ShotOne
No doubt, but rather than an example of US war-fighting superiority, it typifies the lack of thought behind how that superiority is deployed. It may be true that Scarborough Shoal could dropped back below sea level in fifteen minutes but the political and economic fallout would ensue for the rest of the century. And for what? To back a territorial claim of one group of Orientals who don't particularly like us over a different group who don't either?
There's no lack of thought. The bombers aren't airborne, the missiles aren't being aimed, the Marines aren't steaming towards the islands. It's an official who's in the position to know simply stating fact. Don't extrapolate that out into something it's not.
Sinking the shoal is an act of war which means political and economic consequences have been determined by one or both parties to be secondary to military needs.
Fighting a war with political and economic consideration of targeting has been shown not to work.