Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

If it's to be war...

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 02:33:03

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 WWII, the arrogance of US naval intelligence caused us to not recognize the danger of the Japanese Type 93 torpedo who's range matched that of our naval guns and was undetectable as it did not give off the bubble trail of normal torpedoes.

The Japanese trained naval lookouts for night combat, and were superior to our radar at the time. Able to be lauched from suface vessels or submarines, they arrived without notice, their 1100 lb HE warhead doing devastating damage.

As a result we got our second bloody nose at Guadalcanal. It's legacy, Ironbottom Sound.

Entering the Second World War, the United States dramatically underestimated the effectiveness of certain Japanese naval systems and operations. The tendency to look askance at Japanese naval prowess during the interwar period obviously impacted the failure to anticipate the Pearl Harbor attack. But it is less widely understood that U.S. intelligence similarly underestimated the strength of Japan’s primary naval fighter aircraft (the Zero), the dramatic effectiveness of its long-range torpedoes, as well as its dedication to mastering difficult, but essential operations such as night combat. Remarkably, these problems in assessment occurred despite a plethora of openly available information regarding Japanese naval development during that time.

There are many reasons, of course, that contemporary China’s maritime ascendancy is starkly different from that of Imperial Japan almost a century ago. In particular, there is hardly a shred of evidence (reef reclamation included) to suggest that Beijing is inclined to undertake a rampage of conquest similar to Japan’s effort to bring the whole of the Asia-Pacific to heel from 1931 to 1942. Still, the complex maritime disputes in the Western Pacific require that American strategists keep a close eye on the evolving military balance. In that spirit, this installment of the Dragon Eye series turns once again to focus a bright light on one of the newest elements of China’s missile arsenal: the YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM).

Let us return briefly to what has been revealed about this new missile from both the recent U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) report, as well as the annual Pentagon report on Chinese military power. The ONI report is generally well done, but curiously the new YJ-18 only rates a mention in two spare sentences. This report notes that the YJ-18 can be vertically-launched (generally from a surface combatant) or alternatively submarine-launched, but there is no discussion of its supersonic sprint vehicle. Since the U.S. Navy (USN) lacks a supersonic ASCM and will not have one in the foreseeable future, this omission is troubling. Similarly puzzling is the decision not to discuss the recent appearance of another supersonic ASCM, YJ-12, in China’s arsenal. True, such capabilities did exist earlier in other forms, namely as imported Russian systems, but the indigenization (and likely upgrade) of these capabilities is hardly insignificant and will mean they are much more widespread and employed with greater confidence and proficiency.

The 2015 Department of Defense report does offer a bit more detail and thus draws the proper attention to the YJ-18 threat, but again does not mention its supersonic sprint vehicle. The YJ-18 ASCM is described as a “significant step” and subsequently as a “dramatic improvement” over current missiles in China’s inventory. Perhaps most significantly, however, the DoD report puts the range of YJ-18 at 290 nautical miles – more than double that of its likely progenitor, the Russian SS-N-27 Klub ASCM (export version). If correct, moreover, this new range will, in the near term, more or less quadruple the range of the standard ASCM fired from most PLA Navy submarines.

It is projected that YJ-18 would have an initial subsonic phase estimated at .8 Mach similar to the Klub of about 180km, but 20km from the target would unleash the supersonic sprint vehicle at speed of Mach 2.5 to 3. The “dual speed” function allows the system to realize certain advantages of subsonic cruise missiles, such as their “relatively long range, light weight and universality …” but also takes the chief advantage of supersonic ASCMs as well, namely the ability to radically compress the enemy’s reaction time.

The Chinese article relates another advantage of the “dual speed” approach. Just as the missile comes into contact with the ship’s defenses, it “sheds the medium stage …,” thus simultaneously and dramatically altering both its speed and also its radar reflection, “which would impact the fire control calculation.”

It is obviously the ever-growing sophistication of the Chinese ASCM arsenal that poses the “clear and present danger” to American sailors.

link
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby ennui2 » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 02:40:10

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.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 02:56:23

Buried on page 40 of the Pentagon’s latest annual report on China’s military power is a brief mention of the YJ-12, a recent addition to China’s portfolio of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). The report notes that, “The new missile provides an increased threat to naval assets, due to its long range and supersonic speeds.” True, but in an understated way. In fact, the YJ-12 is the most dangerous anti-ship missile China has produced thus far, posing an even greater risk to the U.S. Navy’s surface forces in the Western Pacific than the much-discussed DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile. The arrival of the YJ-12 is one more indication of how the U.S. Navy is falling further behind in the missile competition against China, exposing flaws in operating concepts that U.S. and allied commanders and policymakers have relied on for years.

According to a 2011 study that appeared in Naval War College Review, the YJ-12 ASCM has a range of 400 kilometers, making it one of the longest-ranged ASCMs ever fielded (and much longer than the 124 kilometer limit of the U.S. Navy Harpoon). Crucially, at 400 kilometers, Chinese attack aircraft will be able to launch the YJ-12 beyond the engagement range of the Navy’s Aegis Combat System and the SM-2 surface-to-air missiles that protect U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups. In the past, when adversary ASCMs were limited to 100 kilometers or less, a carrier strike group had more time to react with its own aircraft and defensive missiles. It also had the option of engaging enemy aircraft before they launched their ASCMs, and more redundancy to cope with such attacks. With its 400 kilometer range, the YJ-12 will greatly erode these previous advantages.

A realistic future scenario is an attack on two or more axes by two Chinese Flanker regiments (totaling 48 Su-30 MKK or J-11B Flanker fighter-bomber variants). These Flankers (roughly corresponding to U.S. Air Force F-15E fighter-bombers, capable of supersonic speeds, and possessing a combat radius of 1,500 kilometers) could each be armed with two to four YJ-12 ASCMs. Although the carrier strike group’s combat air patrol could shoot down a few of the Flankers before they launched their missiles, the strike group would still face the prospect of defending against over a hundred supersonic ASCMs approaching from several directions at a wave-top height. The group’s close-in air defenses would have less than 45 seconds to engage the missiles after they appeared on the horizon. The YJ-12s would employ a variety of sensor types to find their targets and execute dramatic cork-screw turns to evade final defenses. A study from the Naval Postgraduate School concluded that in past engagements of anti-ship missiles against alerted surface warships, 32 percent of the attacking missiles scored hits. If only five percent of such a saturation YJ-12 attack impacted targets, it would still be a bad day for the carrier strike group.

Meanwhile, the simple brute force approach employing saturation ASCM attacks will benefit in the future from even longer-ranged ASCMs equipped with even better target seekers, a trend that has been in place for many years. In this competition, China’s land-based aircraft and missiles seem to possess the competitive cost and technology advantages.

The result is increasing doubts about the U.S. military’s long-standing operating concepts in the Western Pacific. And from those doubts could come increasing confidence by China’s military commanders and policymakers that they and not the U.S. will benefit from escalation during a potential future crisis.

link

It appears the days of carrier group long range power projection came to an end without us noticing.

Just as Carriers brought an end to Battleship power projection, Missiles have brought an end to Naval power projection.

Bullying small nations has given us an arrogance and misperception of the current state of affairs.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 03:07:20

Don't let our feigned friendship fool you. They are the ascendant power, we are the sunset nation. The British didn't take it very well either.

The British were on the winning side of two world wars and it did not stop the sun from setting on the British Empire.

They are not economically codependent with us. They have teamed with Russia and many other nations in Asia and around the world and are now self-sufficient from the West. Many of the nations now sided with China were economically abused by the West.

They do not need us, and thumb their noses at us on a regular basis.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 04:05:47

Two prominent China scholars have uncovered a new twist in Beijing’s anti-access/area-denial strategy (A2/AD) that if fully deployed could have tremendous ramifications for U.S. defensive doctrine in the Asia-Pacific, the Air-Sea Battle concept, and beyond.

In last month’s issue of the United States Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine, Lyle Goldstein and Shannon Knight explore recent Chinese writings that suggest Beijing “has deployed fixed ocean-floor acoustic arrays off its coasts, presumably with the intent to monitor foreign submarine activities in the near seas.” Citing works in Chinese journals such as Shandong Science, China Science Daily, Naval and Merchant Ships, two articles in Ship Electronic Engineering, and the widely respected Modern Ships seem to all but confirm China’s foray into this important area of military technology. As the authors note: “The sources presented here show beyond any reasonable doubt that China is hard at work deploying ocean-floor surveillance systems in its proximate waters.”

If Beijing were to perfect such technology it could largely negate the military capabilities of America’s submarine forces, which in many respects are the foundation of the budding Air-Sea Battle operational concept. If China were able to field such a network–which according to the piece is setting up undersea-sensor test sites in the Yellow, East and South China Seas–then American subs could be pushed back beyond the range of such networks. This would impact the ability of American forces in a conflict to deliver kinetic strikes on the Chinese coast by way of Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAMs). Considering the investment Washington is making in new versions of nuclear attack submarines, specifically a new version of the Virginia Class that includes a new payload module to carry more TLAMs, Washington would be wise to consider how to respond to Beijing’s latest move.

link


China's anti-submarine warfare requirements are growing as Beijing kicks off operations in the South and East China Seas. Beijing carries out extensive survey and mapping of operating areas in the South China Sea and builds a network of underwater sensors across the South and East China Seas to detect submarines.

Furthermore, the country's military is implementing unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) with anti-submarine warfare applications, while Chinese technicians, aircrew and sailors are undergoing special training on a regular basis.

China's military strategy is based on a concept of preventing the foreign incursion.

link
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Mon 18 Jul 2016, 04:26:22, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 04:52:45

China had been going all out in carrying out its ocean killer plans mainly aimed at establishing an independent “Explosive Crab” combat system at sea and a “Super Hornet Program” for superiority in sea battle. Such plans will severely challenge US hegemony at sea.

According to Pentagon intelligence, an “Explosive Crab” is a wake homing torpedo with improved design. When it leaves a warship or submarine, it goes 100 miles away on its own and lies waiting there until the time it is instructed to rise to the surface to receive the newest instruction from a satellite to launch a sudden lethal attack at an enemy ship.

In war such deep-sea killers can be deployed by submarines along major or possible cruise routes of enemy warships and aircraft carriers.

The United States admits that so far there is almost no adequate defense against such torpedoes.

link
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 05:06:11

Cid_Yama wrote:Bullying small nations has given us an arrogance and misperception of the current state of affairs.


With all due respect, you seem to not want to recognize that new rising power China is acting like an early 20th century rising power USA, and TR and gunboat diplomacy.

It's China, that bullies now.

And China's a lot more blunt, with a lot less nuance and friendliness.

China just BOSSES everyone around. Bosses about the dalai lama. Bosses everyone, about talking about Tibet. And now, they've added the South China Sea as one of the core planks of the Communist Party, that it just belongs to China.

So now, they boss everyone for making "wrong comments" about the south china sea.

If the nations of the world don't stand up a little bit, what "wrong comments" will China be bossing about, twenty years from now? Thirty years from now? Especially a place like Australia, they're already half controlled by China and they're half scared half the time to make a "wrong comment." It's ridiculous. We didn't all fight the cold war, just to be bossed around by a new communist party telling us all what to say, and not say, because they are so sensitive.

Well that can work in China, that's their country, but they can't tell everybody else what to do.

Bossy, bossy, bossy. Whatever, there's other rising powers in the Pacific. India's one of them. And there's a superpower in the Pacific too -- the USA. And it ain't goin' away, but rather, it pivoted to Asia.

China will have to work things out, with all of its neighbors, and be considerate to all of its neighbors.

P.S. I'm not anti-China -- but the reality is that the world isn't going to let China take the south china sea. Or at minimum, the allied world will do a stalemate there and contain it at that, so that China doesn't take more in the future.
Last edited by Sixstrings on Mon 18 Jul 2016, 05:53:24, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 05:36:19

U.S. NEEDS NEW SOUTH CHINA SEA STRATEGY TO CONTAIN BEIJING
http://www.newsweek.com/us-readies-beijings-new-strategy-south-china-sea-480744


FRANCE is sending some navy to the south china sea:

Image

South China Sea: The French Are Coming
France, also an Indo-Pacific nation, has its own stake in the South China Sea.

To the surprise of many, a seemingly unrelated European power, France, has announced its intention of coordinating the navies of fellow European Union nations to conduct Freedom of Navigation Operations or FONOPs in South China Sea. ...

France is also an Asia-Pacific nation with vital interests in the region. It has territories in the Southern Pacific: French Polynesia, New Caledonia, and Wallis & Futuna islands. Combine this to territories in the Indian Ocean (La Reunion, Mayotte, Kerguelen, etc.), and France is also an Indo-Pacific nation.

These overseas territories add to those in the Caribbean’s to give France the world’s second largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (11 million square kilometers) after the United States, 62 percent of which is located in the Pacific and 24 percent in the Indian Ocean. 1,500,000 French citizens live in the French Indo-Pacific territories (500,000 in the Pacific) besides the 130,000 French nationals in various Asia-Pacific countries.

These territories, EEZ, and population necessitate adequate protection and policing.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/south-china-sea-the-french-are-coming/


Image
In this file photo, Philippine navy personnel and congressmen land at a rock that is part of Scarborough Shoal bearing the Philippine flag that was earlier planted by Filipino fishermen.

In South China Sea Dispute, Filipinos Say U.S. Credibility Is On The Line

"Every reef they've seized they've made into an island," says Antonio Carpio, a senior associate justice of the Philippines Supreme Court. "What makes Scarborough Shoal exceptional? Nothing."

Carpio is a vocal defender of the Philippines' territorial claims in its dispute with China. He says a Chinese presence on Scarborough Shoal would threaten not only the Philippines, but also U.S. forces using Philippine bases under a new, enhanced defense cooperation agreement.

"If you have an airfield there, maybe it will take just 15 minutes for the fighter jets there to reach Manila," he says. "And the U.S. forces using Clark [Air Base] and Subic [naval base] are all within range."

That fact is not lost on the United States.
The U.S. has consistently said it has no dog in the fight over conflicting claims in the South China Sea. But in recent months the U.S. has conducted a series of high-profile freedom of navigation operations in the disputed waters, near the artificial islands China has created there.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/17/486240079/in-south-china-sea-dispute-filipinos-say-u-s-credibility-is-on-the-line
Last edited by Sixstrings on Mon 18 Jul 2016, 06:27:27, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cog » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 06:19:10

Its funny how Cid calls the USA aggressors. We aren't the ones building artificial islands far away from our shore like the Chinese. The Chinese would be well-advised to stay clear of a US carrier battle group.

By the way, just in case anyone missed it, the US won WW2 against the Japanese.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 06:38:54

Cid_Yama wrote:
China had been going all out in carrying out its ocean killer plans mainly aimed at establishing an independent “Explosive Crab” combat system at sea and a “Super Hornet Program” for superiority in sea battle. Such plans will severely challenge US hegemony at sea.

According to Pentagon intelligence, an “Explosive Crab” is a wake homing torpedo with improved design. When it leaves a warship or submarine, it goes 100 miles away on its own and lies waiting there until the time it is instructed to rise to the surface to receive the newest instruction from a satellite to launch a sudden lethal attack at an enemy ship.

In war such deep-sea killers can be deployed by submarines along major or possible cruise routes of enemy warships and aircraft carriers.

The United States admits that so far there is almost no adequate defense against such torpedoes.

link

The Dutch have had then for over a decade, most nifty perhaps is the sonar signature recognition system able to target a specific boat or list of boats. This is why subs have moved back to diesel electric, much more stealth capable & possibly sonar disguisable than nuclear, which requires the cooling system never turn off, making them highly vulnerable to targeted mine/ torpedo.

Another development I keep track of is military use of PPG, personal powered paragliding. For a manufacturer cost of a couple of grand per soldier, a few thousand PPG pilots become an unstoppable swarm. For a long time I have thought ultralight flight will come back into play & in the SEA archipelago the military potential is devastating.

BTW 6, Google abc.net.au then look for articles in China, it's again clear you don't understand our pragmatic relationship, we are often critical of China, just not to the level you may prefer. The Dalai Lama always gets a visa here & sometimes a government meeting, we give shelter to dozens of Chinese dissidents.
Last edited by SeaGypsy on Mon 18 Jul 2016, 06:50:37, edited 1 time in total.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 06:46:22

Six, your inability to comprehend no longer amazes me. You missed the whole point, that being,

It appears the days of carrier group long range power projection came to an end without us noticing.

Just as Carriers brought an end to Battleship power projection, Missiles have brought an end to Naval power projection.


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.

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

China has the largest military in the world, not us. The South China Sea is in their backyard, not ours.

China has hypersonic missiles and supercavitating torpedoes, we don't.

We need to be able to project power into a region halfway around the world, and carrier groups are no longer adaquate to do the job. The new technology has made them obsolete. They will just put them on the bottom or the South China Sea.

We will lose a lot of sailors due to our leaders inability to recognize that.

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.

US Oil companies wanting a piece of the pie don't like that. But it doesn't change a thing.

You can't take on a military power you can't defeat, one that's in it's own back yard and strategically defending.

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.)

You going to start WWIII because Western oil companies aren't getting their way?

A war we can't possibly win?

God, what a fool.

Six: But we're the Good Guys. China has to do what we say.

Cid: *Facepalm*
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Mon 18 Jul 2016, 06:55:03, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 06:53:24

One occasion we totally agree Cid, see my edited post above. There are new, cheap capabilities at the micro level galore to render the battleship formation redundant.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 06:55:30

Cog wrote:By the way, just in case anyone missed it, the US won WW2 against the Japanese.


Yup, and nobody wants to have to do that again.. so it would be easier to not lose the Pacific again, in the first place, and then have to take it again.

Image

We could all have a strategic debate, about where the western line of defense should be.. should that be Guam.. Hawaii.. or the Philippines?

So one could argue that, just pull out of the Philippines. But if that's not the decision that's made, then you have to defend that western line of defense. So that means that no, China can't build a base on Scarborough Shoal, right offshore.

Bottom line about it -- US has a right to be in the Philippines.

And all these other countries out there, they have a right to be there too -- they LIVE there.

Everyone is just defending their little patch of water, that's all.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 07:19:46

China HAS built a base there and several others and you can't do a damn thing about it. Are you going to try and push them off? And if they use military force to defend what they see as their territory, are you going to start a war?
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 07:26:25

The US was formally & constitutionally banned from operating bases independently in the Philippines in 1986, so the US does specifically NOT have a right to be in the Philippines, only an invitation on a case by case basis in collaboration, as guests.

Agent said it on another thread & I backed him up days ago, nothing's going to happen. Next few days Dutertes education in realpolitik will show up as the norm in the region for dealing with China/ express "concern" about certain issues in China, but be mindful of inflammatory language with your new business partner.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 07:33:02

When naval vessels operate in close proximity you can't guarantee what will or will not happen.

China may just decide they have warned you enough and put a hole in somebody.

Then what? China is not playing.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 07:55:08

Main reason I don't see serious trouble here, the Philippines is broke, has been for about 40+ years, the infrastructure is crumbling & everything looks & performs in a run down broke arse fashion. They really desperately need huge investment particularly in transport & agriculture updating. China has the bucks, technically the Philippines may own the O&G, but has no capabilities to get at it without major partnership. If this decision favouring Philippines is any value, it puts leverage in China to show some largesse.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 08:16:07

SeaGypsy wrote:The US was formally & constitutionally banned from operating bases independently in the Philippines in 1986, so the US does specifically NOT have a right to be in the Philippines, only an invitation on a case by case basis in collaboration, as guests.


Well that's what I meant SG, US has a right to be there as long as Filipinos want them there.

As I've posted before, according to pew research polling, Filipinos have a higher opinion of the US than any people anywhere else in the world, including Americans.

Why did the US ever get tossed out to start with? What was going on in 1986? Wasn't that the Marcos presidency, and Imelda's one million pairs of shoes?

Marcos allegedly owned assets worth US$10 billion. On one occasion, she spent $2,000 on chewing gum at the San Francisco International Airport and, on another, she forced a plane to do a U-turn mid-air just because she forgot to buy cheese in Rome.

Her collection of shoes, now lies partly in the National Museum of the Philippines and partly in a shoe museum in Marikina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imelda_Marcos
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: If it's to be war...

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 18 Jul 2016, 08:32:13

Image

Chinese Bomber Buzzes Philippines' Scarborough Shoal In Latest Salvo Of U.S.-China Signalling War

China released a photo Thursday of a nuclear-capable Chinese bomber flying south near Scarborough Shoal (Panatag Shoal). This is the latest salvo in a signalling war between the U.S. and China over Philippine territory. ...

Military theory, such as that promulgated by Harvard Professor and Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling, predicts that the less powerful competitor (in this case China) will back down first when two potential combatants climb a “ladder” of escalation. Dr. Schelling’s theory is known as “escalation dominance”.

But China has not reached that point yet, and is still escalating. ...

On Monday last week, a CCG cutter and speed boat warned and turned back two New York Times reporters who had chartered a yacht to Scarborough. ...

Not all analysts saw the PLAAF’s Scarborough flight as necessarily indicative of a threat. “Things are still fresh since the arbitral decision and reading hostile or proactive intent into the flight of [a] single Badger would be pure speculation, especially since flights like this have occurred prior to the decision,” said Michael Listner. ...

A Chinese-language news site covering the flights over Scarborough noted that “After the South China Sea arbitration case, the [PLA] Air Force quietly made a big move!” The news site also wrote that “The H-6K over Huangyan Island [Scarborough] … can attack any target in the entire territory of the Philippines.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/07/17/chinese-bomber-buzzes-philippines-scarborough-shoal-in-latest-salvo-of-u-s-china-signalling-war/#184957e7ef24
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Next

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests