South China Sea

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Now that Boris was boasting about our huge carriers< I wonder what he will do if the phone rings one day:

"The Five Powers Defence Arrangements do not refer to exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and the enforcement of a state's EEZ rights is a matter for that state; a state may request the assistance of other states in so doing." Brunei not being a member, but also has EEZ issues - like Malaysia - with China.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It is not just NE Asia that has a military "locked and loaded". Another one in SE Asia:

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indias-n ... 39183?stky

And a bit further to the West, the militaries of the two most populous nations on the earth are having fist fights and pelting the other side with stones :(
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

a military "locked and loaded"
http://time.com/5292908/china-warns-nav ... china-sea/
by sending warships (not that their CG OPVs wouldn't be destroyer sized, as such)

Is this headed the "Cod Wars way": vessels rubbing sides, while trying to avoid an outright collision?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by Lord Jim »

And of course the Chinese can afford to dent their ships, they will just build another on. I wonder if they have reinforced "pseudo" Coast Guard vessels to allow them to be aggressive in this manner? I wouldn't put it past them.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

https://navaltoday.com/2018/06/06/franc ... perations/

IMHO, a stupid and unnecesarry decision by both countries, especially by France... :thumbdown:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by Lord Jim »

Talk about poking a Bear (Dragon) with a stick. How long will it be until we see a RN ship in dry dock having collision damage repaired after a Chinese vessel decided to get real friendly and cuddle up.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:Talk about poking a Bear (Dragon) with a stick. How long will it be until we see a RN ship in dry dock having collision damage repaired after a Chinese vessel decided to get real friendly and cuddle up.
Meddling somewhere you really have no compelling need to and, most importantly, without capabilities to do something big in real conflict, and most damning of all, without some tangible benefit for the UK and France.

If the US said, say: If you send your warships in SCS, we will sell you F-35 or Poseidon with say 30 percent discount, I would support that. But just do that so that you can have Trump's better graces when he come's into a visit or that you can claim friendship with him? :thumbdown:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by andrew98 »

And if no-one stands up to them in any way they'll just keep on taking what they want.....

Rock...........Hard Place

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: South China Sea

Post by R686 »

abc123 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Talk about poking a Bear (Dragon) with a stick. How long will it be until we see a RN ship in dry dock having collision damage repaired after a Chinese vessel decided to get real friendly and cuddle up.
Meddling somewhere you really have no compelling need to and, most importantly, without capabilities to do something big in real conflict, and most damning of all, without some tangible benefit for the UK and France.

If the US said, say: If you send your warships in SCS, we will sell you F-35 or Poseidon with say 30 percent discount, I would support that. But just do that so that you can have Trump's better graces when he come's into a visit or that you can claim friendship with him? :thumbdown:

Who say you have no need to?
Its called trade routes, unless you want to stop all trading with partners in SEA/Oceania id suggest its politicly and economically wise to do so.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

R686 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Talk about poking a Bear (Dragon) with a stick. How long will it be until we see a RN ship in dry dock having collision damage repaired after a Chinese vessel decided to get real friendly and cuddle up.
Meddling somewhere you really have no compelling need to and, most importantly, without capabilities to do something big in real conflict, and most damning of all, without some tangible benefit for the UK and France.

If the US said, say: If you send your warships in SCS, we will sell you F-35 or Poseidon with say 30 percent discount, I would support that. But just do that so that you can have Trump's better graces when he come's into a visit or that you can claim friendship with him? :thumbdown:

Who say you have no need to?
Its called trade routes, unless you want to stop all trading with partners in SEA/Oceania id suggest its politicly and economically wise to do so.
And when did China stopped any UK or French or US or Japanese merchant ship from trading trough SCS? If anybody is interested in free trade trough SCS ( and anywhere else for that matter ), it's China.

Ever heard for a Panama Canal? Even if China has all the SCS, US/UK/French trade with say Japan, S. Korea or Australia wouldn't be significantly impeded. ( I presume that the volume of trade with Cambodia or Vietnam isn't so big )
On the other hand, the importance of SCS for CHINA, well, that's something completely different.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

andrew98 wrote:And if no-one stands up to them in any way they'll just keep on taking what they want.....

Rock...........Hard Place

Coming from countries like the UK and USA, that's rich man... :thumbup:

Pot... Kettle... Black.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: South China Sea

Post by R686 »

abc123 wrote:
And when did China stopped any UK or French or US or Japanese merchant ship from trading trough SCS? If anybody is interested in free trade trough SCS ( and anywhere else for that matter ), it's China.

Ever heard for a Panama Canal? Even if China has all the SCS, US/UK/French trade with say Japan, S. Korea or Australia wouldn't be significantly impeded. ( I presume that the volume of trade with Cambodia or Vietnam isn't so big )
On the other hand, the importance of SCS for CHINA, well, that's something completely different.
you really believe that?

Sounds like the East of Suez policy MKII

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by Lord Jim »

Sounds more like Victorian foreign policy. Set up an outpost near a possible threat, said outpost is attacked and destroyed by that threat, send an army to punish the threat or try to. This is more about political posturing than actually providing any form of true deterrence to Chinese expansion. Only the USN can actually have any effect on Chinese plans. Ok attaching a T-45 or T-23 to a USN taskforce would at least so solidarity but operating on a national basis is a bad idea. Ops says China, sorry we collided with your shiny warship, would you like help, we can tow you to a friendly port where you can spend sometime thinking should I be here in the first place. Are you sending a replacement, Oops sorry I forgot you haven't got anymore ships available. O well see you again next year.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: South China Sea

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote:Sounds more like Victorian foreign policy. Set up an outpost near a possible threat, said outpost is attacked and destroyed by that threat, send an army to punish the threat or try to. This is more about political posturing than actually providing any form of true deterrence to Chinese expansion. Only the USN can actually have any effect on Chinese plans. Ok attaching a T-45 or T-23 to a USN taskforce would at least so solidarity but operating on a national basis is a bad idea. Ops says China, sorry we collided with your shiny warship, would you like help, we can tow you to a friendly port where you can spend sometime thinking should I be here in the first place. Are you sending a replacement, Oops sorry I forgot you haven't got anymore ships available. O well see you again next year.
no ones asking the UK to go into it alone but within the existing partnership, and within your obligations regionally which a UK/French task group will do, nothing much different from when the BPF was around. But if your worried about the losses before anything major has happened you may as well dissolve your involvement in the region and concentrate on Brexit and staying within the common market with Brussels.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

R686 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Sounds more like Victorian foreign policy. Set up an outpost near a possible threat, said outpost is attacked and destroyed by that threat, send an army to punish the threat or try to. This is more about political posturing than actually providing any form of true deterrence to Chinese expansion. Only the USN can actually have any effect on Chinese plans. Ok attaching a T-45 or T-23 to a USN taskforce would at least so solidarity but operating on a national basis is a bad idea. Ops says China, sorry we collided with your shiny warship, would you like help, we can tow you to a friendly port where you can spend sometime thinking should I be here in the first place. Are you sending a replacement, Oops sorry I forgot you haven't got anymore ships available. O well see you again next year.
no ones asking the UK to go into it alone but within the existing partnership, and within your obligations regionally which a UK/French task group will do, nothing much different from when the BPF was around. But if your worried about the losses before anything major has happened you may as well dissolve your involvement in the region and concentrate on Brexit and staying within the common market with Brussels.
About Brexit, is it wise to make tensions with China (one of the most important trade partners of the UK) in a time when Britain tries to make as favourable deals with other countries . And Trump raising trade barriers everywhere.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

R686 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
And when did China stopped any UK or French or US or Japanese merchant ship from trading trough SCS? If anybody is interested in free trade trough SCS ( and anywhere else for that matter ), it's China.

Ever heard for a Panama Canal? Even if China has all the SCS, US/UK/French trade with say Japan, S. Korea or Australia wouldn't be significantly impeded. ( I presume that the volume of trade with Cambodia or Vietnam isn't so big )
On the other hand, the importance of SCS for CHINA, well, that's something completely different.
you really believe that?

Sounds like the East of Suez policy MKII
Ok, can you tell me what's so factually wrong on what i said? It's not like I said that the Earth is flat or something like that...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: South China Sea

Post by R686 »

abc123 wrote:
R686 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
And when did China stopped any UK or French or US or Japanese merchant ship from trading trough SCS? If anybody is interested in free trade trough SCS ( and anywhere else for that matter ), it's China.

Ever heard for a Panama Canal? Even if China has all the SCS, US/UK/French trade with say Japan, S. Korea or Australia wouldn't be significantly impeded. ( I presume that the volume of trade with Cambodia or Vietnam isn't so big )
On the other hand, the importance of SCS for CHINA, well, that's something completely different.
you really believe that?

Sounds like the East of Suez policy MKII
Ok, can you tell me what's so factually wrong on what i said? It's not like I said that the Earth is flat or something like that...
on a technical sense you have said nothing wrong, but on a practical sense you are trading with partners that also rely on those shipping lanes to get other raw material for the commodities you may whish to trade in, not all trade goes via the route you suggested, your partners trade security has implications in your own trade security.

this gives an overview,
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/south-china-sea

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ever heard for a Panama Canal?
The Chinese seem to have, a South China Post article is tracking the funding sources (and their credibility) in an article where this quote comes from:
"contract given by the government of President Daniel Ortega to build and run a 276-kilometre (171-mile) canal that would slice across the country, linking the Pacific and Atlantic oceans."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

R686 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
R686 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
And when did China stopped any UK or French or US or Japanese merchant ship from trading trough SCS? If anybody is interested in free trade trough SCS ( and anywhere else for that matter ), it's China.

Ever heard for a Panama Canal? Even if China has all the SCS, US/UK/French trade with say Japan, S. Korea or Australia wouldn't be significantly impeded. ( I presume that the volume of trade with Cambodia or Vietnam isn't so big )
On the other hand, the importance of SCS for CHINA, well, that's something completely different.
you really believe that?

Sounds like the East of Suez policy MKII
Ok, can you tell me what's so factually wrong on what i said? It's not like I said that the Earth is flat or something like that...
on a technical sense you have said nothing wrong, but on a practical sense you are trading with partners that also rely on those shipping lanes to get other raw material for the commodities you may whish to trade in, not all trade goes via the route you suggested, your partners trade security has implications in your own trade security.

this gives an overview,
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/south-china-sea
Again, even if China owns whole SCS, they have interest to have uninterrupted trade there for all because they are also very wounerable for blockade in other choke points (Strait of Malacca, Indonesia, Taiwan, Ryu Kyu etc.).

And I wonder what would be US reaction if Chinese ships sail 11 nm from Kadena or Guam or British if they sail 11 nm from Falklands?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ever heard for a Panama Canal?
The Chinese seem to have, a South China Post article is tracking the funding sources (and their credibility) in an article where this quote comes from:
"contract given by the government of President Daniel Ortega to build and run a 276-kilometre (171-mile) canal that would slice across the country, linking the Pacific and Atlantic oceans."
You can't have enough canals...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: South China Sea

Post by R686 »

abc123 wrote:
Again, even if China owns whole SCS, they have interest to have uninterrupted trade there for all because they are also very wounerable for blockade in other choke points (Strait of Malacca, Indonesia, Taiwan, Ryu Kyu etc.).

And I wonder what would be US reaction if Chinese ships sail 11 nm from Kadena or Guam or British if they sail 11 nm from Falklands?
And that's really the same as militarisation of reclaimed Islands, you don't expend that sort of national treasure to create that sort of military overreach. The Chinese has fundamentally altered the physical and political landscape in the SCS, with there rapid military expansion one has wonder why if the current status quo global trade is so favourable to the Chinese that it risks igniting a regional conflict between regional countries and nuclear armed states over coral reefs.


Also in saying that what would the international community think if Australia decided to militarise the Ashmore and Cartier Islands/Christmas Island/Cocos Islands I doubt that would go down to well either

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by Caribbean »

... or if Russia decided to station missile batteries in Cuba? Oh.......
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

R686 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Again, even if China owns whole SCS, they have interest to have uninterrupted trade there for all because they are also very wounerable for blockade in other choke points (Strait of Malacca, Indonesia, Taiwan, Ryu Kyu etc.).

And I wonder what would be US reaction if Chinese ships sail 11 nm from Kadena or Guam or British if they sail 11 nm from Falklands?
And that's really the same as militarisation of reclaimed Islands, you don't expend that sort of national treasure to create that sort of military overreach. The Chinese has fundamentally altered the physical and political landscape in the SCS, with there rapid military expansion one has wonder why if the current status quo global trade is so favourable to the Chinese that it risks igniting a regional conflict between regional countries and nuclear armed states over coral reefs.


Also in saying that what would the international community think if Australia decided to militarise the Ashmore and Cartier Islands/Christmas Island/Cocos Islands I doubt that would go down to well either
About militaristion, let's count the number of islands with Vietnamese soldiers and those with PRC soldiers. And if Vietnamese have no money for artificial islands, well tough shit...

About these Australian islands, I personally think that their militaristion is fully within Australian rights, I would have done so allready.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

abc123 wrote:About militaristion, let's count the number of islands with Vietnamese soldiers and those with PRC soldiers. And if Vietnamese have no money for artificial islands, well tough shit...
Interesting comment. After the Chinese (before the modernisation drive) had taken a good beating in the border war with Vietnam, they decided to whoop the assess of the Vietnamese and take their islands from them (as the ex- Viet Cong had no navy to speak of; no longer the case).

However, what lies between the SCS and the East China Sea? Ahh, Taiwan. The Foreign Affairs (mag) asks whether it will be the next Hong Kong. I ask, will it be the next "Sudetenland"?
Stalin was prepared to go to war and maintain the guarantees to the Tschekoslovakia; some others were not - and the defences of that republic were de facto dismantled... the rest is history.
- there is a more detailed (opinion?) piece in the mag:

" “Whereas Chinese leaders used to view a military campaign to take the island as a fantasy, now they consider it a real possibility.”

Can Washington change Beijing’s calculations? “There is no quick and easy fix,” Mastro warns. “The most effective way to deter Chinese leaders from attacking Taiwan is also the most difficult: to convince them that armed unification would cost China its rejuvenation. And the United States cannot do this alone.”["]
- could you convince The Third Reich (of thousand years :problem: ) of the cost of invading? No; the contrary: they were 'given' the Skoda works that alone matched the output of the British industries for land warfare kit.

I am not saying that 'the chips are down' but I am still talking about chips. The shortage of them. Being held over the barrel... because of chips? Takes a lot of chips to fill a barrel. But chips are in high demand (and in short supply)
- - anyone noticed the hurry with which new plants are being set up in (e.g.) Japan?
Just that the lead time (even with all the prerequisites in place) is 3-5 years

What is the window for China (to make Taiwan the nxt HK... including fait accompli, as it is happening - on live TV)?
-three to five years; take average of that (4) and then take away the 100+ days, by now, into Biden's term.

AND? I must say I am feeling uncomfortable about this. May be :) I should read that article that I was quoting :!:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: South China Sea

Post by abc123 »

Interesting analysis. I myself, think that 10 years is more likely, but on the other hand, that suits China too much, so the US will try to shorten that as much as possible. So, yes, maybe 5+ years might be the answer.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Post Reply