The South China Sea's Gathering Storm
No - of course not - but the question is WHO decides behaviour is unacceptable and WHO enforces it?
To a very large number of people "Western Powers" = USA and the USA has a blemished record on human rights . It supports Saudi Arabia & Israel but criticises Iran and Syria. It propped up a large number of C American killers, The Indonesian Military Govt and Marcos but hates Cuba & Venezuela.............. the list is long and well known
As for enforcement the USA refuses to recognize the International Court of Justice and vetos any UN Resolution that might cause it to change course.
hell, the US won't even surrender it's own military to local legal jurisdiction even when the crimes are appalling and the host country has a free, unbiased legal history of the highest standard ......
The US chooses who are "terrorists" and the US decides they will enforce that judgement - its certainly not the Rule of Law whatever real-politic lies behind it..............
To a very large number of people "Western Powers" = USA and the USA has a blemished record on human rights . It supports Saudi Arabia & Israel but criticises Iran and Syria. It propped up a large number of C American killers, The Indonesian Military Govt and Marcos but hates Cuba & Venezuela.............. the list is long and well known
As for enforcement the USA refuses to recognize the International Court of Justice and vetos any UN Resolution that might cause it to change course.
hell, the US won't even surrender it's own military to local legal jurisdiction even when the crimes are appalling and the host country has a free, unbiased legal history of the highest standard ......
The US chooses who are "terrorists" and the US decides they will enforce that judgement - its certainly not the Rule of Law whatever real-politic lies behind it..............
Make sure your grandchildren can speak Chinese, and know when to keep a stiff upper lip because the Chinese don't care much for back talk from inferiors. Their current leaders are very clear in their limited tolerance for democratic forms, open criticism or dissent.
Wolfie
i think you've just proved my point........... you believe that because you're the big boy on the block you have the right do do whatever you want ...........
I'm sure there are some Brits and French on here who will tell you what happens to great Empires when another , bigger, bully turns up -....................
You learn their language and say "yes Sir"
PS "Their current leaders are very clear in their limited tolerance for democratic forms, open criticism or dissent."
i think you've just proved my point........... you believe that because you're the big boy on the block you have the right do do whatever you want ...........
I'm sure there are some Brits and French on here who will tell you what happens to great Empires when another , bigger, bully turns up -....................
You learn their language and say "yes Sir"
PS "Their current leaders are very clear in their limited tolerance for democratic forms, open criticism or dissent."
If it all goes down I have a feeling it won't end well for China.
I reckon things will reach a point where the United States acts pre-emptively, unilaterally and very swiftly.
Doesn't the OPLAN say it'll take fifteen minutes?
We seem to forget the overwhelming might of the US military - aren't all submarine warheads now HTK capable?
I often look at Asian faces in the street and think how utterly dreadful it would be.
Can you tell who's Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese?
What would happen to all those ex-pats - how would they be treated?
I reckon things will reach a point where the United States acts pre-emptively, unilaterally and very swiftly.
Doesn't the OPLAN say it'll take fifteen minutes?
We seem to forget the overwhelming might of the US military - aren't all submarine warheads now HTK capable?
I often look at Asian faces in the street and think how utterly dreadful it would be.
Can you tell who's Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese?
What would happen to all those ex-pats - how would they be treated?
Racedo....are you saying Qadaffi, Assad, Saddam, The Ayatollas, and those of their ilk should be immune from punitive measures by the Western Powers?
Just where do you draw the line when it comes to mass murder, use of Chemical Weapons, support of Terrorists groups and such conduct?
Just where do you draw the line when it comes to mass murder, use of Chemical Weapons, support of Terrorists groups and such conduct?
If you wish to have a "Standard" that allows outside parties to interfere in ANY country then that standard applies to EVERY country including the ones that are claiming the moral high ground.
Saudi's are openly destroying Shia villages and killing people in Saudi and have for the last decade but Western Media ignore. Saudi's interfered in Bahrain because the Shia majority population wanted a say in running the country. Saudi's openly practicisng genocide in Yemen, funding terrorism in Syria and killing journalist(s) in Diplomatic missions.
Where is the outrage ? or does this only apply in countrys the West do not like ?
If it all goes down I have a feeling it won't end well for China.
I reckon things will reach a point where the United States acts pre-emptively, unilaterally and very swiftly.
Doesn't the OPLAN say it'll take fifteen minutes?
We seem to forget the overwhelming might of the US military - aren't all submarine warheads now HTK capable?
I often look at Asian faces in the street and think how utterly dreadful it would be.
Can you tell who's Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese?
What would happen to all those ex-pats - how would they be treated?
I reckon things will reach a point where the United States acts pre-emptively, unilaterally and very swiftly.
Doesn't the OPLAN say it'll take fifteen minutes?
We seem to forget the overwhelming might of the US military - aren't all submarine warheads now HTK capable?
I often look at Asian faces in the street and think how utterly dreadful it would be.
Can you tell who's Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese?
What would happen to all those ex-pats - how would they be treated?
Might be something to consider when US have zero control over its borders, it has no idea who is there, its elected govt has ceased to function as one side's only idea is to depose someone else and its "known" Federal debts are bigger than the whole economy, while state debt is actually even worse than that.
What happens if US uses a Nuclear weapon and 10,000 people protest in Washington including storming the White House in their anger ?
Nope, that's called "failure in reading comprehension"
Your pissing and moaning is all about your own nation's impotence. since you can't, you get upset with others who can, so, I was and am warning you :
Prepare to be more upset, in the very near future.
The Chinese aren't going anywhere any time soon besides further toward center stage.
They are the 800 pound gorilla.
You won't have a similar relationship, special or otherwisde, with the Chinese that you do with your current allies
And while we are at it: I do not find Trumps' rhetoric helpful. I'd prefer the special relationship to heal, not fracture further ... but I'm not the King
You can take your little picture of Trump and stuff it where the sun don't shine, Sunshine.
For tartare:
They are playing in their home field. What won't end well?
That's a vague statement: what do you mean by that? Conventional strike, or the big N?
What OPLAN?
"Overwhelming" as compared to what? The USN has shrunk over the last decade.
What's Hit to Kill got to do with your estimate?
I used to be better at guessing the difference between Korean, Japanese and Chinese than I am now, as I've not lived in Asia for over two decades. Some people can tell pretty well.
Well, I suspect that's a story without a happy ending if your expectation is that a war starts soon.
Your pissing and moaning is all about your own nation's impotence. since you can't, you get upset with others who can, so, I was and am warning you :
Prepare to be more upset, in the very near future.
The Chinese aren't going anywhere any time soon besides further toward center stage.
They are the 800 pound gorilla.
You won't have a similar relationship, special or otherwisde, with the Chinese that you do with your current allies
And while we are at it: I do not find Trumps' rhetoric helpful. I'd prefer the special relationship to heal, not fracture further ... but I'm not the King
You can take your little picture of Trump and stuff it where the sun don't shine, Sunshine.
For tartare:
If it all goes down I have a feeling it won't end well for China.
I reckon things will reach a point where the United States acts pre-emptively, unilaterally and very swiftly.
Doesn't the OPLAN say it'll take fifteen minutes?
We seem to forget the overwhelming might of the US military - aren't all submarine warheads now HTK capable?
What's Hit to Kill got to do with your estimate?
I often look at Asian faces in the street and think how utterly dreadful it would be. Can you tell who's Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese?
What would happen to all those ex-pats - how would they be treated?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Jun 2019 at 16:00.
There is a rearrangement in the global power structure now under way.
Imho, the NATO led destruction of basically modern leaders such as Qaddafi and Saddam has simply accelerated the process, bringing fundamentalist thugs to the fore.
Reality is that Taiwan and Korea between them have about half the world's microelectronics capacity, with the US at an eight, lagging Japan's sixth.
Other than that the US still dominated the military and financial links, it is becoming a peripheral player.
I think the Chinese are very pragmatic, when it serves Taiwan to embrace Beijing, they will, despite the touching faith Americans appear to have in Taiwan's desire to be a cats paw.
For now, there is no benefit to China to provoke a real conflict. They have plenty of US money to build global dependencies, thanks to their massive trade surplus. Looking ahead a few decades, they should be hugely dominant, so why rush?
Imho, the NATO led destruction of basically modern leaders such as Qaddafi and Saddam has simply accelerated the process, bringing fundamentalist thugs to the fore.
Reality is that Taiwan and Korea between them have about half the world's microelectronics capacity, with the US at an eight, lagging Japan's sixth.
Other than that the US still dominated the military and financial links, it is becoming a peripheral player.
I think the Chinese are very pragmatic, when it serves Taiwan to embrace Beijing, they will, despite the touching faith Americans appear to have in Taiwan's desire to be a cats paw.
For now, there is no benefit to China to provoke a real conflict. They have plenty of US money to build global dependencies, thanks to their massive trade surplus. Looking ahead a few decades, they should be hugely dominant, so why rush?
What would happen to all those ex-pats - how would they be treated?
Look to Hong Kong when the Japanese took control from the British.
Or....the Boer's when the British took over South Africa.
HTK = hard target kill - the enhanced ability of a warhead to explode in very close proximity to a hardened military target.
That's critical if you are carrying out a first strike - and before you say they wouldn't do it - note the US has refused to adopt an NFU policy.
In a recent public statement, which I will try and find, a USN officer alluded to an OPLAN that allowed 15 minutes to eliminate all significant fixed assets the Chinese have built up in the South China Sea.
Does that involve a massive conventional strike using cruise missiles and other weapons, or nuclear weapons?
It wasn't clarified, but you can read between the lines.
The USN might have shrunk - but is modern naval warfare purely a function of numbers of vessels?
Think longer range anti-ship cruise missiles, torpedos, drones - and further in the future - directed energy weapons and rail-guns.
I can understand the pessimism of some American posters here about declining US military strength - but I'd argue that right now, in an air-sea battle, on it's own the US Navy could still utterly decimate the PLAN and PLAF should it so choose.
I think there's a pervasive popular media narrative that `Rome is in decline' - the US is losing it's military dominance dangerously fast.
It just doesn't stand up when you look at the facts - the decrease in numbers is offset by an almost exponential increase in lethality.
And the Chinese know that - it's why they are adopting a salami-slicing strategy - no open confrontation.
Just boil the frog, little by little.
EDIT:
Here's the statement I was referring to - from 2016 - Dennis C. Blair, ret US CinC USPACOM and former US DNI (I think he would know what he's talking about, no?)
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/1...tes-former.htm
Specifically:
Blair is confident the U.S. will quickly and easily defeat China in any conflict.
His optimism might be anchored on the realities the U.S. Navy can bring to bear enormous firepower against any fleet of the three fleets of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), which operates no combat-capable carrier. PLAN has classified its only carrier, the Liaoning, a training carrier unsuitable for combat.
China's much advertised DF-21 anti ship ballistic missile is also under development and its immature kill chain might prevent it from even acquiring fast moving U.S. Navy carrier strike groups hundreds of kilometers distant. Chinese submarines, while a threat, aren't a serious enough threat to curtail operations of U.S. Navy ships.
But if a conflict were to occur, this will likely be triggered by China.
If there should be war, Blair is confident the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force are capable of rapidly "neutralizing" China's outposts in the South China Sea, which are practically defenseless from a determined attack being isolated and strung out over hundreds of kilometers of sea.
These offensive operations by the Navy and Air Force will only take "probably 10 or 15 minutes' worth of worth of work for U.S. forces."
That's critical if you are carrying out a first strike - and before you say they wouldn't do it - note the US has refused to adopt an NFU policy.
In a recent public statement, which I will try and find, a USN officer alluded to an OPLAN that allowed 15 minutes to eliminate all significant fixed assets the Chinese have built up in the South China Sea.
Does that involve a massive conventional strike using cruise missiles and other weapons, or nuclear weapons?
It wasn't clarified, but you can read between the lines.
The USN might have shrunk - but is modern naval warfare purely a function of numbers of vessels?
Think longer range anti-ship cruise missiles, torpedos, drones - and further in the future - directed energy weapons and rail-guns.
I can understand the pessimism of some American posters here about declining US military strength - but I'd argue that right now, in an air-sea battle, on it's own the US Navy could still utterly decimate the PLAN and PLAF should it so choose.
I think there's a pervasive popular media narrative that `Rome is in decline' - the US is losing it's military dominance dangerously fast.
It just doesn't stand up when you look at the facts - the decrease in numbers is offset by an almost exponential increase in lethality.
And the Chinese know that - it's why they are adopting a salami-slicing strategy - no open confrontation.
Just boil the frog, little by little.
EDIT:
Here's the statement I was referring to - from 2016 - Dennis C. Blair, ret US CinC USPACOM and former US DNI (I think he would know what he's talking about, no?)
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/1...tes-former.htm
Specifically:
Blair is confident the U.S. will quickly and easily defeat China in any conflict.
His optimism might be anchored on the realities the U.S. Navy can bring to bear enormous firepower against any fleet of the three fleets of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), which operates no combat-capable carrier. PLAN has classified its only carrier, the Liaoning, a training carrier unsuitable for combat.
China's much advertised DF-21 anti ship ballistic missile is also under development and its immature kill chain might prevent it from even acquiring fast moving U.S. Navy carrier strike groups hundreds of kilometers distant. Chinese submarines, while a threat, aren't a serious enough threat to curtail operations of U.S. Navy ships.
But if a conflict were to occur, this will likely be triggered by China.
If there should be war, Blair is confident the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force are capable of rapidly "neutralizing" China's outposts in the South China Sea, which are practically defenseless from a determined attack being isolated and strung out over hundreds of kilometers of sea.
These offensive operations by the Navy and Air Force will only take "probably 10 or 15 minutes' worth of worth of work for U.S. forces."
Now who in their right mind tell potential adversaries what limits they shall place on military action in response to perceived threats?
Come on now....get real!
A Chinese fella has already debunked that notion centuries ago!
Come on now....get real!
A Chinese fella has already debunked that notion centuries ago!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 71
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
If there should be war, Blair is confident the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force are capable of rapidly "neutralizing" China's outposts in the South China Sea, which are practically defenseless from a determined attack being isolated and strung out over hundreds of kilometers of sea.
These offensive operations by the Navy and Air Force will only take "probably 10 or 15 minutes' worth of worth of work for U.S. forces."
These offensive operations by the Navy and Air Force will only take "probably 10 or 15 minutes' worth of worth of work for U.S. forces."
Evertonian
It seems the Chinese Navy in Sydney was a well executed strike to obtain Baby Formula. Well played China, you've won this round.
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...521d6bee1c90c9
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...521d6bee1c90c9
Can't see the PLA (N) taking on the US Navy across the board - pointless and as they'd be massacred
China is more likely to go asymmetric
BUT they would come out fighting for Taiwan - that is an absolute certainty. They could concentrate their forces and the US would have the choice of a very hard fight , with very significant casualties , for a place they've always been in 2 minds about. As the Imperial German Navy as stated inpre WW1 -" we don't have to be big enough to beat the British. We only have to be big enough to do them so much damage that they are then significantly weakened in the face of other large navies".
China is more likely to go asymmetric
BUT they would come out fighting for Taiwan - that is an absolute certainty. They could concentrate their forces and the US would have the choice of a very hard fight , with very significant casualties , for a place they've always been in 2 minds about. As the Imperial German Navy as stated inpre WW1 -" we don't have to be big enough to beat the British. We only have to be big enough to do them so much damage that they are then significantly weakened in the face of other large navies".
Odd....the British fought the Argies over the Falklands but politely folded their Tent and walked away from Hong Kong.
Some shall say that was diplomacy on the one hand...and national pride on the other.
What will happen when another Spanish Armada shows up demanding the keys to the Rock?
Some shall say that was diplomacy on the one hand...and national pride on the other.
What will happen when another Spanish Armada shows up demanding the keys to the Rock?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Odd....the British fought the Argies over the Falklands but politely folded their Tent and walked away from Hong Kong. Some shall say that was diplomacy on the one hand...and national pride on the other.
What will happen when another Spanish Armada shows up demanding the keys to the Rock?
What will happen when another Spanish Armada shows up demanding the keys to the Rock?
with Gibraltar the Rock itself is under the treaty of Utrecht, which is perpetuity. The isthmus on which the airport is located is in dispute, certainly no treaty or lease applies. For water and utilities Gibraltar is independent, with power stations, desalination plants and huge tanks excavated under the rock itself.
Spain might conquer it, but has no valid claim or stranglehold as China did over Hong Kong.
Quite a difference between a 99 year lease and a treaty of sovereignty that has been in place for over 300 years.
If the world wanted to reset all boarders and territories back to say 10th April 1713, then there would be little complaining from Great Britain. Not sure the US or a number of European countries would be as keen though.
If the world wanted to reset all boarders and territories back to say 10th April 1713, then there would be little complaining from Great Britain. Not sure the US or a number of European countries would be as keen though.
Quite a difference between a 99 year lease and a treaty of sovereignty that has been in place for over 300 years.
If the world wanted to reset all boarders and territories back to say 10th April 1713, then there would be little complaining from Great Britain. Not sure the US or a number of European countries would be as keen though.
If the world wanted to reset all boarders and territories back to say 10th April 1713, then there would be little complaining from Great Britain. Not sure the US or a number of European countries would be as keen though.
