China has won the first round of its contest for control in the South China Sea
48 replies, posted
[url]http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/71580328/china-ready-to-launch-military-power-from-artificial-islands-in-south-china-sea[/url]
[t]http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/6/m/7/r/d/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.16m7qg.png/1440977871167.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE]Fleets of Chinese dredges have completed reclamation work in the Spratly Islands of the South China Sea.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://static.stuff.co.nz/1440977283/571/12532571.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE]An aerial photograph from March shows significant construction underway at Mischief Reef.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://static.stuff.co.nz/1440977491/628/12532628.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE]A dredger operates at the southern entrance to the Mischief Reef. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]An indecisive US Administration and allies including Australia struggle to follow through on earlier promises to challenge unlawful Chinese claims with "freedom of navigation" exercises, the sources say.
[B]
By 2017, military analysts expect China will have equipped its new sand islands with ports, barracks, battlements, artillery, air strips and long-range radar systems that will enable it to project military and paramilitary power into the furthest and most hotly-contested reaches of the South China Sea.
[/B][B]
Those facilities would give China the ability to obstruct other claimant countries and potentially disrupt sea lanes that carry more than three-fifths of Australia's merchandise trade, according to military analysts.
"This is a huge strategic victory for China," said one official source.
[/B]
"They've won Round 1," said another. "It's hard to see how they will be stopped from winning the next round too."
In May, US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter demanded a "lasting halt to land reclamation" and commissioned plans to conduct "fly throughs" and "sail throughs" within 12 nautical miles of the artificial islands.
While the US and its allies have struggled to follow talk with action, fleets of Chinese dredges have completed reclamation work including the foundations for a second 3000-metre airstrip in the area, on Subi Reef, which will be capable of landing the largest aircraft in the People's Liberation Army Air Force.
[B]
Other Australian and US officials, however, say that China has won at the tactical level but lost the bigger strategic game, as nations throughout the region respond by building closer security ties with each other and the US.[/B][/QUOTE]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("You dont have to add the article to the title" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
They have a combination of being a nuclear weapon state and controlling most manufactured goods in the world. Not much anyone could have done to stop them.
Perhaps shorten the title?
Anyway it's crazy what countries will do for some oil, how much is under Spratly/Paracel?
[QUOTE=download;48585861]They have a combination of being a nuclear weapon state and controlling most manufactured goods in the world. Not much anyone could have done to stop them.[/QUOTE]
No, not much anyone is willing to do, big difference.
And having nuclear weapons is irrelevant because anything involving those is a lose/lose for all sides.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;48585905]No, not much anyone is willing to do, big difference.
And having nuclear weapons is irrelevant because anything involving those is a lose/lose for all sides.[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean MAD which no nuclear military takes seriously.
It also is relevant because it means no large country is going to back small ones trying to avoid being trampled by China.
Lets see how long the island actually last.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;48586039]Lets see how long the island actually last.[/QUOTE]
"Made in China"
:v:
[QUOTE=download;48586032]I assume you mean MAD which no nuclear military takes seriously.[/QUOTE]
Just curious, why is MAD not taken seriously? I always thought it was still relevant
[QUOTE=download;48586032]I assume you mean MAD which no nuclear military takes seriously.
It also is relevant because it means no large country is going to back small ones trying to avoid being trampled by China.[/QUOTE]
MAD is probably irrelevant by now. Why? Because of missile shields onboard ships and on land, and who knows what other secret military defensive equipments. And also because [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE"]the red line is hard to be defined.[/URL]
Salami tactics & Hybrid warfare probably are more accurate in the modern context. See Russia-Georgia, Russia-Ukraine, Pakistan-India, China-India conflicts in recent times.
I'd be surprised if the islands aren't washed away by the sea within the next decade.
[QUOTE=minge-killer;48586179]Just curious, why is MAD not taken seriously? I always thought it was still relevant[/QUOTE]
They're like the dreadnoughts of the modern era. They look impressive and cost a lot to make, but they have major shortcomings that means they never get used and are just a waste of time and money.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48586216]I'd be surprised if the islands aren't washed away by the sea within the next decade.
They're like the dreadnoughts of the modern era. They look impressive and cost a lot to make, but they have major shortcomings that means they never get used and are just a waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]
That's why the military doctrine of Russia changed recently, so that it's no longer an "all nukes" or "no nukes" situations anymore, rather, they reserve the "right" to shoot any one or more missiles for whatever reason, and in such case the retaliation would come in a small pack aswell, and an all out blowup would not happen(in case they attacked a nuclear-possesing state or a state allied with a nuke-possesor)
No one country would be dumb enough to shoot out all the nukes they had, considering that there are so many nuclear countries out there. It's not just US & Russia anymore. I think MAD made sense in the Cold War time when only those 2 countries possesed nukes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48586216]I'd be surprised if the islands aren't washed away by the sea within the next decade.
[/QUOTE]
You don't think China will upkeep them?
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=godfatherk;48586333]That's why the military doctrine of Russia changed recently, so that it's no longer an "all nukes" or "no nukes" situations anymore, rather, they reserve the "right" to shoot any one or more missiles for whatever reason, and in such case the retaliation would come in a small pack aswell, and an all out blowup would not happen(in case they attacked a nuclear-possesing state or a state allied with a nuke-possesor)
No one country would be dumb enough to shoot out all the nukes they had, considering that there are so many nuclear countries out there. It's not just US & Russia anymore. I think MAD made sense in the Cold War time when only those 2 countries possesed nukes.[/QUOTE]
During the Cold War, there was about 1 and a half years where there were only 2 nuclear powers.
Don't think this is much of an issue for anyone except Japan, which won't really do much of anything.
The US should build it's own islands in the South China Sea.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;48586351]Don't think this is much of an issue for anyone except Japan, which won't really do much of anything.[/QUOTE]
And Taiwan and the Philippines.
[QUOTE=Apache249;48586383]The US should build it's own islands in the South China Sea.[/QUOTE]
It's the same as saying China should build its own islands next to LA or San Francisco.
Or that Brazil should build its own islands next to South Africa, etc.
China is only getting away with this because it's in their back yard. But even if it weren't, and say, they were in close relations with Mexico, and Mexico build said islands close by Baja California, and China, through their military alliance with Mexico, would build its own millitary bases in those islands, that would never be accepted by the US, they'd bomb the hell outta them before they even began building them up. But what if those bases were built on land, say, 200km away from Mexico City?
Basically, where I'm going is that China probably builds those islands knowing they won't be of much use, but they don't have any allies in S-E Asia that would allow them to build bases on their land(like the US has those priviledges with S. Korea and others), so those islands that they just built are a bluff, to see if any otheir neighbors give up when confronted with China's show of force.
Wow what a sensationally inaccurate headline
That island will sink back into the sea rapidly either from the sand they dredged up, the earthquakes in that region, or global warming
China was going to finish that island anyway, while its a milestone its not some huge victory and loss for the west
[editline]31st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;48585861]They have a combination of being a nuclear weapon state and controlling most manufactured goods in the world. Not much anyone could have done to stop them.[/QUOTE]
Eh china has like 100 active nuclear weapons, that's 2 minuteman missile batteries, no its that nobody wants to start ww3 in the Pacific, but they're all ready to fight back if something did happen
[QUOTE=minge-killer;48586179]Just curious, why is MAD not taken seriously? I always thought it was still relevant[/QUOTE]
It's illogical on several levels.
MAD firstly assumes that any nuclear conflict will either start with strategic weapons or that it will escalate too fast to control to strategic weapons level. Therefore it argues that in the event of any level of nuclear attack, you should escalate immediately to strategic weapons because it will escalate quickly to that level anyway and do as much damage to the enemy as possible economically (a "counter-value" strike) i.e. kill as many people and as much infrastructure as possible.
The idea is that by having this as your official policy and by being prepared to carry this out you provide a deterrent to would-be attackers.
The problem with that though is that if [I]you are[/I] attacked with nuclear weapons then the deterrent hasn't worked, and if you do deliberately escalate the situation to the strategic weapons targeted as a counter-value strike then you are killing a good 50% of your population (and probably more) and destroying you nation as a country. This is because a counter-value strike leaves the enemy's weapons intact.
The nuclear theory that most militaries worked under was known as Nuclear Utilization Target Selection ("NUTS") here in the West. NUTS is multifaceted and had quite a few possible courses of action based on the type of attack but one of the key ideas was that a purely counter-value attack is suicide and that no sane nation would take that course of action as a first strike (as opposed to MAD that argues than [I]any[/I] nuclear attack is suicide).
Other key ideas are proportional response such as not responding to tactical weapon use against military targets with strategic force against populations etc, deliberate trying not to move up the "escalation ladder" by keeping tactical weapon use as close to the front-line as possible, not targeting strategic weapons unless you can take them all at once with a high level of success to avoid the "use them or lose them" mentality. Much of these action are called "counter-force" and deal with destroying the enemies ability to conduct nuclear warfare against you.
The problem politically with NUTS and why it has never taken off on the political side of things is that firstly it's far more complex than MAD and therefore more difficult to understand for both politicians and the layman, and secondly because it argues that nuclear warfare is survivable as a nation a lot of people think nuclear war is more likely to happen under the doctrine - they simply don't want it to be true. Unfortunately for them sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem vanish.
The deterrence in NUTS comes from the fact that a limited nuclear war would still be horrific and that casualties would still be measured in the millions.
Probably the most highly ranked political proponent of NUTS at the moment would be the United States' own SecDef. He wrote several books on the topic at the tail end of the Cold War.
[url]http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm[/url]
Part 5, Article 60 of UNCLOS basically says artificial islands mean nothing in territorial claims. But of course when working in the real world your ability to backup a claim means everything. Because China has been ignoring their neighbors attempts to bring this to international courts.
[QUOTE=minge-killer;48586179]Just curious, why is MAD not taken seriously?[/QUOTE]
MAD is literally duck and cover for grown ups
[QUOTE=Sableye;48586584]
Eh china has like 100 active nuclear weapons, that's 2 minuteman missile batteries, no its that nobody wants to start ww3 in the Pacific, but they're all ready to fight back if something did happen[/QUOTE]
It's more like 200 and yes, it's a manageable amount though the Minuteman system isn't what you would use in a first-strike, but no one in the West has any interest in fighting a nuclear war with China over some islands.
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;48586694]MAD is literally duck and cover for grown ups[/QUOTE]
That too.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48586338]You don't think China will upkeep them?[/QUOTE]
The cost of maintaining the facilities + the islands will represent a major drain on resources.
Not to mention that one good storm could probably wash the whole thing away (then there's sea level rise to talk about too).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48586814]The cost of maintaining the facilities + the islands will represent a major drain on resources.
Not to mention that one good storm could probably wash the whole thing away (then there's sea level rise to talk about too).[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure China is well aware of the expenses of maintaining these islands and I'm sure they measure the strategic value of them is more than the monetary and resource costs.
And I don't see this as being a "major" drain on resources. These islands aren't going to bankrupt China or anything.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48586945]I'm pretty sure China is well aware of the expenses of maintaining these islands and I'm sure they measure the strategic value of them is more than the monetary and resource costs.
And I don't see this as being a "major" drain on resources. These islands aren't going to bankrupt China or anything.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure the oil and gas under the islands will recoup any losses too.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48586814]The cost of maintaining the facilities + the islands will represent [B]a major drain on resources.[/B]
Not to mention that one good storm could probably wash the whole thing away (then there's sea level rise to talk about too).[/QUOTE]
But if they get what they want; neighbouring countries that will bend over to China's will, it would have been worth the effort.
I think this whole story developing in S-E Asia is a continuation of China trying to reach the goals it wanted to achieve during the Indochina wars that lasted untill 89.
[QUOTE=download;48586958]I'm sure the oil and gas under the islands will recoup any losses too.[/QUOTE]
Sort of what I meant, but yeah.
China wouldn't be building these things if they figure it would be a net loss to them.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48586945]I'm pretty sure China is well aware of the expenses of maintaining these islands and I'm sure they measure the strategic value of them is more than the monetary and resource costs.
And I don't see this as being a "major" drain on resources. These islands aren't going to bankrupt China or anything.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that these islands are literally built on a bed of sand and are low-lying.
Erosion is one glaringly big problem, but the frequent and often severe storms in the area could very easily wash away everything.
It's a stupid idea that will become very evident once a good tidal wave a few metres high gets the chance to hit the place - with nothing to really stop it such a wave would destroy everything.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;48586981]But if they get what they want; neighbouring countries that will bend over to China's will, it would have been worth the effort.
I think this whole story developing in S-E Asia is a continuation of China trying to reach the goals it wanted to achieve during the Indochina wars that lasted untill 89.[/QUOTE]
I doubt that would happen if one day a big storm suddenly washed the whole blasted thing away.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48587012]The problem is that these islands are literally built on a bed of sand and are low-lying.
Erosion is one glaringly big problem, but the frequent and often severe storms in the area could very easily wash away everything.
It's a stupid idea that will become very evident once a good tidal wave a few metres high gets the chance to hit the place - with nothing to really stop it such a wave would destroy everything.
[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling Chinese engineers know what they're doing more than you :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48587012]The problem is that these islands are literally built on a bed of sand and are low-lying.
Erosion is one glaringly big problem, but the frequent and often severe storms in the area could very easily wash away everything.
It's a stupid idea that will become very evident once a good tidal wave a few metres high gets the chance to hit the place - with nothing to really stop it such a wave would destroy everything.
I doubt that would happen if one day a big storm suddenly washed the whole blasted thing away.[/QUOTE]
China easily have the capability to ship rock in to build the islands and many, many technologies exist that stop erosion like concrete blocks and those concrete 4 cornered jacks.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48587036]I have a feeling Chinese engineers know what they're doing more than you :v:[/QUOTE]
Politicians are in charge of the project, not engineers. There is literally nothing that can break up waves. If one gets in, the place is finished.
They are incredibly low lying, and made of sand. Not to mention they've killed all the coral there too through dredging and covering it all over too.
[QUOTE=download;48587046]China easily have the capability to ship rock in to build the islands and many, many technologies exist that stop erosion like concrete blocks and those concrete 4 cornered jacks.[/QUOTE]
The artificial islands they made for Dubai were created in much the same way, and many of them are already undergoing severe erosion.
These things have practically nothing solid holding them there, and they are in the middle of the ocean and are flat. Coral reefs which help protect islands like this by breaking up waves (such as in Hawaii or the Phillipines) are shrinking and have been damaged or destroyed by the Chinese.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.