The issue of annexing territory isn’t limited to this China. Gonna be big developments up north in the future.
I’m pretty dove-ish, but I support pretty aggressive use of ships/planes to deny this blatant grab.
We aren’t simply pumping our chest and saying so be it. We are doing just what was in CarnalK’s cite…treating it as what it is, international waters, that we are traversing as we always do. IOW, we aren’t making this a big deal (on the surface), simply treating it as business as usual with the Chinese and running our aircraft and Navy through the region as we always do and have every right to do. This is nothing like the Syrian Red Line™, which, I admit, was a huge mistake on the Obama administrations part to make a big deal about it then do nothing. Regardless, this is a completely different situation, and one that touches rather more critically on the US, especially if people took to time to really look into all the ramifications of this, the precedence it sets, the huge amount of trade that goes through the region, etc etc. There is no way the US could or would back down on this, if for no other reason than the fact that critical allies in the region are counting on us NOT backing down, and in fact doing more than we have been…which Obama’s pivot to Asia seems to be doing.
I’d be the first to say that the US’s budget needs to be re-evaluated in terms of the actual requirements and point out that whatever the current talking point of the US has a larger budget than then next X number of countries misses the point and is either ignorance or deliberate misdirection, but the fact is that even though China has increased their budget by between $100-200 billion dollars, it’s still well short of what the US spends. There are some more nuanced points there, namely that China can focus their budget on the region when the US’s defense budget is for a global military capability, but the other side of that is the China has a LONG way to go, not all of that budget is actually for what we’d consider the military (i.e. a large chunk of that is for China’s internal military which is tasked with keeping a lid on some of the autonomous provinces such as Tibet and XinJiang, etc, as well as various restive hot spots that seem to come up with more and more frequency in the last few years).
But there is really no comparison between the US and Chinese (PLAN) navies, nor is it likely to bridge that gap, even on a comparison between a Navy tasked with a global mission compared to one that can focus on a regional mission, anytime in the next 3 decades…at least.
It is as simple as the US simply deciding that we will treat the region just as what it is, which is international waters. True, the area is disputed, but nearly every other disputant is a US ally (or whatever Vietnam is to the US these days) and every one of them is wary and distrustful of China on this point and fully supports the US doing what we are doing. Will it cost additional funds to do this? Sure, but nothing that is even outside of the current Navy operating budget, because this IS their mission and it’s what we pay them to do.
Oh don’t worry about that. We’re just gonna give that all to Russia. Afterall, it’s their backyard and we don’t want a shooting war with them.
I don’t think you’re getting my argument. I’m saying that we continue as we’ve been doing – sailing international waters, including these territories that China claims. That’s it. China whines about it, and so what?
I would also suggest:
- Park a fleet or two of ships there for a few years. Maybe build some docks and a few airfields of our own.
This is more provocative than just sailing through, but it’s entirely doable and China couldn’t logistically do anything but squawk about it. But if China wants to start a new expansionist phase, well, two can play at that game.
It would be nice to have a handy alternative to Okinawa, too.
Actually, I’d go with 8 (as a continuation of 5). Sell (very cheaply) some of the mothball fleet/reserve naval units along with training and perhaps refitting funds to the other regional powers, especially close allies for them to use in the region. We could easily sell or give such units to the Philippines as well as funding to equip and fit out those ships and even training cadre to man them if they need it. Even older generation US ships could still be very useful in the region, and would act as a trip wire…if the Chinese attacked them (which I doubt they would), it would bring us in even more directly. Which China knows, at least in the case of countries like the Philippines…not sure about Vietnam, though might be a good time for us to explore some additional treaty and military alliance possibilities with that country in light of this situation.
Let’s do one better than simply arming China’s opponents. China’s doing this partly for the resources under the seabed right? So have the US make deals with the other countries whose territories are being encroached upon to develop those resources. If it takes the US funding oil rigs, then so be it. Share the resources with the other country so both of us benefit, and dare China to do something about it.
China’s not going to shoot at us or US staffed oil platforms. And if they are developing the area then so can we.
Actually, what I’d like to see wrt this is a mutual exploitation treaty for the region and it’s resources that has some environmental teeth (especially wrt fishing rights AND exploiting oil and natural gas resources) that includes China in the mix. It’s really the long term solution that the resources in the area be exploited in such a way that all the nations who are claimants benefit…at least this would be the optimal solution from AMERICA’S perspective, along with the continued free passage to all air and naval vessels through the region.
But no one wants to build oil rigs right now and just how much oil is really there is up for debate. It’s pretty much guaranteed that it’s not a motherlode.
With Russia bracing for the price of oil to be between $30-60/barrel for the next 3-5 years (not sure how realistic that is, but it’s what THEY are bracing for), it’s probably not the optimal time to start exploiting whatever is actually there, no, but a treaty structure could be hammered out for exploitation in the future. And the fishing rights are a major thing there as well.
I think, long term, it will be in all the countries in the region to come together on the region instead of each trying to have it all. And that working with China on this (and, more importantly, having China work with everyone else on an even plain) would be the best solution for everyone concerned…and certainly, it would be in the US’s best interest. Short term basically I think the US is doing what we should be doing in the region, so I think it’s a good strategy from our perspective. I’d like to see us do more wrt the other regional powers, but we are even doing more on that aspect as well, since I think the Philippines has opened up or is talking about opening up previously mothballed US basing we can use, Japan and South Korea has stepped up military exercises with us in the region, and we are talking to and working with Vietnam and several other powers impacted by this in the region.
Now we’re getting silly.
What makes you think that the Philippines or Vietnam wants a 30+ year old FFG to sail around China as a thorn in their side as a potential tripwire? And how will that 30+ year old frigate still be “very useful” in the region? The U.S. retired them because they weren’t capable but were maintenance nightmare. And why would the U.S. want to put the potential conflict with China in the hands of a Vietnamese Commanding Officer of a 30+ year old FFG?
I’ll reiterate. I agree that we should have sailed past the islands as a free passage exercise. We should have done it sooner. But the gap between U.S. military capabilities and those of our potential adversaries is getting smaller. And they are increasing spending while our spending is declining. And with budget pressures due to the debt and entitlement spending, that won’t change significantly in the future.
My concern is that we decide ISIS must be dealt with, there is the Syria “red line,” North Korea must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, Iran must not have nuclear weapons, Russia must not be allowed to take Ukraine and China must be taught a lesson on freedom of the seas.
I think the U.S. is being challenged more than it has in the past. And we have to be prepared to put up or shut up. And when we don’t respond, or don’t respond in a meaningful way (Syria, ISIS, and potentially North Korea or Ukraine depending on how one looks at it) it become more likely that we’ll be challenged. You can only bluff for so long. So in the off chance China does push back, are we prepared to push back harder? Are we properly poised to? And I believe it’s harder and more costly to do so than is being portrayed here.
So the US must get involved in each and every dispute on Planet Earth? And each time we decline to get involved, other countries think we’re pussies, and they get emboldened?
You know what really emboldened bad actors? Seeing the United States bogged down in miserable failure for a decade in Iraq. Getting involved in no-win situations doesn’t impress China with our toughness and resolve. You’re projecting your own feelings on them. If only the American people are tough and strong and winners and never quit we can accomplish anything! Except that’s not going to happen.
You think we should sail navy ships through the South China Sea, to challenge China? Well, it turns out that’s what we’ve been doing. We should have done it sooner? We did do it sooner. We never stopped. You want more? Tell China that unless they shut up we declare war?
If you think Americans should accept higher taxes and a lower standard of living to support a larger military involved in constant overseas adventures, then go ahead and say so. If we were tougher and had stronger wills, that’s what we’d do, right? We’re soft and flabby and only spend ten times more on our military than any other country, and if trends continue in a couple of decades it will only be nine times more! It’s the fall of Rome here people!
No, no one is saying that. We have to, however, get involved with issues that affect either our allies or directly affect our interests, and this thing in the South China Sea affects both…directly.
I’m unsure of what you think the bulk of the Chinese Navy (PLAN) is, but 30+ year old US naval vessels would do fine against them. I’m also unsure of what you think the majority of the naval vessels, outside of Japan and South Korea actually are, but, again, 30+ year old US naval vessels would be a bonus for most of them, and certainly would help and be useful in the region. So, no…I don’t think it’s a silly idea. It might be fiscally unfeasible or unworkable for other reasons, but not for the ones you are talking about.
The Chinese themselves admit, at least in private, that the gap between their military and ours is 30-50 YEARS. Sure, on some very vertical things they have closed the gap, but overall? They aren’t in the same league as us and will need to spend double or triple their current (I think unsustainable to them) military budget for decades to close that gap…all the while the US steadily continues to increase our own capabilities, as long as we don’t have folks from this board get elected and slash the defense budget by a huge amount because they simply don’t see the need and have bought into the whole ‘US spends more than the next 20 nations combined!!’ meme. 
I don’t think we should get too comfortable over this gap. The reality is that those older weapons worked. Yes, our weapons work better than theirs but the gap is not so wide that we can just ignore the Chinese military. It’s not like fighting some native tribe armed with spears and blowguns. The Chinese military is strong enough that it could inflict serious damage on American forces if we started fighting off the coast of China.
And suppose such a war began. What would stop it? Are we sure that we can inflict more attrition than China can absorb? Do we start attacking targets inside China? Do we invade China? These are questions we need to ask ourselves before we blithely go off to challenge the Chinese.
I like this. It’s the “I’m not touching you!” strategy. If we can nudge China into shooting at someone, we have our opening into claiming an island or two for ourselves. Kickstarting our allies’ naval development is a useful goal, as well.
I should state - I don’t really want a shooting war with China but I’m also not willing to let China expand their bullshit claims to point where they’re interrupting traffic. I also don’t want to set a precedent for treating bullshit oil rig installations as legit territorial claims. My suggestion for barging in and making some bullshit claims of our own is hopefully to give us some negotiating room for establishing some regulations for that sort of thing.
And of course, in my scenario, I’m the Princess of the Galaxy, so what I say goes.
ETA: You know, if we did what I suggest and end up building a port on some stupid little island, I’d probably hire Donald Trump to build a big, ugly, casino on it. Just cause.
You don’t think that the Pentagon has had people working on that problem constantly for the last 50 years? Or do you mean the US population should all think it over and vote on whether to attack China?
What you’re saying is basically obvious. A war with China would be a big problem. Hopefully they don’t start one just because everyone doesn’t roll over for them.
I know this was mostly tongue in cheek, but the US doesn’t have any claim to anything in that region and, I don’t think, any interest outside of the free passage of goods and services for trade (it’s one of the highest trade route areas on earth, with between $1-2 trillion dollars transiting the region each year…which puts into perspective WHY it’s something we care about and why China is so hot on making a claim there).
Oh, and you can be Princess of the Galaxy as long as I get to be the Earths God King.
The thing is, we have a strong and powerful military so we don’t HAVE To fight the Chinese, basically. Right now the Chinese know that tangling with the US would be a no win for them. Not only would they lose militarily (and that would be bad for them on multiple fronts, but especially at home), but they would lose economically as well. There is no upside for them at this time. They don’t have parity with the US militarily, and won’t for decades to come…if ever. However, if the US were weaker then it’s possible that the Chinese could basically run a bluff with the hope or expectation we’d back down. Hell, there are lots of Americans who THINK China is this vast military machine and are ready to do that now.
So, no…I don’t think we even need to talk about a real shooting war between the US and China since it’s not in the cards. But it’s not in the cards because the US isn’t going to back down over this and we have a military that China can’t and won’t tangle with at this time. Hopefully we’ll keep it that way. And even more hopefully we can leverage our military in a way that sends a clear message that China isn’t going to be able to stake a claim and build an island in the region then get to extend their territory into that region by fiat, and, instead, needs to work with us and, more especially with the other regional powers and claimants towards a political solution. THAT, to me, is what the US can and should do in these situations. Doesn’t look all balls to the wall and flight suity, with screaming American eagles firing missiles from their talons and laser bolts from their eyes (or, better yet, frickin’ sharks with frickin’ lazers on their heads!!), but it’s what we should be doing. And I think Obama, as much as he’s maligned for his foreign policies, has been pretty good at this stuff (that red line in Syria thing not withstanding).
I don’t see any reason for a conventional war with China. It would bankrupt both countries, and lead to nothing. what i do see is the possibility of low level cyber conflict-China hacks Wall Street, shuts down trading for a few days, that kind of thing. The real issue is:will a resource-hungry power be allowed to take stuff that nobody else has the strength to take?
The thing is, China’s economy is in flux right now – it’s going from a wholly based export economy, to a consumer centric, inward-looking one. This is the only way they will continue to grow – by consuming.
As such, China can probably lose some overseas business, if it means a big chunk of resources and shipping route control is seized in exchange. That, and many of their trade partners won’t let a dispute in the Spratlys interfere with their Chinese trade deals. Many have free trade agreements with the nation already signed in contract; so, unless a nation is directly involved in the dispute, it will likely have no effect. Any deleterious economic offshoots from annexing this zone will probably be of negligible effect to China.
Well, there is that “pivot to Asia” thing… to say nothing of the fact that, if China did gain a stranglehold of the area, trade through there would be likely be held to Sino ransom. Moreover, there are the U.S. protection pacts with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines… the ANSUS treaty. Leaving these nations high and dry, in their very time of need, isn’t exactly the action of a responsible ally. The U.S. turning its back on the issue may well reciprocate as the region becoming an ‘Asian bloc’, with China at its core.
An even worse case scenario: The already insolent, hydrogen bomb toting, Kimmy-J is emboldened by the U.S.'s fecklessness and embarks on some aggressive overtures towards “unification”…!
What about the sending significant U.S. naval forces to the Philippines, stationing / rotating them there on a semi-permanent basis and goading / supporting the Philippines to build their own offshore armipotent archipelago…?
What could China realistically do when one ally sends military assets to another’s – more “sovereignty” rhetoric? If a heavy U.S. presence were in the region, it would be much harder for China to claim leagues of ocean as their own. With only sporadic fly-overs and sail-throughs being conducted - while China builds literal islands which then proceed to house military bases… right on the doorsteps of U.S. allies - they can forever lay claim to the disputed area, on the grounds that they’re ensconced there and no one else is. That’s how they ended up there in the first place – no one else got there first! (…and we bought all their cheap manufacturing products :rolleyes: )
So, what are the Seventh Fleece up to…?
Sidebar:
Is not the ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ a loose analogy for this situation – a landmass close to a U.S. interest being militarised in a threatening manner? What if the Chinese started stationing nukes on those faux islands…?! 