# China's south china sea adventure **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594 "2015-05-22T15:19:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/41 "2015-05-24T18:16:28Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Who cares wrt THIS discussion? Those things have zero to do with this. > > We ARE sending folks there and into harms way, and it’s very possible someone will die, since people fuck up all the time. People HAVE died (though not Americans, so maybe to you that doesn’t count) over this, since China has clashed with Vietnam and several other nations in the region over this. > > And yet the fleet is steaming in that area, we have planes overflying it and the tensions are mounting. But, ok, I guess we don’t have the stomach to do anything and China will just be allowed to snatch a vitally important international trade route area along with the resources under it. That should be an interesting precident when the Northwest passage area…perhaps the US should just stifle the disputes and build some new islands and claim it for our own, since this seems to be ok and no one will really do anything about it. Until China shows a willingness to stifle trade along this route, I’m not too concerned. It would not be in their economic interest to do so. What is really at stake is U.S. hegemony over “international” waters. I’m ok with that. The U.S. will have to slowly withdraw from world dominance as it is eclipsed economically by China. There is an alternate future where the U.S. embraces free market capitalism and is not eclipsed by a command economy in China, but this alternate future will also involve withdrawing from world dominance and pursuing an ethical foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/42 "2015-05-24T23:47:14Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What is really at stake is U.S. hegemony over “international” waters. What? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/43 "2015-05-25T01:18:34Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > What? Yeah, I’m puzzled too. It just gets weirder and weirder in these kinds of threads. So, the US perpetuates ‘hegemony’ in “international waters” and this means…? Do we get to tax everyone who uses OUR waters then? Because if so we seem to be singularly failing to collect this tax on the world to use our ‘hegemony’ “international waters” for some odd reason. [QUOTE=Lemmytheseal2] I didn’t say they were happening in Chinese territorial waters, but they are close enough to be clearly directed at the Chinese. [/QUOTE] :eek: Lemmy…seriously. Have you looked at a map? Do you know where the Sea of Japan is? Do you know what country DOESN’T have a coast line on the Sea of Japan? Here is a hint…it’s China (ok, it was a big hint). If you said that Russia was threatened I MIGHT by that, though we’ve been running exercises with the Japanese there for decades. If you said North Korea was paranoid about it I’d say, well, duh…they have been grumbling about this for decades. > [@](#): > > As for encircling China, there’s the massive US military presence in Japan and South Korea, and the recent deployment to Australia amongst all the “pivot to Asia” talk. Again, have you looked at a map? Perhaps ‘encircling’ means something else in your language, but in mine it’s really hard to see ‘encircling’ from countries that don’t even have a border or even a close approach sea way to one another. Also, we’ve had these relationships with those 3 countries for decades and we haven’t been building up our manpower commitments to any of them…just the opposite really. Also also, the primary reason we are still in South Korea has zero to do with China and everything to do with CHINA’S puppet regime and tamed attack (running) dog, North Korea. > [@](#): > > There’s also the matter of all the US forces in Afghanistan, whatever else is happening in Central Asia, Diego Garcia (stolen from its indigenous people by the US and UK), and so on. Afghanistan? Diego Garcia(!!)? Again…what the hell are you talking about and what do you think this proves? And again again…have you freaking ever looked at a map?? [DG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia) (which I’ve been to btw, just as an interesting side note) is in the Indian Ocean. Afghanistan does, admittedly, have a border with China (finally!), but I’m failing to see the connection with this and surrounding or encircling China in any meaningful way. > [@](#): > > I’m talking about this. I interned under John Feffer, and he explains it pretty well here. I remain unenlightened with your drive by link. Could you explain the connection? I’m reading a lot of blather there about the US defense budget and poor China who is so far behind and why do we need more money, etc etc. What’s that got to do with what I was asking you? > [@](#): > > It’s all better than potentially setting off a war between two nuclear-armed powers. Besides, Chinese expansion will not make them stronger. Again, there is a vast middle ground between war with China and letting them do whatever they like. I get that you and others see no issue with letting China rail road this because the US IS EVIL! and all, but it’s not an either or proposition between nuclear holocaust (which seems ironic looking at your last post where the US supposedly is SO far ahead of China…obviously, China isn’t too worried since they seem to be pressing on this without shaking in their boots about big, bad America :p) and total capitulation. > [@](#): > > The world is currently observing the centenary of the First World War, and ought to be learning from it. The US is in North America, not Asia, and even if this part of Asian waters has important economic consequences, the consequences of a war are immeasurably worse, and not just in the short term. The US is a global hyperpower with trade and military commitments world wide…including Asia. We have multiple allies in the region, as well as an economic stake of our own in the free passage of trade. It’s ludicrous to say that the US is in North America and somehow that means we shouldn’t or don’t care about what goes on everywhere else. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t quite use that language, but notice all the pushback from the US satraps in Japan regarding the efforts to close the bases on Okinawa. It’s ridiculous hyperbole bullshit like this that makes these sorts of threads so amusing to participate in (seriously…‘satraps in Japan’? :p). ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/44 "2015-05-25T02:20:28Z")
Count me as kind of baffled to why China would suddenly decide to play games with shipping routes, given the primacy of exports to their entire economy. They are a country, not a Bond villain. Also baffled as to why we would need to boost India as a “counterweight” to China. A counterweight to what? China is not the USSR. We are petty strong trade partners, not sworn enemies. I guess I’ll find out when I learn why we are going to war with China over their nefarious actions in Africa (like building infrastructure and starting businesses…) ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/45 "2015-05-25T02:41:39Z")
**XT** : Post #43 is great. You did a wonderful job. However, I think it is not accurate to call the DPRK a “puppet regime of China”. Initially, of course, the [del]failed state[/del] country of NK was a puppet regime of the USSR. That does not mean that, now that the USSR is defunct, that China, the DPRK’s only powerful ally, is the new puppet master. NK exercises the PRC fairly often so it’s pretty obvious that NK is no puppet. If anything, the DPRK is a “[Chucky](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chucky_(Child%27s_Play)) regime”. p.s. The only times I remember reading the word _hegemony_ so often is when I was a student at [DLI](http://www.dliflc.edu/) and had to read newspapers from North Vietnam in both Vietnamese and English. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/46 "2015-05-25T02:56:31Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > This, more than anything else you’ve posted, shows you have exactly zero knowledge of what you’re prattling on about. Not so. [Okinawans keep resisting](http://fpif.org/okinawa-small-island-trying-block-u-s-militarys-pivot-asia/), but the ruling class in Tokyo is happy to do Washington’s bidding, which, among other things, threatens China. > [@XT](#): > > :eek: Lemmy…seriously. Have you looked at a map? Do you know where the Sea of Japan is? Do you know what country DOESN’T have a coast line on the Sea of Japan? Here is a hint…it’s China (ok, it was a big hint). If you said that Russia was threatened I MIGHT by that, though we’ve been running exercises with the Japanese there for decades. If you said North Korea was paranoid about it I’d say, well, duh…they have been grumbling about this for decades. [They’ve happened closer to China than that](http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/u-s-arms-fuel-asian-tension/), and they’re part of a larger pattern. See all the weapons flows to other countries. > [@](#): > > Again, have you looked at a map? Perhaps ‘encircling’ means something else in your language, but in mine it’s really hard to see ‘encircling’ from countries that don’t even have a border or even a close approach sea way to one another. Then call it containment. It’s close enough. What else can the Australian deployment be about? > [@](#): > > Also, we’ve had these relationships with those 3 countries for decades and we haven’t been building up our manpower commitments to any of them…just the opposite really. Also also, the primary reason we are still in South Korea has zero to do with China and everything to do with CHINA’S puppet regime and tamed attack (running) dog, North Korea. The Cold War is over. South Korea has twice the population and 40 times the economic power of the North, and actually those figures have only gotten more lopsided since then. They can protect themselves, as can the Japanese and Australians. If any of them could not, it would be their responsibility to become capable of doing so. The Korean people can reunite their own peninsula, if only Washington would let them. The Chinese, for their part, are leery of the possibility of US troops in a united Korea, on China’s border, which is a far more sensitive spot than their border with Afghanistan. North Korea is not really a puppet regime any more. Beijing is long tired of Pyongyang’s antics, and it would be a relief for all involved if they no longer felt they needed North Korea as a buffer against US forces. China and South Korea have a quite good relationship these days. > [@](#): > > Afghanistan? Diego Garcia(!!)? Again…what the hell are you talking about and what do you think this proves? And again again…have you freaking ever looked at a map?? [DG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia) (which I’ve been to btw, just as an interesting side note) is in the Indian Ocean. Afghanistan does, admittedly, have a border with China (finally!), but I’m failing to see the connection with this and surrounding or encircling China in any meaningful way. Diego Garcia is in the Indian Ocean, and is close enough that it would likely be used (along with other facilities) in any confrontation in the South China Sea. Its continued occupation is also a crime. As for Afghanistan, it does share a border with China, and do you think that substantial American assets there might concern the Chinese? > [@](#): > > I remain unenlightened with your drive by link. Could you explain the connection? I’m reading a lot of blather there about the US defense budget and poor China who is so far behind and why do we need more money, etc etc. What’s that got to do with what I was asking you? It’s about the folly of missile defense. This was understood in the Cold War, leading to the ABM treaty, which the Bush administration abrogated. Now the Obama administration is trying to spread this so-called defense to South Korea. Feffer points out that it clearly has much more to do with China than with North Korea. > [@](#): > > Again, there is a vast middle ground between war with China and letting them do whatever they like. I get that you and others see no issue with letting China rail road this because the US IS EVIL! You’re being disingenuous. > [@](#): > > and all, but it’s not an either or proposition between nuclear holocaust (which seems ironic looking at your last post where the US supposedly is SO far ahead of China…obviously, China isn’t too worried since they seem to be pressing on this without shaking in their boots about big, bad America :p) and total capitulation. It’s not a total capitulation to refuse to risk nuclear war, or even a pretty large conventional war out there. Such things have a habit of spreading. It’s not worth it. > [@](#): > > The US is a global hyperpower with trade and military commitments world wide…including Asia. We have multiple allies in the region, as well as an economic stake of our own in the free passage of trade. It’s ludicrous to say that the US is in North America and somehow that means we shouldn’t or don’t care about what goes on everywhere else. It’s one thing to not care, and another to understand that interventionism causes blowback and other unintended consequences, and this is usually followed by more interventionism. To the extent that the Chinese would want to disrupt these flows, a war would disrupt this even more, along with many other, far worse consequences. > [@](#): > > It’s ridiculous hyperbole bullshit like this that makes these sorts of threads so amusing to participate in (seriously…‘satraps in Japan’? :p). See above. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/47 "2015-05-25T03:36:36Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Yeah, I’m puzzled too. It just gets weirder and weirder in these kinds of threads. So, the US perpetuates ‘hegemony’ in “international waters” and this means…? Do we get to tax everyone who uses OUR waters then? Because if so we seem to be singularly failing to collect this tax on the world to use our ‘hegemony’ “international waters” for some odd reason. I think this just illustrates the muddle-headed double standard being applies here by some people. The United States is making no claims of ownership over these waters and never has. But some imaginary American policy makes the United States the aggressor. Meanwhile China actually is claiming ownership and establish a hegemony. And it’s doing so over the objections of other countries which also have claims. But people are somehow seeing China’s actions as a defense against the imaginary American threat. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/48 "2015-05-25T03:42:43Z")
We saw the same ridiculous responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia invaded a neighboring country and the United States wasn’t involved. But there were people defending Russia and saying the United States was at fault. Because… something. For some people, the mere existence of the United States somehow poses a threat to every other nation on Earth so they are all justified to do whatever they want in the name of self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/49 "2015-05-25T03:58:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think this just illustrates the muddle-headed double standard being applies here by some people. > > The United States is making no claims of ownership over these waters and never has. But some imaginary American policy makes the United States the aggressor. > > Meanwhile China actually is claiming ownership and establish a hegemony. And it’s doing so over the objections of other countries which also have claims. But people are somehow seeing China’s actions as a defense against the imaginary American threat. I oppose China’s actions in principle, but it’s not worth risking a war, especially considering all the other (far from imaginary) actions that have left the Chinese feeling rather threatened. If the Chinese are going to expand like this, let them. It’s their loss. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > We saw the same ridiculous responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia invaded a neighboring country and the United States wasn’t involved. But there were people defending Russia and saying the United States was at fault. Because… something. > > For some people, the mere existence of the United States somehow poses a threat to every other nation on Earth so they are all justified to do whatever they want in the name of self-defense. The government in Kiev was toppled by, among other people, a bunch of Nazis, and US NGO’s were heavily involved. Moscow sees this as part of a pattern of US behavior, especially including those color-coded revolutions, aimed directly at Moscow. They responded accordingly. I disapprove of their actions as well, but it’s equally foolish to get involved there. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/50 "2015-05-25T04:10:50Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > p.s. The only times I remember reading the word _hegemony_ so often is when I was a student at [DLI](http://www.dliflc.edu/) and had to read newspapers from North Vietnam in both Vietnamese and English. How about you say something meaningful or insightful. A real argument against what Lemmy said. Your comments all seem to add up to "you’re a dummy " with nothing to show that you’re not at least as bad a dummy. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/51 "2015-05-25T04:57:01Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > How about you say something meaningful or insightful. A real argument against what Lemmy said. Your comments all seem to add up to "you’re a dummy " with nothing to show that you’re not at least as bad a dummy. How about you be honest about what I posted in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/52 "2015-05-25T05:04:10Z")
> [@XT](#): > > [DG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia) (which I’ve been to btw, just as an interesting side note) If you don’t mind my asking, how did you manage that? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/53 "2015-05-25T05:17:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If you don’t mind my asking, how did you manage that? I’ve also been to Diego Garcia. I went there twice on ports-of-all while in the Navy and then, after I retired, I worked there for a while as a civilian contractor. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/54 "2015-05-25T05:19:44Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > How about you be honest about what I posted in this thread? How about no u? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/55 "2015-05-25T10:45:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think this just illustrates the muddle-headed double standard being applies here by some people. > > The United States is making no claims of ownership over these waters and never has. But some imaginary American policy makes the United States the aggressor. > > Meanwhile China actually is claiming ownership and establish a hegemony. And it’s doing so over the objections of other countries which also have claims. But people are somehow seeing China’s actions as a defense against the imaginary American threat. I’m not saying the U.S. Is an aggressor or doing anything wrong. Nor am I saying that China is justified. This is just the sort of thing that countries do. It’s the ordinary push and pull of geopolitics. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/56 "2015-05-25T12:48:09Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > . . . with nothing to show that you’re not at least as bad a dummy. Knock it off with the personal insults outside The BBQ Pit. Warning issued. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/57 "2015-05-25T14:57:17Z")
I wasn’t really calling him a dummy there but ok. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/58 "2015-05-25T15:57:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If you don’t mind my asking, how did you manage that? I was in the Navy and we stopped there fairly frequently, and after the Navy when I was a contractor I went there once to do some programming and network installation work. At one time or another I was on most of the Naval communication units in the Pacific and IO. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/59 "2015-05-25T16:17:38Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > …So if the Chinese want to spend billions to occupy these worthless sandspits, let them. But they aren’t worthless if they allow China to claim an [Exclusive Economic Zone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone) surrounding them. I.e., sovereign rights over the minerals in the seabed for 200 miles from the island. And they can’t claim an EEZ from those sites if they remain worthless sandspits. From [UNCLOS Part VIII, Article 121](http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm), > [@](#): > > Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. So they need sustained human habitation. While [opinions are mixed](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10651) as to [just how much oil and gas](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/world/asia/china-vietnam-and-india-fight-over-energy-exploration-in-south-china-sea.html?_r=0) are under the Spratlys, the USGS in 2012 stated, > [@](#): > > …about 12 billion barrels of oil and 160 trillion cubic feet of natural gas might exist as undiscovered resources in the South China Sea, excluding the Gulf of Thailand and other adjacent areas. About one fifth of these resources may be found in contested areas, particularly in the Reed Bank at the northeast end of the Spratly Islands, which is claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Let’s say that only a 20th of those undiscovered reserves are economically feasible to retrieve, or a quarter of those ‘contested area’ reserves. That’s still 600 million barrels of oil and 8 TCF of natural gas. Or, at a [$60/barrel WTI](http://www.wtrg.com/) for crude and [8.27 USD/MMBtu for European imported natural gas](https://ycharts.com/indicators/europe_natural_gas_price), about **36 Billion USD** for the oil and (at 1.028 MMBtu per thousand CF of natural gas), about **65 Billion USD** for the gas. Less acquisition costs, of course, but that still buys a lot of construction. And gunboats to protect same. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/60 "2015-05-25T16:47:23Z")
[QUOTE=Lemmytheseal2] Not so. Okinawans keep resisting, but the ruling class in Tokyo is happy to do Washington’s bidding, which, among other things, threatens China. [/QUOTE] Leaving aside the spin on this, what does the fact that the Okinawans are protesting US military basing (something, as you noted, they have been doing for a long time…over a decade now) have to do with China being ‘encircled’ or afraid of the US military?? > [@](#): > > They’ve happened closer to China than that, and they’re part of a larger pattern. See all the weapons flows to other countries. But you are shifting the goal posts. First you posted about US/Japanese exercises in the Sea of Japan. When I pointed out that the Sea of Japan isn’t close to China nor does it share a border with it you like this, which doesn’t show what you originally seemed to be claiming, which is that the US is operating in Chinese waters (or close to Chinese waters…or something). > [@](#): > > Then call it containment. It’s close enough. What else can the Australian deployment be about? About building up relationships with other democratic nations in the region? Are we allowed to still do that or do we need to stop because China doesn’t like it? > [@](#): > > The Cold War is over. South Korea has twice the population and 40 times the economic power of the North, and actually those figures have only gotten more lopsided since then. They can protect themselves, as can the Japanese and Australians. If any of them could not, it would be their responsibility to become capable of doing so. The Korean people can reunite their own peninsula, if only Washington would let them. The Chinese, for their part, are leery of the possibility of US troops in a united Korea, on China’s border, which is a far more sensitive spot than their border with Afghanistan. North Korea is not really a puppet regime any more. Beijing is long tired of Pyongyang’s antics, and it would be a relief for all involved if they no longer felt they needed North Korea as a buffer against US forces. China and South Korea have a quite good relationship these days. This has nothing to do with the cold war. As long as North Korea threatens the south and continues to build up and harass the South (as well as Japan) and as long as we have treaty obligations to the South we will continue to station the few troops we have there. If China is seriously worried about a few 10’s of thousands of mean old US troop that are stationed in a country that doesn’t even border them and are stationed there simply because of their ally, well…that’s really a shame. As to North Korea acting as a buffer to the US forces, what a freaking joke. China has 2-3 orders of magnitude more troops than the entire US commitment in South Korea and many times the military force and power of the South (and this isn’t even counting nukes). You are living in a fantasy world where China is threatened by shadows. > [@](#): > > Diego Garcia is in the Indian Ocean, and is close enough that it would likely be used (along with other facilities) in any confrontation in the South China Sea. Its continued occupation is also a crime. As for Afghanistan, it does share a border with China, and do you think that substantial American assets there might concern the Chinese? So, you just pulled Diego Garcia out for no reason. Ok, got it. As to Afghanistan, yeah, it does share a very small and pretty inaccessible border with China. No, I do not believe that anyone, including the Chinese (but obviously excluding you) thinks that the American presence there is any sort of threat to China in any sort of way. Even assuming we could pacify the entire country AND build up a major military presence there it’s like 4000 kilometers between the useable parts of Afghanistan and any targets in China that we might want to do something for reasons…and it’s even further to the South China Sea (something close to 8-10k kilometers, looking at a map). We’d be closer using our bases in Hawaii. 😛 > [@](#): > > It’s about the folly of missile defense. This was understood in the Cold War, leading to the ABM treaty, which the Bush administration abrogated. Now the Obama administration is trying to spread this so-called defense to South Korea. Feffer points out that it clearly has much more to do with China than with North Korea. Spin for all you like, but only someone who hasn’t been paying attention thinks any of this is directed at China…it’s all about the North Koreans constantly pushing things to destabilize the situation, constantly firing new missiles and constantly making threats against South Korea, Japan and the US. You are relying on the supposed ignorance of your audience to spin some narrative that has no connection to reality, which makes this next part pretty ironic… > [@](#): > > You’re being disingenuous. 😛 Right. I’m being disingenuous by pointing out that you and others are excluding the middle. All the while, you are relying on folks to be ignorant of current and not so current events, to be ignorant of those map thingies and be able to Google distances and read the articles you post which don’t show what you claim in your drive by links. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > It’s not a total capitulation to refuse to risk nuclear war, or even a pretty large conventional war out there. Such things have a habit of spreading. It’s not worth it. And it’s not all out nuclear war if we do what we are doing, either. THAT’S the excluded middle. And it is worth resisting China’s obvious land grab and attempt to assert sovereignty over a large international trade area. It would set a bad precedence for ANY country to be allowed to do this on this sort of scale, and frankly the US doing nothing here would, IMHO, increase the likelihood of a conventional conflict that could spin out of control. As you’ve ignored, there have already been military clashes in the area between China and various other powers, and this latest round of China attempting to grab the region has got the other powers even more on edge. So, the US being there calms things down to everyone but China, who is taking offense and acting all hurt because they want to be allowed to do what they want. > [@](#): > > t’s one thing to not care, and another to understand that interventionism causes blowback and other unintended consequences, and this is usually followed by more interventionism. To the extent that the Chinese would want to disrupt these flows, a war would disrupt this even more, along with many other, far worse consequences. And the unintended consequences of allowing China to have it’s way in this? What about those? I’m sorry, but I don’t see the US doing anything here that it shouldn’t, and I see China clearly escalating this situation and throwing gasoline on what’s already a hot situation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594.md?page=4)