'real' China.

We all hear a lot from the pearl-clutchers on this forum about the PRC's 'unreasonable' claims to the South China Sea, but no one really makes much of an issue about how the ROC maintains the EXACT SAME claims. The view that the South China Sea is Chinese is a Chinese thing - not a 'red China' thing.

To Adam's point, more from the article I linked earlier

Quote
Taiwan's stance on communist China:

The citizens of Taiwan tend to fall into two camps regarding the territory's relationship with China:

    The Pan-Blue Coalition has its own One-China policy and believes the RoC is the sole legal government of China (including both Taiwan and the mainland). While the Pan-Blue Coalition initially supported reunification, its stance has changed in recent years to simply maintaining the status quo.

    The Pan-Green Coalition regards Taiwan as an independent sovereign state, opposes reunification with China (unless China's communist government collapses), and seeks wide diplomatic recognition for Taiwan as its own sovereign nation.

Taiwan's place on the global stage

Despite China's efforts to restrict its economic and political growth, Taiwan has become one of Asia's major economic players and one of the world's top computer technology producers. Some 59 countries (as well as the European Union, Hong Kong, and Macau) have established unofficial diplomatic relations with Taiwan/RoC, including the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

Taiwan is also considered a democracy and is consistently ranked as one of the freest countries in Asia by metrics such as the 2021 Freedom House Freedom Index, the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, and the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom.

USA would prefer the status quo... meaning a peaceful Taiwanese coexistence with red china.  It is the PRC that has become increasingly bellicose in the region... seizing territories, fishing vessels. They are now actively threatening countries that officially recognize Taiwan... Lithuania being the latest example. Any pro democracy organizations in Hong Kong have been predictably snuffed out and outlawed... the Taiwanese watched carefully what happened and is happen6 to Hong Kong.

The situation between Taiwan and China is a dangerous one and PRC has clearly stated that it will take the island by force... and they have been steadily building a military for just that purpose.

Listen carefully to their words... and observe their actions...

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2021/12/08/2003769210

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240954.shtml

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/9/hong-kong-democracy-activists-found-guilty-over-tiananmen-vigil

Hong Kong democracy activists found guilty over Tiananmen vigil

Three prominent figures in Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement have been found guilty for their involvement in the territory's annual vigil to mark the Tiananmen square crackdown that left thousands of people dead.

Media tycoon Jimmy Lai and activist Chow Hang-tung, were convicted of inciting others to take part in the city's annual Tiananmen vigil on June 4, 2020, while Gwyneth Ho was convicted of taking part in an "unauthorised" assembly. Chow was also convicted of taking part in an "unauthorised" assembly....

This is the end. Democratic countries should open up asylum to Hong Kong on a big scale.

Quote from: Tacachale on December 09, 2021, 06:09:50 PM
This is the end. Democratic countries should open up asylum to Hong Kong on a big scale.

It is... Hong Kong... once my favorite city in the world... has been absorbed by communist China.  Taiwan is squarely in the crosshairs and most ordinary citizens of America are blissfully unaware... or don't give a rip...

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1241413.shtml

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/11/19/why-i-left-hong-kong

QuoteWhy I left Hong Kong

The national security law and its chilling effect on our civil liberties compelled me to leave my home.
Yupina Ng
Freelance journalist with a focus on Asia-Pacific based in London
Published On 19 Nov 2021

It was in the early 1970s, on the eve of the Mid-Autumn Festival, when my father, without telling his family and friends, fled his birthplace in China by sneaking onto an overnight cargo train transporting crates of pears to the then-British colony of Hong Kong.

When he heard the songs of Taiwanese singer Teresa Teng, whose music was at the time banned in China, being played on board the train, he realised he had arrived in Hong Kong.

He jumped off the moving train somewhere in the countryside, made his way to the city centre, and took advantage of the touch-base policy rolled out by the colonial government that allowed undocumented immigrants from China to remain in Hong Kong if they managed to dodge security measures in the countryside to reach urban areas. He thought he had finally escaped the clutches of the repressive Chinese Communist Party for good and was free to build a new life for himself in one of the most thriving economies in Asia.

Earlier this year, however, my father and I had to leave post-colonial Hong Kong to flee the very same regime whose repressive policies led my father to sneak onto that cargo train half a century ago.

In recent years, the Chinese government has tightened its grip on what was supposed to be an autonomous finance centre and launched a series of crackdowns on dissidents in the Special Administrative Region.

As a Hong Kong-born journalist, I experienced first-hand the gradual erosion of our civil liberties and autonomy in blatant violation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration – the treaty which supposedly set the conditions for Hong Kong's transfer from British to Chinese control.

The situation became especially bad after Beijing imposed a new, draconian national security law on Hong Kong in June 2020. Under the law, designed to restrict freedom of expression and repress political opposition, broadly defined offences of "secession", "subversion", "terrorism" and "collusion with foreign forces" incur maximum penalties of life imprisonment.

The law had a chilling effect on the most basic civil liberties of Hong Kong residents and made it almost impossible for journalists like me to do their jobs.

Earlier this month, almost half (46 percent) of 99 Hong Kong-based journalists polled anonymously by the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club said they were considering or had plans to leave the city due to the decline in press freedom under the national security law. Meanwhile, 84 percent of respondents said working conditions in the city have deteriorated, and 56 percent admitted to self-censoring since the passage of the law.

But the law's effect was not limited to stifling press freedom. Countless activists and pro-democracy lawmakers, some of whom I talked to regularly during my five-year stint in journalism in Hong Kong, are either in jail or self-exile. In October, human rights NGO Amnesty International announced its decision to close its two offices in Hong Kong by the end of 2021, citing concerns for the safety of its staff due to the same law.

The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (LegCo), the power centre of Hong Kong's deeply flawed representative democracy, is now free to do China's bidding without any meaningful opposition. According to LegCo President Andrew Leung, the legislature had passed 46 government bills over the past year, more than double the number from the year before. "The clouds are finally cleared and we can now see the blue sky," Leung said of the efficiency of the legislature following the enactment of the national security law and the consequent exodus of opposition lawmakers.

The Chinese government has also started to use Hong Kong's schools to subdue what it calls the city's "rebellious youth". Children as young as six are required to learn about the national security law and teachers are asked to report any behaviour "supportive of pro-democracy movements". All schools are required to fly the Chinese flag at all times and conduct weekly flag-raising ceremonies starting from 2022 "to promote national education and help students develop a sense of belonging to the country, an affection for the Chinese people and enhance their sense of national identity".

The independent judiciary should have been Hong Kong's last line of defence, but judges are finding it increasingly difficult to uphold judicial independence and protect the rights of the city's residents. The judges who return verdicts not favourable to Chinese interests are regularly targeted by Chinese state media and pro-Beijing loyalists. District Judge Sham Siu-man, who acquitted 14 pro-democracy protesters in two separate cases in 2019, for example, quickly became the target of an intimidation campaign by Chinese nationalists. "Don't let Siu-man get away with this," they commented online. Sham, 59, has since applied for early retirement and is reportedly planning to migrate to the United Kingdom with his family.

In my last few years living in Hong Kong, I couldn't help but feel as if I was in a police state. Since the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests, the police presence on Hong Kong streets has been heavier than ever before. Even though mass protests have now come to an end, groups of police officers are often seen patrolling train stations, outside government buildings and areas that were central to past protests. Especially for young people, being stopped and searched by the police is a common occurrence.

The yellow economic circle – a system of classifying businesses based on their support or opposition to the 2019 protests, with pro-democracy shops labelled as "yellow" and pro-police ones as "blue" – is still active. But many only use cash when they shop within the yellow circle to avoid leaving a record of their purchase and potentially being targeted by the security forces. Moreover, after the passage of the national security law, some pro-democracy businesses started to distance themselves from the circle due to concerns over persecution. As a result, just like the future of Hong Kong, the future of the yellow economic circle is highly uncertain.

In light of all this, like many others, I took the difficult decision to leave Hong Kong and start a new chapter of my life in the UK.

"We will miss you," my friends said to me as I hugged them goodbye at the Hong Kong airport. Next to me was a girl crying on the shoulder of her father and waving goodbye to her cousin. Meanwhile, a grandmother was handing out red packets symbolising good luck to her grandchildren who were due to get on a flight to the UK. The parents looked as if they were struggling to hold back tears.

These heart-breaking scenes were not an anomaly – almost every day people are saying goodbye to their loved ones at the Hong Kong airport to escape the clutches of the Chinese Communist Party.

Hong Kong leader, Carrie Lam, however, seems undisturbed by the fact that the city's residents are escaping in their thousands. She claims that similar "emigration trends" have been seen in Hong Kong's history many times before, and insists the semi-autonomous region has a prosperous future ahead.

But if Lam really looked at the history of Hong Kong, she would realise the city she is governing has never seen such a large population decline since records began in 1961. The population of Hong Kong dropped to 7.39 million in mid-2021 from 7.48 million a year before. The net outflow of Hong Kong residents was a whopping 89,200 in mid-2021.

"I thought I escaped from it 50 years ago, but now it caught up with me," my father said, referring to the Chinese Communist Party, as our plane left Hong Kong soil.

Today, we are once again free. But it is impossible to say when – if ever – those we left behind in Hong Kong will be able to enjoy freedom and democracy.

https://hongkongfp.com/2021/12/23/breaking-fears-for-condemned-tiananmen-massacre-monument-as-university-of-hong-kong-erects-barricades-around-statue-overnight/

Another paper raided and forced to close...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/29/hong-kong-police-arrest-6-current-or-former-staff-of-online-media-outlet

QuoteHong Kong's pro-democracy Stand News online media outlet says it is ceasing operations following a police raid and arrests of current and former editors and board members.

The outlet issued a statement on Wednesday saying its website and social media are no longer being updated and will be taken down. It said acting Editor-in-Chief Patrick Lam had resigned and all employees had been dismissed.

The statement came after hundreds of Hong Kong national security police raided the office of Stand News and arrested six people, including senior staff, for suspected "seditious publications" offences...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hongkong-media-12292021085536.html

QuotePolice in Hong Kong on Wednesday arrested seven people linked to a major pro-democracy news website for "sedition" under a national security crackdown ordered by Beijing, and froze its assets, prompting it to shut down on the same day.

Police arrested a former chief editor of Stand News, Chung Pui-kuen, and acting chief editor Patrick Lam, as well as former pro-democracy lawmaker Margaret Ng, Cantopop star Denise Ho, Chow Tat-chi and Christine Fang, all of whom have served on the board of directors.

In an operation involving more than 200 plainclothes and uniformed police, officers also searched the home of Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) president Ronson Chan, who also worked as a senior editor at Stand News, although he wasn't arrested.

"Police arrested a number of senior and former senior officers of the company this morning, took a number of people in to help with enquiries, and seized a number of computers and some documents from the newsroom," Stand News said in a statement on Wednesday....

Another one bites the dust...

QuoteHong Kong's online news outlet, Citizen News, is scheduled to stop operations on Tuesday, a decision that was made following the shutdown of Stand News. While the chief writer and editor of Citizen News claimed on Monday that the decision was made over concerns on whether future coverage would violate the law, observers said the ambiguous stance cannot disguise the fact that Citizen News has played a notorious role in instigating social divergence and defying the constitutional order of Hong Kong. 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202201/1243915.shtml

https://hongkongfp.com/2022/01/03/no-other-choice-hong-kong-citizen-news-says-decision-to-close-was-prompted-by-stand-news-arrests-staff-safety/

Very interesting article...

QuoteTaiwan accounts for 92 percent of the world's most advanced semiconductor manufacturing capacity, a report from Boston Consulting and the Semiconductor Industry Association said in April. South Korea holds the remaining 8 percent.

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/01/2003770517

Quote from: Tacachale on December 09, 2021, 06:09:50 PM
This is the end. Democratic countries should open up asylum to Hong Kong on a big scale.

https://hongkongfp.com/2022/01/16/explainer-how-to-measure-hong-kongs-mass-exodus/

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202201/1246812.shtml

PLA warplanes tie noose around neck of 'Taiwan secessionists': Global Times editorial

QuoteThe Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) sent warplanes near the island of Taiwan on Sunday and Monday. On Sunday, 39 aircraft flew, the largest daily number this year. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authority appeared very nervous and upset. They should be. It has become normal for PLA warplanes to fly around Taiwan and approach the island for patrols. A sword of Damocles is hung over the head of "Taiwan secessionists," and at the same time, it concretizes and materializes the warning and deterrence of the Chinese mainland.

It should be emphasized that there is no essential difference between the PLA warplanes flying over Taiwan and US military warplanes over Hawaii. Taiwan is a part of China's territory. There has never been the concept of "Taiwan airspace" in the world, but only "China airspace." The DPP authority has no right to designate the so-called air defense identification zone. The "Taiwan secessionists" and the forces supporting them have fabricated the rhetoric of "Taiwan airspace" and "intrusion," which is nothing more than an attempt to hide their desire to undermine peace......

Now the gay crackdown...

https://hongkongfp.com/2022/01/31/gay-dating-app-grindr-disappears-from-china-app-stores-as-content-purge-continues-ahead-of-olympics/

^ They must be mimicking the Florida legislature and Gov. DeSantis who are purging conversations in our schools that discuss LGBTQ issues.  Add banning teaching anything in our country's history that makes folks "uncomfortable."  And, selectively arresting people if they happen to be in the vicinity of a protest in which even one person breaks the law.  Florida and China - more and more alike.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on January 31, 2022, 06:05:01 PM
^ They must be mimicking the Florida legislature and Gov. DeSantis who are purging conversations in our schools that discuss LGBTQ issues.  Add banning teaching anything in our country's history that makes folks "uncomfortable."  And, selectively arresting people if they happen to be in the vicinity of a protest in which even one person breaks the law.  Florida and China - more and more alike.

Not even close... and you know it. But keep those partisan glasses on...

^ LOL.  Trolled the troll.  Facts hurt?

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 01, 2022, 12:12:38 PM
^ LOL.  Trolled the troll.  Facts hurt?

Quite the contrary... any...ANY... comparison of Florida to red China is utter nonsense... when was the last time Xi lost an election?  You can complain and protest and even vote the bum out... the residence of Hong Kong cannot.  Your disagreement with policies of a democratically elected government are understandable but nowhere near anything that occurs in China, north Korea, Russia or Iran.

You're smarter than that silly comparison...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 01, 2022, 03:55:43 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 01, 2022, 12:12:38 PM
^ LOL.  Trolled the troll.  Facts hurt?

Quite the contrary... any...ANY... comparison of Florida to red China is utter nonsense... when was the last time Xi lost an election?  You can complain and protest and even vote the bum out... the residence of Hong Kong cannot.  Your disagreement with policies of a democratically elected government are understandable but nowhere near anything that occurs in China, north Korea, Russia or Iran.

You're smarter than that silly comparison...

FL and the US are steadily moving away from their historic governance and more toward that of Fascism and authoritarianism.  That is certainly the case. 

Quote from: vicupstate on February 01, 2022, 05:10:53 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 01, 2022, 03:55:43 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 01, 2022, 12:12:38 PM
^ LOL.  Trolled the troll.  Facts hurt?

Quite the contrary... any...ANY... comparison of Florida to red China is utter nonsense... when was the last time Xi lost an election?  You can complain and protest and even vote the bum out... the residence of Hong Kong cannot.  Your disagreement with policies of a democratically elected government are understandable but nowhere near anything that occurs in China, north Korea, Russia or Iran.

You're smarter than that silly comparison...

FL and the US are steadily moving away from their historic governance and more toward that of Fascism and authoritarianism.  That is certainly the case. 

Certainly??  What a strange and pessimistic attitude. I think the opposite is true. Many laws have been liberalized... people's attitudes in many cases are more tolerant than ever.  There is a vocal authoritarian contingent that wants to stamp out the people's right to keep and bear arms but is really the only instance of increased fascism and authoritarian idealogy...

^ It is authoritarian when our governor and lap dog legislature want to limit free speech in schools, curtail protests against government, censor library books and history presentations, take control from local and community governments and agencies, deliberately disseminate misinformation, support insurrection of a democratic government, restrict the ability to vote, want to overturn fair elections that they don't like the outcome of, make disadvantaged groups scapegoats for all that they see "wrong," want to create a personal army......

I think it is very clear what direction we are moving in.  How long before you see such writing on the wall?

Lol... next election?  When will the Chinese get that option?  Silly comparison...

^^^
Chinese elections:  Only one party to seriously vote for.

US elections (with gerrymandering):  Only one party to seriously vote for.

Not much difference. 

Then there is our "legal corruption" of elected officials being bought and sold by "donations" to their campaigns, often, now, via "dark money."

And that's how we "elect" people that more and more don't represent the majority or will of the populace and how those people stay in power with very little, if any, true accountability.

We won't even talk about Trump's attempted coup.

Tell me how much better we are than everyone else again?

Ironic quotes around the word "elect," "legal corruption," and comparisons to autocratic China...is it now ok to allege our system is illegitimate?

Quote from: jaxoNOLE on February 01, 2022, 11:38:11 PM
Ironic quotes around the word "elect," "legal corruption," and comparisons to autocratic China...is it now ok to allege our system is illegitimate?

Apparently if it fits the meme you want... incredibly silly... since his party does the exact same things. 

Anyway... this thread moving forward will relate solely to the China, Taiwan, Hong Kong.

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/02/taiwans-indigenous-subs-japanese-us.html

Taiwan's two current submarines are 20 years obsolete... they need to hurry...

Great primer on chairman Xi...

https://apnews.com/article/winter-olympics-china-president-xi-jinping-b5aeeed14e662e72570df15076290830

"We stand up to those who would seek to coerce us" Australian PM Scott Morrison.

https://hongkongfp.com/2022/02/11/us-japan-australia-india-meet-to-deepen-bulwark-against-chinas-expanding-power/

The links below contain US policy towards the Indo-Pacific for the foreseeable future. It is the framework of our efforts with regards to China and our allies in the region...

Overview:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/11/fact-sheet-indo-pacific-strategy-of-the-united-states/

Full PDF document:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/U.S.-Indo-Pacific-Strategy.pdf

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/chinese-vessel-lases-australian-p-8a-maritime-patrol-aircraft/

Hilarious...

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202202/1252823.shtml

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/chinese-navy-growth-massive-expansion-of-important-shipyard/#

Taiwan isn't just a free country on an island off the coast of China...

Did you know... The U.S. manufactures just 19 percent of all chips, while mainland China supplies 35 percent and Taiwan 15 percent. If China invades Taiwan, 50 percent of the world's chip production will be controlled by China.

Taiwan may manufacture only 15 percent of all chips, but it manufactures 92 percent of the world's advanced chips. All advanced chips not made in Taiwan are manufactured in South Korea.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-chips-are-down/

QuoteThe Chips are Down
Kenin M. Spivak
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would crater American tech dominance and military readiness.
Russia's nuclear arsenal is the principal reason given by the United States and NATO for refusing to engage Russia directly in Ukraine. Nuclear war also will be a risk if China invades Taiwan.

There are, of course, differences in an analysis of the U.S. response to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. For one, without NATO, the U.S. would largely face China on its own. Also, China has a stronger claim on Taiwan than Russia does on Ukraine. On the other hand, much more importantly to the United States, Taiwan is the world's principal fabricator of semiconductor chips. Semiconductors are the new oil. Whoever controls semiconductors can control the world.

According to the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), although the U.S. is the world's leader in headquarters for companies generating semiconductor demand (33 percent) and for end users (25 percent), the U.S. manufactures just 19 percent of all chips, while mainland China supplies 35 percent and Taiwan 15 percent. If China invades Taiwan, 50 percent of the world's chip production will be controlled by China.

Taiwan may manufacture only 15 percent of all chips, but it manufactures 92 percent of the world's advanced chips. All advanced chips not made in Taiwan are manufactured in South Korea; none are produced in the United States or Europe. If China were to invade Taiwan, the U.S. and the world could lose access to almost all leading-edge chips, almost two-thirds of more-mature microprocessors, and half of all dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) chips.

Research firm TrendForce advises that 54 percent of global chip manufacturing revenue last year was received by just one company, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC). TSMC accounts for more than 90 percent of the global output of advanced chips—98 percent of Taiwanese production. According to Reuters, TSMC's headquarters and all of its foundries are located close to likely landing sites for a Chinese invasion.

The United States is the global leader in creating and owning chip intellectual property (IP), though China is running a close second. If China takes Taiwan, it will obtain access to virtually all U.S. chip IP, and an unsurpassable lead. Even without invading Taiwan, China is poised to surpass U.S. research and development (R&D). Based on Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data, SIA determined that in 2018, China's semiconductor R&D was just 5 percent below the U.S. in purchasing power parity, though the gap was wider for basic research. However, SIA warns that China is planning large increases in basic research, threatening the U.S. lead in all chip R&D.

The global chip market grew 25 percent in 2021 to $550 billion; 11 percent growth is forecast for 2022. With strong growth anticipated for connected devices, artificial intelligence and edge computing, demand for chips is expected to accelerate, reaching $1 trillion by 2030, according to the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union.

Bharat Kapoor, a senior partner in A.T. Kearney's technology practice, observes that "superpower status is going to be defined by the ability to make semiconductors." A Reuters analysis warns that allowing an increasingly powerful China to overrun TSMC's foundries would threaten U.S. military and technological leadership, while the destruction of the plants would damage China, as well.

In the face of an increasingly belligerent China, and its repeated overflights of the Taiwan air defense identification zone, the U.S. is already well behind developing and implementing plans to address the loss of Taiwan, let alone supply shortages caused by Covid.

Nearly a year after the Senate passed legislation authorizing $52 billion to support manufacturing and R&D for semiconductor companies in the U.S., last month, the House passed similar legislation, allocating only $19 billion of the total to manufacturing. A conference committee will have to resolve the differences.

Also last month, the European Commission recommended the European Parliament and member countries adopt the Chips Act, a $48 billion plan to bolster Europe's competitiveness in semiconductor technologies, and reduce reliance on Asian manufacturers. The investment will be staged through 2030 and will include investments in next-generation technologies, providing access to design tools and pilot lines for prototyping and testing, and support for start-ups and expansion.

Japan recently announced $8 billion to support increases in chip production.

These paltry, multi-year investments have to be assessed against the cost of foundries, TSMC's investments in Taiwan, and investments being made in other Asian countries.

Last year, Semico Research president Jim Feldhan estimated that building and equipping a foundry for chip manufacturing requires an investment of at least $10 billion, and up to 30 months to ramp up production. Last month, Will Hunt, who leads semiconductor policy research at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the "window of opportunity to shift the center of gravity of global chip-making back the U.S. is rapidly closing, as the cost of building advanced semiconductor manufacturing facilities is rising exponentially. By 2030, a single plant may cost more than $50 billion."

During 2021, TSMC invested about $28 billion to expand its capacity in Taiwan and announced plans to invest a further $100 billion. That's more than triple the proposed U.S. and EU investments in manufacturing.

Last year, Intel announced a $20 billion investment in advanced chip manufacturing capacity in Arizona, and has signaled that its investment in all chip manufacturing could reach $100 billion. Samsung has announced a $17 billion plant near Austin, set to open in late 2024. TSMC also announced a $12 billion Arizona foundry to make chips for Apple.

Semiconductors, principally flash memory, are already South Korea's largest export. Samsung's South Korean foundries are the only manufacturers of advanced chips outside of Taiwan. In May 2021, South Korea announced a 10-year program to bolster its semiconductor manufacturing industry, with the government contributing about $225 billion in tax credits to be matched by private sector investments. The plan's goal is to expand capacity for advanced chips.

According to a Congressional Research Service report, China has already committed $150 billion to fund development of its semiconductor industry. The European Commission estimates that the fund will be fully invested by 2025. In October 2019, China announced a further $29 billion investment.

At best, if China stays out of Taiwan, planned investments may ameliorate current shortages over the next 24 months, as the West falls further behind Asian manufacturers.

Absent timely action, if China acts against Taiwan, grievous damage will be done to U.S. security interests and the economy if China either destroys or diverts existing production. Critical U.S. secrets will be handed over to China.

There is no good choice here and probably not enough time to avoid a crisis. Still, the United States and its allies must step up efforts to deter a Chinese invasion. Every decision the U.S. and its allies make about Ukraine will affect China's calculus. The West must do everything feasible to buy time, and must use that time to strongly incentivize investments in chip manufacturing, particularly advanced chips. As soon as it is feasible, the U.S. must prohibit the export of sensitive IP to Taiwan.

If the clock runs out before the West is able to develop local manufacturing capacity for the chips it needs for national and economic security, the risks of war in the defense of Taiwan may be secondary to the hazard of U.S. subjugation to China.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/6/china-media-coverage-ukraine-war

If you have any doubt about where Red Chinese government and citizens stand regarding Russia and the US this is a prime example...

The suppression and intimidation of Hong Kong continues...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/sedition-arrests-04062022111814.html

The Great Firewall of China...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/shanghai-covid-04182022133810.html

The long arm of red China censorship extends into free countries...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/netherlands-harassment-04222022082316.html

This is right out of Monty Python...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/covid-bodybag-05022022135135.html

(https://c.tenor.com/N_8p8kIvWxAAAAAC/alive-dead.gif)

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2022/05/18/2003778386

QuoteHome Front Page
Wed, May 18, 2022 page1
China, HK crackdowns drive media to Taiwan
By Lu Yi-hsuan and William Hetherington / Staff reporter, with staff writer

Taiwan has gained 63 more foreign correspondents and 29 additional news organizations since 2020, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official said yesterday, as media companies continue to relocate staff from Hong Kong and China.

The regional operations of 75 international media companies are based in Taiwan, drawing 137 journalists from 20 countries, Department of International Organizations Director Catherine Hsu (徐詠梅) told a routine news briefing in Taipei.

"The ministry sincerely welcomes international media companies to Taiwan and hopes companies will continue to relocate here in the future," she said, adding that the ministry would continue to provide any necessary assistance.

Over the past few years, Beijing has cracked down on the international media companies in China.

After the Chinese government imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong, freedom of speech and judicial independence in the territory were greatly curbed.

This has resulted in some foreign media outlets relocating to Taiwan.

Many companies have chosen to leave Hong Kong due to China's suppression of the media and free speech in the territory since the introduction of the National Security Law, Hsu said.

International media companies relocating to Taiwan are from a wider assortment of countries, she said, citing the arrival of companies from Oceania, South America and different regions of Asia.

The companies operate newspapers, television and radio programs, magazines and online news programs from their operations in Taiwan, she said.

"Their content is also diverse, covering everything from cross-strait affairs, Taiwan's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, industrial developments and the arts," she said.

"Taiwan is a good place for them due to its protection of press freedoms, and its convenient geographical location, which makes regional travel easy," Hsu added.

Reporters Without Borders ranked Taiwan 38th in its 2022 World Press Freedom Index released earlier this month, she said.

US-based Freedom House also listed Taiwan as a "free" country, and has ranked the nation 94th overall for two consecutive years, placing it second among all Asian countries, she added.

Long read... but wow... worth the time.

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/05/16/2003778254

Is this just Biden being Biden or a game changing shift from Strategic Ambiguity?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-61548531

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hongkong-textbooks-06152022112327.html

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hongkong-rebrand-07072022112219.html

QuoteNet outflow of emigrants
The people of Hong Kong may still be marching, but this time away from their beloved city.

Immigration statistics for the first three months of 2022 showed a net outflow of more than 140,000 people from Hong Kong, far exceeding the number of arrivals.

A Chinese University of Hong Kong poll last year found that nearly 60 percent of 800 respondents aged 15 to 30 wanted to leave the city.

Wang Ssi-yue chose to study in Hong Kong after graduating from high school in 2011.

"I probably wouldn't choose to study or work in Hong Kong if [I were graduating] now," she said. "There's too much that's unstable about living there, and a sense that it could be risky."

She remembers the city as being far freer than it is now.

"There was no sense of self-censorship, even on sensitive topics. People would just joke about it," Wang said. "[We felt] nothing would happen to us because it was Hong Kong."

"I didn't expect that to end so abruptly," she said. "It's really scary; it's like watching a city die."

Waning confidence

Former Hong Kong Baptist University sociology professor Yao-Tai Li agreed.

"Since the national security law was implemented, people have less and less confidence in Hong Kong as an international city," Li said. "Many of my former colleagues in academic and financial circles have now left."

"Hong Kong is slowing losing what once made it unique, which was the intersection of Chinese cultural traditions and Western values of democracy, freedom and human rights," Li said. 

"Beijing's foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin insisted: "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory... there's no room for compromise or concession."

Look to me like they've been conceding for about 80 years.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 08, 2022, 08:40:20 AM
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hongkong-rebrand-07072022112219.html

QuoteNet outflow of emigrants
The people of Hong Kong may still be marching, but this time away from their beloved city.

Immigration statistics for the first three months of 2022 showed a net outflow of more than 140,000 people from Hong Kong, far exceeding the number of arrivals.

A Chinese University of Hong Kong poll last year found that nearly 60 percent of 800 respondents aged 15 to 30 wanted to leave the city.

Wang Ssi-yue chose to study in Hong Kong after graduating from high school in 2011.

"I probably wouldn't choose to study or work in Hong Kong if [I were graduating] now," she said. "There's too much that's unstable about living there, and a sense that it could be risky."

She remembers the city as being far freer than it is now.

"There was no sense of self-censorship, even on sensitive topics. People would just joke about it," Wang said. "[We felt] nothing would happen to us because it was Hong Kong."

"I didn't expect that to end so abruptly," she said. "It's really scary; it's like watching a city die."

Waning confidence

Former Hong Kong Baptist University sociology professor Yao-Tai Li agreed.

"Since the national security law was implemented, people have less and less confidence in Hong Kong as an international city," Li said. "Many of my former colleagues in academic and financial circles have now left."

"Hong Kong is slowing losing what once made it unique, which was the intersection of Chinese cultural traditions and Western values of democracy, freedom and human rights," Li said. 

Heartbreaking.

Indeed. Proof that One China Two Systems is a lie. Taiwan is next...

I don't often applaud the actions and words of Pelosi but she is right on target regarding this visit to Taiwan... Kudos!  Her op-ed explaining her visit...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/02/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-visit-op-ed/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2022/8/2/pelosi-taiwan-live-news-us-china-militaries-on-high-alert

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 02, 2022, 12:53:49 PM
I don't often applaud the actions and words of Pelosi but she is right on target regarding this visit to Taiwan... Kudos!  Her op-ed explaining her visit...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/02/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-visit-op-ed/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2022/8/2/pelosi-taiwan-live-news-us-china-militaries-on-high-alert

Here here.

Chilling...

https://quillette.com/2022/09/25/china-in-the-age-of-surveillance/

Xi Jinping is now the Chinese emperor... he will not negotiate nor wait for Taiwan. I  see invasion attempt in 3 years or less...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-congress-10232022161016.html

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/china-artificial-islands-10312022043801.html

QuoteNew photos show China's artificial islands are highly developed military bases
The reclaimed reefs and rocks house airfields, radar installations and possible missile silos.
By RFA Staff
2022.10.31

(https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/china-artificial-islands-10312022043801.html/gettyimages-1436864848-copy.jpg/@@images/f76675ed-14f0-4ed1-96df-198e87fa699c.jpeg)

(https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/china-artificial-islands-10312022043801.html/@@images/a773c281-9016-44c3-ab6a-11cfe160ba0a.jpeg)

(https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/china-artificial-islands-10312022043801.html/gettyimages-1436865783-copy.jpg/@@images/6b8afd1d-c33a-43e3-bbe9-6a33f969f79c.jpeg)

If you're not aware of this site already, you should find this interesting:

https://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/china/

It tracks all of the Chinese islands and their development progress.  Really eye opening.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 31, 2022, 05:46:16 PM
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/china-artificial-islands-10312022043801.html

QuoteNew photos show China's artificial islands are highly developed military bases
The reclaimed reefs and rocks house airfields, radar installations and possible missile silos.
By RFA Staff
2022.10.31

(https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/china-artificial-islands-10312022043801.html/gettyimages-1436864848-copy.jpg/@@images/f76675ed-14f0-4ed1-96df-198e87fa699c.jpeg)

(https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/china-artificial-islands-10312022043801.html/@@images/a773c281-9016-44c3-ab6a-11cfe160ba0a.jpeg)

(https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/china-artificial-islands-10312022043801.html/gettyimages-1436865783-copy.jpg/@@images/6b8afd1d-c33a-43e3-bbe9-6a33f969f79c.jpeg)

Pretty darn stunning/ambitious.

This was Mischief reef in 2015...
I suppose ambitious describes the Chinese intentions... I  would classify their intentions as nefarious,  deceitful, and dangerous. They have been loud and clear about their ambitions for the region... and it isn't spreading democracy and freedom of the seas... alarm bells have been ringing for years... times almost up...

(https://i0.wp.com/amti.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/mischief_jan24_2012_qb02_overview_28299305844_o-wm.jpg?zoom=2.25&w=592&h=453&ssl=1)

Crazy isn't it.  All of those islands have come a long way sing 2014/2015

And the island in the images you posted earlier is of Fiery Cross.  It was barely a sandbar when they started the dredging in 2014
https://amti.csis.org/fiery-cross-reef/#jp-carousel-24054


Here is the location in Google Earth:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fiery+Cross+Reef/@9.5520458,112.8839196,4409m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x322ab5801721aa3b:0x999ba40070aa0813!8m2!3d9.632567!4d112.96602?hl=en

What's crazy is... it isn't theirs and they were never islands... they were considered sandbars and environmentally sensitive coral reefs. Where is Green Peace when you need them...lol

The Chinese government is watching you... yes you.

https://www.chinafile.com/library/excerpts/appliances-are-listening

QuoteThe general said he hopes he is wrong, but "my gut tells me we will fight in 2025." 

Quote"There has been a change in the approach from Beijing toward Taiwan in recent years," Mr. Blinken said at Stanford University. "And instead of sticking with the status quo that was established in a positive way, [there was] a fundamental decision that the status quo was no longer acceptable and that Beijing was determined to pursue reunification on a much faster timeline."

Quote"When we talk about the 2027 window, in my mind, that has to be a 2022 window or potentially a 2023 window. I can't rule it out," he said. "I don't mean at all to be alarmist by saying that. It's just that we can't wish that away." 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/feb/2/china-held-taiwan-war-council-october-generals-mem/

Appreciate Chinese efforts to monitor weather worldwide...  ;) :o ::)

http://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-Navy-High-Altitude-Spy-Balloons.html

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/24/asia/us-navy-south-china-sea-flyover-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

QuoteBy Ivan Watson and Emiko Jozuka, CNN
Updated 11:38 AM EST, Fri February 24, 2023
Kadena Air Base, Japan
CNN
—
The US Navy reconnaissance jet flies at 21,500 feet over the South China Sea, 30 miles from the contested Paracel Islands, a group of about 130 small atolls, the biggest of which are home to Chinese military bases.

A voice, saying it's coming from a People's Liberation Army (PLA) airport, crackles over the radio of the US Navy P-8 Poseidon as a CNN crew, given rare access aboard the US flight, listens in.s

"American aircraft. Chinese airspace is 12 nautical miles. Not approaching any more or you bear all responsibility," it says. 

I saw a hint of this in another article... China has claims on huge swaths of Russian territory... below is a Library of Congress map...

QuoteTicking timebomb as Russia continues to occupy swathes of Chinese territory

Issued on: 15/09/2022 - 07:07
Modified: 15/09/2022 - 15:07 

https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20220915-ticking-timebomb-as-russia-continues-to-occupy-swathes-of-chinese-territory

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/MANCHURIA-U.S.S.R_BOUNDARY_Ct002999.jpg/1920px-MANCHURIA-U.S.S.R_BOUNDARY_Ct002999.jpg)

Taiwan prepares...
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2023/03/14/2003796060

QuoteTue, Mar 14, 2023 page1
Military braces for blockade by China
STRENGTHENING: The defense budget this year is to focus on replenishment of artillery and rocket stocks, and equipment for F-16 jets, the defense ministry said
By Yimou Lee and Ben Blanchard / Reuters, TAIPEI

This is an editorial but... it hits the nail on the head.

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2023/04/10/2003797620

QuoteMany headlines have also been written on the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to isolate and strangle the small but defiant democracy on the island of Taiwan. Yet many of these analyses fail to locate the sources of China's obsession with its neighbor to the southeast. Any effort to neutralize Chinese aggression must begin with one question: why is China so obsessed with subduing a tiny nation of only 23 million people? Examining this question reveals four key motivators animating Beijing's mania.

ISW has begun publishing weekly updates regarding the situation in the Taiwan Strait... even if you disagree with the analysis... you should come away with a a deeper understanding of the issues...

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-may-5-2023

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-may-19-2023

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-may-26-2023

https://theaviationist.com/2023/07/14/p-8a-taiwan-strait/

QuoteU.S. Navy P-8A Aircraft Operates Over Taiwan Strait Sparking Chinese Protest

The US press made small mention of these stations in NY and California...

https://theins.ru/en/politics/263448

QuoteHe rang the doorbell and started threatening me with murder in Chinese." How Chinese authorities go after dissidents abroad

Sad but probably the tip of the iceberg....

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/navy-sailors-arrested-military-information-china/index.html

It's gonna happen... just when...

QuoteChina's military is building up forces for an attack on Taiwan that could take place in the coming years as part of a campaign by President Xi Jinping for "national rejuvenation," according to the latest Pentagon's annual report on the Chinese military.

The report, based on declassified intelligence from the Defense Intelligence Agency, military and other spy services, provides the most detailed U.S. government assessment made public to date of Chinese plans for military action against the self-ruled, democratic island Beijing claims as its territory.

China "continues to signal its willingness to use military force against Taiwan" while asserting it seeks a peaceful solution to cross-strait ties, the report noted.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/oct/23/pentagon-outlines-multiple-chinese-attack-plans-ta/

Totalitarian bullies just move on to the next...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/disputed-reef-11102023213646.html

QuoteBeijing tests Manila's nerves in disputed reef

Large number of Chinese vessels tried blocking a Philippine resupply mission at Second Thomas Shoal. China was once again trying to block Philippine ships from delivering supplies to the troops stationed at the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea on Friday.

Earlier in the day, "China Coast Guard (CCG) and Chinese Maritime Militia (CMM) vessels recklessly harassed, blocked, executed dangerous maneuvers in another attempt to illegally impede or obstruct a routine resupply and rotation mission to BRP Sierra Madre (LS 57) at Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal)," the National Task Force for the West Philippine Sea said in a statement. The West Philippine Sea is the name that Filipinos use for waters claimed by Manila in the South China Sea.

"CCG vessel 5203 deployed water cannon against Philippine supply vessel M/L Kalayaan," it said. M/L, or motor launch, implies a small-sized, motor-powered boat.... 

 

China expanding influence in the Indian Ocean...

https://features.csis.org/snapshots/china-submarine-diplomacy/

And India and Australia's response...

https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/11/australia-and-indias-new-military-bases-responses-to-chinas-naval-presence-in-the-indian-ocean/

QuoteThe Chinese Communist Party's Theory of Hybrid Warfare

Key Takeaways

**Chinese Communist Party (CCP) military theorists frame hybrid warfare as how countries deploy all aspects of physical and non-physical state power, including civil society, to confront an adversary indirectly. They also view it as a means of confronting great powers within an interconnected and globalized world.

**The available CCP publications indicate that hybrid warfare accepts the premise of systems confrontation that warfare is a contest of comprehensive national strength. The publications suggest that hybrid warfare departs from systems confrontation in that it does not definitionally accept the emphasis on nested systems as the way to view warfare, however.

**The PRC is fighting a hybrid war for Taiwan by nesting it within a hybrid war against the United States. The hybrid war against the United States also targets US regional allies, such as Japan and the Philippines, to degrade the image of the US-led security architecture as providing regional stability.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/chinese-communist-partys-theory-hybrid-warfare

Sad to say but this was my final squadron... glad no one was hurt... :(

https://theaviationist.com/2023/11/24/official-photos-of-p-8a-into-the-water-in-hawaii/

(https://i0.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/P-8-runway-overrun.jpg?resize=678%2C381&ssl=1)

China's newest aircraft carrier...

http://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-Navy-Type-003-Carrier-Nov23.html

Chinese trying to annex another Philippine island...  and in case you missed it... the Venezuelan dictator is threatening to invade Guyana...

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-december-7-2023

QuoteThe Philippines Coast Guard (PCG) announced on December 3 the presence of over 100 Chinese Maritime Militia vessels (CMM) "swarming" the Philippine-controlled Whitson Reef in the South China Sea's (SCS) contested Spratly Islands since November 13.[44] The PCG stated the number grew to more than 135 vessels by December 3 and that the vessels have not complied with PCG warnings to disperse. PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesperson Wang Wenbin reprimanded the Philippines' "irresponsible remarks" in a press conference on December 4, stating that the reef is China's territory and the Chinese fishing vessels sheltered there are operating within the law.[45]

The surge in suspected CMM presence comes amid the Philippines' completion of a coast guard "monitoring base" on nearby Thitu Island, which was formally inaugurated on December 1. Philippine National Security Adviser Eduardo Ano stated he witnessed at least 18 suspected CMM ships and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) vessel off Thitu while visiting the island for the inauguration ceremony.[46]

The PRC operates hundreds of CMM ships in the SCS at any given time under the guise of fishing vessels.[47] These vessels often remain anchored for extended periods around nearby PRC military bases and contested features. The current "swarm" of 135 vessels surrounding Whitson Reef is unusually high, however. The grouping is the largest since March 2021, when a flotilla of over 220 alleged CMM vessels moored there.[48] The PRC in 2021 similarly justified the ships' presence as sheltering from rough conditions, despite the prolonged stay of several weeks.[49]

The PRC's deployment of non-traditional maritime power serves to further its control of claimed territory while manipulating the narrative to portray challengers as aggressors. There is precedent for the PRC using the CMM to gain footholds in the SCS. CMM vessels played a role in the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff, which ended in the PRC wresting control of the feature from the Philippines.[50] The PRC justified its deployment of paramilitary surveillance ships to confront the Philippines Navy after the latter sought to arrest PRC militiamen for illegal fishing. The Philippines claims the PRC maintained its presence there after an agreement by both parties to withdraw their ships.[51] The PRC erected a barrier to deny entry to the shoal's lagoon a month later.[52]

The PRC uses the CMM to challenge territorial sovereignty in the SCS more frequently than in other disputes with Japan and Taiwan. Former Rear Admiral of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Katsuya Yamamoto stated in 2019 that the CMM has played a smaller role in the PRC's maritime incursions in the East China Sea (ECS) than the SCS.[53] Japan suffers routine harassment from Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) vessels, however, mostly near the Senkaku Islands in the ECS. The Japanese Coast Guard (JCG) recorded 127 incursions into Japan's territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands by the CCG over the twelve months since November 30.[54] Taiwan experiences a constant flow of illegal PRC fishing vessels in its restricted waters. Taiwan's Coast Guard Administration (CGA) reported 1,081 cases of illegal fishing from PRC vessels in its restricted waters during the twelve months since October 31, resulting in 25 detainments. These instances have not escalated into conflict with the PRC military, however. Taiwan's Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng stated on March 6 that the PRC military approached Taiwan's contiguous zone in August 2022 and may cross it this year.[55]

Messaging from PRC leadership signals strong backing for the maritime forces' antagonistic posturing. Xi Jinping urged the People's Armed Police (PAP) and CCG to defend the PRC's territorial sovereignty and maritime interests during a visit to the East China Sea Regional Command headquarters in Shanghai on December 1.[56]

Funny how little communist and socialist regimes care about territorial integrity when it suits them.

Quote from: Tacachale on December 09, 2023, 09:48:21 PM
Funny how little communist and socialist regimes care about territorial integrity when it suits them.

It's also "funny" how little attention is paid to them until it's too late...

Any pro democracy protests, advocacy is considered treason... even from dual citizens of China and US.  China has a very long arm...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hong-kong-warrants-activists-12162023204634.html

The Germans are finally figuring out what a threat China is... wake up people...

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/espionage-from-the-east-russia-is-a-storm-china-is-climate-change-a-7436be38-2088-4e10-b188-e5032ad0a367

QuoteGerman intelligence agents have long abandoned any illusions they may once have held about the hunger for power and the increasing hostility of the Chinese Communist Party toward the West. Russian President Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine may be the most acute problem facing Europe at the moment. But on the long term, the biggest threat comes from China. "Russia is a storm," says Thomas Haldenwang, head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany's domestic security agency. "China is climate change." 

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hongkong-exodus-08152022123051.html

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2024/01/09/US-Navy-sailor-given-27-months-in-jail-for-sharing-military-data-with-China

https://providencemag.com/2024/02/chinas-quiet-war-in-the-south-china-sea/

QuoteWhile the eyes of the world remain fixed on the crisis in the Red Sea, another threat to global stability continues to stir in the South China Sea. In early December, the Chinese Coast Guard rammed and assaulted Philippine supply vessels with water cannons near Second Thomas Shoal, a reef whose sovereignty is disputed between the two nations and lies 121 miles (194 km) west of the Philippines...

Taiwanese residents would be wise to take notice...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-68613249

QuoteThe Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) has normalized patrols around Kinmen since February 14. A PRC fishing boat in Taiwan's prohibited waters near Kinmen capsized while fleeing from a legal Taiwanese Coast Guard pursuit on February 14. The capsizing resulted in the deaths of two of the four fishermen onboard. The CCG pledged on February 18 to strengthen law enforcement activities around Kinmen. The CCG has maintained a consistent presence around Kinmen and repeatedly violated Taiwan's maritime boundaries since then. The CCG boarded a Taiwanese sightseeing ship on February 19, marking the first time a CCG ship conducted inspections in Taiwanese waters.[9] Five CCG marine surveillance ships entered Taiwan's contiguous zone around Kinmen on February 26, including one that crossed into territorial waters.[10] The total number of CCG ships around Kinmen reached 11 on February 27, including two that entered Taiwan's contiguous zone. Four CCG ships operated in Taiwan's territorial waters around Kinmen Island for two consecutive days for the first time on March 15 and 16.[11] One of the ships was a converted naval corvette that conducted the passage with its gun covers removed.[12] The CCG's removal of its gun covers during its passage through Taiwan's waters illustrates its offensive posturing, indicating its actions are intended to intimidate the Taiwanese Coast Guard rather than uphold a safe maritime environment. CCG ships have previously used this tactic to intimidate rival law enforcement in contested waters, including the Philippines Coast Guard around Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea.[13]

Normalizing operations around Taiwan's waters sets conditions for the PRC to apply further pressure on Taiwan in the future. It provides the precedent for the PRC to justify future CCG around other offshore ROC islands, such as Matsu. The patrols near the offshore islands create domestic political pressure on the ROC government to negotiate with the PRC from a position of weakness to mitigate the frequency of patrols and defend ROC sovereignty.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-march-28-2024

Using tactics similar to those used in the South China Sea to seize control of claimed territory...China is now using "cartographic aggression" against India...

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/arunachal-pradesh-04022024161146.html

QuoteChina names 30 places in Indian-controlled Arunachal Pradesh

India rejects Beijing's move, which seems aimed at bolstering its claims to disputed territory.

https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/breaking-seven-decade-taboo-deployment-us-special-forces-kinmen-miles-yu

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/south-china-sea-04262024085452.html

QuoteScarborough Shoal was a refuge for Filipino fishermen. Then Chinese boats moved in

For the Philippines, the triangular chain of reefs offers a warning about China's intentions.

By Luna Pham for RFA and BenarNews
2024.04.26
In Masinloc, Philippines

One day in early April 2012, a Philippine naval surveillance plane spotted eight Chinese fishing boats inside Scarborough Shoal, a triangular chain of reefs around 125 nautical miles (232 kilometers) from Luzon, the Philippines' main island.

For decades, the country's fishermen had trawled the area's waters and used its protective lagoon as a refuge from typhoons.

But this day would mark a turning point. Less than 48 hours after the Chinese boats were spotted, they were met by the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, the Philippine navy's largest patrol vessel. Armed sailors boarded the Chinese vessels, where they said they found endangered species of coral, giant clams and sharks.

Chinese news reports accused the Philippines of harassing and humiliating the Chinese crew. Beijing sent two marine surveillance ships to investigate.

Today, Filipino fishermen say they find themselves routinely run off in those South China Sea waters, which have also become a flashpoint in a potential conflict between superpowers....

I worked with this system during the Cold War... this is the new version in the  Asian theater...

https://www.cescube.com/vp-new-dimensions-of-surveillance-reinventing-the-fish-hook-strategy

(https://i0.wp.com/resonantnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/map-1-SOSUS.jpg?w=546&ssl=1)

QuoteEver since China has launched its String of Pearls strategy, the Indo-Pacific has been a center of activity. With every nation in the region, trying to vigilantly guard its territories from China's escalating encroachments, maritime operations in the past ten years alone have increased exponentially. The US too has been paying close attention to the happenings in the Pacific, and is taking steps to counter some of China's moves. By forming coalitions and signing agreements, regional states are constantly proving that China's increasingly aggressive moves need to be countered. But the actions of states with this regard have been more or less predictable, as every nation is trying their best to make use of intelligence and tactical operations to safeguard their interests. There has been a significant focus on making use of the best technologies to successfully guard one's coastal borders. On the other hand, China, who has been making historical claims in the South China Sea and is heading towards an expansionist policy, has embarked on certain missions that suggest the revival of an old strategy which was once used by its rival. 

Historical information...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS#:~:text=SOSUS%20systems%20consisted%20of%20bottom,which%20they%20were%20to%20cover.

India has recognized the threat and joined the hunt...

https://resonantnews.com/2020/07/03/indian-submarine-surveillance-network-ready-to-catch-chinese-submarines-japan-and-america-are-partners/

(https://i0.wp.com/resonantnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1-1.png?w=727&ssl=1)

(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fce3df145-7cef-431e-87e9-2103dd08a15d_1200x1082.jpeg)

https://warontherocks.com/2024/05/by-with-and-through-at-the-second-thomas-shoal/

Very long but if you are interested in geopolitics this is a fantastic read...

https://tnsr.org/2024/05/confronting-another-axis-history-humility-and-wishful-thinking/

https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/products/Safeguarding_Our_Military_Expertise.pdf
A document from US, UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealanders intelligence...

Philippines promises to protect fishermen as China's trespass rule takes hold
A new regulation says the Chinese coast guard can arrest foreign vessels and crew in waters claimed by Beijing.
By BenarNews staff
2024.06.14

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/protect-fishermen-trespassing-06142024141311.html

https://ejfoundation.org/reports/tide-of-injustice-exploitation-and-illegal-fishing-on-chinese-vessels-in-the-southwest-indian-ocean#:~:text=This%20report%20maps%20the%20presence,coastal%20communities%20across%20its%20shores.

QuoteTIDE OF INJUSTICE: EXPLOITATION AND ILLEGAL FISHING ON CHINESE VESSELS IN THE SOUTHWEST INDIAN OCEANPUBLICATION DATE  11-04-24 TYPE  REPORT

This report maps the presence and activities of the Chinese DWF in the Southwest Indian Ocean (SWIO), a region notable for its biodiversity-rich seascape, which is a lifeline to coastal communities across its shores. The findings of the report show that while couched in terms of win-win, sustainable development and collective benefits from the blue economy, the realities on board many vessels in China's DWF are in direct contradiction of these stated aims.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-south-china-sea-matters-211730

QuoteClashes between the China Coast Guard and the Philippine Navy escalated in June. Philippine officials announced late last month that Chinese personnel attacked dinghies attempting to provision Philippine troops at the disputed Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea.

If China succeeded in dominating the South China Sea, the consequences would be immense: Beijing could potentially choke off trade and shipments to Japan, control access to technologies crucial to U.S. economic activities (especially microchips), and project power deep into the Pacific.

The economic significance of the South China Sea cannot be overstated. As one of the busiest maritime routes in the world, it serves as a vital artery for international trade, facilitating the flow of 64 percent of total goods discharged worldwide in 2022. Any disruption to the free passage of ships through these waters would have far-reaching consequences for the global economy, affecting not only the countries directly involved in the dispute but also the broader international community.

Any attempt by China to restrict access or assert control over the South China Sea would directly impact U.S. economic interests, potentially leading to higher shipping costs, supply chain disruptions, and increased market volatility. South China Sea trade accounts for 5.72 percent of all trade in goods for the United States. Safeguarding freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is essential to protecting American prosperity and maintaining its leadership role in the global economy.

While neighboring countries adhere to their internationally recognized Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) for their maritime claims, China asserts sovereignty over a broad swathe of ocean in the South China Sea encompassed by the "nine-dash line." In 2016, an international tribunal in The Hague ruled against China's claims, stating that it cannot claim rights to resources in the South China Sea that lie within the EEZs of other coastal states like the Philippines and Vietnam. China rejected the ruling and promptly threatened military force against Vietnam for drilling within its EEZ.

In March of this year, two Philippine naval ships and two coastguard vessels were escorting a civilian boat hired to resupply troops at the Second Thomas Shoal. A Chinese coastguard vessel and two maritime militia vessels encircled the Filipino troops, using water cannons that damaged the civilian boat and harmed crew members. Following several of these encounters, the Philippines has lodged diplomatic protests in Beijing and appealed to the United States for an increased U.S. military presence in the Philippines.

The best way for America to prevent China from seizing control of the South China Sea is to strengthen its own ability to deter China while working with others in the region who feel threatened by the Chinese, including Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, as well as other states in the broader Indo-Pacific who have an interest in maintaining a free and open South China Sea, like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and India.

The Chinese Communist Party is the odd man out here, pushing for a redefinition of treaties and rebalancing of regional power at the expense of most of its neighbors. The U.S. military's deterrent effect on the Chinese attempt to establish hegemony in the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific more generally serves the national security interests of both the United States and the overwhelming majority of countries in the Indo-Pacific.  

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2024/08/20/2003822498

QuoteChina's Taiwan strategy would use three carriers

ACCESS DENIAL: Beijing would likely take formation in the Philippine Sea, outside Taipei's missile range, while its forces on the east would be a deterrent to foreign aid

By Chen Yu-fu and William Hetherington / Staff reporter, with staff writer

China is increasingly likely to employ a strategy of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) around Taiwan, which would use three carrier groups, a report from the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said.

When China's third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, is completed next year, China would have three carriers, which would likely be used to surround Taiwan and implement an A2/AD strategy, it said, adding that efforts to strengthen China's two other carriers — the Liaoning and the Shandong — appear to corroborate this.

In the quarterly report, the council cited declassified documents from the Ministry of National Defense that categorized China's carriers as a threat if used for A2/AD, and said that China might coordinate its naval, air force and rocket force capabilities to operate beyond the first island chain and deter foreign forces from getting involved in a conflict involving Taiwan.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force would deploy medium and long-range conventional ground-attack and anti-ship ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles to foreign forces in the area between the first and second island chains, it said.

Citing military researchers, the report said that in the event of an attempted invasion of Taiwan, Chinese forces would likely first take formation in the northern part of the Philippine Sea, somewhere between 300km and 800km east of Taiwan proper. This posture would allow China to face Taiwan simultaneously on two fronts, with forces east of Taiwan also acting as a deterrent to foreign forces, it said.

Separately, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) on Sunday said that China's three carriers are part of China's transition from a land power to a sea power.

The introduction of the Fujian into service would help make the PLA Navy a "blue water navy," and allow China to more effectively encircle Taiwan, he said.

The range of Taiwan's Xiangfeng missiles is 200km to 250km, so China's carriers would be deployed 300km or more east of Taiwan, putting them out of range, he said. Meanwhile, the range of the fighter jets that would be deployed from the carriers is about 800km, so an attack on Taiwan could be launched from within a safe range.

Taiwan can use anti-ship missiles to attack approaching enemy ships, but must rely on submarines to deal with long-distance aircraft, he said, adding that domestically-built submarines are important.

In the event of a war, it would be difficult for Chinese aircraft to safely pass through the Bashi Strait or Miyako Strait, he said, adding that if the US were to help Taiwan, China's aircraft carriers in waters east of Taiwan would be "sandwiched" between attacks from both sides.

Within the strategic triangle comprised of Hawaii, Guam and Taiwan, Chinese carriers would become the target of the US military, he said.

"Thoughts to the contrary are simply wishful thinking on the part of the Chinese," he said.

Chinese aircraft carriers stationed east of Taiwan during an attack would also be subject to a war of attrition since they would need supplies within one to two weeks, he said.

"Since the passage of supply ships through the Bashi Channel or Miyako Strait would be too dangerous, and China has no overseas bases, supplying the carriers would be impossible," he said. "Any advantage brought by the carriers would be quickly lost."

Taiwan, South China Sea, India are just the beginning...Russia beware...

https://www.derpragmaticus.com/r/china-russland-gebietsansprueche

Quotelate August, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is expected to publish an updated version of its "standard map" to reflect its growing territorial claims. Its neighbors see it as an ominous sign of China's imperialist threat. But for the party, it is a near-sacred document that embodies China's historical claims and vision of which lost territories must be reclaimed. All of this is under the banner of "national rejuvenation" - a central concept of Xi Jinping that aims to restore the country as a dominant superpower by the People's Republic's centenary in 2049.

In the current version of the standard map, published last year, eight Russian cities along the Sino-Russian border were suddenly given their Chinese names. Vladivostok is called "Haishenwai." Khabarovsk, Russia's easternmost city, is called "Bólì." Bolshoi Ussuriysky - Hiexiazi Island in Chinese - which is supposedly used jointly by Moscow and Beijing, is described as purely Chinese. China's "national rejuvenation" would be incomplete without the territories once lost to Russia.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/09/uscg-pacific-comments-latest-chinese-ramming-of-philippine-coast-guard-vessel/

QuoteUSCG Pacific Comments Latest Chinese Ramming of Philippine Coast Guard VesselChina, despite its protestations of innocence, is the South China Sea's greatest source of instability. This was illustrated on 31 August when China Coast Guard (CCG) vessel '5205' deliberately collided with a Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) vessel several times near Sabina Shoal, 75nm from the Palawan coast. The Philippines deployed a ship there in April after China furtively attempted to develop it into an artificial island.

Gordon Arthur  02 Sep 2024

This was the fifth time in a month that China had confronted Philippine law enforcement agencies within the country's own EEZ, as China goes all out to push the Philippines away from this shoal and others. The presence of two naval tugboats suggested China might even have been contemplating towing the Philippine vessel away after immobilising it.

China says its actions are "'professional, restrained and appropriate", whereas the majority recognise them as unprofessional, dangerous and inappropriate. For example, the New Zealand Embassy in Manila stated, "This latest incident, with a CCG vessel ramming a Philippine vessel, is profoundly troubling and fits a recent pattern of dangerous and destabilising actions in the region. New Zealand calls for de-escalation and compliance with international law, in particular UNCLOS."

The USA vocalized its condemnation too. Rear Admiral Andrew M. Sugimoto, Deputy Commander, US Coast Guard (USCG) Pacific Area, said:

"We unequivocally condemn the ramming of vessels. The whole point of rules on the water is so that we don't run into each other, and so this is a clear act of bullying by one individual that wants to exert its influences over another nation with complete disregard for the rules and the international law that exists."

RADM Sugimoto, who was promoted to his post in July, asked which international rules condoned ramming as a measure for upholding international law, especially when collision regulations are designed to prevent vessels from hitting each other. "So it's a little astounding to say that I'm going to break the law in order to uphold the law. It just doesn't make sense, and I think most nations out there see that as unsafe and unprofessional conduct, which only highlights and further emphasises the bullying that is going on, right?"

Watch the video... released by the Chinese... pretty clear who the aggressor is...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1834581288596152634

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-october-4-2024

QuoteThe Wall Street Journal reported that US investigators are investigating a hacking campaign by PRC state-sponsored threat actors that infiltrated US-based internet service providers (ISP) to conduct espionage.[10] Investigators are calling the campaign Salt Typhoon, following the Microsoft naming convention for cyber threat actors attributed to the PRC. Salt Typhoon is also known as GhostEmperor and Famous Sparrow, according to Microsoft's cybersecurity division.[11] PRC-based threat actors' access to US ISPs and telecommunications companies. Gaining access to the digital infrastructure of ISP and telecom companies would position PRC-based threat actors to steal sensitive data and potentially affect the flow of internet traffic.

Estonian cybersecurity research firm ESET discovered the threat actor, which it named FamousSparrow, in 2021 after observing activity that targeted hotels, engineering companies, and international and government organizations in 12 countries worldwide, including Taiwan.[12] Russian cybersecurity research firm Kaspersky publicized other malicious activity from a Chinese-speaking threat actor that it called GhostEmperor a week later.[13] Kaspersky linked GhostEmperor to FamousSparrow based on a common IP address across the activity in both companies' investigations. Kaspersky reported that the threat actor infiltrated government entities and telecommunications companies in Southeast Asia and suggested geopolitically motivated espionage as a possible purpose, based on the targets.

The Salt Typhoon revelations follow a September 18 cybersecurity advisory from the US and UK that revealed an extensive botnet under the control of PRC state-sponsored cyber threat actor Flax Typhoon. The botnet infected over 260,000 small office/home office (SOHO) routers and internet-linked devices worldwide, almost half of which were in the US.[14]

Former US Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) suggested that the threat actor could be Advanced Persistent Threat 40 (APT40), another cyber threat actor that the Five Eyes, Germany, South Korea, and Japan have attributed to the PRC Ministry of State Security (MSS) Hainan branch.[15] The Wall Street Journal reported that Salt Typhoon's focus on intelligence collection is notably different from other assessed PRC state-sponsored threat actors such as Volt Typhoon. The Five Eyes countries issued a joint advisory on February 7 that exposed Volt Typhoon's targeting of critical infrastructure in the United States.[16] The Five Eyes countries assessed that the purpose of this campaign was to develop the capability to disrupt key operational technology functions in the event of a conflict with the United States by leveraging its access to informational technology environments. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-probes-chinese-ship-severed-baltic-sea-cables-report-2024-11

https://cepa.org/article/stakes-rise-in-baltic-sabotage-standoff/

QuoteSo what happened? First, two undersea data cables near the Swedish island of Öland were cut within 24 hours of each other, on or around November 17-18. Open source analysts noted the Yi Peng 3 had crossed both and appeared to slow down as she did so. The two links connected Sweden and Lithuania, and Finland and Germany. In one place at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, the two cables nearly intersected, and it turned out their sudden dysfunction had no natural or engineering explanations: it must have been caused from outside... 

QuoteThe US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) jointly announced that the "Salt Typhoon" breach that infiltrated several telecom providers as well as both the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns remains unresolved and was greater in scope than officials had previously known. President Biden's Deputy National Security Adviser for Cyber and Emerging Technology Anne Neuberger said at least eight US telecom providers had been breached, four more than previously known.[60] Moreover, investigators now understand that Salt Typhoon has exploited vulnerabilities and penetrated systems in at least a "couple dozen" countries.[61] The agencies stated that although they had not announced the breach until September this year, Microsoft first detected it in late spring or early summer and likely tipped off the relevant telecom providers.[62]  ISW has previously reported that Salt Typhoon could be a campaign by APT40, a highly sophisticated group associated with the Hainan branch of the PRC Ministry of State Security (MSS).[63]

Although officials from the respective agencies have not observed new activity by Salt Typhoon since they last put out an announcement about it on November 13th, they maintained the possibility that the threat group has decided to lie low with the intention to reemerge after the investigation passes.[64]  Officials identified three main target types: an unspecified number of victims in the Washington DC area whose call records were taken from telecom companies, a limited group of individuals with political or government connections—each of whom the FBI has notified, and Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) statute program court orders that could contain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigation sources.[65]  The official neither confirmed nor denied that Salt Typhoon hackers had uncovered FISA sources, which would pose a dire risk for the latter while helping PRC informants avoid detection.[66] CISA's Executive Assistant Director Jeff Greene also noted that the extent and method in which each victim was compromised varies significantly, making expulsion of Salt Typhoon all the more complicated.[67]  U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) cautioned that eliminating PRC hackers from US networks could necessitate physically replacing thousands of obsolete routers and switches.[68]

CISA and several partnering Five Eyes agencies jointly released an alert warning that PRC threat actors had infiltrated the networks of major telecom providers and a set of guidelines for hardening their infrastructure. Notably, they did not include British agencies, which Greene said operated on "different considerations and timelines."[69]  Greene also recommended that Americans use encrypted messaging apps over SMS to reduce Salt Typhoon's ability to intercept data in transit.[70]

Telecom providers are among the most valuable targets for a nation state actor interested in espionage to hack. They offer unparalleled visibility into who the providers work with and their customers' data and metadata, especially where messages are unencrypted.[71] Salt Typhoon has managed to exploit a vast array of outdated network of routers and switches built decades ago by many companies that no longer exist.[72]

QuoteThe PRC's export controls on critical minerals will inhibit the United States' access to materials that are essential to economic and national security. The PRC prohibited exports to the United States of gallium, germanium, antimony, and superhard materials on December 3.[73] The PRC also implemented stricter controls on exports of graphite to the United States.

The US Department of Interior designated antimony, gallium, germanium, and graphite as critical minerals to the economy and national security in 2018.[74] Antimony has a variety of military applications, including night vision goggles, strengthening shielding materials, explosives, flares, nuclear weapons, and infrared sensors.[75] Gallium and germanium have applications in aerospace, military, and telecommunications due to their use in the manufacture of optoelectronic devices and fundamental inputs such as integrated circuits, semiconductors, and transistors.[76] Graphite has extensive industrial and military applications, including the manufacture of missile guidance systems, artillery components, firearms, and military aircraft.[77] Superhard materials, such as diamond, are used for their hardness and durability for precision manufacturing of goods such as semiconductors and electronics.[78]

The PRC is a top producer and source of imports for all of the critical minerals that are subject to new restrictions. The United States has not mined gallium since 1987, antimony since 2001, graphite since the 1950s, and produces minimal germanium.[79] The United States' annual demand for some of the minerals, such as antimony, exceeds any other single country's mine production.[80]

The United States' stockpile of antimony amounted to 1,100 tons in 2023, compared to its consumption of 23,000 tons, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[81] A Department of Defense spokesperson stated in July 2023 that the United States has a strategic stockpile of germanium but did not specify the size. The spokesperson stated that the United States does not have a stockpile of gallium.[82] The United States also does not have a stockpile of graphite.[83]

The export restrictions follow a pattern of the PRC's increasing securitization of critical minerals. The PRC previously implemented export controls for gallium and germanium in August 2023, high-grade graphite in December 2023, and antimony in September 2024.[84] A PRC Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) spokesperson accused the United States on December 3 of "politicizing and weaponizing economic, trade, and technological issues, abusing export control measures, and arbitrarily restricting the export of relevant products to China."[85] The PRC announced the measures a day after the United States Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) implemented new export control measures to restrict the PRC's ability to produce semiconductors.[86]

(https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/image.png)

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-december-12-2024

Shockingly... the Chinese and Russians are using the same playbook...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/23/taiwan-china-cables-internet-matsu-islands/

QuoteThere are strange things going on at the bottom of the sea. Once again, the two fiberoptic cables connecting Taiwan's Matsu Islands, which lie just 10 nautical miles off China's coast, to the outside world have been severed. The same thing happened in February 2023, when two Chinese merchant vessels cut the two cables, which run from the islands to the rest of Taiwan. The cut set the islands back to a pre-internet age.

This time, it's less clear what caused the cables to be severed—and this time, the islands were ready. Thanks to microwave and satellite backup systems, the 12,000 or so residents have mostly been unaffected by the cable cuts. Other countries can learn from Matsu's experience.

Informative article regarding Chinese influence in the Panama Canal zone...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-943c9a5e-32c0-4eae-8abb-4d9c4c6eae1e

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/australian-p8-enters-chinese-airspace-j16

QuoteOn February 13 the Chinese Foreign Ministry protested the deployment of an Australian P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, which"deliberately intruded into the airspace of China's Parcel Islands without China's permission and violated China's sovereignty." It added that Australia had "jeopardised" China's national security, with Chinese forces having responded with "proper, legal and professional measures to exercise restraint."Beijing had made "solemn representations" to Australia on the matter "demanding Australia to stop infringing its rights, provoking, and undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea." The P-8 is a derivative of the Boeing 737-800 airliner designed for long range maritime, reconnaissance, anti-shipping, air defence suppression and anti submarine duties. Alongside its large sensor suite built around the AN/APY-10 radar, its internal weapons bays and additional external hardpoints can accommodate a range of weaponry including AGM-88G anti radiation missiles, AGM-158 ant ship cruise missiles, Mark 54 torpedoes, and naval mines among others. Australian P-8s have demonstrated their long range missile strike capabilities in the Pacific in the past. 

China responded to what it alleged was the aircraft's infringing on its airspace by deploying two J-16 fighters to closely shadow it, with at least one of the J-16s the releasing flares 30 meters in front of the P-8. The Australian Defence Ministry referred to the Chinese aircraft's actions as "unsafe and unprofessional," and did not acknowledge Chinese reports that the incident took place within China's airspace. China has employed J-16s to closely intercept Western aircraft alleged to be intruding into its airspace in the past, with the fighters reported to have been used to circle the Royal Netherlands Navy frigate HNLMS Tromp and approach its NH90 helicopter on June 7, 2024. The Chinese Defence Ministry stated that the warship and helicopter were staging provocations to the east of Shanghai, adding that the Dutch side was "falsely claiming to be carrying out a U.N. mission and flexed its force in the sea and airspace under the jurisdiction of another country, creating tension and undermining the friendly relations between the two countries." As the United States has faced growing difficulties in matching Chinese military strength in East Asia, other Western Bloc states such as Australia, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany have made efforts to significantly increase their military presences to support collective Western interests in the region. 

Interesting turnabout...  What took them so long...?

https://archive.is/2025.02.19-140327/https://www.ft.com/content/fda734fc-6023-4ad9-b3ae-33234ee40505

As the article says, "While US foreign policy is in flux ..." As the new administration in the USA turns its back on traditional alliances in the western hemisphere and Europe, and turns to Moscow, will Australia also be left behind as part of this 'flux'?

From Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,  Philippines, India, Singapore, Australia and many others... China is flexing its muscles. Seizing territory, sea lanes, and threatening invasions. We and the countries listed need to wake up...

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/china-failed-to-answer-for-warships-live-fire-event-in-tasman-sea-marles-20250222-p5le95.html

Very good article describing the current missions of some of your local VP squadrons at NAS JAX ... these crews are flying their asses off!!  BZ to all of them.

https://news.usni.org/2025/03/06/u-s-starts-two-pacific-submarine-drills-chinese-surface-group-operating-near-australia

You can probably expect South Korea and very possibly Japan to go nuclear in the near future...

https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-nuclear-submarine-missiles-kim-us-183cde96a36844fdce559081551fc0a7

China is preparing... obviously. This article is a few months old but has been updated as new photos have emerged.

(https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/China-Taiwan-Amphibious-Invasion.jpg)

(https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/China-barges-2-scaled.jpg)

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-building-fleet-of-special-barges-suitable-for-taiwan-landings/

Holy crap!!!  I wonder how long it takes those things to setup and deploy.

Gotta dive down the rabbit hole on this one... I doubt the US or NATO has anything like it

Thanks, as always, for the updates BT

Quote from: Jason on March 14, 2025, 07:50:58 AM
Holy crap!!!  I wonder how long it takes those things to setup and deploy.

Gotta dive down the rabbit hole on this one... I doubt the US or NATO has anything like it

Thanks, as always, for the updates BT

Not long... it is the modern version of the D-Day mulberries the allies used at Normandy...

QuoteThe abrupt dismantling of Radio Free Asia – along with the Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded media outlets – is being hailed by autocratic regimes from Phnom Penh to Pyongyang and lamented by the millions of citizens who live in closed societies and depend on those channels for news.

Silencing key providers of information on U.S. adversaries and sources of American soft power has accomplished what China, North Korea and others had tried and failed to do for more than 25 years.

(https://www.rfa.org/resizer/v2/NPWTMDUCPVE73DO4SQDVHD5TCI.jpg?focal=507%2C344&auth=0e83376d6117f560248dd2b1f60d8e9177ed2f5be2c6e89bb2a29c21aba5c70c&width=1096&height=728)

QuoteThe People's Republic of China (PRC) raised tariffs on the United States from 34 percent to 125 percent and imposed export controls on seven critical minerals that are essential to the US defense industry. The PRC was retaliating for the United States increasing tariffs on the PRC. These export controls encompass seven materials with extensive military applications. The United States cannot produce the designated minerals at a sufficient scale and exempted them from tariffs in recognition of their importance. The PRC accounted for approximately 70 percent of US rare earth imports from 2020 to 2023 and approximately 70 percent of world mine production of rare earths in 2024. The PRC is leveraging this global dominance to coerce the United States.[1] The PRC Ministry of Commerce stated that the PRC "will fight to the end" and described the US threat of additional tariffs as "blackmail." This came after the PRC imposed additional export controls against the United States acquiring other critical materials in December 2024 and February 2025 in response to US trade measures.[2]

(https://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/criticalmaterialsapr10.PNG)
(https://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/criticalmaterialstableapr10.PNG)

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-april-11-2025

I sure am glad we have a Stable Genius who can use the Art of the Deal to make things great for [the United States of] America. Again.

From a Meidas news summary

Quote
CNN reported that behind the scenes, officials in the Trump Admin have been trying desperately to get Xi to make the first move and call Trump. As Trump waited and waited, China ignored them and simply responded by announcing reciprocal tariffs with no call.

... "Two senior WH officials said that the US will not reach out to China first. Trump has told his team that China must be the first to make the move. That stance has been conveyed to Beijing for roughly two months, with Trump's team clearly telling Chinese officials that Xi should request a call with Trump. But Beijing has repeatedly refused to arrange a leader-level phone call, according to three sources familiar with the official communications."
...
... The Commerce Ministry also issued a statement saying that US tariffs have reached a level where they no longer have any "economic significance," and are just being used by Trump as a "tool of bullying and coercion" that has made the US a "joke."

Just checking on all those who elected this orange

Great analysis... long but comprehensive... informative graphics.

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/pantheon_files/files/publication/GreatMilitaryRivalry_ChinavsUS_211215_1.pdf

(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd567b060-6d6e-44d1-a31e-a9e2bbd2d58f_1468x1108.png)

This is a HUGE issue you have likely not heard much about... it's time to get informed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/opinion/us-military-weapons-war.html