[Keith_McClary]

The Chinese are sitting on a bunch of IOUs and rely on foreign food, foreign funding, foreign energy, and foreign customers. They already have antigovernment riots on a daily basis. Touch one thing and Jenga!

If the Chinese make a move, the international markets will cut their throats by the end of the business day, and everyone take back their manufacturing jobs, thank you very much.

Nobody would give a shit about China except the government-paid bloggers that wouldn't keep getting a nickle a post to be here.

Whereas the US relies on foreign energy, foreign imports, foreign acceptance of IOU$. The US can "take back their manufacturing jobs", but either American workers will get Chinese wages, or else American consumers will pay many times the current prices.

[ROCKMAN]

Keith - Yes. From the Argentina thread: "The US claims a 200 mile exclusive zone, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Most other countries that border on the ocean also follow the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and claim no more than a 200-mile-wide zone. However, Russia, China and now Argentina are all claiming HUGE areas of the sea floor that extend much much father than 200 miles from shore."

[argyle]

Keith - Yes. From the Argentina thread: "The US claims a 200 mile exclusive zone, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Most other countries that border on the ocean also follow the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and claim no more than a 200-mile-wide zone. However, Russia, China and now Argentina are all claiming HUGE areas of the sea floor that extend much much father than 200 miles from shore."

Doesn't China do this because they believe that those disputed islands are theirs?

[ROCKMAN]

argyle – An age old problem: international boundaries… especially underwater. If you research you’ll find a huge battle decades ago between Texas/La. with the fed govt decades ago over the economic boundary between state waters and the fed offshore leases. May $billions at stake with regards to who owned the mineral right. You’ll find that Texas has done much better in this regard than other states. One reason why Texas is leading the effort in offshore wind power: we control those rights out there…not the fed gov’t.

Mexico and the US had to come to terms regarding the boundary in the GOM. Fortunately for us it was resolved long before anyone was thinking about big DW oil fields in the GOM. Folks won’t fight much over a relatively worthless pile of rocks. It’s another thing when it involves $10+ billion worth of oil.

[Keith_McClary]

Keith - Yes. From the Argentina thread: "The US claims a 200 mile exclusive zone, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Most other countries that border on the ocean also follow the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and claim no more than a 200-mile-wide zone. However, Russia, China and now Argentina are all claiming HUGE areas of the sea floor that extend much much father than 200 miles from shore."

I meant an Air Defense Identification Zone (North America) (wikipedia), not economic zones.

Interesting how these work:

Moreover, the U.S. Navy's Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations states the ADIZ applies only to commercial aircraft intending to enter U.S. sovereign airspace, with a basis in international law of "the right of a nation to establish reasonable conditions of entry into its territory".[4] The manual specifically instructs U.S. military aircraft to ignore the ADIZ of other states when operating in coastal areas:

The United States does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter national airspace nor does the United States apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace. Accordingly, U.S. military aircraft not intending to enter national airspace should not identify themselves or otherwise comply with ADIZ procedures established by other nations, unless the United States has specifically agreed to do so.

A U.S. Air Force university dissertation states:

These regulations do not pertain to military aircraft, but to enter US airspace, without inducing the scrambling of fighter interceptors, these rules must be complied with and followed. The US does not claim sovereignty over these zones per se, but does closely monitor and request information of all objects entering the zone.[5]

In 2008 United States Northern Command commander Victor E. Renuart, Jr. said that although "we never let an unidentified aircraft come into our airspace" in a "post-9/11 world" and "determine who they are and what they’re doing," "if it is a Russian aircraft on a training mission, we allow them to continue to do their job."[6]

I think "US airspace" refers to the 12 mile limit, not the ADIZ.

[ROCKMAN]

Sorry...guess I was more answering argyle's question. Interesting: “The manual specifically instructs U.S. military aircraft to ignore the ADIZ of other states when operating in coastal areas". Does the manual also tell them what to do when they ignore the ADZI of another state if that state starts shooting at them? Probably covered under Rules of Engagement in another manual. LOL.

I suspect in the end it will boil down to who is willing to lose aircraft and personnel to prove the point. In that regards I’m betting the Chinese win the “argument”.

[rollin]

US ships carry anti-ballistic missile systems capable of destroying high altitude missiles launched against them. They even have some capability to take out low orbit satellites.

[Tanada]

US ships carry anti-ballistic missile systems capable of destroying high altitude missiles launched against them. They even have some capability to take out low orbit satellites.

Actually they carry Surface to Air missile that are designed to target both cruise and air to surface missiles. They do have some capability against ballistic missiles, but testing has been very limited due to the enormous expense of doing so and the possibility that a failed test would let any hostile forces know a weakness in the defense systems. As for the low orbiting satellites there has been one successful test. Just one. Targeting satellites is usually seen as a losing proposition because the debris created in orbit can damage lots of other things in orbit that were not targeted, the nasty law of unintended consequences is at work there.

[Keith_McClary]

Targeting satellites is usually seen as a losing proposition because the debris created in orbit can damage lots of other things in orbit that were not targeted

Even without targeting, if there are too many satellites in orbit, a meteor impact, accidental collision or explosion will result in "space junk" that will break up other satellites, causing a cascade of destruction.

the nasty law of unintended consequences is at work there.

I would call it "Peak Space" - we should have a thread on that.

Of course, there is always a technofix:

[ROCKMAN]

rollin - "US ships carry anti-ballistic missile systems capable of destroying high altitude missiles launched against them". Knocking out a hypervelocity ballistic warhead is not easily done. That was the idea behind trying to develop the “Star Wars” system. The US Navy does have some very effective ship protection but no system is 100% effective against any threat. So it comes down to probability: regardless of how unlikely it might happen, what POTUS is going to risk an $800 million carrier and thousands of lives to just make a policy statement? OTOH I have little doubt the Chinese would be willing to do so if for no other reason than to save face. And a POTUS then knowing that even if our carriers are unsuccessfully attacked the US would be forced to retaliate and escalate to a potentially nuclear engagement.

Talking softly and carrying a big stick doesn’t work if the other guy knows you’re hesitant to use that stick. The US has engaged a variety of aggressors around the globe but not one that had the capability to strike the homeland. Rather fitting we’re having this discussion just a few days before the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor…one of the “unforeseen” events in our history.

[Tanada]

Targeting satellites is usually seen as a losing proposition because the debris created in orbit can damage lots of other things in orbit that were not targeted

Even without targeting, if there are too many satellites in orbit, a meteor impact, accidental collision or explosion will result in "space junk" that will break up other satellites, causing a cascade of destruction.

the nasty law of unintended consequences is at work there.

I would call it "Peak Space" - we should have a thread on that.

Of course, there is always a technofix:

Not to wander too far off topic but it reminds me of a story I read years ago about the low earth orbit clean up company. They worked by launching big balloons filled with foam, think foam window sealer for old houses. The balloons were sent up as canisters that would expand filling with hardening foam after they reached orbit to make large surface area's. The balloons were launched retrograde, traveling in the opposite direction from the average satellite and whenever they ran into a paint chip or bolt it would get stuck in the foam. The energy delivered by each impact would slow the balloon down bit by bit so they were launched in say a 200 mile orbit and as they swept up bits and pieces of junk they would slowly spiral down until atmospheric drag pulled them out of orbit. The reason we never actually deployed the design is pretty simplistic, they are enormously expensive to launch and the altitudes of orbit they can clean easily are the same ones atmospheric drag cleans out in a couple of years. A small mass object like a paint chip or bolt in low orbit has significant atmospheric drag and falls out of orbit in months to a few years. Some of the first debris like this was lost in the Gemini program back in the 1960's, astronauts lost tools and once a glove, as well as the upper stages for their launch vehicles. All of those things spiraled in before 1980, but we keep adding more junk every time something gets launched. There was an incident about 12 or 15 years ago when the Space Shuttle took some serious window damage, a large chip in the window was gouged out by a paint chip off something launched into a crossing orbit. They know what caused the damage because of the residue left behind in the window.

[Plantagenet]

Biden flopped. He failed to convince china to pull back on their new ADF. O should've sent somebody tough and experienced to deal with china ---- like Hillary

[ROCKMAN]

AP — “Seeking to reassure wary allies, Vice President Joe Biden on Friday pushed back against those who question America's commitment to Asia, which has at times been obscured by an array of distractions at home and abroad. But Biden warned that without trust and common ground rules, the potential for great prosperity and security in fast-growing Asia may be undermined by mounting tensions in the region.

Biden, nearing the end of a weeklong trip through Asia, outlined a broad vision for a U.S.-Asia bond in which cooperation coexists with intense competition. Biden called on Asian countries to open their economies, drop trade barriers, create opportunities for women and cooperate on environmental protection. He called for Asia to adopt a single set of rules to govern relations between nations in a neighborhood where many of the most powerful nations are bitterly feuding. "With this growth have come new tensions, above and beyond the enduring threats that we face," Biden said. "The rules and norms that help advance security and prosperity are still evolving to keep pace with the remarkable changes of the 21st century."

I gather that China fully agrees and is well on its way to writing those new rules.

“South Korea and Japan, the two closest U.S. allies in the region, are engaged in a painful dispute driven by historical enmities dating nearly a century. And there are new, worrying signs from North Korea. Biden vowed the world would not tolerate Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program, adding the U.S. was willing to resume multiparty talks with the North if it agrees to full denuclearization.”

Apparently the world, including the US, has actually been willing to tolerate a nuclear N. Korea for some years now: North Korea declared in 2009 that it had developed a nuclear weapon, and probably possesses a small stockpile of relatively simple nuclear weapons. North Korea may also have a chemical and/or biological weapons capability. Since 2003, North Korea is no longer a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test. An underground explosion was detected, its yield was estimated at less than a kiloton, and some radioactive output was detected. On January 6, 2007, the North Korean government further confirmed that it had nuclear weapons.

In April 2009, reports surfaced that North Korea has become a "fully fledged nuclear power", an opinion shared by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. On May 25, 2009, North Korea conducted second nuclear test, detected explosion yield was estimates vary between 2 and 7 kilotons. The 2009 test, like the 2006 test, is believed to have occurred at Mantapsan, Kilju County, in the north-eastern part of North Korea. On February 11, 2013, the USGS detected a magnitude 5.1 seismic disturbance, reported to be a third underground nuclear test. North Korea has officially reported it as a successful nuclear test with a lighter warhead that delivers more force than before, but has not revealed the exact yield. Multiple South Korean sources estimate the yield at 6-9 kilotons, while the German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources estimates the yield at 40 kilotons

“In the choppy waters separating South Korea, China and Japan, a turbulent dispute over Beijing's claim to airspace over contested islands hung over Biden's Asia trip. Seizing an opportunity to implore Asian nations to stop provoking one another, Biden said he had stressed to Chinese President Xi Jinping that the U.S. military plans to ignore China's demand that planes flying through the airspace first notify Beijing. "It will have no effect on American operations. Just ask my general," Biden said. "None. Zero."

The vice president's words, like his trip to Asia, sought to put a fine point on the Obama administration's intention to realign America's foreign-policy focus toward Asia. The U.S. sees the potential for massive growth here but worries that authoritarian China will fill the power void by asserting itself more aggressively against its neighbors.”

An interesting approach IMHO. Our Vice President has informed China that it intends in intentionally violate the Chinese controlled airspace over the disputed islands. I gather at that point the Chinese can chose to either shoot down our aircraft or let the world see them back down to the US. Very gutsy move considering the last time we made such a move the Chinese rammed our surveillance aircraft, forced it land and took the 12 American servicemen prisoner. Gutsy indeed. I wonder how much shock will be displayed by Washington if the Chinese do shoot down any of our planes. And more importantly, how would we respond? Seems like we’ve drawn another hard red line that will be very difficult to back away from without losing all credibility.

Very gutsy indeed. Kinda like what they said about General Patton: Ole Blood and Guts...his guts and someone else's blood.

[Plantagenet]

South Korea just expanded their ADZ so it partly overlaps chinas new ADZ

ROK didn't have much choice but to expand their ADZ since the bloated Chinese ADZ actually included a South Korean island

[ROCKMAN]

P - Drawing lines on a map is easy. I think I'll post my own ADZ's for all of Asia tomorrow. That will show them damn Chinamen a thing or two. Take that you noddleheads. And if anyone violates any of my ADZ's you just watch how I respond. Be afraid...be very afraid. LOL. Drawing lines in the sand is very easy. Backing them up...not so much.

[Plantagenet]

P - Drawing lines in the sand is very easy. Backing them up...not so much.

That's where we (the USA) come in. By treaty the US is committed to defend the territorial integrity of Japan and ROK

the O administration has already indicated we support Japan's claim to the Senkaku islands and presumably we back koreas claim to their godforsaken little rock as well

[Keith_McClary]

ADIZs aren't any sort of territorial claim, they are just a notice that you may scramble some jets. Sort of like honking your horn in traffic.

The Canada ADIZ surrounds the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon (part of France) and overlaps their exclusive economic zone:

[Keith_McClary]

The Chinese Defence Ministry spokesperson Yang Yujun defended the move, saying it followed international practices. “Since the 1950s, over 20 countries, including some big powers and China’s neighbouring countries, have set up air defence identification zones,” he told the official Xinhua news agency.

“Moreover,” he added, in an apparent reference to Japan, “a relevant country established its air defence identification zone as early as 1969, which is also about 130 km from the Chinese mainland at its closest distance.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 384122.ece

Looks like up to 1500 km from the Japanese mainland and up to 500 km from any Japanese island.

[ROCKMAN]

“ADIZs aren't any sort of territorial claim, they are just a notice that you may scramble some jets. Sort of like honking your horn in traffic.”. An apt description IMHO. But it’s good to remember the last time US and Chinese aircraft “honked horns” at each other a Chinese fighter pilot a was killed, a US recon aircraft was damaged, forced to land in China and 11 US airmen were taken prisoner.

Not quite the same as swapping insurance info. LOL. Next time the Chinese might consider “honking” with a SAM. And then how does the US respond? That’s the question no one in DC ever wants to be forced to answer IMHO. In my heart of hearts I have no doubt the Chinese would go weapons hot if such an occasion develops. Then it takes only a tug of a finger for the situation to turn really bad.