[ROCKMAN]

Lots of interesting comments. Especially updates on weapons system...I'm old school and still watch "Combat" while eating breakfast every morning. I really do and still fantasize about firing a BAR someday.

But back to basics: to have a war you must have at least two opposing forces willing to commit to such a dynamic. At the moment that seems unlikely as pointed out in some responses here. Giving the potential powers at play I doubt "winning" would be the end result for any particular player. Surviving with tremendous damage would probably be more apt.

[sparky]

.
Let's keep this on the proper scale
China is chuffed to be constrained to its shoreline , they always wanted their own sea to play with
strategically it's pure pissant stuff .

China imports\exports lanes for like EVERYTHING pass through either the southern straits or across all of the Pacific area , the US Navy would be totally foolish to put its main assets anywhere close ,
the proper way is to locate them behind Japan , Taiwan , the Philippines and at the exit of the Malacca straits .
a few destroyers group and subs to patrol the inside , for irritation purpose
China would be strangled

[Cid_Yama]

Duterte intends to follow former President Arroyo's policy of pivoting towards China and away from the United States.

Incoming Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte described China's Xi Jinping "a great president", in another hint that frosty relations between the Asian neighbours could soon warm.

Duterte heaped the praise on Xi in a news conference in response to questions about a message the Chinese president sent to congratulate him on winning this month's election.

"We will be chartering a course of our own. It will not be dependent on America, and it will be a line not intended to please anybody but the Filipino interest," he said.

link

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte wants a "conversation" with China on the South China Sea in a bid to work out a "win-win relationship" with the country, presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said on Friday.

"Basically he's being friendly toward China. I think it's an indication on how he wants to handle the relationship, not to be adversarial but to really work out a relationship that will be win-win for both," Abella said in an interview with the television ANC.

A few hours after taking office as the country's 16th president Thursday, Duterte told a cabinet meeting at the presidential palace not to "flaunt" a possibly favorable ruling in a case filed by the Philippines at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

While the decision on the arbitration case might be favorable to the Philippines, "it would also put the country in an awkward position especially with China (in terms of relations)," Duterte said.

"God knows I really do not want to declare any fighting with anybody. And if we can have peace by just talking, I would be very happy," he added.

Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay also informed Duterte during the meeting that he was "averse" to issuing a "strong" statement in case of a favorable ruling, rejecting suggestions by foreign representatives.

link

“I have to consult many people, including president Ramos. I would like to respectfully ask him to go to China and start the talks.”

Ramos, who served as president from 1992 to 1998, is known to favor close ties with China. But the 88-year-old hinted he might not accept the offer, citing his age and other commitments.

The Philippines had initially refrained from asking China to abide by the verdict — in line with Duterte’s directive to achieve a “soft landing” with Beijing on the issue.

Duterte, who took office on June 30, has said he wants better relations with China and to attract Chinese investment for major infrastructure projects.

link


All of the belligerent talk is coming from the US and Western Media.

[AgentR11]

China would be strangled

So you are saying the USN is going to blockade China? That's essentially the same as shooting first; because the typical Chinese dredger will not obey commands from a USN ship under any circumstances; and so the USN vessel has to choose either to fire on/hostile-board the dredger (of which there are hundreds) or let it carry on doing what it does, thus moot'ing the so called 'blockade'.

China will not shoot first.

Period. You war mongers are not going to get what you want. There is no permutation that leads to such a condition.

There is absolutely no reason for China to physically acknowledge the presence of USN patrols. And they know it.

China is not strangled, and will not be strangled. They will carry on doing EXACTLY what they are doing now, regardless of statements and non-shooting actions of the USN.

In the end:

The USN will patrol.
The PLAN will continue to patrol.
China will continue to build and develop the islands and reefs in question.

Periodically, they will let the teenagers on the radio to insult each other.

[sparky]

.
@ Gasmon ,
I knew about the Thai link , there are others
a pipeline network to central Asia , rail links via Mongolia and Russia , a summer maritime road by the arctic
and the Karakorum rail line on the drawing board .
also some creative blackmail by Beijing could see South Korea flagging (reluctantly) some vessels
this is quite small traffic , nothing like the millions of tonnes of freight both bulk and containers ,using the sea-lanes

by the way , that would become an issue only if there was a "shooting war "
since people were talking taking out Carriers battle groups ,
I very seriously doubt it would get to that , this is just some pushing and shoving , nothing much so far

[Subjectivist]

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.

Let me put this in terms you might understand. Say the bank that holds your mortgage is doing a construction project building a new branch office half way between your house and their regional headquarters. Would you, who owe them many years of mortgage payments, go to the branch construction site, carry a picket sign and harass the workers building it? If you did do you think they would want to keep you as a customer, or sell off your mortgage to someone else who might charge all sorts of new fees if you were a second late with a payment?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, and don't sneer at the people who you owe a lot of money. Neither is in your self interest no matter how it hurts your pride.

[Sixstrings]

Duterte intends to follow former President Arroyo's policy of pivoting towards China and away from the United States.

You apparently didn't read the news I posted, that the Philippines has just declined talks with China.

Philippines rejects China talks not based on sea feud ruling
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/philippines-rejects-china-talks-not-based-on-sea-feud-ruling-1.419797

[Sixstrings]

Let me put this in terms you might understand. Say the bank that holds your mortgage is doing a construction project building a new branch office half way between your house and their regional headquarters. Would you, who owe them many years of mortgage payments, go to the branch construction site, carry a picket sign and harass the workers building it? If you did do you think they would want to keep you as a customer, or sell off your mortgage to someone else who might charge all sorts of new fees if you were a second late with a payment?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, and don't sneer at the people who you owe a lot of money. Neither is in your self interest no matter how it hurts your pride.

China's one of the banks of the world.. but global superpower USA is still the cop.. so, yeah. There's the banker and then there's the one that's got the superpower military and most of the world allied to it. (USA is a banker too though, or more like the bank manager and others are depositing the money. Don't forget that the world holds US bonds and buys dollars, and then federal reserve steps in and manages the global financial system; they stood by ready to save the British pound during Brexit, too)

Subjectivist -- just as a national security issue, the US can NEVER EVER BOW to ANYBODY that holds US bonds. Saudi Arabia too made some threats, to dump all their US bonds, over congress passing that bill saying 9/11 families can sue the Saudi government.

Subjectivist, would you be for bowing and ceding sovereignty to our Saudi "bankers?"

Quite frankly, the reason we've got this superpower military is so that we don't ever have to do that. Other nations get bullied around and told what to do by China, because they DON'T have a superpower military. And so, they join Team America, for safety in numbers with a big superpower backing it up.

Now I'm just talking about defense here, not aggression. It's China that AGGRESSIVELY used their military.. trying to flat out grab an entire ocean, in defiance of international court rulings.

Subj, you're sounding defeatist, and you're stating a WEAK position I would never ascribe to.

US can't ever bow down to anybody, if anyone ever threatens economic warfare by dumping US bonds -- then they've just made themselves an adversary. Economic warfare is soft power attack, plain and simple. This country should never bow down to that.

To be clear, China hasn't threatened doing that -- so that's not an issue.

But you're saying global superpower USA should be scared of that, and I say NO.

China has some ECONOMIC soft power, yes, but they're soft on military power. Whereas the USA is vastly ahead in military hard power. US Navy has things like these super futuristic star wars-like battleships:


https://youtu.be/xoz0XJ5YCWs

It's super stealth, and in not too many years it'll have lasers and electromagnetic railguns on it. So yeah, there's bankers and then there's cops, and USA is still global cop.

And the issue is in the RIGHT -- international law, that China can't force its will and bully all these smaller countries / weaker powers.. all those countries in the Pacific, from tiny Singapore to Australia, to India, want a world where they can have their case heard in international court -- and China must comply, even if it doesn't go all China's way.

[Subjectivist]

Actually my solution is, stop fricking digging ourselves deeper into debt!

[AgentR11]

want a world where they can have their case heard in international court -- and China must comply, even if it doesn't go all China's way.

Nope. There is no "must".

There is no way to make China comply, without the USN firing on unarmed Chinese dredgers.

If that is your suggestion, then we might as well just exchange nukes with Russia and China and go back to pre-industrial, pre-ag civilization; without the pre-ag natural bounty of course.

Because I guarantee you one thing.

If we fire on the Chinese dredger, China will return fire.

By law, which you so richly proclaim, China has no obligation to target the vessel that initiated the firing. China may return fire on a half dozen, nearly helpless USN oilers/tenders; putting them all on the bottom, and a thousand or few fresh coffins in a US military graveyard.

If you think the US can step back from THAT brink, you are nuts.

China will not be bullied by the US.
China will not fire first.
China will return fire, and that fire will be effective.

[Sixstrings]

Actually my solution is, stop fricking digging ourselves deeper into debt!

Well I agree with you there, there was a point back in the late 90s where the whole debt could have been paid off (the budget had been balanced and was in surplus, and Trump suggested a one time levy on the super rich).

But alas, it's too far gone for that now.

I know you guys don't like globalism -- but the reality of our situation is that foreigners buy US bonds and dollars (most dollars are held overseas).. because this is like "coin of the realm," it's like the Roman denarius. It's a SAFE currency. Because the US is stable, and it's the global superpower.. so in troubled times, money flies to safety.

The flipside of that though, is that makes us an international country and a global country, with global responsibilities.

So there's pluses and minuses. All that money helps pay for the air force's space drones, and these new lasers and railguns the Navy is workin' on.

About China, by the way -- more than being a global banker, they're actually a COMMERCIAL empire. They've got farms from Ukraine to Africa. They're building a railroad across South America. And they buy a lot of real estate, especially in Australia and NZ.. and then here in the US, too.

But their commercial empire is out way ahead, of their military capability.

Bottom line about China policy, and this is the US gov position and I agree with it -- is that nobody opposes their rise. It's just like a teenager that we're raising, and they're backtalking and throwing food at the dinner table, and the West has been as tolerant of a parent as possible, but at some point a parent's gotta step up a little bit.

We all want to make sure a future "superpower china" treats us right, when we're old and gray, so we have to raise them right for that to happen.

Another example would be India. India too is a rising power, and will be a bigger power 30 and 50 years from now. Could India be a threat? Probably not, most likely not.. because they got raised up right.

They're a democracy. They believe in rule of law, too. India followed the maritime tribunal's ruling, in their case. But China is defying it.

[Sixstrings]

There is no way to make China comply, without the USN firing on unarmed Chinese dredgers.

Well there's there's two issues here -- pressure on China to comply (that should be diplomatic and the US should be quiet about it, let all the other claimants / alarmed neighbors / international community be the loud voices).

BUT THEN we're also talking about defense of US interests and ability to do business in the Pacific, and defending the Philippines and our US bases in the Philippines.

There's two issues going on. Really, China wants us out of the whole region. And China is loudly telling everybody else not to sail around there, either, or make friends in the area.

On the latter issue, defense of the Philippines and US presence in the Pacific -- it would be risky, but I would advise the US Navy should go ahead and secure Scarborough Shoal. That's the one that's right off the coast of the Philippines, and if China builds an air base there then it would be fifteen minutes bomber flight to Manila and US bases.

Agent, you're talking about taking the existing Chinese man-made islands in international waters. That's obviously war.

What I would suggest, and this is would still be a gamble and risky, but I'd just say to go ahead and secure Scarborough Shoal. It would do two things: (a) stand up to China in a BIG way. And (b) it would protect the Philippines and the US bases there, and PREVENT China from building an airbase, and prevent them from creating that "triangle" of control in the south china sea.

The Chinese would throw an epic tantrum if we ever did such a thing, but remember -- there's nobody on Scarborough Shoal right now. Maybe the navy should just move on in, pick a time when Chinese coast guard is not there, and then secure that atoll.

Also remember: this atoll is right off the coast of Philippines. And also remember: CHINA has already built a gazillion man-made islands -- so why can't we secure the one atoll that we would have very smart / sound self defense reasons to secure.

So that's the other issue going on, other than China complying or not complying, the US has to look out for its own defense out there and international sea lanes and our ability to move around and protect our positions.

If we fire on the Chinese dredger, China will return fire.

I'm not suggesting "firing on a Chinese dredger." I'm suggesting maybe the Marines should secure Scarborough Shoal, BEFORE the Chinese do more there.

By the way, I don't know the current situation -- whether China has round the clock coast guard at Scarborough or not. If they already do, then I guess it's too late.

China will not be bullied by the US.
China will not fire first.

And the US will not be bullied out of the Pacific. And, the US will not fire first either. But what the US ought to do is get a big convoy of international navies, and go sail all around that sea and keep doing it for the next thirty years. Because possession is 9/10 of the law, if the allied navies retreat then it's Chinese by default.

[Sixstrings]

KFC Targeted in Protests Over South China Sea
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/world/asia/south-china-sea-protests-kfc.html

China Closes Part Of South China Sea, Holds War Games
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/07/18/china-closes-part-of-south-china-sea-holds-war-games-after-disappointing-court-ruling/#391047217da2

India moving 100 tanks near China border
India's action is seen as challenging China's aggressive stance in the Ladakh border region.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/india-moving-100-tanks-near-china-border-1571394

July 14, 2016 photo, a woman walks past a billboard featuring an image of an island in South China Sea on display with Chinese words that read: “South China Sea, our beautiful motherland, we won’t let go an inch” in Weifang in east China’s Shandong province.

Chinese fury continues against South China Sea judgement
Beijing has redoubled its months-long campaign to invalidate the 2013 case that The Philippines brought against it.
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/chinese-fury-continues-against-south-china-sea-judgement-2923039/

After India, Vietnam says Beijing making ‘untruthful’ claims on South China Sea

Vietnam has accused China of being “untruthful” about how much support it has on the South China Sea arbitration case days after New Delhi dismissed a similar “misinformation” campaign by Beijing.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/after-india-vietnam-says-beijing-making-untruthful-claims-on-south-china-sea/story-XRtegumbpGbDUgE0kNYpCL.html

New York Times story explaining the whole situation about Scarborough Shoal:

Our Boat Was Intercepted by China
It was difficult to find a crew that would agree to take us there. They feared the Chinese ships, armed with water cannons and assault rifles.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/10/world/asia/south-china-sea-scarborough-shoal-philippines-hague.html

[Sixstrings]

Duterte says he won’t talk with China over sea row —US senator

While President Rodrigo Duterte would not taunt China over the arbitration tribunal's ruling that found its historic claims in the South China Sea baseless, a US senator did some of the talking for the Chief Executive following their meeting in Malacañang on Tuesday.

Connecticut Senator Christopher Murphy took to Twitter to share that Duterte told the US Congressional Delegation during a courtesy visit that the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration upholding the Philippines' case against China was non-negotiable.

"In Manila —just out of meeting w new Philippines President Duterte. Assured us he has no plans to negotiate w China over islands dispute," Murphy said in a tweet.

"We were first US elected officials to meet w Duterte. Says he will not trade territorial rights to China. Tribunal decision non-negotiable," he added.

Aside from Murphy, also at the meeting were Senator Brian Schatz, Congressman Ted Deutch, Congressman John Garamendi, Congresswoman Donna Edwards, and US Ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/574325/news/nation/duterte-says-he-won-t-talk-with-china-over-sea-row-us-senator

People in China smash iPhones and mob KFC




http://mashable.com/2016/07/19/china-smash-iphones-kfc/#R6RJz8oD9Pqm

Top Beijing diplomat hits at US over South China Sea tribunal
Washington accused of using legal process as well as warships to challenge Beijing

China’s ambassador to London, on Tuesday came as Admiral John Richardson, the US Navy chief, called on Beijing and other Asian governments to “exercise thoughtfulness and restraint” after last week’s ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

“There should be a big question about US behaviour in all of this … I think this arbitration case is politically motivated,” Mr Liu said.

“On the one hand they [the US] send their warships and airplanes to challenge China’s sovereignty and on the other they think this might be a good legal case launched … to try to humiliate China diplomatically, to damage China’s image and also give them a legal basis with which to challenge China.”
https://next.ft.com/content/a42ed2ca-4d82-11e6-88c5-db83e98a590a

[Sixstrings]

Is it Time for the U.S. to Take a Position on Scarborough Shoal?

Whatever information the Department of Defense has it was deemed credible enough to trigger a “full-court” press aimed at dissuading Beijing from taking those steps. Given that Scarborough is ideally located to “control” the northeast exit of the South China Sea and is only 150 nautical miles west of Subic Bay, if it was turned into a PLA base with a jet capable airfield it would enable among other things a credible Chinese South China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. ...

The stakes are so high that Mr. Obama warned the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, during their recent meeting in Washington not to move on the Scarborough Shoal or invoke an air defense zone, said an American official who was briefed on the details of the encounter and spoke anonymously because of the diplomatic sensitivities.

In essence, the flurry of activity regarding Scarborough in March, April and May of 2016 was meant to send a clear signal to China that the United States sees Scarborough as being different from the Paracels and Spratlys.

Since Scarborough is not in either the Spratly or Paracel chains and is not also claimed by any littoral state other than China and Taiwan, and for almost 50 years was treated as though it was under US jurisdiction, changing the US position on sovereignty over Scarborough would not be a stretch. It is the author’s view that the evidence supports Philippine sovereignty over the Shoal. ...

Unless the almost three months of recent US naval and air posturing around Scarborough was simply a bluff, it suggests that Washington has already decided that Scarborough is important enough to the security of the Philippines (and to the United States position in the Philippines) to accept the risks associated with doing something that will really irritate Beijing.
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/19/take-position-scarborough-shoal

[SeaGypsy]

Duterte intends to follow former President Arroyo's policy of pivoting towards China and away from the United States.

The specific talks rejected were based on the Philippines ceding sovereignty regardless of the court outcome & were both proposed & begun before the decision came out. Duterte is wedged now, he can't let US bases back in, the US is blocked from the O&G development so there are two big reasons the US is going to limit engagement. China is the serious business partner in the region & there's no getting around that. Duterte will, I repeat, so a deal with China. The biggest issue now is diplomacy, which Duterte is appallingly bad at.

Philippines rejects China talks not based on sea feud ruling
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/philippines-rejects-china-talks-not-based-on-sea-feud-ruling-1.419797

[ROCKMAN]

And even more interesting and diverse OPINIONS. None of which changes the fact that it takes two countries committed to prolonged military action against each other for a war to develop. And yet I've seen no logical reason why China and the US undertake such. Of course some sort of a "trip wire" incidence might unintentionally occur but even then it would take a deliberate decision for both sides to escalate.

It's been w while since the Rockman tossed out the possibility of the MADOR theory. Similar to the MAD protocol of the Cold War between the US and Russia. The potential for MUTUALLY ASSURD DESTRUCTION of both countries via a nuclear confrontation was enough to prevent war.

And thus the MADOR policy: the Mutually Assured Distribution Of Resouces. Basically as long as the US and China can access enough resources to satisfy themselves the rest of the world, including the US and the Chinese allies, can go f*ck themselves. LOL. But seriously: is the US going to confront MILITARIALLY China should it attempt to usurp any Philippine asset? Harsh words from us for sure. But create such havoc in the global market place to defend a country that has little strategic value to the US? Would Japan, which is attempting to modify its constitution to allow foreign military adventures, come to their rescue? Or Britain? The EU?

Everyone here understands the depletion of all global resources even though the details are argued. Future resources will be utilized by those who will control them. Which won't necessarily be those who own them today.

[Sixstrings]

Some interesting footage of the Reagan and Stennis double carrier strike group, patrolling in the Philippines recently:

South China Sea - Double Carrier Strike Group in Operation (raw footage - HD)
https://youtu.be/gwBchE-9Fd4

America's Japanese allies are ready, if needed:

South China Sea Fighter Squadron. Philippines Do not lose to the intimidation.
https://youtu.be/eGZ_ShVQUbo

South China Sea Verdict Final, Japan’s Abe Tells Hun Sen

Shinzo Abe appeared to rebuke Cambodia’s position on the South China Sea dispute over the weekend, saying that an international tribunal’s ruling on China’s territorial claims should be respected.

The comments came a day after China pledged more than half a billion dollars in aid to Cambodia, which has repeatedly declined to join other Asean nations in opposing Beijing’s reach in the maritime dispute. ...

Mr. Abe’s comments mark the second time in less than a month that the normally reticent Japan has rebuked Cambodia and highlights the foreign policy risks of appearing to side with China ...

“For Japan, the South China Sea has life and death importance as a shipping corridor,” it continued. “The arbitration decision, taken as final and binding for both parties, should be the basis for talks.”
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/south-china-sea-verdict-final-japans-abe-tells-hun-sen-115604/

[Sixstrings]

Sorry for Having Insulted China? Here’s Your Chance to Apologize

BEIJING — Chinese leaders have often accused those who disagree with them of “hurting the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese.” Getting into the spirit, Taiwanese and Hong Kongers are responding enthusiastically to a satirical Facebook page calling on them to say “sorry” to China.

Sorry for anything, and everything.

The reasons for contrition so far have included living under a blue sky (China’s skies are chronically polluted); eating clean food (food safety is a major challenge in China); and locking the door when using the toilet (not always done on the mainland).

“I’m sorry, I don’t write simplified characters,” wrote Ziyou, referring to the writing style of mainland China, but not Hong Kong or Taiwan, in apologizing for being different from Beijing. The commenter’s name is itself a clever pun. It means “character travel,” but is a homophone for “freedom.”

The Facebook page comes as actors and other celebrities across Asia and the United States find themselves the target of rising Chinese nationalism, their careers vulnerable to the scrutiny of thousands of “patriots” ready to sniff out perceived disloyalty to the Communist Party.

They may be accused of being “poisonous,” “traitors” or “anti-China elements,” often for gestures or statements that are considered normal in their places of birth. Some have been pressured to issue videotaped or written apologies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/world/asia/china-apologise-contest.html