USS destroyer sailing by chinese disputed islands

#226
#226
Rasputin_Vol said:
Crimea was given to Ukraine over 60 years ago during the Soviet Era. It was all still part of USSR then. Ukraine didn't become independent until the early 1990's, so even then, you are talking about 25 or so years of Ukrainian claims vs 200+ years of Russian claims. And even over the last 2 decades, Russia still had its only warm water port located in Crimea.

Crimea is as Russian as Hong Kong is Chinese...
Click to expand...

Oh, a very very poor comparison. Do you even read international news? Call a Hong-Kongian (?) Chinese and see what happens. Please video tape too. Similar to what would happen if you called a red blooded texan, Mexican.
 
#227
#227
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh stop it... I went through this at the time that was going on a few months ago. How the hell can you avoid not getting close to the Aleutians if you are trying to sail into the Bering Sea? There is almost no way to avoid it.
Click to expand...

And with the Chinese building islands there is no way to avoid sailing past one.
 
#228
#228
Rasputin_Vol said:
No one has more manufacturing capacity right now than China... and most of that in the future will be redirected from satisfying demands of other countries to serving their domestic needs. Raising labor rates won't matter if they are not focusing on exporting cheap widgets as a means to survive. They need raw materials and energy to do this. That is why they have made agreements with Iran (energy) and Russia (raw materials and energy).
Click to expand...

India, Vietnam (actually really surprising how they have turned out) Australia, Indonesia. And that doesn't include any other international trade flowing from the west to the east like say those going to and from Japan and Korea going to and from Europe. Not inconsequential amounts of trade.

Not sure how to link on mobile but here is a URL at least of a very informative article.

Atlas | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
 
#229
#229
LouderVol said:
And with the Chinese building islands there is no way to avoid sailing past one.
Click to expand...

Of course one gets accused of being an American jingoist and elitist when one says such things, but China also doesn't have any natural interests in the Bering Sea, Alaska, or the Arctic, making its trek through the Aleutians (merely as a political stunt during Obama's Arctic Summit) an unnecessarily provocative and useless action.

The US, on the other hand does have a natural interest in the South China Sea, despite its geographical removal. 30 percent of international sea trade goes through the SCS, and getting goods and energy to the American West Coast involves the SCS, or else billions of dollars are uselessly spent taking the longer trek around Australia and the Indonesian archipelago.

China needs to stop militarizing the SCS. If a demilitarized international zone needs to be made out of it, then that's what needs to be done to avoid conflict, including no US or PLA naval presence, no air presence, and no official claimants outside of UN arbitrated exclusive economic zones.

This, of course, would be the best and most practical option, but, even so, I highly doubt the Chinese would be willing to play fair ball. They've already violated numerous laws and agreements, to which they've been a signatory, on the matter anyhow.
 
#230
#230
volprof said:
Of course one gets accused of being an American jingoist and elitist when one says such things, but China also doesn't have any natural interests in the Bering Sea, Alaska, or the Arctic, making its trek through the Aleutians (merely as a political stunt during Obama's Arctic Summit) an unnecessarily provocative and useless action.

The US, on the other hand does have a natural interest in the South China Sea, despite its geographical removal. 30 percent of international sea trade goes through the SCS, and getting goods and energy to the American West Coast involves the SCS, or else billions of dollars are uselessly spent taking the longer trek around Australia and the Indonesian archipelago.

China needs to stop militarizing the SCS. If a demilitarized international zone needs to be made out of it, then that's what needs to be done to avoid conflict, including no US or PLA naval presence, no air presence, and no official claimants outside of UN arbitrated exclusive economic zones.

This, of course, would be the best and most practical option, but, even so, I highly doubt the Chinese would be willing to play fair ball. They've already violated numerous laws and agreements, to which they've been a signatory, on the matter anyhow.
Click to expand...

This.
 
#232
#232
volprof said:
Of course one gets accused of being an American jingoist and elitist when one says such things, but China also doesn't have any natural interests in the Bering Sea, Alaska, or the Arctic, making its trek through the Aleutians (merely as a political stunt during Obama's Arctic Summit) an unnecessarily provocative and useless action.

The US, on the other hand does have a natural interest in the South China Sea, despite its geographical removal. 30 percent of international sea trade goes through the SCS, and getting goods and energy to the American West Coast involves the SCS, or else billions of dollars are uselessly spent taking the longer trek around Australia and the Indonesian archipelago.

China needs to stop militarizing the SCS. If a demilitarized international zone needs to be made out of it, then that's what needs to be done to avoid conflict, including no US or PLA naval presence, no air presence, and no official claimants outside of UN arbitrated exclusive economic zones.

This, of course, would be the best and most practical option, but, even so, I highly doubt the Chinese would be willing to play fair ball. They've already violated numerous laws and agreements, to which they've been a signatory, on the matter anyhow.
Click to expand...

not to mentions the Philippines being allies.
 
#235
#235
The US is a third party non-claimant in the Persian Gulf; it's not even comparable to the South China Sea in any shape or form.

And, just for the record, Iran has threatened to cordon the Strait of Hormuz before, a weapon it would most likely use as leverage against its mortal enemy, Saudi Arabia, and against the Gulf States, if not for the US Navy, who, just to reiterate, is a third party non-claimant.
 
#236
#236
If I were Obama right now, I would sit down with Xi in a special, unplanned meeting and offer a demilitarization of the SCS plan on the table. The proposal would do the following:

1. Bar both claimant and non-claimant navies, save rescue operations and pre-approved transit (free passage).
2. Bar both claimant and non-claimant air forces, save rescue operations and pre-approved transit (free passage).

(In other words, neither a Chinese nor an American submarine could just skulk around.)

3. Bar any claimant and non-claimant military exercises.
4. China must abdicate any and all territorial claims/artificial islands in disputed waters that fall outside its UN-designated exclusive economic zone.
5. UN-mandated and arbitrated exclusive economic zones to be set up. Operating outside of each claimant's respective zone will then only be legal with the appropriate second-party claimant's approval.

If China rejects this common sense security and economic proposal, as it most likely would because it appears hell bent on militarizing the SCS for resource exploitation, then what little onus remains on the US military and claimant nations to tow a fine line will be lifted. China will then be completely be out of bounds and its inappropriate and aggressive behavior exposed for the entire international community. It will then be clear that China, despite the CCP's rhetoric, does not wish to cooperate with anyone on the matter.

And from there, it's not exactly clear how to proceed, but proceeding will certainly continue to involve the unfettered movement of the US Navy. If China really wants the US Navy out of the SCS so bad for regional security and stability, as they claim, then they'll sign the agreement.
 
Last edited:
#238
#238
LouderVol said:
Prof, number 4 already exists. UNCLOS.
Click to expand...

True. But this agreement would have to mean enforcement and not lip service.

Regardless, China would not sign because its intentions in the SCS are exploitative and not necessarily "security" related (securing resources and Chinese money is the only security China cares about there).

But this is a clear, fair, and strong way for a US president to tackle this issue while saving both American and Chinese face. That the Chinese would surely refuse it, while unfortunate, is not really the point. The point is to leverage all international support we can in our attempts to keep the SCS secure and in exposing the Chinese Communist Party for the fraud it really is.
 
#240
#240
volprof said:
True. But this agreement would have to mean enforcement and not lip service.

Regardless, China would not sign because its intentions in the SCS are exploitative and not necessarily "security" related (securing resources and Chinese money is the only security China cares about there).

But this is a clear, fair, and strong way for a US president to tackle this issue while saving both American and Chinese face. That the Chinese would surely refuse it, while unfortunate, is not really the point. The point is to leverage all international support we can in our attempts to keep the SCS secure and in exposing the Chinese Communist Party for the fraud it really is.
Click to expand...

well I think to an extent us sailing a ship by there is enforcement, of a sort. I wouldn't be surprised if we kept a scheduled patrol of that area. and until something happens we shouldn't preemptively engage them.
 
#241
#241
LouderVol said:
well I think to an extent us sailing a ship by there is enforcement, of a sort. I wouldn't be surprised if we kept a scheduled patrol of that area. and until something happens we shouldn't preemptively engage them.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily have an issue with our current engagement strategy either.

I believe, however, that such an offer would give us significant leverage by putting a very public deal on the table and having the Chinese reject it. The People's Big Fat Propaganda Machine of China would no longer be able to function so well in this "netherworld" of unreality that it and Russia have benefited from as of late. No more of the "up is down; down is up" approach they and the Kremlin have been using lately to sow just enough doubt in the mind of the self-loathing West that keeps Western governments from being as effectual as they could otherwise.

It would be an additional card in our deck, and an Ace of Spades at that, which would overwhelm the PRC in the court of world opinion and give us much needed moral clarity.
 
#242
#242
volprof said:
I don't necessarily have an issue with our current engagement strategy either.

I believe, however, that such an offer would give us significant leverage by putting a very public deal on the table and having the Chinese reject it. The People's Big Fat Propaganda Machine of China would no longer be able to function so well in this "netherworld" of unreality that it and Russia have benefited from as of late. No more of the "up is down; down is up" approach they and the Kremlin have been using lately to sow just enough doubt in the mind of the self-loathing West that keeps Western governments from being as effectual as they could otherwise.

It would be an additional card in our deck, and an Ace of Spades at that, which would overwhelm the PRC in the court of world opinion and give us much needed moral clarity.
Click to expand...

it would have to be a deal that was mutually beneficial. China can easily sell a flat rejection by saying it does nothing to help them or improve the situation and its more typical American lap-dog-ism.

Really needs to be another gathering of the SCS countries with the UN playing mediator. we stay out of it except to say that the US will enforce whatever deal to the point of ________
 
#243
#243
LouderVol said:
it would have to be a deal that was mutually beneficial. China can easily sell a flat rejection by saying it does nothing to help them or improve the situation and its more typical American lap-dog-ism.

Really needs to be another gathering of the SCS countries with the UN playing mediator. we stay out of it except to say that the US will enforce whatever deal to the point of ________
Click to expand...

I agree that the deal needs more conspicuous American concessions, because it does require much more out of China than it does anyone else (which is China's fault for being so aggressive and ignoring international laws it is a party to). But it's a struggle, because we aren't nearly as "invested" in the region since we haven't created any false islands there and have no territorial claims.

Our main selling point is to offer a third party mediator and to ensure Chinese security concerns by keeping the US Navy out of the SCS with the exception of free passage (no loafing). That being said, China would have to give too. If security is really its concern, it'll take the deal. If something else is really its aim, then it won't, and the CCP will be exposed globally.
 
Last edited:
#244
#244
Orange_Vol1321 said:
The world will always look to America for help. We are atleast twenty+ years up on military technology right now and that isn't counting what we have that is top secret that nobody knows about that's also out there.
Click to expand...

And yet, we are being hampered by the weather? Sure didn't seem to stop the Russians last month...

U.S. general sees air strikes against Islamic State picking up

U.S. and coalition forces are likely to increase air strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria in coming weeks after a lull in September and October, the head of U.S. Air Forces Central Command said Saturday.

Lieutenant General Charles Brown told reporters at the Dubai International Air Chiefs Conference that the reduction in air strikes was due to weather and to a slowdown in activity on the ground and not due to the start of Russian air strikes in the region.
Click to expand...

Was it the weather in September and October or was it Russia?
 
#245
#245
Interesting, so out of 52 islands that are being contested in the South China Sea, only 8 are actually occupied by Mainland China. The rest are divided by Vietnam, The Philipines, Malaysia and Taiwan. More proof that our MSM and politicians will make a mountain out of a molehill to drive us into WWIII.

All you need to do is listen to the first 5:00 mins.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWZoBAJ1tCs[/youtube]
 
#246
#246
More justification of poor behavior because it helps attack the American foreign policy agenda.

This is just pathetic.

You can criticize both the US's behavior in the SCS and China's. It's not an all or nothing game, you know.

It is possible for both sides to be wrong. It's possible for both sides to be right. It's possible for one side to be right and one side wrong and vice versa.

This absolutist (all or nothing) approach that neoliberal internationalists (aka, neocons) have taken to American foreign policy and this absolutist approach that critics of American foreign policy (American influence can only be bad) are currently taken have to end. This good v. evil construct that both sides setup over-simplify the reality of international relations and the nuances of reality on the ground. Such narratives continue to dumb down both segments of our society, making us far less critical observers and merely preconditioned drones.

We need to find a new discourse for discussing international relations in this country. The absolutist universalism of the neocon approach and the absolutist universalism of the "America only bad" opposition wearies me. Both simplify reality into easy to consume "sound bits" while contributing absolutely nothing productive, only hate.
 
#247
#247
Rasputin_Vol said:
Interesting, so out of 52 islands that are being contested in the South China Sea, only 8 are actually occupied by Mainland China. The rest are divided by Vietnam, The Philipines, Malaysia and Taiwan. More proof that our MSM and politicians will make a mountain out of a molehill to drive us into WWIII.

All you need to do is listen to the first 5:00 mins.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWZoBAJ1tCs[/youtube]
Click to expand...

:banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2:

so if we "only" invaded 8 of 52 Russian provinces (thats not the real number obviously) it would be ok????????

None, zero, zilch, nada of the islands belong to China. They either are owned by other nations, or are unaffiliated by international law, that again China helped write, and we did not.

:censored: man. come on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and volprof
#250
#250
At least we are serving notice and showing we have some balls with our ships in the area vs drawing "red lines in the sand" time and time again while walking backward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top