Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

South China Sea Buildings to House Missiles?


Claire.

Recommended Posts

China finishing South China Sea buildings that could house missiles - U.S. officials

China, in an early test of U.S. President Donald Trump, has nearly finished building almost two dozen structures on artificial islands in the South China Sea that appear designed to house long-range surface-to-air missiles, two U.S. officials told Reuters.

The development is likely to raise questions about whether and how the United States will respond, given its vows to take a tough line on China in the South China Sea. China claims almost all the waters, which carry a third of the world's maritime traffic. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims. Trump's administration has called China's island building in the South China Sea illegal.

Read more: Reuters

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Technically Trump's claims about China's land building in the South China Sea being illegal are partially right and partially wrong. It is technically illegal to build artificial islands, but the ones China is building are on top of natural reefs and land formations and thus, fit within a grey area in international law. And the Chinese know this, hence why it's able to get away with it because none of the countries it has disputes with are powerful enough to take on the Chinese military and have to rely on American military and political support. 

Obama's plan was...well we're not quite sure what because nothing ever really happened. However, Trump basically seeing China as public enemy number one could potentially tip the balance of power back in South East Asia's favour, if he uses American military and diplomatic power smartly and correctly. Which, being Trump, won't happen. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet you cant create land and claim it as your own. 

On 2/22/2017 at 11:51 PM, MordorOrc said:

Technically Trump's claims about China's land building in the South China Sea being illegal are partially right and partially wrong. It is technically illegal to build artificial islands, but the ones China is building are on top of natural reefs and land formations and thus, fit within a grey area in international law. And the Chinese know this, hence why it's able to get away with it because none of the countries it has disputes with are powerful enough to take on the Chinese military and have to rely on American military and political support. 

Obama's plan was...well we're not quite sure what because nothing ever really happened. However, Trump basically seeing China as public enemy number one could potentially tip the balance of power back in South East Asia's favour, if he uses American military and diplomatic power smartly and correctly. Which, being Trump, won't happen. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking the islands are built on natural reefs, so the Chinese can claim the islands are not entirely artificial. That's why they're building them because it exploits a loophole in international maritime law. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2017 at 10:51 PM, MordorOrc said:

Technically Trump's claims about China's land building in the South China Sea being illegal are partially right and partially wrong. It is technically illegal to build artificial islands, but the ones China is building are on top of natural reefs and land formations and thus, fit within a grey area in international law. And the Chinese know this, hence why it's able to get away with it because none of the countries it has disputes with are powerful enough to take on the Chinese military and have to rely on American military and political support. 

Obama's plan was...well we're not quite sure what because nothing ever really happened. However, Trump basically seeing China as public enemy number one could potentially tip the balance of power back in South East Asia's favour, if he uses American military and diplomatic power smartly and correctly. Which, being Trump, won't happen. 

 

 

It sounds as though you expect the Chinese government to be amenable to a diplomatic solution that would remove them from the land?  All Trump can do is just keep having our aircraft and ships move through the disputed waters and encourage others to do likewise.  Court cases against China seem to do no good.  If the Chinese become so belligerent that they actually fire on US vessels, "liquidate" their assets in that location in a very spectacular way.  Then in diplo-speak say - "come on and get you some"!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

What is any country going to do with all these nuke build ups in the world , but get a better missile defense  programs a going

 

Edited by docyabut2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An arms race -- among other things dangerous and a horrible waste of money -- seems to be upon us -- mainly because of China's unfortunate and inappropriate ambitions.

I don't think anti-missile technology is of much help against a sophisticated aggressor.  Missiles in the S China sea are a threat mainly to Australia, as the Chinese want to guarantee access to Australian resources, but also to countries like Cambodia, which can be expected to moderate their criticism of Chinese efforts at hegemony just because of this sort of blackmail.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not like China telling the US what they can and cannot do in the Mid-Atlantic?  (only asking)

Or rather us not the US.  Us being China's biggest customers of the cheap crap they export.

Edited by Eldorado
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who needs missiles when you have lasers ? 

Meet 'Silent Hunter' - China's New 'Armored Vehicle Slicing' Laser Gun 

Poly Technologies showed off The Silent Hunter, one of the world's most powerful laser weapons. It claims an output of at least 50-70 kilowatts, which would make it more powerful than the 33-kilowatt laser weapon systems (LaWS) currently deployed on the USS Ponce.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 7:20 AM, Eldorado said:

Is this not like China telling the US what they can and cannot do in the Mid-Atlantic?  (only asking)

Or rather us not the US.  Us being China's biggest customers of the cheap crap they export.

Why do you think that they have Indian restaurants on every street corner in Birmingham...its to stop the Chinese take aways getting a foothold

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2017 at 2:19 PM, and then said:

It sounds as though you expect the Chinese government to be amenable to a diplomatic solution that would remove them from the land? 

It wouldn't be amenable to a diplomatic solution because realistically, no one can force them to move. The United States cannot force the Chinese out militarily as it would set off a major war and neither side wants that. None of the states with coastlines and claims on the South China Sea have the military means (or in the case of the Philippines, political will) to challenge China in any meaningful way, hence why they tend to rely on strategic partnerships with the United States so they feel their territorial claims have some decent backing. However the United States does have one card up it's sleeve that the Chinese don't like: Taiwan and doing things with the Taiwanese would irk Beijing immensely, but it wouldn't result in any international arbitration or court cases. 

Quote

All Trump can do is just keep having our aircraft and ships move through the disputed waters and encourage others to do likewise.  Court cases against China seem to do no good.  If the Chinese become so belligerent that they actually fire on US vessels, "liquidate" their assets in that location in a very spectacular way.  Then in diplo-speak say - "come on and get you some"!

And liquidating their assets in the region would provoke a much larger war because China would see it as American aggression. Don't forget that trillions of dollars in trade and goods pass through the South China Sea every year and a major military conflict there would be a massive disruption to the flow of trade that neither the Chinese or Americans want. 

On 3/1/2017 at 8:20 PM, Eldorado said:

Is this not like China telling the US what they can and cannot do in the Mid-Atlantic? 

Well...not exactly. The closest thing would be the China telling the United States to stop building artificial islands in the Caribbean, say, off the coast of Mexico or Panama or any country in Latin America that borders the Caribbean. However, as the United States currently isn't exploiting loopholes in international maritime law in order to make a blatant territorial grab and control the shipping that passes through, there's really no analogy to the situation currently in the South China Sea. 

On 3/1/2017 at 3:57 PM, Frank Merton said:

An arms race -- among other things dangerous and a horrible waste of money -- seems to be upon us -- mainly because of China's unfortunate and inappropriate ambitions.

I don't think there is an arms race occurring but rather the redeployment of important weapons systems to further guarantee Chinese claims over the islands. In any case, even if there was an arms race, none of the countries that border the South China Sea have the ability to call China out by themselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China is taking baby steps in becoming a superpower and if it succeeds, people will look back and say or even praise the Chinese leaders. Coming back to the topic I feel these are not purely for military purposes China might be just playing so that it can get major share in the resources when the dispute is resolved diplomatically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The dispute will never be resolved diplomatically, because China is neither complying with nor violating any international law. The only two resolutions to this dispute is forcing China out militarily, which will tank the global economy, or recognizing Chinese claims on the sea which would give China immense control over the global economy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MordorOrc said:

The dispute will never be resolved diplomatically, because China is neither complying with nor violating any international law. The only two resolutions to this dispute is forcing China out militarily, which will tank the global economy, or recognizing Chinese claims on the sea which would give China immense control over the global economy. 

 

Then we have no problem.  So long as China allows unfettered passage of all shipping, everything will be okay.  If they want to spend a lot of yuan, long term, to keep a base there that's doing nothing, more power to 'em.  Fire on a U.S. vessel and their hard work will be left in cinders and smoke.  And if try to join real battle, their navy will follow shortly.  But they know this.  They are patient.  Their time may well come but that time isn't now and they know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming the Chinese are willing to play ball and cooperate on this matter. The whole point of controlling shipping in the South China Sea is to ensure that China has the world by the balls and thus a massive strategic asset when it comes to future diplomatic discussions. 

Edited by MordorOrc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2017 at 6:57 PM, Frank Merton said:

An arms race -- among other things dangerous and a horrible waste of money -- seems to be upon us -- mainly because of China's unfortunate and inappropriate ambitions.

I don't think anti-missile technology is of much help against a sophisticated aggressor.  Missiles in the S China sea are a threat mainly to Australia, as the Chinese want to guarantee access to Australian resources, but also to countries like Cambodia, which can be expected to moderate their criticism of Chinese efforts at hegemony just because of this sort of blackmail.

Well, how many nations between Myanmar and New Zealand are getting together to organize a united response to all of this?

 

In the West, hardly anyone knows what the "String of Pearls" strategy is or why it would be important to China. It is pretty hard to have a good talk about this sort of thing with people who don't know what the real deal is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Well, how many nations between Myanmar and New Zealand are getting together to organize a united response to all of this?

None. For all intents and purposes China represents the largest trading partner with most, if not all, of all the states in the Asia-Pacific region and it would be fairly problematic to balance holding China accountable for blatant land grabs and maintaining trade relations without Chinese repercussions. 

However, this would not have been as much of an issue had Donald Trump not withdrawn from the Trans Pacific Partnership which the United States had entered just after Obama came into office. The TPP was the only thing keeping America economically relevant in the Asia-Pacific region and became a distinct counterweight to China's economic dominance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Well, how many nations between Myanmar and New Zealand are getting together to organize a united response to all of this?

 

In the West, hardly anyone knows what the "String of Pearls" strategy is or why it would be important to China. It is pretty hard to have a good talk about this sort of thing with people who don't know what the real deal is. 

What I see in Cambodia is compromise with China and silence about Chinese misbehavior and no hint of cooperation with the US or anyone else about it, military or otherwise.  Vietnam is a bit different, as the two Parties are close together so the Vietnamese Communist Party does not want to anger the Chinese, but the population at large is infuriated and quite strongly anti-Chinese (although they don't seem able to distinguish between mainland China and Taiwan and when they riot the target is often Taiwanese property).

Of course Vietnam has a history of dominance by China, so such a popular response is more predictable.  The history in Cambodia is more of constant incursion and loss of territory to Vietnamese, so a different attitude is present in the general population.  Also, China has poured a lot of money into show-pieces (bridges, fancy buildings, etc.) into Cambodia and no doubt bribes a lot of local officials.  Vietnam can't afford that (although there remains gratitude to Vietnam for throwing out the Khmer Rouge, that happened a generation ago), but both Australia and Japan seem to be trying to offset it some (not the US).  One final thing -- it is well known the Chinese know where all the skeletons are to be found in the Vietnamese Communist party, and I'm sure they use this for their benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but I for one am very tired of the US having to be the "World Policeman" and run around solving everyone's problems for them. The TPP was bad news for the American worker, good riddance to it!

And I notice that nobody is commenting on the String of Pearls after I mentioned it, and I think it is the underlying issue that most nations want to avoid talking about.

What it is would be a chain of bases from China to the Middle East, where most of China's Oil comes from. I think (and I am hardly alone in this) that the fake islands and the proposed canal across the Isthmus of Kra are just the first steps in this, the real focus isn't on S.E. Asia at all. Of course, the Chinese are not being very diplomatic about it... they don't really seem to have the knack. China is like one big New York City to me, complete with the bad attitude and lack of consideration. 

However, the idea of China dealing with pigs like ISIS tickles me, I think that the PLA has exactly the right attitude to deal with those Jihadists. 

So, any chance that letting China have its way would resolve this and let the rest of the region just get back to business? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2017 at 4:40 AM, MordorOrc said:

You're assuming the Chinese are willing to play ball and cooperate on this matter. The whole point of controlling shipping in the South China Sea is to ensure that China has the world by the balls and thus a massive strategic asset when it comes to future diplomatic discussions. 

 

Not really.  I'm simply pointing to the fact that one of the two of us is going to be the preeminent power in that area.  If we choose to use force then we will dominate.  If we choose not to use force, they will.  The Chinese navy is not superior in any way to the US navy.  Another 4-8 years of Obama type erosion and that would no longer be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China is modernising very quickly so I don't think that the United States will have superiority for that much longer. When China realizes this, it will definitely begin to lean hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.