[SeaGypsy]

It was the EDSA "People Power Revolution", which ended Marcos reign, installed the wife of the recently assassinated opposition leader (killed as he stepped off the plane from exile), Cory Aquino oversaw the sweeping populist rewrite of the constitution, & the US got it's marching orders. Interesting & ominous that Pinatubo blew meters of ash all over the US airbase at Clark & naval base in Subic, hastening the move out by a year or two. Yes the US is a huge icon to Filipinos generally, but the 70% plebiscite required to reverse the constitution has been seen as way out of reach, polling for joint forces agreements is very high but you independent foreign bases can't happen any time soon.

[peripato]

I find it so strange to have such a major trading partner, so economically co-dependent, while simultaneously drafting war-strategies. Either a country is an ally or it's not. You can't have both.

The impulse for self preservation trumps all treaties. <no pun intended>

[ennui2]

They are not economically codependent with us.

They hold most of our debt, do they not? They also just went through a major economic correction, did they not? I think this narrative of China as this superhuman force is overstated. Plus, aren't you still predicting a massive AGW-induced die-off within only a few years? I'm a little baffled by your current fear-based fixation on China.

[AdamB]

The South China Sea is the second Persian Gulf. China knows it's potential and will not back away to allow US oil interests to move in. It's not going to happen, not even if Hell freezes over.

In terms of oil potential, no, it isn't the Persian Gulf. if you add up EVERYTHING in the Asia Pacific area (not just South China Sea stuff), you don't even get to the size of some of the bigger FIELDS in the Middle East. A fraction of something as large as Ghawar.

20-87 billion barrels.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3042/fs2012-3042.pdf

And of course the Chinese know this because our government is happy to do the geologic work and publish the results for not only us US citizens but them as well!

Next non-fact checked conditional upon which to base our moves in the role playing game "you to can be a participant in the doomer fantasy league"?

[ennui2]

Ask Tibet if China is an aggressor.

Of course, in PStarr's world all governments are benign except the US...

[Lore]

It's a matter of scale. Nobody is a bigger, better aggressor than the United States. The nation that has almost single handedly rearranged the Middle East.

[regardingpo]

They hold most of our debt, do they not?

They don't, it's a common misconception. Total US public/govt debt is around $14 trillion. China holds $1.25 trillion of that debt, which is just 9%. 9% hardly counts as "most". Plus, Japan holds almost the same amount of US debt as China, but we never hear about that for some reason.

Not to mention that if you take into account the GDP of foreing debt holders, you will notice that China is not particularly exposed to US debt. $1.25 trillion is not much compared to their GDP. If the US defaults on its debt smaller countries will suffer more, take Ireland for example - it holds $260 billion of US debt which is more than the entire GDP of Ireland.

[ennui2]

Ireland used the money to build out there[sic] suburbia.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Irish want suburbia over old-school pubs? Just because you think it's a horror doesn't mean they do.

[AgentR11]

In order to challenge China we need to be able to have a presence in the region, which previously we did with our carrier groups. But the new technology has made our Carrier groups as obsolete as battleships.

If I were CNO, I'd do just about anything to ditch a pair of carrier battlegroups, and buy a bucket-ton of Corvettes; I really think we've missed the "boat" as it were. We use carrier BGs now, not because they are incredible tools of naval warfare, but because they are really convenient platforms for bombing forces that are so poor they have to improvise heavy mortar rounds out of propane tanks. What's worse of course, is because carriers have such enormous depreciation life spans; that even if someone said, "hey, we're not fighting jihadis, we're going to war against an adversary who will put a bunch of our ships on the bottom in the first few minutes...", it'd take decades to make the transition.

We have not recognized that fact, and by all accounts are still fighting the war before last.

Carriers are so *convenient* for the current hot conflicts though; people get a weird notion of invulnerability, even though that is mostly a result of our active targets having no capability to shoot back.

Korea couldn't shoot back, Vietnam couldn't shoot back, Grenada couldn't shoot back, Iraq couldn't shoot back, Libya couldn't shoot back, and now Syria can't shoot back.

Both Russia and China can, and will, shoot back.

We are incapable of challenging China militarily, and China has no intention of backing down. China has claimed the South China Sea since the 16th Century.

The one thing that is in favor of peace here, is that while China has no intention of backing down; they don't need to initiate any offensive action to continue on with their policy. Unless the USN is going to start blowing up dredgers in international waters; nothing physical changes for China regardless of how much whining we do.

On Scarborough; the more I think about that place, the more it feels to me like a offering to the US to allow us to squabble over something where we appear to "win", even though China never intended to spend any money developing the place. To far from China mainland, to easy for US/Phillipine forces to destroy by surprise attack.

You are an idiot if you believe otherwise, even if NATO comes to help. (Which of course will just bring in the SCO including Russia.)

SCO isn't really military (yet), and I'm not sure China wants Russia to directly assist in SCS, but rather, just continue with the broad support of the Chinese position politically.

[sidzepp]

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/un ... abilities/
Not to sound hawkish, I'm not, but China needs to take into consideration our complete naval forces and we have an experienced and well armed sub fleet and there is no doubt in my mind that if push comes to shove, Queen Hillary will stand up and piss right back in a pissing contest.

China will not bite the hand that feeds it, their economy is too dependent on Dollar General and Wall mart shoppers.

[peripato]

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/united-states-submarine-capabilities/
Not to sound hawkish, I'm not, but China needs to take into consideration our complete naval forces and we have an experienced and well armed sub fleet and there is no doubt in my mind that if push comes to shove, Queen Hillary will stand up and piss right back in a pissing contest.

China will not bite the hand that feeds it, their economy is too dependent on Dollar General and Wall mart shoppers.

Next...

[AgentR11]

China will not bite the hand that feeds it, their economy is too dependent on Dollar General and Wall mart shoppers.

Lets make this clear.

China has absolutely no need to shoot first.
China gains nothing by shooting first.
Everything China wants to do in the SCS; they can do regardless of how active the USN is with regard to freedom of navigation patrols. Physically, such patrols will have zero impact, because China is *NOT* restricting navigation through the SCS in any way, shape, or fashion. THEY depend on free navigation through that area more than we do.

There is only one party in this conflict that has any likelihood of shooting first.
And that is the US. That's the wildcard.

My point, is simply to assert that *IF* the US fires first and kills some Chinese seaman, China WILL fire back. If they do fire back; many USN ships will be on the bottom within minutes; though I do suspect we would "win" the encounter in the final analysis.

It would however, be a "win", that isn't worth having.

[ennui2]

Come on now. China and the US are both nuclear nations. You really think we'll fight a purely conventional war? If things go hot, it goes really hot.

[AgentR11]

I didn't specify type of munitions. I really have no prediction on that front.

[Sixstrings]

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/united-states-submarine-capabilities/
Not to sound hawkish, I'm not, but China needs to take into consideration our complete naval forces and we have an experienced and well armed sub fleet and there is no doubt in my mind that if push comes to shove, Queen Hillary will stand up and piss right back in a pissing contest.

China will not bite the hand that feeds it, their economy is too dependent on Dollar General and Wall mart shoppers.

What's wrong with being a bit hawkish?

Just as a citizen and voter, I'd like to see China stood up to a little bit. It seems like they've been pushing the USA around too much, for far too many years. All the hacking attacks, industrial espionage, and they're always so sensitive and telling everyone not to make "wrong comments." Now they say the US shouldn't be in the Pacific, and they don't want to work with us, but they just want to be in charge of everybody out there.

If China were a democracy like Japan, or if it were like Singapore or some other places, then maybe I'd be comfortable about them being in charge. But that's not quite the situation, so I'm just not comfortable about it.

They're too bossy, they just want to be boss of everybody.

I think China should be stood up to a bit, just to make a point.

The Navy ought to be sailing all around the south china sea.. and the Navy should also land some forces on Scarborough and secure it for the Philippines -- just as China has occupied all those other atolls. Well, the US and its Philippines ally should be able to put some forces on one at least, especially the one that's right offshore (and there's very good strategic reason to secure that atoll).

That would all infuriate and piss China off enormously, of course.. it could even be a minor conflict.. they would be SO MAD and SO UPSET.. but maybe they need to be. Maybe they do need stood up to, a little bit.

[Sixstrings]

Philippines rejects China's offer for bilateral talks, because China wants to have talks while not recognized the court ruling. Philippines says China would have to recognize the validity of the court ruling, before they would have talks with China:

Philippines rejects conditional talks on South China Sea dispute

"[China's foreign minister] had asked us to open ourselves for bilateral negotiations, but outside, or in disregard of, the arbitral ruling," Perfecto Yasay said, referring to the ruling from The Hague.

"This is something I told him was not consistent with our constitution and our national interest."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-19/philippines-rejects-offer-of-south-china-sea-talks/7640924

China unleashes nuclear bomber as territory row with America reaches 'tipping point'

Beijing sent its nuclear-capable H-6K bomber to patrol a disputed area of the South China Sea in defiance of the US.

It comes after America had several of its own bombers fly over the area, called Scarborough Shoal, in a bid to prove it's not Chinese. ...

Now experts say America is ready to up the ante in its battle to stop Beijing claiming more than a million square miles of sea.

Jay Batongbacal, director of the Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea at the University of the Philippines, said it was a "tipping point".

"Definitely the U.S. has sent some strong signals to the Chinese that they're willing to do more than they're used to," he told NPR.

"Even their strategists would know, I think, that the Scarborough Shoal would be a tipping point for the US and Japan".

He continued: "It would complete the so-called strategic triangle that could finally establish full control over the South China Sea.

"And they [China] would know that the US and Japan will not allow that to happen easily."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/530997/South-China-Sea-Scarborough-Shoal-base-US-America-Philippines-dispute-Hague-ruling

Correction to that above story -- unless I'm mistaken, the US didn't fly a bomber over Scarobrough. Rather, the US flew A-10 Warthogs over it. And then China flew a nuclear bomber over it.

Article from India:

Modi Is Dragging India Into A US-China Conflict

This has enabled the Chinese charge d'affaires (acting Ambassador) in New Delhi to claim in an interview to The Hindu (15 July 2016) that India had signed a "common position" statement at the Russia-India-China (RIC) Foreign Ministers meeting in Moscow on 18th April 2016. He explained: "There is a paragraph in the RIC statement that stated the common stand of all three countries. This was in support of China's position". So are we in support of China's position? ...

Modi then goes to Washington and commits India to being a "Major Defense Partner" of the US. He also jointly affirms with the US President that, "the US and India should look to each other as priority partners in the Asia Pacific". The South China Sea is right there, in the Asia Pacific region. ...

We live in very dangerous times. The Second Cold War and, possibly, the Third World War, are in the offing in the South China Sea. Where Nehru's India neatly sidestepped the first Cold War by preferring non-alignment to alignment, and understood that responsible government cannot be multi-aligned between contested claims with military overtones, Modi is dragging India into the middle of a conflict not of our making. We are perilously close to replacing Pakistan as America's principal military ally in South Asia.
http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/modi-is-dragging-india-into-a-us-china-conflict-1432990

The bottom line about India, is simply that at the end of the day.. it is in their interest to see China contained. Because just strategically, China would be in their region next, in the future, in the Indian ocean.

Freedom of navigation patrols may end 'in disaster': Chinese admiral

Speaking behind closed doors at a forum in Beijing on Saturday evening, Sun Jianguo, an admiral and deputy chief of the Joint Staff Department of the powerful Central Military Commission, said the freedom of navigation issue was bogus and one that certain countries repeatedly hyped up. ...

"When has freedom of navigation in the South China Sea ever been affected? It has not, whether in the past or now, and in the future there won't be a problem as long as nobody plays tricks," he said, according to a transcript of his comments seen by Reuters on Monday.

China is the biggest beneficiary of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and won't let anybody damage it, Sun said.

"But China consistently opposes so-called military freedom of navigation, which brings with it a military threat and which challenges and disrespects the international law of the sea," Sun said.

"This kind of military freedom of navigation is damaging to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, and it could even play out in a disastrous way," he added, without elaborating.

A U.S. Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States reserved the right to carry out freedom of navigation operations and the Chinese admiral's comments would not change that.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-ruling-idUSKCN0ZY0FJ

The way the Chinese admiral is framing it, would be like a gang setting up a military checkpoint on a public street.. and then at first they say, "oh we're not impeding freedom of navigation. Look at all these trucks we're letting go by. Look, it's all free navigation on this road."

But then, the gang starts chasing of Vietnamese and Filipino fishermen.. and they chased off New York Times reporters, aboard a yacht, from landing at Scarborough.

And in my analogy, the gang would also be saying "it's free navigation, but no POLICE can drive on this road -- only we are the police now."

So see, they're just nuts. They're trying to claim international waters. And they don't want to follow the international law process, for resolving claim disputes peacefully.

Most of all, they're claiming a VAST area of ocean, when in all objective logical fairness, surely Vietnam and Philippines ought to be getting some of that.. it's right off their coast.

And that is what the court ruled, that China's claims are illegal.

When China says they do not impede free navigation -- they're just talking about commercial shipping. While trying to say there's no more MILITARY free navigation, in those international waters.

Well that's just ridiculous. The USA lets Russian spy ships sit right off the coast of Jacksonville -- because it's international waters.

Similarly, the world's military navies have every right to sail all through those south china sea international waters, too.