# China would not be intimidated even if the US send all the ten ACs to the SCS



## Tiqiu

Speech by Dai Bingguo at China-US Dialogue on South China Sea Between Chinese and US Think Tanks

2016/07/05

5 July, Washington D.C
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1377747.shtml

*"Having said that, we in China would not be intimidated by the US actions, not even if the US sent all the ten aircraft carriers to the South China Sea."*

I am delighted to attend the China-US dialogue on South China Sea between Chinese and US think tanks jointly organized by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University and meet with old and new friends. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both organizations for putting this dialogue together and my sincere thanks go to all of you here who have for long cared for and supported the development of China-US relations.

I became honorary president of the Institute of International and Strategic Studies at Peking University after retiring from government. In this sense, I can also be counted as a think tank scholar. I very much look forward to having candid and in-depth exchanges with all of you for mutual enlightenment.

Since the door of communication between China and the US opened more than 40 years ago, China-US relations have come a long way despite twists and turns and produced tremendous and extraordinary outcomes. This has not only benefited the people of China and the US,but also the whole world. Fast growth of relations between these two major countries in a short span of 40 years can be described as nothing short of a miracle in the history of major-country relations.

Three years ago,in June 2013, President Xi Jinping and President Obama held a successful meeting in Annenberg, Sunnylands. Since then,guided by the strategic consensus of no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation,the two countries have continued to make important progress in the building of a new model of major country relations. China and the US have joined hands in promoting progress in a wide range of fields in bilateral relations and addressing major issues bearing on mankind's future and destiny. Their trade volume and two-way investment have both scaled new heights. The two countries have stepped up macro-economic coordination which effectively facilitated world economic recovery and growth. China and the US have signed 3 joint statements on climate change, playing a crucial leading role for reaching the Paris Agreement on climate change. The two sides continued to broaden practical cooperation in military-to-military, law-enforcement, energy, and cultural and people-to-people exchanges. They have conducted close coordination and cooperation on international and regional hotspot issues and major global issues such as Iranian nuclear issue, Korean nuclear issue, Syria, Afghanistan, peacekeeping, international development and global public health. Such cooperation has benefited both countries, and bolstered international confidence in the continued growth of China-US relations.

China and the US are two major countries with very different histories,cultures,social systems and values and at different levels of development. As such, it is only natural that they would encounter differences and challenges in their relations. What's important is to increase strategic communication in a candid way and handle and manage differences in a constructive manner. Furthermore, we should endeavor to transcend differences by focusing on and expanding cooperation. The South China Sea could well have been an example of this approach.

For a period of time, the South China Sea which used to be a rather quiet place has become not so quiet. The situation there has heated up to a quite unusual degree,drawing extensive international attention. What has really happened there? I noticed that reports and comments on this issue tend to take a static view from a certain angle, and thus have not shown the full picture of the South China Sea issue. In my view, to study an international hotspot issue, it is necessary to seek truth from facts by fully considering the relevant international background, tracing the historical development, and thoroughly reviewing how the concerned parties have interacted on this issue. Only in this way can one see the whole picture, tell right from wrong and draw the right conclusion. In this vein, I would like to focus my speech on the historical facts of the South China Sea issue and China's policy on this issue. And I will endeavor to view and handle the South China Sea issue from the perspective of China-US relations and explore ways to genuinely cool down this issue and restore calm to this part of the world.

1. Nansha Islands are China's Integral Territory

Historical materials of China and many western countries corroborate the fact that it was the Chinese people who were the first to discover, name,develop and administer the islands in South China Sea, and that the Chinese government was the first to peacefully and effectively exercise continuous sovereign jurisdiction on South China Sea islands. During the Second World War, Japan illegally invaded and occupied China's South China Sea islands, which were restored to China after the war. Pursuant to Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation,which were cornerstones of the post-war international order, Japan shall return the stolen Chinese territory to China. Following the end of the war, China restored Taiwan, Penghu Islands, Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands illegally occupied by Japan.

Many of you were probably not aware of this, but China's actions to restore the islands was supported by General Douglas McArthur. China's military and government personnel were ferried by US-provided military vessels to Xisha and Nansha Islands to hold the restoration ceremony. After that, the US filed applications to Chinese authorities on Taiwan to conduct geodetic survey in some of Nansha Islands on many occasions.

All this shows that the return of Nansha Islands to China is part of the post-war international order and relevant territorial arrangements. For a long time since the end of the War, the US has recognized and in reality respected China's sovereignty over Nansha Islands. China's sovereignty over South China Sea islands, as part of the post-war international order, is under protection by the UN Charter and other international law. To be blunt, when the US states today that it does not take a position on issues of territory, it actually amounts to back-peddling and defiance of the post-war international order, which the US itself has participated in building.

There are sufficient grounds to state that on the South China Sea issue, China is completely at the receiving end of encroachments. For a long time, the South China Sea had remained trouble free and calm. But since the 1970s, the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries have illegally occupied 42 islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands by force, which gave rise to disputes over territory in these islands and reefs. Over several decades, the Philippines and Vietnam carried out large scale construction and deployed armaments on them and continued to take provocative actions at sea. These illegal occupations and provocations are violations of international law and the UN Charter, and should be universally condemned. The world can see that on the South China Sea issue, China is by no means a wrong-doer or trouble maker, but rather a victim. According to international law, China has every right to self preservation and self-defense. It possesses the ability to recover the above-mentioned islands and reefs. However, in the interest of regional peace and stability, China has all along exercised enormous restraint, and sought peaceful settlement through negotiations. In recent years, China has taken actions only as compelled response at a minimal level to unbridled encroachments by certain countries on China's rights and interests. Stand in China's shoes for a moment, if it was the US who was challenged with such provocation, it would have long resorted to force to recover the illegally occupied islands and reefs.

2. China remains committed to peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations with countries directly concerned.

The Chinese government was the first to propose and has consistently followed the position of "shelving disputes and pursuing common development." Its consistent position on the South China Sea issue includes the following three elements:

--Disputes should be settled peacefully through negotiation and consultation, and managed through rules, norms and operating mechanisms;

--Shared interests should be expanded through joint development and cooperation;

--Freedom of navigation and overflight should be upheld and peace and stability maintained.

These are both China's basic policies and solemn pledges on the South China Sea issue. For the past several decades, the South China Sea region has maintained stability on the whole, and the relevant disputes have been kept under control. Southeast Asia has been able to achieve robust growth, and is seen as an example of peace, stability and prosperity and a magnet of cooperation in the eyes of many countries and regions. This is a great contribution China and its neighbors have made to the international community.

As the biggest coastal country of the South China Sea and a country dedicated to peaceful development, China sees peace and stability of the South China Sea as bearing on its vital interests. That is why China will never resort to force unless challenged with armed provocation. Despite the negative impact of factors both within and outside the region, China has not lost confidence and will stick to its policy of seeking peaceful settlement through bilateral negotiation and consultation, for the following reasons.

First, peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation and consultation best reflects adherence to international law and the basic norms of international relations. According to the UN Charter and the Declaration on Principles of International Law, negotiation is the primary way for peaceful settlement of international disputes. The UNCLOS stipulates that countries concerned should settle maritime delimitation disputes through negotiations as the first recourse, and China and ASEAN countries also made such solemn commitment in the DOC. The fact is, China has benefited from the existing international order, and has firmly observed and upheld such order. China will continue to honor its due obligations, earnestly fulfill international and regional responsibilities, uphold the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS and other international law, and safeguard the rule of law.

Second, to settle disputes peacefully and through negotiations has been a successful practice of China in implementing international rule of law. Back in the 1950s, China has proposed addressing historical boundary issues through consultation under the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. In the following decades, China has resolved its boundary questions with 12 out of 14 land neighbors through negotiations. They have surveyed and demarcated around 20,000 kilometers of boundaries, about 90% of China's land boundary. China and Vietnam have delimited maritime boundary at the Beibu Gulf through negotiation. Of all boundary talks, those between China and Russia lasted for over 40 years, between China and Vietnam on land boundary over 30 years, and on Beibu Gulf over 20 years. I personally have participated in some of the boundary talks, and I believe that peaceful negotiations can best reflect countries' own will and sovereign equality and have unique strength and efficacy in addressing complex territorial and maritime disputes. There is no reason why disputes in the South China Sea cannot be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

Third, peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation and consultation is the only viable way to manage and resolve the South China Sea issue. The truth is, the parties concerned in the South China Sea issue have all along been working in this direction, which is also a clear provision in the DOC. The parties have established mature and effective mechanisms to this end, and the COC consultation has been making notable progress. Despite all this, the Philippines went on a pervert course of initiating arbitration without prior consultation with China. This is nothing but an act of imposition by the Philippines on China, and a culmination of the Philippines' actions to advance its illegal claims. The truth behind the arbitration case is political intrigue, whereby certain countries have been deliberately provoking problems and stirring up tensions, eager to see turbulence in the South China Sea. The arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. By making a so called "award", it has wilfully expanded its power, which is against the UNCLOS and is null and void.

By taking a position of not participating in or accepting the arbitration, China is upholding its own rights and interests under international law and safeguarding the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS. We hope that the US side will take an objective and fair approach regarding the arbitration, rather than criticizing China for upholding the UNCLOS from the position of a non-state party. The final award of the arbitration, which will come out in the next few days, amounts to nothing more than a piece of paper. China suffered enough from hegemonism, power politics and bullying by Western Powers since modern times. The Versailles peace conference at the end of World War I forced a sold-out of Shandong Province. The Lytton Commission, sent by the League of Nations when Japan invaded China's northeast provinces, only served to justify Japan's invasion. Even the US-led negotiations on San Francisco Peace Treaty excluded China. These episodes are still vivid in our memory. That is why China will grip its own future on issues of territorial sovereignty, and will never accept any solution imposed by a third party.

III. The situation in the South China Sea must cool down.

The temperature of the South China Sea is now high enough. Some people even clamored for "fight tonight". If such momentum went unchecked, accidents could happen and the South China Sea might sink into chaos and so might the entire Asia. Should that happen, it will be countries around the South China Sea, the Asian countries and even the US itself that will suffer. We must not let this happen, and not allow Asia to become another West Asia and North Africa. Anyone intent on fueling the flames and unleashing disastrous outcomes will be held accountable by history.

Cooling down temperatures in the South China Sea requires concrete efforts by all countries concerned.

First, the urgent priority is to stop the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines. If the tribunal insisted on its way and produced an "award", no one and no country should implement the award in any form, much less to force China into implementation. And the Philippines must be dissuaded from making any further provocation. Otherwise, China would not sit idle.

Second, China and the US have neither disputes over even one inch of territory nor fundamental clash of interests in the South China Sea. The South China Sea issue should not be allowed to define China-US relations. Rather, this issue should be put in perspective against larger bilateral relations and be transformed into an area of cooperation rather than arena for confrontation. We must forestall undue disruptions or damages to the overall China-US relations as a result of differences over this issue. The people of China and the US will not forgive us, if we let the basically sound China-US relations cultivated by both sides over the past forty years be ruined by mis-judgment and mishandling over this issue.

I have made China's position and views clear. Let me conclude with a few more personal observations.

First of all, even if the US is unable to go back to its position of recognizing China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, it should honor its stated position of not taking sides on issues concerning territorial disputes. If the US is truly committed to peace and stability in the South China Sea and the wider Asia-Pacific and a rule-based order, it should judge the issue on its merits, respect facts, oppose or restrain provocations by certain countries against China and encourage countries directly concerned to settle the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation and implement the DOC fully and effectively.

Second, one should not be too ready to frame the South China Sea issue as a strategic issue or interpret and predict China's behavior by drawing from western theories of international relations and history. It would be nothing but baseless speculation to assert that China wants to make the South China Sea an Asian Caribbean Sea and impose the Monroe Doctrine to exclude the US from Asia or that China is trying to compete with the US for dominance in the South China Sea, Asia and even the world. Unlike traditional western powers, China, an oriental civilization that goes back five thousand years, has distinctive culture, values, political thinking and view of the world. For China, the South China Sea issue is all about territorial sovereignty, security, development and maritime rights and interests. It is all about preventing further tragic losses of territory. China's thinking is as simple as that. And there is no other agenda behind it. We have no intention or capability to engage in "strategic rivalry" with anyone. We have no ambition to rule Asia, still less the Earth. Even in the context of the issue in question, we have never claimed we own the entire South China Sea. We only have one ambition, which is to manage our own affairs well and ensure a decent life and dignity for the nearly 1.4 billion Chinese people. China's right to rise peacefully and deliver a better life for its people should not and will not be taken away by anyone.

Third, the US's heavy-handed intervention in the South China Sea issue needs to be scaled back. There is deep concern about the US continued reinforcement of its military alliances in the Asia-Pacific and forward deployment of its military assets. Since last year, the US has intensified its close-in reconnaissance and "Freedom of Navigation" operations targeted at China. The rhetoric of a few people in the US has become blatantly confrontational. How would you feel if you were Chinese and read in the newspapers or watch on TV reports and footages about US aircraft carriers, naval ships and fighter jets flexing muscles right at your doorstep and hear a senior US military official telling the troops to be ready "to fight tonight"? Wouldn't you consider it unhelpful to the US image in the world? This is certainly not the way China and the US should interact with each other.

Having said that, we in China would not be intimidated by the US actions, not even if the US sent all the ten aircraft carriers to the South China Sea. Furthermore, US intervention on the issue has led some countries to believe that the US is on their side and they stand to gain from the competition between major countries. As a result, we have seen more provocations from these countries, adding uncertainties and escalating tensions in the South China Sea. This, in fact, is not in the interest of the US. The risk for the US is that it may be dragged into trouble against its own will and pay an unexpectedly heavy price. Hopefully, the countries, whose recent course of action has been driven by reckless impulse, will engage in some cool-headed thinking and realize that China has been living alongside them peacefully as a friendly neighbor for several thousand years. Neither had this neighbor invaded anyone nor interfered in any country's internal affairs. Neither is this neighbor pursuing any regime change nor building confrontational political or military blocs. All China's endeavors are focused on protecting its sovereignty, security and development interests and it has no intention to seek dominance or hegemony. Those countries will eventually see that it is the friendly China that will remain their neighbor for generations to come instead of some faraway superpower.

Fourth, China and the US need to find ways to manage their differences constructively. As I said, the South China Sea issue boils down to disputes between China and a few other littoral states. Given that these disputes are not going to be settled any time soon, the key question is how these disputes should be managed pending final resolution. Should parties provoke each other over these disputes, aggravate tensions and encourage confrontation? Or should they downplay the disputes, shelve their differences and expand cooperation? The answer is apparent. China has all along been committed to resolving the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation. Even though the South China Sea is clearly not an issue between China and the US, China is willing to maintain communication with the US on maritime issues and work with the US and all other parties to keep the situation under control, considering our shared interest in peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. Our two sides may work together to find ways to jointly promote regional peace and stability through constructive dialogue on matters such as regional confidence-building, effectively managing disputes and advancing maritime practical cooperation.

Fifth, China and the US need to expand their positive maritime agenda. Both countries support freedom of navigation and overflight. As long as the US does not use that as a pretext to challenge China's sovereignty and security interests, the two countries can cooperate on a global level to safeguard such freedom. Closer cooperation is also called for in a wide range of ocean-related fields such as marine environmental protection, marine science and research and maritime law-enforcement to give a stronger boost to China-US interaction at sea.

I was born at the height of the Second World War, and as a 75-year-old man, I either lived through or witnessed the evolutions of relations between some major countries. I have studied the Korean War, Vietnam War and Iraq War and how these wars took a heavy toll on the US. Since the turn of the century, I had the further privilege to chair China's strategic dialogues with the US and some other major countries, which were of great depth and quality and helped produce common thinking between our two countries on building a new model of major-country relationship. I love my country and people and have nothing but profound goodwill towards the American people. I wish for the best of China-US relations and for both our countries. We must work together to avoid strategic mistakes pushing us into conflict or confrontation. Some of my remarks today might sound a little bit harsh, but I said them with the best of intentions. You may consider them words spoken from the heart of a friend of the US.

Wang Anshi, a famous Chinese poet who lived in the Northern Song Dynasty wrote, "We should not be afraid of the clouds blocking our view, because we already are at the highest elevation." It means that only by adopting a strategic vision and minimizing distractions can one understand where the trend is moving. In a globalized world full of opportunities and challenges, as the biggest developing and developed countries and the world's two largest economies, China and the US shoulder more common responsibilities and face more common challenges in driving world economic recovery and promoting international peace and security. There is so much potential of cooperation yet to be tapped. What we need is not a microscope to enlarge our differences, but a telescope to look ahead and focus on cooperation. Both Chinese and Americans are great nations with insight and vision. As long as the two sides work for common interests, respect each other, treat each other as equals, have candid dialogue, and expand common ground, China and the US will be able to manage differences and find the key to turning those issues into opportunities of working together. I have no doubt that China-US relations will embrace a great future.

To conclude, I wish the dialogue a full success.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Tiqiu



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## TaiShang

GR!FF!N said:


> 10 ACs???
> 
> It'll look like last scene of Game of throne's 6th season's 10th episode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this earth,there is no country which doesn't get intimated if USA sends 1 CBG.Because even now,USA means,God of War.



It is called political symbolism, which countries often do, in order to indicate the significance of the case and the level of resolve.

International diplomacy has been an interesting arena of both realism and symbolism; US presidents have used this high symbolism to rally peoples around the ideas propagated by the state.

You may debate whether China is being serious or just casting the stone way too far through strong symbolism, but, it is obviously high-trolling to imagine a case of ten AC groups surrounding China.

***



Tiqiu said:


> First of all, even if the US is unable to go back to its position of recognizing China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, it should honor its stated position of not taking sides on issues concerning territorial disputes.



This is a very realist proposition which would help the US save face as well as leave the regional dispute to the related parties' volition.



Tiqiu said:


> Second, one should not be too ready to frame the South China Sea issue as a strategic issue or interpret and predict China's behavior by drawing from western theories of international relations and history. It would be nothing but baseless speculation to assert that China wants to make the South China Sea an Asian Caribbean Sea and impose the Monroe Doctrine to exclude the US from Asia or that China is trying to compete with the US for dominance in the South China Sea, Asia and even the world. Unlike traditional western powers, China, an oriental civilization that goes back five thousand years, has distinctive culture, values, political thinking and view of the world. For China, the South China Sea issue is all about territorial sovereignty, security, development and maritime rights and interests. It is all about preventing further tragic losses of territory. China's thinking is as simple as that. And there is no other agenda behind it. We have no intention or capability to engage in "strategic rivalry" with anyone. We have no ambition to rule Asia, still less the Earth.



I can sense the strong IR theory indigenization in this proposal, which is very welcome. China's own unique civilization-nation characteristics and long experience of being the center of the world economy enables it to construct native strategies and renders it impossible for foreign state agents to predict its behavior.

@Chinese-Dragon , @ahojunk , @Dungeness

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## sword1947

+4vsgorillas-Apebane said:


> USA means god of war?
> 
> I don't get it, perhaps it only makes sense to Indians?


only mean to those who can't ruin the whole planet

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Sure, if US wants to send 10 CVN within range of DF-21D, go ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## dy1022



Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Beast

dy1022 said:


>



We will make sure we serve 30 DF-21D for one CVN and overwhelm their air defense system. Even 100 DF-21D is cheaper than a CVN.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

I was waiting for DF21 posts and it came as soon as possible  

The Chinese and their territorial logical claims never ceases to amuse me

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

Rajaraja Chola said:


> *The Chinese and their territorial logical claims never ceases to amuse me *



Agreed, thats exactly the same old logic why we gifted our Indian friends
A never ending exciting 1962 sweet sweet memory

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

The US has been sending carriers through the South China Sea for at least 70 years without much controversy.

Why after all this time do you suddenly feel intimidated? Why are people getting so worked up suddenly?? It's not like they pull up to an island and say "hey cut that out". They just pass through as usual.


----------



## footmarks

good luck to you. I guess US still have many bunkers to survive nuclear fallout, make sure you have plenty too before you use any of your DF toys. 

And yes, thanks for the 62 lesson, otherwise we would be in same dream of brotherhood as pakistan is in today.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

Mr.Dai: “Just deliver the ruling. It’s no big deal. Just a piece of trash paper.”

During the Second Gulf War, the U.S. had 6 of its 12 active aircraft carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. Now with the total number of its aircraft carriers down to 10, and facing a country 100 times stronger than Iraq, I am very curious to see what type of actions the US can come up with.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2

footmarks said:


> good luck to you. I guess US still have many bunkers to survive nuclear fallout, make sure you have plenty too before you use any of your DF toys.
> 
> And yes, thanks for the 62 lesson, otherwise we would be in same dream of brotherhood as pakistan is in today.



You're most welcome
But unfortunately, it doesn't seems like our dear Indian friends have learned much from the "62 lesson" though
Perhaps making some bullets will be a good start? NO?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## egodoc222

Beast said:


> We will make sure we serve 30 DF-21D for one CVN and overwhelm their air defense system. Even 100 DF-21D is cheaper than a CVN.


That's if you want to start a nuclear war!!
A carrier is considered as official US territory!
Don't act like a child! df21 is just a toy for show case

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiger Genie

Tiqiu said:


> Mr.Dai: “Just deliver the ruling. It’s no big deal. Just a piece of trash paper.”
> 
> During the Second Gulf War, the U.S. had 6 of its 12 active aircraft carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. Now with the total number of its aircraft carriers down to 10, and facing a country 100 times stronger than Iraq, I am very curious to see what type of actions the US can come up with.



if it comes to a direct war between US and China, which is almost not feasible, US is a few leagues ahead. Also consider US has bases closer to china than the other way and more than enough defences to handle any long range missiles.

Most importantly it is weapons and war strategy that will save China - but their practical intelligence like in wisdom. Why would they liquidate their biggest market and asset base by risking a war. To a different degree simlimar applies to the US. Unfortunately Japan, Taiwan and Korea may feel the brunt of this non-war war


----------



## cnleio

Tiqiu said:


> Speech by Dai Bingguo at China-US Dialogue on South China Sea Between Chinese and US Think Tanks
> 
> 2016/07/05
> 
> 5 July, Washington D.C
> http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1377747.shtml
> 
> *"Having said that, we in China would not be intimidated by the US actions, not even if the US sent all the ten aircraft carriers to the South China Sea."*
> 
> I am delighted to attend the China-US dialogue on South China Sea between Chinese and US think tanks jointly organized by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University and meet with old and new friends. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both organizations for putting this dialogue together and my sincere thanks go to all of you here who have for long cared for and supported the development of China-US relations.
> 
> I became honorary president of the Institute of International and Strategic Studies at Peking University after retiring from government. In this sense, I can also be counted as a think tank scholar. I very much look forward to having candid and in-depth exchanges with all of you for mutual enlightenment.
> 
> Since the door of communication between China and the US opened more than 40 years ago, China-US relations have come a long way despite twists and turns and produced tremendous and extraordinary outcomes. This has not only benefited the people of China and the US,but also the whole world. Fast growth of relations between these two major countries in a short span of 40 years can be described as nothing short of a miracle in the history of major-country relations.
> 
> Three years ago,in June 2013, President Xi Jinping and President Obama held a successful meeting in Annenberg, Sunnylands. Since then,guided by the strategic consensus of no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation,the two countries have continued to make important progress in the building of a new model of major country relations. China and the US have joined hands in promoting progress in a wide range of fields in bilateral relations and addressing major issues bearing on mankind's future and destiny. Their trade volume and two-way investment have both scaled new heights. The two countries have stepped up macro-economic coordination which effectively facilitated world economic recovery and growth. China and the US have signed 3 joint statements on climate change, playing a crucial leading role for reaching the Paris Agreement on climate change. The two sides continued to broaden practical cooperation in military-to-military, law-enforcement, energy, and cultural and people-to-people exchanges. They have conducted close coordination and cooperation on international and regional hotspot issues and major global issues such as Iranian nuclear issue, Korean nuclear issue, Syria, Afghanistan, peacekeeping, international development and global public health. Such cooperation has benefited both countries, and bolstered international confidence in the continued growth of China-US relations.
> 
> China and the US are two major countries with very different histories,cultures,social systems and values and at different levels of development. As such, it is only natural that they would encounter differences and challenges in their relations. What's important is to increase strategic communication in a candid way and handle and manage differences in a constructive manner. Furthermore, we should endeavor to transcend differences by focusing on and expanding cooperation. The South China Sea could well have been an example of this approach.
> 
> For a period of time, the South China Sea which used to be a rather quiet place has become not so quiet. The situation there has heated up to a quite unusual degree,drawing extensive international attention. What has really happened there? I noticed that reports and comments on this issue tend to take a static view from a certain angle, and thus have not shown the full picture of the South China Sea issue. In my view, to study an international hotspot issue, it is necessary to seek truth from facts by fully considering the relevant international background, tracing the historical development, and thoroughly reviewing how the concerned parties have interacted on this issue. Only in this way can one see the whole picture, tell right from wrong and draw the right conclusion. In this vein, I would like to focus my speech on the historical facts of the South China Sea issue and China's policy on this issue. And I will endeavor to view and handle the South China Sea issue from the perspective of China-US relations and explore ways to genuinely cool down this issue and restore calm to this part of the world.
> 
> 1. Nansha Islands are China's Integral Territory
> 
> Historical materials of China and many western countries corroborate the fact that it was the Chinese people who were the first to discover, name,develop and administer the islands in South China Sea, and that the Chinese government was the first to peacefully and effectively exercise continuous sovereign jurisdiction on South China Sea islands. During the Second World War, Japan illegally invaded and occupied China's South China Sea islands, which were restored to China after the war. Pursuant to Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation,which were cornerstones of the post-war international order, Japan shall return the stolen Chinese territory to China. Following the end of the war, China restored Taiwan, Penghu Islands, Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands illegally occupied by Japan.
> 
> Many of you were probably not aware of this, but China's actions to restore the islands was supported by General Douglas McArthur. China's military and government personnel were ferried by US-provided military vessels to Xisha and Nansha Islands to hold the restoration ceremony. After that, the US filed applications to Chinese authorities on Taiwan to conduct geodetic survey in some of Nansha Islands on many occasions.
> 
> All this shows that the return of Nansha Islands to China is part of the post-war international order and relevant territorial arrangements. For a long time since the end of the War, the US has recognized and in reality respected China's sovereignty over Nansha Islands. China's sovereignty over South China Sea islands, as part of the post-war international order, is under protection by the UN Charter and other international law. To be blunt, when the US states today that it does not take a position on issues of territory, it actually amounts to back-peddling and defiance of the post-war international order, which the US itself has participated in building.
> 
> There are sufficient grounds to state that on the South China Sea issue, China is completely at the receiving end of encroachments. For a long time, the South China Sea had remained trouble free and calm. But since the 1970s, the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries have illegally occupied 42 islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands by force, which gave rise to disputes over territory in these islands and reefs. Over several decades, the Philippines and Vietnam carried out large scale construction and deployed armaments on them and continued to take provocative actions at sea. These illegal occupations and provocations are violations of international law and the UN Charter, and should be universally condemned. The world can see that on the South China Sea issue, China is by no means a wrong-doer or trouble maker, but rather a victim. According to international law, China has every right to self preservation and self-defense. It possesses the ability to recover the above-mentioned islands and reefs. However, in the interest of regional peace and stability, China has all along exercised enormous restraint, and sought peaceful settlement through negotiations. In recent years, China has taken actions only as compelled response at a minimal level to unbridled encroachments by certain countries on China's rights and interests. Stand in China's shoes for a moment, if it was the US who was challenged with such provocation, it would have long resorted to force to recover the illegally occupied islands and reefs.
> 
> 2. China remains committed to peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations with countries directly concerned.
> 
> The Chinese government was the first to propose and has consistently followed the position of "shelving disputes and pursuing common development." Its consistent position on the South China Sea issue includes the following three elements:
> 
> --Disputes should be settled peacefully through negotiation and consultation, and managed through rules, norms and operating mechanisms;
> 
> --Shared interests should be expanded through joint development and cooperation;
> 
> --Freedom of navigation and overflight should be upheld and peace and stability maintained.
> 
> These are both China's basic policies and solemn pledges on the South China Sea issue. For the past several decades, the South China Sea region has maintained stability on the whole, and the relevant disputes have been kept under control. Southeast Asia has been able to achieve robust growth, and is seen as an example of peace, stability and prosperity and a magnet of cooperation in the eyes of many countries and regions. This is a great contribution China and its neighbors have made to the international community.
> 
> As the biggest coastal country of the South China Sea and a country dedicated to peaceful development, China sees peace and stability of the South China Sea as bearing on its vital interests. That is why China will never resort to force unless challenged with armed provocation. Despite the negative impact of factors both within and outside the region, China has not lost confidence and will stick to its policy of seeking peaceful settlement through bilateral negotiation and consultation, for the following reasons.
> 
> First, peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation and consultation best reflects adherence to international law and the basic norms of international relations. According to the UN Charter and the Declaration on Principles of International Law, negotiation is the primary way for peaceful settlement of international disputes. The UNCLOS stipulates that countries concerned should settle maritime delimitation disputes through negotiations as the first recourse, and China and ASEAN countries also made such solemn commitment in the DOC. The fact is, China has benefited from the existing international order, and has firmly observed and upheld such order. China will continue to honor its due obligations, earnestly fulfill international and regional responsibilities, uphold the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS and other international law, and safeguard the rule of law.
> 
> Second, to settle disputes peacefully and through negotiations has been a successful practice of China in implementing international rule of law. Back in the 1950s, China has proposed addressing historical boundary issues through consultation under the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. In the following decades, China has resolved its boundary questions with 12 out of 14 land neighbors through negotiations. They have surveyed and demarcated around 20,000 kilometers of boundaries, about 90% of China's land boundary. China and Vietnam have delimited maritime boundary at the Beibu Gulf through negotiation. Of all boundary talks, those between China and Russia lasted for over 40 years, between China and Vietnam on land boundary over 30 years, and on Beibu Gulf over 20 years. I personally have participated in some of the boundary talks, and I believe that peaceful negotiations can best reflect countries' own will and sovereign equality and have unique strength and efficacy in addressing complex territorial and maritime disputes. There is no reason why disputes in the South China Sea cannot be resolved through peaceful negotiations.
> 
> Third, peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation and consultation is the only viable way to manage and resolve the South China Sea issue. The truth is, the parties concerned in the South China Sea issue have all along been working in this direction, which is also a clear provision in the DOC. The parties have established mature and effective mechanisms to this end, and the COC consultation has been making notable progress. Despite all this, the Philippines went on a pervert course of initiating arbitration without prior consultation with China. This is nothing but an act of imposition by the Philippines on China, and a culmination of the Philippines' actions to advance its illegal claims. The truth behind the arbitration case is political intrigue, whereby certain countries have been deliberately provoking problems and stirring up tensions, eager to see turbulence in the South China Sea. The arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. By making a so called "award", it has wilfully expanded its power, which is against the UNCLOS and is null and void.
> 
> By taking a position of not participating in or accepting the arbitration, China is upholding its own rights and interests under international law and safeguarding the integrity and authority of the UNCLOS. We hope that the US side will take an objective and fair approach regarding the arbitration, rather than criticizing China for upholding the UNCLOS from the position of a non-state party. The final award of the arbitration, which will come out in the next few days, amounts to nothing more than a piece of paper. China suffered enough from hegemonism, power politics and bullying by Western Powers since modern times. The Versailles peace conference at the end of World War I forced a sold-out of Shandong Province. The Lytton Commission, sent by the League of Nations when Japan invaded China's northeast provinces, only served to justify Japan's invasion. Even the US-led negotiations on San Francisco Peace Treaty excluded China. These episodes are still vivid in our memory. That is why China will grip its own future on issues of territorial sovereignty, and will never accept any solution imposed by a third party.
> 
> III. The situation in the South China Sea must cool down.
> 
> The temperature of the South China Sea is now high enough. Some people even clamored for "fight tonight". If such momentum went unchecked, accidents could happen and the South China Sea might sink into chaos and so might the entire Asia. Should that happen, it will be countries around the South China Sea, the Asian countries and even the US itself that will suffer. We must not let this happen, and not allow Asia to become another West Asia and North Africa. Anyone intent on fueling the flames and unleashing disastrous outcomes will be held accountable by history.
> 
> Cooling down temperatures in the South China Sea requires concrete efforts by all countries concerned.
> 
> First, the urgent priority is to stop the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines. If the tribunal insisted on its way and produced an "award", no one and no country should implement the award in any form, much less to force China into implementation. And the Philippines must be dissuaded from making any further provocation. Otherwise, China would not sit idle.
> 
> Second, China and the US have neither disputes over even one inch of territory nor fundamental clash of interests in the South China Sea. The South China Sea issue should not be allowed to define China-US relations. Rather, this issue should be put in perspective against larger bilateral relations and be transformed into an area of cooperation rather than arena for confrontation. We must forestall undue disruptions or damages to the overall China-US relations as a result of differences over this issue. The people of China and the US will not forgive us, if we let the basically sound China-US relations cultivated by both sides over the past forty years be ruined by mis-judgment and mishandling over this issue.
> 
> I have made China's position and views clear. Let me conclude with a few more personal observations.
> 
> First of all, even if the US is unable to go back to its position of recognizing China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, it should honor its stated position of not taking sides on issues concerning territorial disputes. If the US is truly committed to peace and stability in the South China Sea and the wider Asia-Pacific and a rule-based order, it should judge the issue on its merits, respect facts, oppose or restrain provocations by certain countries against China and encourage countries directly concerned to settle the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation and implement the DOC fully and effectively.
> 
> Second, one should not be too ready to frame the South China Sea issue as a strategic issue or interpret and predict China's behavior by drawing from western theories of international relations and history. It would be nothing but baseless speculation to assert that China wants to make the South China Sea an Asian Caribbean Sea and impose the Monroe Doctrine to exclude the US from Asia or that China is trying to compete with the US for dominance in the South China Sea, Asia and even the world. Unlike traditional western powers, China, an oriental civilization that goes back five thousand years, has distinctive culture, values, political thinking and view of the world. For China, the South China Sea issue is all about territorial sovereignty, security, development and maritime rights and interests. It is all about preventing further tragic losses of territory. China's thinking is as simple as that. And there is no other agenda behind it. We have no intention or capability to engage in "strategic rivalry" with anyone. We have no ambition to rule Asia, still less the Earth. Even in the context of the issue in question, we have never claimed we own the entire South China Sea. We only have one ambition, which is to manage our own affairs well and ensure a decent life and dignity for the nearly 1.4 billion Chinese people. China's right to rise peacefully and deliver a better life for its people should not and will not be taken away by anyone.
> 
> Third, the US's heavy-handed intervention in the South China Sea issue needs to be scaled back. There is deep concern about the US continued reinforcement of its military alliances in the Asia-Pacific and forward deployment of its military assets. Since last year, the US has intensified its close-in reconnaissance and "Freedom of Navigation" operations targeted at China. The rhetoric of a few people in the US has become blatantly confrontational. How would you feel if you were Chinese and read in the newspapers or watch on TV reports and footages about US aircraft carriers, naval ships and fighter jets flexing muscles right at your doorstep and hear a senior US military official telling the troops to be ready "to fight tonight"? Wouldn't you consider it unhelpful to the US image in the world? This is certainly not the way China and the US should interact with each other.
> 
> Having said that, we in China would not be intimidated by the US actions, not even if the US sent all the ten aircraft carriers to the South China Sea. Furthermore, US intervention on the issue has led some countries to believe that the US is on their side and they stand to gain from the competition between major countries. As a result, we have seen more provocations from these countries, adding uncertainties and escalating tensions in the South China Sea. This, in fact, is not in the interest of the US. The risk for the US is that it may be dragged into trouble against its own will and pay an unexpectedly heavy price. Hopefully, the countries, whose recent course of action has been driven by reckless impulse, will engage in some cool-headed thinking and realize that China has been living alongside them peacefully as a friendly neighbor for several thousand years. Neither had this neighbor invaded anyone nor interfered in any country's internal affairs. Neither is this neighbor pursuing any regime change nor building confrontational political or military blocs. All China's endeavors are focused on protecting its sovereignty, security and development interests and it has no intention to seek dominance or hegemony. Those countries will eventually see that it is the friendly China that will remain their neighbor for generations to come instead of some faraway superpower.
> 
> Fourth, China and the US need to find ways to manage their differences constructively. As I said, the South China Sea issue boils down to disputes between China and a few other littoral states. Given that these disputes are not going to be settled any time soon, the key question is how these disputes should be managed pending final resolution. Should parties provoke each other over these disputes, aggravate tensions and encourage confrontation? Or should they downplay the disputes, shelve their differences and expand cooperation? The answer is apparent. China has all along been committed to resolving the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation. Even though the South China Sea is clearly not an issue between China and the US, China is willing to maintain communication with the US on maritime issues and work with the US and all other parties to keep the situation under control, considering our shared interest in peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. Our two sides may work together to find ways to jointly promote regional peace and stability through constructive dialogue on matters such as regional confidence-building, effectively managing disputes and advancing maritime practical cooperation.
> 
> Fifth, China and the US need to expand their positive maritime agenda. Both countries support freedom of navigation and overflight. As long as the US does not use that as a pretext to challenge China's sovereignty and security interests, the two countries can cooperate on a global level to safeguard such freedom. Closer cooperation is also called for in a wide range of ocean-related fields such as marine environmental protection, marine science and research and maritime law-enforcement to give a stronger boost to China-US interaction at sea.
> 
> I was born at the height of the Second World War, and as a 75-year-old man, I either lived through or witnessed the evolutions of relations between some major countries. I have studied the Korean War, Vietnam War and Iraq War and how these wars took a heavy toll on the US. Since the turn of the century, I had the further privilege to chair China's strategic dialogues with the US and some other major countries, which were of great depth and quality and helped produce common thinking between our two countries on building a new model of major-country relationship. I love my country and people and have nothing but profound goodwill towards the American people. I wish for the best of China-US relations and for both our countries. We must work together to avoid strategic mistakes pushing us into conflict or confrontation. Some of my remarks today might sound a little bit harsh, but I said them with the best of intentions. You may consider them words spoken from the heart of a friend of the US.
> 
> Wang Anshi, a famous Chinese poet who lived in the Northern Song Dynasty wrote, "We should not be afraid of the clouds blocking our view, because we already are at the highest elevation." It means that only by adopting a strategic vision and minimizing distractions can one understand where the trend is moving. In a globalized world full of opportunities and challenges, as the biggest developing and developed countries and the world's two largest economies, China and the US shoulder more common responsibilities and face more common challenges in driving world economic recovery and promoting international peace and security. There is so much potential of cooperation yet to be tapped. What we need is not a microscope to enlarge our differences, but a telescope to look ahead and focus on cooperation. Both Chinese and Americans are great nations with insight and vision. As long as the two sides work for common interests, respect each other, treat each other as equals, have candid dialogue, and expand common ground, China and the US will be able to manage differences and find the key to turning those issues into opportunities of working together. I have no doubt that China-US relations will embrace a great future.
> 
> To conclude, I wish the dialogue a full success.


If U.S to send 10x A.C groups into the South China Sea, it only means our human history closer to the WWIII. If DF missiles sink A.C groups, the U.S may consider nuke back and China will nuclear revenge, there millions ppl will die, the power of N.o1 and N.o2 get weaken. *Both READY ?*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## KAL-EL

egodoc222 said:


> That's if you want to start a nuclear war!!
> A carrier is considered as official US territory!
> Don't act like a child! df21 is just a toy for show case



My rational friend.. Surely you have to take into account that some here who are master keyboard warriors & huff and puff hot air live in their own PDF video game fantasy world.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mugwop

Why would China be intimidated they are a lot stronger than before plus they have an advantage it's called mountains. 

indians love to defend the U.S,israel and any other country with islamaphobia but choose to remain silent on the Russia bashing on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics

egodoc222 said:


> That's if you want to start a nuclear war!!
> A carrier is considered as official US territory!
> Don't act like a child! df21 is just a toy for show case


So the USA carrrier is inviolable ships.
IF the carriers came to assault China,China should give up to defend itself.
Anyway,why did you say "Hit a carrier can result a nuclear war"?
Aren't the US carriers untouchable?
DF-21D is just a toy,it won't result any nuclear war.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## xunzi

It is actually better if they send 10 AC. We might as well finish off all at once rather than 2 at a time. LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Oldman1

Beast said:


> View attachment 316021
> 
> 
> Sure, if US wants to send 10 CVN within range of DF-21D, go ahead.





Rajaraja Chola said:


> I was waiting for DF21 posts and it came as soon as possible
> 
> The Chinese and their territorial logical claims never ceases to amuse me



Launching DF-21 leads to nuclear war since they are ICBMs anyways. We thought about conventional Tridents, but that could lead to nuclear response.



Tiqiu said:


> Mr.Dai: “Just deliver the ruling. It’s no big deal. Just a piece of trash paper.”
> 
> During the Second Gulf War, the U.S. had 6 of its 12 active aircraft carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. Now with the total number of its aircraft carriers down to 10, and facing a country 100 times stronger than Iraq, I am very curious to see what type of actions the US can come up with.



Don't worry buddy, Japan was stronger than the U.S. in the early days of WW2 with no experience in carrier warfare and inexperienced pilots. Just cause you are stronger than one country doesn't mean much then.



cnleio said:


> If U.S to send 10x A.C groups into the South China Sea, it only means our human history closer to the WWIII. If DF missiles sink A.C groups, the U.S may consider nuke back and China will nuclear revenge, there millions ppl will die, the power of N.o1 and N.o2 get weaken. *Both READY ?*



If China loses their aircraft carrier, will China nuke America back?


----------



## Beast

Oldman1 said:


> Launching DF-21 leads to nuclear war since they are ICBMs anyways. We thought about conventional Tridents, but that could lead to nuclear response.



There is a reason why China declared a no first use nuclear doctrine. It is to legalize our ASBM. Any of our ICBM launched are not nuclear tip and if American are not to believe, go ahead and led to Armageddon. That will not derived of our use of Ballistic missile to defeat USN CVN.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Oldman1

Beast said:


> There is a reason why China declared a no first use nuclear doctrine. It is to legalize our ASBM. Any of our ICBM launched are not nuclear tip and if American are not to believe, go ahead and led to Armageddon. That will not derived of our use of Ballistic missile to defeat USN CVN.



Sure we have China's words that it has no first use nuclear doctrine which can be changed constantly. With only about 15 to 30 minutes to respond, sure nuclear war will be pretty much there. You guys pretty much initiated.


----------



## Beast

Oldman1 said:


> If China loses their aircraft carrier, will China nuke America back?



China has only one carrier and nothing to lose. China will not be that childish to start nuclear war just becos a lost of carrier.

But American has too much face to lost if a single CVN goes down the ocean with 5000 crews and US might act irrational to goes nuclear for retaliation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Oldman1

Beast said:


> China has only one carrier and nothing to lose. China will not be that childish to start nuclear war just becos a lost of carrier.
> 
> But American has too much face to lost if a single CVN goes down the ocean with 5000 crews and US might act irrational to goes nuclear for retaliation.



You never know, China has a lot to lose with a carrier and nothing left to defend its waters.


----------



## Beast

Oldman1 said:


> Sure we have China's words that it has no first use nuclear doctrine which can be changed constantly. With only about 15 to 30 minutes to respond, sure nuclear war will be pretty much there. You guys pretty much initiated.


Go ahead and play Armageddon. If will not stop China from firing DF-21D at USN CVN. American are smart enough to differentiate between DF-21D and DF-41



Oldman1 said:


> You never know, China has a lot to lose with a carrier and nothing left to defend its waters.



Our biggest asset is our ballistic missile. Carrier is just used to scare small fried countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Oldman1

Beast said:


> Go ahead and play Armageddon. If will not stop China from firing DF-21D at USN CVN. American are smart enough to differentiate between DF-21D and DF-41



LOL!

Ain't that easy buddy.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Experts-warn-of-an-accidental-atomic-war-2550308.php

*2006-10-06 04:00:00 PDT Washington* -- A Pentagon project to modify its deadliest nuclear missile for use as a conventional weapon against targets such as North Korea and Iran could unwittingly spark an atomic war, two weapons experts warned Thursday.

*Russian military officers might misconstrue a submarine-launched conventional D5 intercontinental ballistic missile and conclude that Russia is under nuclear attack, said Ted Postol, a physicist and professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Pavel Podvig, a physicist and weapons specialist at Stanford. 


"Any launch of a long-range nonnuclear armed sea or land ballistic missile will cause an automated alert of the Russian early warning system," Postol told reporters. 


The triggering of an alert wouldn't necessarily precipitate a retaliatory hail of Russian nuclear missiles, Postol said. Nevertheless, he said, "there can be no doubt that such an alert will greatly increase the chances of a nuclear accident involving strategic nuclear forces." *

Podvig said launching conventional versions of a missile from a submarine that normally carries nuclear ICBMs "expands the possibility for a misunderstanding so widely that it is hard to contemplate."

Mixing conventional and nuclear D5s on a U.S. Trident submarine "would be very dangerous," Podvig said, because the Russians have no way of discriminating between the two types of missiles once they are launched.

*Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. 


"The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces." 


Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered. *


----------



## Oldman1

Beast said:


> Go ahead and play Armageddon. If will not stop China from firing DF-21D at USN CVN. American are smart enough to differentiate between DF-21D and DF-41
> 
> 
> 
> Our biggest asset is our ballistic missile. Carrier is just used to scare small fried countries.



No its not, since you can't use it. Even China wants carriers for power projection even against other powerful countries. Not to take on small fried countries.


----------



## cnleio

Oldman1 said:


> If China loses their aircraft carrier, will China nuke America back?


Maybe not ... i only sure if someone nuke China, we as one of Nuclear Power will do nuclear revenge.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Oldman1

cnleio said:


> Maybe not ... i only sure if someone nuke China, we as one of Nuclear Power will do nuclear revenge.



Indeed! Same if someone nuke the U.S.


----------



## cnleio

Oldman1 said:


> Indeed! Same if someone nuke the U.S.


Another thing i can sure, 10x A.C groups is good for U.S bad for China ... but both as Nuclear Power our nuclear weapons in hands is fair to each other ppl. China isn't the Iraq, 10x A.C groups can deadly threat some small country but it can't kill Russia or China.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## rott

egodoc222 said:


> That's if you want to start a nuclear war!!
> A carrier is considered as official US territory!
> Don't act like a child! df21 is just a toy for show case


Are you for real? So China just have to wait for the US war planes to strike the Chinese mainland? 
I don't get it, are you just playing dumb or really dumb? 
"A carrier is considered as official US territory"
Jesus Christ! You should refrain from posting. You've lost all credibility. I didn't follow you much, but with this post of yours.... I have no words. 
DF21 D a toy? Stop trolling. Get that weed outta your pie - hole.



TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics said:


> So the USA carrrier is inviolable ships.
> IF the carriers came to assault China,China should give up to defend itself.
> Anyway,why did you say "Hit a carrier can result a nuclear war"?
> Aren't the US carriers untouchable?
> DF-21D is just a toy,it won't result any nuclear war.


IQ comes into play with such posts from him. I *facepalmed* when I read his post.



Oldman1 said:


> Launching DF-21 leads to nuclear war since they are ICBMs anyways. We thought about conventional Tridents, but that could lead to nuclear response.


Oldman, you sound like a 12 year old. Your post is quite a contradictory to your user name. 





> Don't worry buddy, Japan was stronger than the U.S. in the early days of WW2 with no experience in carrier warfare and inexperienced pilots. Just cause you are stronger than one country doesn't mean much then.


US was much stronger too during the Korean War and not to forget with 16 other allied countries. What happened there?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## egodoc222

rott said:


> Are you for real? So China just have to wait for the US war planes to strike the Chinese mainland?
> I don't get it, are you just playing dumb or really dumb?
> "A carrier is considered as official US territory"
> Jesus Christ! You should refrain from posting. You've lost all credibility. I didn't follow you much, but with this post of yours.... I have no words.
> DF21 D a toy? Stop trolling. Get that weed outta your pie - hole.
> 
> 
> IQ comes into play with such posts from him. I *facepalmed* when I read his post.


Multiple carriers are deployed around the world to provide military presence, respond quickly to crises, and participate in joint exercises with allied forces;[2] this has led the Navy to refer to their _Nimitz_-class carriers as "4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_ships.
So using a df21 a ballistic missile one aircraft carrier which a sovereign territory will result in a nuclear war.....so df21 is just a showpiece...even a kid can get that!!
Ps: I get that truth frustrates you....but refrain from personal attacks!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

cnleio said:


> Another thing i can sure, 10x A.C groups is good for U.S bad for China ... but both as Nuclear Power our nuclear weapons in hands is fair to each other ppl. China isn't the Iraq, 10x A.C groups can deadly threat some small country but it can't kill Russia or China.



Never said carriers can kill a country. We sure didn't with Japan when we had a hundred aircraft carriers at the time.



rott said:


> Oldman, you sound like a 12 year old. Your post is quite a contradictory to your user name.



Rott, don't act like a 12 year old if you think you can contradict that logic about Trident conventional missiles. How would you react if Trident conventional missiles were launched at China? You assumed its conventional right? If you think its nuclear, you are a 12 year old kid. LOL!



rott said:


> US was much stronger too during the Korean War and not to forget with 16 other allied countries. What happened there?



South Korea still exists and still have U.S. forces stationed there. Thats what happened.


----------



## hirobo2

This is turning out to be very interesting. China has already made it clear, there can be no room for negotiations once the arbitration hearing has been awarded. If the Philippines is smart, they'll cancel the arbitration at the last minute. If they have an ounce of IQ in their noggins, this is what they must do to appease the Big Panda.

US on the hand other wants to push the arbitration ahead to its conclusions and slander China. The big bluffer (USA) is only sending 2 carrier groups to the SCS just to say, "yeah we'll support you [the Philippines] if war breakouts between you and China." But we all know US is all talks no action/no balls. The carriers are there just for empty showsmanship, nothing more.

My money is on the Philippines canceling the arbitration before the deadline...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## rott

rott said:


> Are you for real? So China just have to wait for the US war planes to strike the Chinese mainland?
> I don't get it, are you just playing dumb or really dumb?
> "A carrier is considered as official US territory"
> Jesus Christ! You should refrain from posting. You've lost all credibility. I didn't follow you much, but with this post of yours.... I have no words.
> DF21 D a toy? Stop trolling. Get that weed outta your pie - hole.
> 
> 
> IQ comes into play with such posts from him. I *facepalmed* when I read his post.
> 
> 
> Oldman, you sound like a 12 year old. Your post is quite a contradictory to your user name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US was much stronger too during the Korean War and not to forget with 16 other allied countries. What happened there?


You said launching a DF21 D will trigger a nuclear war? Hahahahahah.... 
DF21 is an ICBM??? Well done old man or should I say an oldman with a 12 year old intellect?
Unlike you, I wouldn't say, you behave like a 12, because YOU ARE 12.
Btw, do you know what are the qualifications for an ICBM? 
Go back to your cave and learn about ICBMs. Stop trolling when you dont know jack. 

Last but not the least, China did not ever want to take over South Korea. They just did not want the US at the Chinese and the North Korean border. 
But the US had a different agenda, they wanted to overrun North Korean. 
Your pathetic lies will get you no medals. Trying to evade the truth in order to win an argument? You're really 12.



egodoc222 said:


> Multiple carriers are deployed around the world to provide military presence, respond quickly to crises, and participate in joint exercises with allied forces;[2] this has led the Navy to refer to their _Nimitz_-class carriers as "4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_ships.
> So using a df21 a ballistic missile one aircraft carrier which a sovereign territory will result in a nuclear war.....so df21 is just a showpiece...even a kid can get that!!
> Ps: I get that truth frustrates you....but refrain from personal attacks!!


Truth? What truth have you posted besides mental masturbation? 
Sovereign territory of the US? Nice, seems that's more valuable than any sovereign nation. Sure, a kid can get that. Lol, I am sure you did. 
Please don't come up with stupid posts and quote me again. Have a good day.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Oldman1

rott said:


> You said launching a DF21 D will trigger a nuclear war? Hahahahahah....
> DF21 is an ICBM??? Well done old man or should I say an oldman with a 12 year old intellect?
> Unlike you, I wouldn't say, you behave like a 12, because YOU ARE 12.
> Btw, do you know what are the qualifications for an ICBM?
> Go back to your cave and learn about ICBMs. Stop trolling when you dont know jack.
> 
> .



Hey Rott, you should read about the DF-21 and what is was originally made for before converting to conventional. It may surprise you. 12 year old boy you are indeed.


----------



## dy1022

We Chinese are ready for protecting our rights in SCS, Nuclear war? so be it !!! It's Honorable to die for that !!!


The only question in here is , 300 million americans want to waste their lifes for someone else's interests which thousand miles away ???

Master wants to waste own life for lapdog???

what kind of Low level IQ from these non white America worshippers in here ???

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## egodoc222

rott said:


> You said launching a DF21 D will trigger a nuclear war? Hahahahahah....
> DF21 is an ICBM??? Well done old man or should I say an oldman with a 12 year old intellect?
> Unlike you, I wouldn't say, you behave like a 12, because YOU ARE 12.
> Btw, do you know what are the qualifications for an ICBM?
> Go back to your cave and learn about ICBMs. Stop trolling when you dont know jack.
> 
> Last but not the least, China did not ever want to take over South Korea. They just did not want the US at the Chinese and the North Korean border.
> But the US had a different agenda, they wanted to overrun North Korean.
> Your pathetic lies will get you no medals. Trying to evade the truth in order to win an argument? You're really 12.
> 
> 
> Truth? What truth have you posted besides mental masturbation?
> Sovereign territory of the US? Nice, seems that's more valuable than any sovereign nation. Sure, a kid can get that. Lol, I am sure you did.
> Please don't come up with stupid posts and quote me again. Have a good day.


Clearly truth frustrates you...lol


----------



## TaiShang

egodoc222 said:


> Multiple carriers are deployed around the world to provide military presence, respond quickly to crises, and participate in joint exercises with allied forces;[2] this has led the Navy to refer to their _Nimitz_-class carriers as "4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_ships.
> So using a df21 a ballistic missile one aircraft carrier which a sovereign territory will result in a nuclear war.....so df21 is just a showpiece...even a kid can get that!!
> Ps: I get that truth frustrates you....but refrain from personal attacks!!



Guess what, every Chinese fishing boat is a sovereign and mobile Chinese territory. Why, because I said so. Does it matter the sovereign territory is 4.5 acres or much smaller?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## egodoc222

TaiShang said:


> Guess what, every Chinese fishing boat is a sovereign and mobile Chinese territory. Why, because I said so. Does it matter the sovereign territory is 4.5 acres or much smaller?


Yeah sure....but do your country have the balls to start a nuclear war....for a fishing boat?
Don't get agitated....there is deep thinking involved before considering carriers as sovereign territory!!
It's not simply US saying this...it's what freedom of navigation law says!!


----------



## greenwood

footmarks said:


> good luck to you. I guess US still have many bunkers to survive nuclear fallout, make sure you have plenty too before you use any of your DF toys.
> 
> And yes, thanks for the 62 lesson, otherwise we would be in same dream of brotherhood as pakistan is in today.


 
No, your 62 lesson should be: never choose another mighty impulsive president like Nehru, otherwise India would misjudge and be hit again.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## TaiShang

egodoc222 said:


> Yeah sure....but do your country have the balls to start a nuclear war....for a fishing boat?
> Don't get agitated....there is deep thinking involved before considering carriers as sovereign territory!!
> It's not simply US saying this...it's what freedom of navigation law says!!



It says for everybody. Hence, for sure, sovereign territory or not, sinking a military platform would have much different consequences than sinking a fishing boat.

In this case, the difference lies not in the action itself, but the question of whose platform you have attacked.

I would think both China and US would think deep and hard before they did so. Whether they think their AC is sovereign or not is worthless. Sovereignty cannot be mobile or built in a shipyard.

I do not question your posting here about what they think, I question what they think.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## egodoc222

TaiShang said:


> It says for everybody. Hence, for sure, sovereign territory or not, sinking a military platform would have much different consequences than sinking a fishing boat.
> 
> In this case, the difference lies not in the action itself, but the question of whose platform you have attacked.
> 
> I would think both China and US would think deep and hard before they did so. Whether they think their AC is sovereign or not is worthless. Sovereignty cannot be mobile or built in a shipyard.
> 
> I do not question your posting here about what they think, I question what they think.


Lol....it's not my figment of imagination....there are several videos by American officials post df 21 test....they repeatedly stressed that carrier is their sovereign territory attack on it is considered as attack on US soil!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

egodoc222 said:


> Lol....it's not my figment of imagination....there are several videos by American officials post df 21 test....they repeatedly stressed that carrier is their sovereign territory attack on it is considered as attack on US soil!!



Then they must be damn serious. They will do their best, we will do ours. In the end, what matters is national power and will. That's the ultimate international law as the US has shown many times over.

I agree, this is make or break point in terms of China-US competition in East Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

China won't do anything and we won't do anything. I don't believe the Chinese are that stupid.

we will continue sail in the SCS because it's our right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GS Zhou

C130 said:


> we will continue sail in the SCS because it's our right.


yes, I agree, it is your right. Just like our right to improve the infrastructures on the South China Sea islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

C130 said:


> China won't do anything and we won't do anything. I don't believe the Chinese are that stupid.
> 
> we will continue sail in the SCS because it's our right.



 Yes. You are right, China is *behaving more rationally* that USA today.

How difficult will it be for China to annihilate the entire US Naval fleet in her backyard? 

*Can USA naval force survived a blitzkrieg of hypersonic missiles fired from China warships, missile boats 022 or landmass?*

Let says China sank the entirely USA Naval Fleet in the SCS, everyone of them warship, how would USA reacts?

The next level of course and destroyed the world in the process. A deadly thermonuclear war where USA fired its ISBM whereas China will attack USA with its WU-ZF HGV, ICBM, etc! 
Can the reckless USA really win this one with USA intact? The answer is NO!

Let put it this way? USA is calling a bluff and China knows it? That is why China do not need to respond.

*Underestimating their enemy is USA biggest mistake today.* Within the next 5 years China, not USA will be the prominent SUPERPOWER in the world. China will be launching their Quantum-telecommunication satellite by next month and USA will lose most of their advantage in their eavesdropping and spying capabilities then but China will and can still continue to monitor all your messages, everyone of them. 

See how the geopolitical and military scenario is changing.

China Y-20 tansporters will be in mass production while USA has to shop for alternative for their C-17, RD-170 rocket engine, etc. USA no longer manufacture its C-17 transporter.

Let not forget USA has to restart its 30 years old 1980 Arleigh Burke Destroyer program because of lack of a suitable replacement. Its much acclaimed DDG-1000 Zumwalt (US Military originally planned for 32) is cancelled because of very high cost and is pledged with continuuous unresolved problems. 

By the time the problem is finally resolved, China may be mass producing 055 destroyer and its variants which could be then the most advanced destroyer or cruiser in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## TaiShang

Access the internet, yeah, lots of SSCI papers (second highest in the world) are produced in China based purely on China's internet. I did that myself when I was doing a short research there. CKNI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) is amazing and has a better global coverage than other national databases that I worked with.

One Child policy was for the greater good until it was scrapped. And, there were lots of exemptions, not that it was one size fits all.

Lots of projects are being halted because of people's opposition. So, yes, government actually listens to people.

Who needs google or whatever when we have national companies that do the job just as good? Besides, lots of precious Yuan stays at home and jobs are created because we have national industry that monopolized domestic market. “It is economy, stupid," Reagan once said. If Google complies with national laws (bring their servers to Mainland China), they are welcome but I doubt they can compete there. China's internet environment is way too sophisticated to be understood by the likes of Google.

There is complete freedom of migration in China but the country has to control the growth of big cities in order not to end up like India.

As for voicing opinion freely, just check Chinese and Indian social media on air pollution; Chinese social media beats Indian social media by a factor of ten.

China has the world's most beautiful cities, unlike India, which is rather dirty, as is known for by the people outside. China is the world's largest tourist destination for a reason, it is not by chance. India, on the other hand, is a death/rape trap for tourists, especially women, along with its dirtiness.



footmarks said:


> Ya I know, got it. China is democratic - in true sense of the world. In china one can access internet freely, make children freely, can oppose govt freely, can google and facebook freely, can migrate freely, can live freely wherever they want, can voice their opinions freely, china has the worlds most cleanest cities, most homogenous population.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Tiqiu

If people actually read through the lengthy speech made by the high-ranking Chinese diplomat at this highest think-tank forum about China-US relations, especially if people take consideration on the fact that his speech was delivered at this China-US Dialogue on South China Sea in Washington, and delivered at this very critical point of time- some may argue this maybe the turning point for China-US relations, it will be silly to construe it as a declaration of war, or nuclear war.

Rather, it serves as the manifestation of China's stance or bottom line about the SCS issues, or in a broader sense, about how two countries are dealing or co-existing with each other in the time to come. For the world sake, China and the US should not resort to another great war to find the way of this. Till now the dialogues,forums and peer-to-peer official exchanges between the two countries seem worked. It is said there are more than 400 of such platforms between two countries to engage talks. So the chances for a sudden war between the two are very slim.

I think most Chinese people would agree with me in my statement that Chinese people are not naturally born America-haters. We acknowledged the fact that China has learned a great deal from the US and had benefited from the international system the US established. Till today on the Chinese state medias there are many news about the US that portrayed a positive side of the country.For instance, almost all Chinese TV I watched broadcasted the news that a young boy called the police about his father rushing trough the red light at night in America. But if the US think and treat China as enemy, China will become one, a competent/excellent one. China has long been prepared for the Plan B. After all,as regarded by other people world wide,the Chinese people are patient and strategic thinkers.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## TaiShang

footmarks said:


> I appreciate your love for your country. No need to disrespect other's country though.



I am just responding to your arguments; nothing in social life is one dimensional.

I love Greater China and I am aware of what has been accomplished and what has to be accomplished further. In the end, all of our actions are designed for self-benefit and strength. Outside opinion does matter only to the degree that we view them as being constructive.



Tiqiu said:


> I think most Chinese people would agree with me in my statement that Chinese people are not naturally born America-haters. We acknowledged the fact that China has learned a great deal from the US and had benefited from the international system the US established.



Very precise points.

System-builders always benefit the most from the status quo (it means the US has benefitted the most from it）; if China also benefitted from the post-War global system, it is not because of the structure only, but because of the hard work and pragmatism of its own people and leadership.

If structure had been the only determinant, India and Brazil would be now just as equally developed nations as China. So, it is 'agency vs. structure' problematic and I take the agency as superior although I do not deny the structure.

Nothing has been given to China for free or without sacrifice. Besides, post-War system was US-influenced, but not entirely US dominated. We have a thirty-year of bi-polarity.



Tiqiu said:


> Till today on the Chinese state medias there are many news about the US that portrayed a positive side of the country.For instance, almost all Chinese TV I watched broadcasted the news that a young boy called the police about his father rushing trough the red light at night in America.



It is true that China's good will toward the US is larger than the vice versa. But this good will must not blind us to all the hate and ploys that come from that direction. Being cute and cuddly works for pandas, perhaps, but, China has pandas only, it is not a panda.



Tiqiu said:


> But if the US think and treat China as enemy, *China will become one, a competent/excellent one*. China has long been prepared for the Plan B. After all, as regarded by other people world wide, the Chinese people are patient and strategic thinkers.



I guess it is high time to become one, because the *warless *encirclement of China can go only this far. If further patience is required, then it means we are back to square one -- the days of Opium War.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Tiqiu

TaiShang said:


> I guess it is high time to become one, because the *warless *encirclement of China can go only this far. If further patience is required, then it means we are back to square one -- the days of Opium War.


My comment on our patience is just a general characterization. I fully agree it is time for China to act should the US push further. The nearly-completed 3 air run ways on those islands and the deployment of J20/Y20 and many more are all indication of China's determination to fight .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nike

actually US had 10 super carrier and 11 or more super sized LHD in which they can carry attack fighter like harrier.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CorporateAffairs

Useless posturing by China.


----------



## rott

Oldman1 said:


> Hey Rott, you should read about the DF-21 and what is was originally made for before converting to conventional. It may surprise you. 12 year old boy you are indeed.


Omg, seriously oldman with a 12 year old intellect? 
So according to your immature intellect a missile incorporates qualities from an ICBM is still an ICBM? So you are basically built from your father and you become your father's father? Well done! 



Tiqiu said:


> I think most Chinese people would agree with me in my statement that Chinese people are not naturally born America-haters. We acknowledged the fact that China has learned a great deal from the US and had benefited from the international system the US established. Till today on the Chinese state medias there are many news about the US that portrayed a positive side of the country.For instance, almost all Chinese TV I watched broadcasted the news that a young boy called the police about his father rushing trough the red light at night in America. But if the US think and treat China as enemy, China will become one, a competent/excellent one. China has long been prepared for the Plan B. After all,as regarded by other people world wide,the Chinese people are patient and strategic thinkers.


Bro, I can tell you one thing. Most of the posters here aren't even true Americans. Most of them here are either immigrants or false flaggers. 
You can clearly distinguish the way an American (born) narrates to that of a wannabe.

@Tiqiu, as you noticed most of the anti-china posters here are mainly (butthurt) Indians. You know what I am talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tiqiu

rott said:


> @Tiqiu, as you noticed most of the anti-china posters here are mainly (butthurt) Indians. You know what I am talking about.


That explains a lot. Thanks for clearing it out.



Tiger Genie said:


> US has bases closer to china than the other way and more than enough defences to handle any long range missiles.


HaHa, I wont be so confident about what they say like you guys. Read this article written by themselves.

*A test of America's homeland missile defense system found a problem. Why did the Pentagon call it a success?*

By DAVID WILLMAN

REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON | JULY 6, 2016, 3 A.M.

If North Korea ever unleashed nuclear-armed missiles against America, the defense of U.S. cities and towns would depend to no small degree on something called a divert thruster.

These small rocket motors would be counted on to keep U.S. anti-missile interceptors on target as they hurtled through space toward the incoming warheads.

If the thrusters malfunctioned – and they have a record of performance problems – an interceptor could veer off-course, allowing a warhead to slip through. The consequences could be catastrophic.

So a lot was at stake when the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency conducted the first flight test of a new and supposedly improved version of the thruster on Jan. 28.

An interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California was to make a close fly-by of a mock enemy warhead high above the Pacific. The interceptor’s four attached thrusters would provide precision steering.

The missile agency issued a news release that day touting a “successful flight test.” The agency’s lead contractors were no less effusive. Aerojet Rocketdyne Inc., maker of the thrusters, said the new model “successfully performed its mission-critical role.”

Raytheon Co., which assembles the interceptors, said the “successful mission proved the effectiveness of a recent redesign of the … thrusters, which provides the control necessary for lethal impact with incoming threats.”

In fact, the test was not a success, the Los Angeles Times has learned. One of the thrusters malfunctioned, causing the interceptor to fly far off-course, according to Pentagon scientists.

The mishap raises fresh questions about the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the network of ground-launched interceptors that is supposed to protect the United States against a nuclear attack.


Also there are more cool-heads in both countries to see the obvious.
*South China Sea Disputes Should Not Define China-U.S. Relations *
*http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-re...-not-define-china-us-relations-585657721.html*

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Over 50 leading experts from China and U.S. think tanks participated in the seminar, co-organized by Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China (RUCCY) and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), sponsored by National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCSS) and Wilson International Center for Scholars.


Ideas such as "The disputes over the South China Sea should not define China-U.S. relations." and "Averting a deepening U.S.-China rift over the South China Sea issue should be a priority while coordination and cooperation between the two countries must be encouraged." were discussed by a group of International Leading Experts who concluded _China-U.S. Dialogue on the South China Sea_, at a closed-door seminar in Washington DC on July 5, 2016.


"The final decision of the arbitration, which will come out in the next few days, amounts to nothing more than a piece of paper," said Dai Bingguo, former State Councilor of China, spoke in the opening ceremony, "China's sovereignty over the South China Sea islands, as part of the post-war international order, is under protection by the UN Charter and other International Laws."


"China sees the peace and stability of the South China Sea as having a bearing on its vital interests. That is why China will never resort to force unless challenged with armed provocation," added Dai Bingguo.


"The stability in the South China Sea is in accordance with all parties concerned," said Huang Renwei, Vice President of Shanghai Academy of Social Science, "We should reduce strategic mistrust while enhancing crisis management."


*The tension in the South China Sea must be cooled down," said Michael Swaine, Senior Associate of CEIP." "The U.S. and China must get beyond the heated rhetoric and build the basis for de-escalating tensions in this region."*


*"We need to carefully consider the implications for U.S. operations in the South China Sea," said Brendan Mulvaney, Associate Chair for Language and Culture Dept. in the United States Naval Academy.*


"It serves as 'Think Tank Diplomacy' at this subtle moment," said Wang Wen, Executive Dean of RUCCY.

 This seminar seeks exchanges of views among think tanks and cooperation between China and the United States. Experts here agreed that the two countries should not get into a confrontation regarding the South China Sea issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dungeness

Useless fight of words. Since Korean war, US has not fought any war directly with any country of her own size, and it is not about to do anything differently. For those Indian members who would love to drum up US to fight a war with China, you can just take a bath and go to bed dreaming now.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## TaiShang

Dungeness said:


> Useless fight of words. Since Korean war, US has not fought any war directly with any country of her own size, and it is not about to do anything differently. For those Indian members who would love to drum up US to fight a war with China, you can just take a bath and go to bed dreaming now.



Definitely it will not be the case, contrary to the expectations from unrelated parties. Major powers have their own way of doing things; simplistic small and medium powers are not able to grasp. In the end, as war of words intensifies, China's island development and capability build-up is going on just as usual.

If PH pushes it too much, the next sea feature to be developed into a full-fledged island is Scarborough as the US is watching from a safe off-12NM distance. China does not want to do this and intimidate the US because it will be a huge nail on the coffin of the trust small minions put on the US to save them from big bad China.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dungeness

TaiShang said:


> Definitely it will not be the case, contrary to the expectations from unrelated parties. Major powers have their own way of doing things; simplistic small and medium powers are not able to grasp. In the end, as war of words intensifies, China's island development and capability build-up is going on just as usual.
> 
> If PH pushes it too much*, the next sea feature to be developed into a full-fledged island is Scarborough as the US is watching from a safe off-12NM distance.* China does not want to do this and intimidate the US because it will be a huge nail on the coffin of the trust small minions put on the US to save them from big bad China.




China is smart enough not to take this step, yet. They will give US enough face to calm down on their own term. With Chilcot Report is becoming a hot issue in UK, the ripples will be inevitably felt in the US. I do not think US population is in the mood to fight an all out war with 2nd most powerful country in the world, be it evil or angle.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## TaiShang

Dungeness said:


> China is smart enough not to take this step, yet. They will give US enough face to calm down on their own term. With Chilcot Report is becoming a hot issue in UK, the ripples will be inevitably felt in the US. I do not think US population is in the mood to fight an all out war with 2nd most powerful country in the world, be it evil or angle.



I agree.

If the US can swallow Georgian War, Syrian red lines, and Crimea, I guess, they have strong enough stomach to digest Scarborough shoal development by China. But that would be disastrous in terms of the psyche of little guys in the region. So, China will likely hold on and give the US enough time to find some excuse for graceful exit.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dungeness

It is turbulent time, as Pivot to Asia broke the status quo, the new equilibrium will be inevitably re-established. US is in strategic retreat in China‘s periphery , and China is on the strategic advance, despite the hawkish talking of the chief of pacific command or the taunting talk of Mr. Dai. China knows the cards US has, but the same can't be said the other way around. Nobody can predict the outcome of a boxer vs a gungfu master, but China has the advantage of this one party system, so it doesn't have to bend over every 4 years. My money will be on CPC.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

*Philippine President Duterte aims 'soft-landing' in talks with China*
(China Daily) 09:01, July 07, 2016






Presumptive Philippine president-elect Rodrigo Duterte speaks during a press conference in Davao Province, the Philippines, May 16, 2016. [Photo: Xinhua/Stringer]


Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is taking a "soft-landing" approach in exploring ways to renew friendly ties with China, which have been strained in the past years over the disputes in the South China Sea, analysts said on Wednesday.

This is a departure from his predecessor Benigno Aquino III, under whom the Philippines unilaterally initiated an arbitration case against China in 2013 over the dispute at the Permannent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

At his first cabinet meeting after he was sworn in on June 30, Duterte, who had said he was open to talking with China about the territorial dispute, stated, "If we can have peace by just talking I'll be really happy."

Richard Heydarian, an associate professor at De la Salle University, said Duterte "is taking a significant different approach, constantly emphasizing necessity for direct engagement and revival of bilateral ties."

"He is signaling that neither the maritime disputes nor the arbitration case should negatively define the texture of overall bilateral relations," Heydarian said.

He said that Duterte was aiming at "a soft-landing" especially after the arbitration verdict is handed down on July 12, "which may mean not aggressively criticizing China."

In exchange, Heyadarian said Duterte will most likely seek for concessions in the South China Sea.

"A lot of horse trading is on the horizon," he said.

*NOT EVEN "WAR OF WORDS"*

Even before he assumed the presidency, Duterte has made it clear that "I am not ready to go to war," referring to the worst scenario of fighting between China and the Philippines over the disputes in the South China Sea.

Benito Lim, a political science professor, said Duterte wanted to engage China, making his position clear to China that he wanted direct talks and that he did not want to engage China in war, not even "war of words."

"It means that he wants to explore other avenues aside from letting the situation fester in the standoff," Lim said in an interview, adding that Duterte "is trying to look for ways and means by which this long-time standoff can be removed and then agree on things that are mutually beneficial."

Lim said this is a logical step on the part of the Duterte administration, adding that both countries can move on by forging "cooperative and beneficial agreements."

"He is sending a message to China that both countries can agree on mutually beneficial agreements instead of a standoff," Lim said.

"Exploring other avenues by which there can be agreements that are equally beneficial to both is better than saying bad things about each other," he said.

Moreover, he said that Duterte was "addressing" Philippine national interests by making this reconciliatory move with Beijing.

Duterte has said that the Philippines will charter a course of its own, shifting away from Aquino government's overarching dependence on U.S. military support.

"We will chartering a course of our own," Duterte has said.

"It will not be dependent on America, and it will be a line not intended to please anybody but the Filipino interests," said Lim.

Asked what the implication of Duterte's "softening move" will be on the country's relations with the United States, Lim said, "Philippine interests will not be formulated whether the international community would look at it with approval or not. It would be in the interests of the Philippines."

Lim said Duterte's statement that he would wait for the ruling and study its implications meant that even if it were in our favor "he will still examine the consequences of what that decision means."

*TO HAVE STRONG TRADE, INVESTMENT RELATIONS*

Rommel Banlaoi, director of the Center for Intelligence and National Security Studies, said Duterte wanted to open direct talks with China on many facets of diplomatic relations like economic and trade, and not just about political issues like the South China Sea.

Banlaoi said Duterte was not just exploring ways "to revive the stagnant relations between Beijing and Manila but he also wants a better economic ties with China."

"Duterte does not want the bilateral relationship with China to revolve around the dispute on the South China Sea, meaning that his administration is willing to talk about other, more equally important aspect of the relations," Banlaoi said.

In an editorial on Monday, the Philippine Daily Inquirer said that despite its territorial dispute with China, it is possible for the Philippines to have strong trade and investment relations with China, adding one major avenue for this is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

"The AIIB has been described as modern and multilateral, or China's 21st-century answer to lenders like the World Bank and the ADB (Asian Development Bank). And the Philippines will be better off borrowing through a more transparent window now," the editorial said.

Banlaoi said Duterte was fostering an independent foreign policy, "a policy that is not pro this and against that" despite what he described as "tremendous pressure" from strategic partners like the United States and its allies in the region.

"It's a difficult and delicate balancing act," Balaoi said, adding that Duterte was determined to have good relations with everybody.

On the forthcoming arbitral ruling, Banlaoi said the administration has already said that it will carefully study the ruling before taking the next step.

"My reading is that the administration will make sure that its next step will support its position to bring back good ties with China," he said.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0707/c90000-9082772.html

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## TaiShang

grey boy 2 said:


> *Philippine President Duterte aims 'soft-landing' in talks with China*
> (China Daily) 09:01, July 07, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presumptive Philippine president-elect Rodrigo Duterte speaks during a press conference in Davao Province, the Philippines, May 16, 2016. [Photo: Xinhua/Stringer]
> 
> 
> Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is taking a "soft-landing" approach in exploring ways to renew friendly ties with China, which have been strained in the past years over the disputes in the South China Sea, analysts said on Wednesday.
> 
> This is a departure from his predecessor Benigno Aquino III, under whom the Philippines unilaterally initiated an arbitration case against China in 2013 over the dispute at the Permannent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
> 
> At his first cabinet meeting after he was sworn in on June 30, Duterte, who had said he was open to talking with China about the territorial dispute, stated, "If we can have peace by just talking I'll be really happy."
> 
> Richard Heydarian, an associate professor at De la Salle University, said Duterte "is taking a significant different approach, constantly emphasizing necessity for direct engagement and revival of bilateral ties."
> 
> "He is signaling that neither the maritime disputes nor the arbitration case should negatively define the texture of overall bilateral relations," Heydarian said.
> 
> He said that Duterte was aiming at "a soft-landing" especially after the arbitration verdict is handed down on July 12, "which may mean not aggressively criticizing China."
> 
> In exchange, Heyadarian said Duterte will most likely seek for concessions in the South China Sea.
> 
> "A lot of horse trading is on the horizon," he said.
> 
> *NOT EVEN "WAR OF WORDS"*
> 
> Even before he assumed the presidency, Duterte has made it clear that "I am not ready to go to war," referring to the worst scenario of fighting between China and the Philippines over the disputes in the South China Sea.
> 
> Benito Lim, a political science professor, said Duterte wanted to engage China, making his position clear to China that he wanted direct talks and that he did not want to engage China in war, not even "war of words."
> 
> "It means that he wants to explore other avenues aside from letting the situation fester in the standoff," Lim said in an interview, adding that Duterte "is trying to look for ways and means by which this long-time standoff can be removed and then agree on things that are mutually beneficial."
> 
> Lim said this is a logical step on the part of the Duterte administration, adding that both countries can move on by forging "cooperative and beneficial agreements."
> 
> "He is sending a message to China that both countries can agree on mutually beneficial agreements instead of a standoff," Lim said.
> 
> "Exploring other avenues by which there can be agreements that are equally beneficial to both is better than saying bad things about each other," he said.
> 
> Moreover, he said that Duterte was "addressing" Philippine national interests by making this reconciliatory move with Beijing.
> 
> Duterte has said that the Philippines will charter a course of its own, shifting away from Aquino government's overarching dependence on U.S. military support.
> 
> "We will chartering a course of our own," Duterte has said.
> 
> "It will not be dependent on America, and it will be a line not intended to please anybody but the Filipino interests," said Lim.
> 
> Asked what the implication of Duterte's "softening move" will be on the country's relations with the United States, Lim said, "Philippine interests will not be formulated whether the international community would look at it with approval or not. It would be in the interests of the Philippines."
> 
> Lim said Duterte's statement that he would wait for the ruling and study its implications meant that even if it were in our favor "he will still examine the consequences of what that decision means."
> 
> *TO HAVE STRONG TRADE, INVESTMENT RELATIONS*
> 
> Rommel Banlaoi, director of the Center for Intelligence and National Security Studies, said Duterte wanted to open direct talks with China on many facets of diplomatic relations like economic and trade, and not just about political issues like the South China Sea.
> 
> Banlaoi said Duterte was not just exploring ways "to revive the stagnant relations between Beijing and Manila but he also wants a better economic ties with China."
> 
> "Duterte does not want the bilateral relationship with China to revolve around the dispute on the South China Sea, meaning that his administration is willing to talk about other, more equally important aspect of the relations," Banlaoi said.
> 
> In an editorial on Monday, the Philippine Daily Inquirer said that despite its territorial dispute with China, it is possible for the Philippines to have strong trade and investment relations with China, adding one major avenue for this is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
> 
> "The AIIB has been described as modern and multilateral, or China's 21st-century answer to lenders like the World Bank and the ADB (Asian Development Bank). And the Philippines will be better off borrowing through a more transparent window now," the editorial said.
> 
> Banlaoi said Duterte was fostering an independent foreign policy, "a policy that is not pro this and against that" despite what he described as "tremendous pressure" from strategic partners like the United States and its allies in the region.
> 
> "It's a difficult and delicate balancing act," Balaoi said, adding that Duterte was determined to have good relations with everybody.
> 
> On the forthcoming arbitral ruling, Banlaoi said the administration has already said that it will carefully study the ruling before taking the next step.
> 
> "My reading is that the administration will make sure that its next step will support its position to bring back good ties with China," he said.
> http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0707/c90000-9082772.html



He hopes he can utilize the ITLOS ruling as a trump card against China.

Hence, he is giving soft signals before the decision is made. From this (alleged) vantage point, he thinks he will sit negotiation table as a stronger side. Why? Because he has the ITLOS ruling backing him.

China may need to break the back and nerve of this new president through a precise, surgical action in Scarborough Shoal. This way it will have its own trump card to sit down and talk.

This new president plays smart, China needs to show it is smarter. Otherwise, the new PH president will cloak itself in little guy's virtue backed by a worthless court decision.

China needs to keep in mind that it was the PH that started the arbitration. There must be consequences for this before ’normalizing‘ relations. Initiative cannot be left in PH's hands.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics

Oldman1 said:


> Launching DF-21 leads to nuclear war since they are ICBMs anyways. We thought about conventional Tridents, but that could lead to nuclear response.


DF-21D is IRBM，not ICBM.Its ballistic trajectory is quite different from ICBM.




USA president has enough time to judge the situation.Of course,the crews on the carrier will have enough time to do the last confession.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Viet

NirmalKrish said:


> Says the clown living in the USA, Nobel prize needs to given for your sheer hypocrisy.. Fanboys serz having a run for their money.


well xunzi is one of many online Chinese clowns that begin to run amok ahead of the UN ruling. he is one of the online prominent promoter of war against others, especially against weaker opponents. I bet if a war breaks out, he will be the first who hides in the toilette. not much expected from a coward. also, you can notice Chinese media run into overdrive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

For a post claiming China will not be intimidated by the US Carrier, these people sure have a lot of thing to say about the Carrier may or may not be deployed to the South China Seas

If the US Carrier is that "Nothing" like someone here say, then I don't think there is nothing to talk about. Then do explain why the up and down about this??



madokafc said:


> actually US had 10 super carrier and 11 or more super sized LHD in which they can carry attack fighter like harrier.....



US have more than 21 Carriers......

In all, the United States have 3 Supercarrier (Enterprise, Kitty Hawk, JFK) in reserve and All San Antonio Class can carry a complement of F35-B, making them mini carrier.

In All, US have about 40 Aircraft Carrier in active, inactive and mothball fleet

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Viet

jhungary said:


> For a post claiming China will not be intimidated by the US Carrier, these people sure have a lot of thing to say about the Carrier may or may not be deployed to the South China Seas
> 
> If the US Carrier is that "Nothing" like someone here say, then I don't think there is nothing to talk about. Then do explain why the up and down about this??
> 
> 
> 
> US have more than 21 Carriers......
> 
> In all, the United States have 3 Supercarrier (Enterprise, Kitty Hawk, JFK) in reserve and All San Antonio Class can carry a complement of F35-B, making them mini carrier.
> 
> In All, US have about 40 Aircraft Carrier in active, inactive and mothball fleet


the US once deployed 23 aircraft carriers into the South China Sea combating North Vietnam. as China is much bigger, with chinese having bigger mouths, the US should mobilize all 40 carriers. Makes more fun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

So funny ... some guys try to push U.S war with China, but in real world 10% chance U.S fight with China and 90% possible U.S fight with other small country. War with Russia or China, U.S knew what will hurt them ... but easily win victory from other small country ... so after WWII => Korea War => Vietnam War => Cold War => 1st Iraq War => Balkan War => Terror War => 2nd Iraq War => Afghan War, most time our Great U.S.A busy dealing with those small countries, not fight with Russia or China.

Sending 40x A.C to South China Sea to war with China ? United State not stupid to risk losing N.o1 power to war with other Nuclear Powers. Im sure U.S can send 10x A.C groups to destroy other small countries in this region.  The thing we can sure U.S never War with other Nuclear Power in SCS for some small country, also sure U.S will fight war with some small country for American interests.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Jlaw

TaiShang said:


> He hopes he can utilize the ITLOS ruling as a trump card against China.
> 
> Hence, he is giving soft signals before the decision is made. From this (alleged) vantage point, he thinks he will sit negotiation table as a stronger side. Why? Because he has the ITLOS ruling backing him.
> 
> China may need to break the back and nerve of this new president through a precise, surgical action in Scarborough Shoal. This way it will have its own trump card to sit down and talk.
> 
> This new president plays smart, China needs to show it is smarter. Otherwise, the new PH president will cloak itself in little guy's virtue backed by a worthless court decision.
> 
> China needs to keep in mind that it was the PH that started the arbitration. There must be consequences for this before ’normalizing‘ relations. Initiative cannot be left in PH's hands.



I don't know if Duerte is playing smart but a nobody like myself can see through his pretentious words for peace.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Gijoe

US will never fight China alone by themselves, because they has no balls. They will bring in at least 30 countries to engage the war with China. Lol, I can only see US can only make about 5 countries to engage with them. So there would not be big balls to face China. So nothing to worry about, all China is built and make the Scarborough island to contain nukes.



Viet said:


> the US once deployed 23 aircraft carriers into the South China Sea combating North Vietnam. as China is much bigger, with chinese having bigger mouths, the US should mobilize all 40 carriers. Makes more fun.


Lol, Where US balls?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## TaiShang

Viet said:


> well xunzi is one of many online Chinese clowns that begin to run amok ahead of the UN ruling. he is one of the online prominent promoter of war against others, especially against weaker opponents. I bet if a war breaks out, he will be the first who hides in the toilette. not much expected from a coward. also, you can notice Chinese media run into overdrive.



Not as much as the Vietnamese looters and the media who mistook German companies for Chinese.



Viet said:


> the US once deployed 23 aircraft carriers into the South China Sea combating North Vietnam. as China is much bigger, with chinese having bigger mouths, the US should mobilize all 40 carriers. Makes more fun.



If you had nukes and delivery capability, rest assured, the Uncle could not have moved a finger at you. 



Jlaw said:


> I don't know if Duerte is playing smart but a nobody like myself can see through his pretentious words for peace.



He is doing 'high' strategy, in his own fantasy world. Although I do hope he is being sincere, I would make plans based on the premise that he is not being sincere.

Overdoing national security and sovereignty is better than underdoing.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Jlaw

TaiShang said:


> He is doing 'high' strategy, in his own fantasy world. Although I do hope he is being sincere, I would make plans based on the premise that he is not being sincere.
> 
> Overdoing national security and sovereignty is better than underdoing.



Good one bro, love the "high strategy" part. If he was sincere about wanting lasting peace and economic partnership with China, he should have at least hinted that the UNCLOS verdict should be dropped.

But he is just talking

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Viet

TaiShang said:


> Not as much as the Vietnamese looters and the media who mistook German companies for Chinese.
> 
> 
> 
> If you had nukes and delivery capability, rest assured, the Uncle could not have moved a finger at you.
> 
> 
> 
> He is doing 'high' strategy, in his own fantasy world. Although I do hope he is being sincere, I would make plans based on the premise that he is not being sincere.
> 
> Overdoing national security and sovereignty is better than underdoing.


Not much as Chinese posters crying days and nights over Japanese war crimes by ignoring own crimes in own countries and neighbors. Vietnam included. You should seriously build 1,000 Nanking monuments all over China.

Having nukes seem giving you the right to do whatever you like. If the US fails to do her duties, I think Vietnam should go nuclear.


----------



## cnleio

Viet said:


> Having nukes seem giving you the right to do whatever you like. If the US fails to do her duties, I think Vietnam should go nuclear.


I just knew Gaddafi and Saddam ever said the same word, N.Korea Kim also had the word ... but they made the same mistake, underestimated the Top5 and Nuclear Powers in U.N.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Viet

cnleio said:


> I just knew Gaddafi and Saddam ever said the same word, N.Korea Kim also had the word ... but they made the same mistake, underestimated the Top5 and Nuclear Powers in U.N.


LOL at P5. who cares? North Korea has nukes, so Israel, Pakistan and India. Japan can make nukes, too. I think we will take a bit longer than the japanese. have you chinese posters here cheered Donald Trump?

Trump has no problems at all if Japan and South Korea go nuclear. he has no problem either if Vietnam goes nuclear. a lot of countries can go nuclear. do you think you can intimidate Vietnam? Don´t make the mistake by assuming you are immortal. ending as nuclear ashes is not funny.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Viet said:


> LOL at P5. who cares? North Korea has nukes, so Israel, Pakistan and India. Japan can make nukes, too. I think we will take a bit longer than the japanese. have you chinese posters here cheered Donald Trump?
> 
> Trump has no problems at all if Japan and South Korea go nuclear. he has no problem either if Vietnam goes nuclear. a lot of countries can go nuclear. do you think you can intimidate Vietnam? Don´t make the mistake by assuming you are immortal. ending as nuclear ashes is not funny.


LOL ... it seems u don't understand why i mentioned the Gaddafi and Saddam in here, these small countries before Vietnam already tried and failed in war, about N.Korea as far as i knew no any nuclear power officially admit N.Korea own nuke even U.S deny it, does N.Korea looks more powerful than S.Korea ?

Why Israel / Pakistan / India can have nukes not others ? Which Nuclear Power behind them ? LOL ... such question @@@

Does Vietnam get promise from Donald Trump go nuclear supported by United State ? If U.S support a lot of countries can go nuclear, not surprise the Mexico / Cuba / whole South America countries can get nukes at the next morning. In this world not only U.S can export nuclear techs other Nuclear Powers also can do the same thing, but we won't do that coz let other small countries owning nukes will weaken Top5's Nuclear Power and break current Nuclear Balance in the world, Donald Trump and the White House won't do that coz it means World Nuclear Arms Race will kill U.S too !

If Vietnam go nuclear, Russia won't support u and U.S also won't support u but China will against u ... like Gaddafi died in Libya, the Five permanent members of UNSC will 'murder' Vietnam Nuclear together.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Viet

cnleio said:


> LOL ... it seems u don't understand why i mentioned the Gaddafi and Saddam in here, these small countries before Vietnam already tried and failed in war, about N.Korea as far as i knew no any nuclear power officially admit N.Korea own nuke even U.S deny it, does N.Korea looks more powerful than S.Korea ?
> 
> Why Israel / Pakistan / India can have nukes not others ? Which Nuclear Power behind them ? LOL ... such question @@@
> 
> Does Vietnam get promise from Donald Trump go nuclear supported by United State ? If U.S support a lot of countries can go nuclear, not surprise the Mexico / Cuba / whole South America countries can get nukes at the next morning. In this world not only U.S can export nuclear techs other Nuclear Powers also can do the same thing, but we won't do that coz let other small countries owning nukes will weaken Top5's Nuclear Power and break current Nuclear Balance in the world, Donald Trump and the White House won't do that coz it means World Nuclear Arms Race will kill U.S too !
> 
> If Vietnam go nuclear, Russia won't support u and U.S also won't support u but China will against u ... like Gaddafi died in Libya, the Five permanent members of UNSC will 'murder' Vietnam Nuclear together.


why do you feel the need to mention other P5 members?

if you seriously think Russia is against Vietnam having nukes then you are a hopeless case.

America recently signs a nuclear deal with Vietnam, with the pact giving us a free hand in enrichment of uranium.

England and France don´t care at all if Vietnam has nukes or not.

or for your remark of Vietnam as small country, if I recall, we annihilated the armies of Mongols and Manchu, while those barbaric countries conquered China, making you to slaves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Viet said:


> why do you feel the need to mention other P5 members?
> 
> if you seriously think Russia is against Vietnam having nukes then you are a hopeless case.
> 
> America recently signs a nuclear deal with Vietnam, with the pact giving us a free hand in enrichment of uranium.
> 
> England and France don´t care at all if Vietnam has nukes or not.


I said many times in PDF "nuclear power plant =/= nuclear bomb", the plant also can have some enriched uranium but that not weapon-level. And ur problem is, just forget the neighbor CHINA is one of Nuclear Power / permanent member of UNSC / world N.o2 economy / world N.o2 military expenditure / Vietnam's 1st biggest trader / going foreign war.

Try nuclear threat another Nuclear Power ... let's see who is next Gaddafi.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jlaw

cnleio said:


> LOL ... it seems u don't understand why i mentioned the Gaddafi and Saddam in here, these small countries before Vietnam already tried and failed in war, about N.Korea as far as i knew no any nuclear power officially admit N.Korea own nuke even U.S deny it, does N.Korea looks more powerful than S.Korea ?
> 
> Why Israel / Pakistan / India can have nukes not others ? Which Nuclear Power behind them ? LOL ... such question @@@
> 
> Does Vietnam get promise from Donald Trump go nuclear supported by United State ? If U.S support a lot of countries can go nuclear, not surprise the Mexico / Cuba / whole South America countries can get nukes at the next morning. In this world not only U.S can export nuclear techs other Nuclear Powers also can do the same thing, but we won't do that coz let other small countries owning nukes will weaken Top5's Nuclear Power and break current Nuclear Balance in the world, Donald Trump and the White House won't do that coz it means World Nuclear Arms Race will kill U.S too !
> 
> If Vietnam go nuclear, Russia won't support u and U.S also won't support u but China will against u ... like Gaddafi died in Libya, the Five permanent members of UNSC will 'murder' Vietnam Nuclear together.



He doesn't understand. You need to to dumb it down more for him

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 1R0N_M4N_XL

if america will send 10 aircraft carriers... they as well send nukes along with it.


----------



## rott

Jlaw said:


> He doesn't understand. You need to to dumb it down more for him


I don't even read the guys post.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## TaiShang

Viet said:


> Having nukes seem giving you the right to do whatever you like. If the US fails to do her duties, I think Vietnam should go nuclear.



If you wish to go rogue, the road is open for you to inflict self-destruction.

Having nukes makes China equals with major powers, which are no more than 5. Who brings nuclear deterrence and Vietnam in the same sentence. Nuclear applies to the US only. Otherwise, it is not a instrument.



Viet said:


> LOL at P5. who cares? North Korea has nukes, so Israel, Pakistan and India. Japan can make nukes, too. I think we will take a bit longer than the japanese. have you chinese posters here cheered Donald Trump?
> 
> Trump has no problems at all if Japan and South Korea go nuclear. he has no problem either if Vietnam goes nuclear. a lot of countries can go nuclear. do you think you can intimidate Vietnam? Don´t make the mistake by assuming you are immortal. ending as nuclear ashes is not funny.



There are strict checks and balances on proliferation so much so that your country would collapse before it goes nuclear. It is not like, "Oh, I wish to provide nukes to my little allies," anymore. If the US nuclearize China's backyard, China will nuclearize US backyard. You know, it is always a balance among major countries.



Viet said:


> why do you feel the need to mention other P5 members?
> 
> if you seriously think Russia is against Vietnam having nukes then you are a hopeless case.
> 
> America recently signs a nuclear deal with Vietnam, with the pact giving us a free hand in enrichment of uranium.
> 
> England and France don´t care at all if Vietnam has nukes or not.



Russia does not trust you anymore ever since you cozied up with the Uncle.

England and France do care about nuclearization, even it is for the very important Vietnam.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Rajaraja Chola said:


> I was waiting for DF21 posts and it came as soon as possible
> 
> The Chinese and their territorial logical claims never ceases to amuse me



Don't underestimate DF21D, it can make virtually Indian Navy-less as I said before 



Jlaw said:


> I don't know if Duerte is playing smart but a nobody like myself can see through his pretentious words for peace.



Regardless if he want peace or not, we offer peace but we don't begging for peace.



C130 said:


> China won't do anything and we won't do anything. I don't believe the Chinese are that stupid.
> 
> we will continue sail in the SCS because it's our right.



Lol why China wants to do anything, we even dare to troll the US to come with all their super carriers , it will be stupid for PLAN to waste munitions on US warships why not simply enjoy to watch US navy keep burning their tax payer moneys to SCS or burn their ally's money such Japan and then watch they leave and head back to the base 

you can do the math, how much will cost US to send their carrier battle group and what they got in return  And we wish US navy to come more often to exercise your freedom of navigation



Viet said:


> Not much as Chinese posters crying days and nights over Japanese war crimes by ignoring own crimes in own countries and neighbors. Vietnam included. You should seriously build 1,000 Nanking monuments all over China.
> 
> Having nukes seem giving you the right to do whatever you like. If the US fails to do her duties, I think Vietnam should go nuclear.



Nice try to drag Japan into the thread, I can see how frustrated you're now , If you don't have anything better to say, please calm down. And what is US's duties by the way to protect Vietnam?

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

I just note this interesting analysis by a US Navy Captain.

In a sweeping 2013 paper on the carrier’s future, Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix estimated China could produce 1,227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the cost of a single U.S. carrier.

Although one missile might not sink a carrier, a single missile might cause sufficient damage to take it out of commission.

Further, the radar signature of a 100,000-ton ship is very large and the sensors used on the carrier’s current defense systems only increase that signature.

In such an attack, the fleet must be able to defend against a large number of incoming weapons approaching on evasive trajectories at greater than twice the speed of sound, while the attacker needs to only score a few hits. These new anti-ship missiles “put U.S. forces on the wrong side of physics,” the U.S. Naval War College’s Andrew Erickson warned.

Emerging anti-ship technology also places the aircraft carrier on the wrong side of basic arithmetic.

https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Usman Siddiaue

US can't send all the ten ACs to the SCS because US know that if US send all the ten ACs to the SCS. China destroy all the ten ACs at a same time

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Oldman1

rott said:


> Omg, seriously oldman with a 12 year old intellect?
> So according to your immature intellect a missile incorporates qualities from an ICBM is still an ICBM? So you are basically built from your father and you become your father's father? Well done!



Hey 12 year old kid, if the Trident conventional missile incorporates as an ICBM towards China, would you considered a nuclear attack? Think about it.



TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics said:


> DF-21D is IRBM，not ICBM.Its ballistic trajectory is quite different from ICBM.
> View attachment 316202
> 
> USA president has enough time to judge the situation.Of course,the crews on the carrier will have enough time to do the last confession.



Hey buddy, it takes only 15 to 30 minutes. Not enough info. Remember, the Russians almost launch a nuclear strike back in 1995 when they mistaken a Norwegian rocket for a missile attack.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Rajaraja Chola said:


> I am sh!t scared of the super duper weapon
> Yes of course only the PLA knows whether it works or no.... Cos the other side has no air defences and this missile will cut through carriers like hot knofe through butter....



You don't need to be scared, you just need to hear the name DF-21D which it'is enough, and no we don't know if it will work or no but we will have chance to experiment this toy during the war time to see if it's effective to knock and sink Indian warships and carriers.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics

Oldman1 said:


> Hey buddy, it takes only 15 to 30 minutes. Not enough info. Remember, the Russians almost launch a nuclear strike back in 1995 when they mistaken a Norwegian rocket for a missile attack.


I don't think Obama would screamed if DF-21D lauched *southward.*
Actually,if China want to nuke USA,then the northen way through north pole is the best choice.
1995 is the weakest time of Russia,such a unfriendly posture is just a warning to NATO.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nike

BTW, Uni Sovyet in their heyday can launch thousands of cruise AShM missile through their sophisticated built bomber fleets, Nuclear powered Submarines and other means in which none of them exist in Chinese inventory yet, and US still building their carrier fleets


----------



## Oldman1

TheTheoryOfMilitaryLogistics said:


> I don't think Obama would screamed if DF-21D lauched *southward.*
> Actually,if China want to nuke USA,then the northen way through north pole is the best choice.
> 1995 is the weakest time of Russia,such a unfriendly posture is just a warning to NATO.



Indeed, a Norwegian rocket was considered unfriendly it almost launch a nuclear war. But guess what, since you guys talk about nuking South Korea because of THAAD, we cannot tell if you are using nukes or not. But all the Chinese posters have that mindset to nuke South Korea because of a radar. So who knows if you launch a DF-21 at the carriers with nukes or the new DF-26 with nukes at our territories.


----------

