China 'has deployed missiles in South China Sea' - Taiwan

[Djinn]

No, earlier you said this was a response, it cannot therefor also be a precautionary measure.
The US(N) has the capability to choke any nation's SLOCs. Therefor all nations should follow this strategy of enchroching on international waters/airspace and that of neighbours?
Russia is no less of a 'real politiker' than US is, or China for that matter.
The US is no less of an outsider than e.g. Russia.
Unlike US and PRC, there have been several armed conflict (wars) between USSR and PRC.

What US aggression against China?
China is neutral versus US?

blablabla rethoric.

Response was the stationing of SAM's.............Precautionary measures are the Assertive policies in SCS. Russia and China are more of allies-----------Where as US and China are competitors.
US is engaged in armed conflicts globally where as China isn't. US cannot show aggression against China, because China isn't Iraq or Libya.

Childish shenanigans wont add any weight to your flawed argument.

 

[TaiShang]

What specific military threat is the militarization of supposedly civilian artificial structures addressing?

Potential threats.

EU area still bigger, even when looking at total trade

China is the larger trading nation-state on the face of the known universe.

Check the UN convention on the law of the sea: the places where these artifical structures have been erected are not recognized as sovereign territory.

They are recognized by China. That's what really matters. UNCLOS is never about sovereignty or historical titles. Even PH repeated this maybe ten times in their Court hearings.

This treaty also instructs on how to deal with situations where the 200nm EEZ of one country overlaps that of another.

Yes. China has 200NM over Nansha. Medium point with the PH and others where the EEZs overlap is delimitation line.

An EEZ of 200nm does not mean you threaten traffic in that zone to turn away.

We know. So long as it is for trade or considered innocent passage. We will not touch and even provide assistance. That's part of the reason for our developmentalist island build-up strategy.

You can only do that in the 12nm territorial zone, which presupposes sovereign territory, which is what is disputed in the first place.

No. What is disputed by PH is not 12NM. It is 200NM.

Just so we know something about the article source: The Global Times is a daily Chinese tabloid under the auspices of the People's Daily newspaper, focusing on international issues at a communist Chinese perspective. The Global Times differentiates itself from other Chinese newspapers in part through its more populist approach to journalism, coupled with a tendency to court controversy.

It is better than US regime mouthpieces. We love it. You do not read. For myself, I do not read US regime media.

And how specifically has the US encroached on the SLOCs of Asian nations in the region, or specifically PRC? Blockaded anyone, China in particular?

China is building capacity, including protective militarization on the islands to protect US interests, as well. Just as US military protects others' interests.

Of course, China has not been vigorously reorganizing and rearming its military since the mid to late 1980s?

Still lots of things to do. We are particularly slow since China is a benign great power. Yet, developing capacity for potential emergencies (regional and global) is a must for a country as strong as China.

 

[nang2]

Missiles are there to protect the freedom of navigation, especially the free navigation of Chinese vessels.

 

[Penguin]

Response was the stationing of SAM's.............Precautionary measures are the Assertive policies in SCS. Russia and China are more of allies-----------Where as US and China are competitors.
US is engaged in armed conflicts globally where as China isn't. US cannot show aggression against China, because China isn't Iraq or Libya.]/quote]
Assertive is not the same as aggressive. I see you toning down. Why shouldn't US, or Australia, or Malaysia, or Indonesia or Vietnam be assertive in the face of what is going on? Who else is building facilities and bases in this sea region, to the same extent?

Whether or not US is engaged in conflicts globally is irrelevant. Let's not pretent China isn't exerting its influence (who arms who e.g. Sudan? Just because you use proxies doesn't mean you're not in a conflict. China’s largest weapons manufacturer is allegedly selling arms to South Sudan—again - Quartz

Russia and China are only bedfellows where and when it suits them. Russia needs cash so it sells arms to China. Meanwhile, how many armed conflicts with Russia? Russia and China, in a different time/place are also competitors.

If China puts US to the test, it will be surprised, regardless of whether PRC is or isn't Libya or Iraq. NEVER underestimate your potential foe, or overestimate yourself.

Childish shenanigans wont add any weight to your flawed argument.

Say what? It is you that has no substantive argument beyond 'might makes right'.

Potential threats.

What SPECIFIC potential threats?

China is the larger trading nation-state on the face of the known universe.

Not on a per capita basis.

They are recognized by China. That's what really matters. UNCLOS is never about sovereignty or historical titles. Even PH repeated this maybe ten times in their Court hearings.

No, they are not. Unclos is very specific about EEZ etc. As well as about artifical islands.

Yes. China has 200NM over Nansha. Medium point with the PH and others where the EEZs overlap is delimitation line.

Are not determined unilaterally.

We know. So long as it is for trade or considered innocent passage. We will not touch and even provide assistance. That's part of the reason for our developmentalist island build-up strategy.

Any naval ship has the right to sail past at 13nm, irrespective of nationality. The 12nm limit only applies to the extent there is actual agreement on sovereignty and the island is a real island, not an artificially constructed one.

No. What is disputed by PH is not 12NM. It is 200NM.

Unclos does not give a country the right to shooo away any surface or are traffic. 200nm deals with exploitation of seabed.

It is better than US regime mouthpieces. We love it. You do not read. For myself, I do not read US regime media.

The point was not who is better, the point was 'whose point of view' (ie. bias)

China is building capacity, including protective militarization on the islands to protect US interests, as well. Just as US military protects others' interests.

Keep f*cking with international waters/air and ultimately, eventually there will be a backlash. Count on that.

Still lots of things to do. We are particularly slow since China is a benign great power. Yet, developing capacity for potential emergencies (regional and global) is a must for a country as strong as China.

Still holier than thou, I see.

 

[Djinn]

What SPECIFIC potential threats?


Not on a per capita basis.


No, they are not. Unclos is very specific about EEZ etc. As well as about artifical islands.


Are not determined unilaterally.


Any naval ship has the right to sail past at 13nm, irrespective of nationality. The 12nm limit only applies to the extent there is actual agreement on sovereignty and the island is a real island, not an artificially constructed one.



Unclos does not give a country the right to shooo away any surface or are traffic. 200nm deals with exploitation of seabed.


The point was not who is better, the point was 'whose point of view' (ie. bias)


Keep f*cking with international waters/air and ultimately, eventually there will be a backlash. Count on that.



Still holier than thou, I see.

What China does on it's territory is Chinese internal affair. US should quit trying to act like a global police, when all it has done is mess things up. You speak of fictional rivalry between China and Russia-----------And completely forget how USA nuked Japan. China and Russia are strongly bonded and together they oppose US hegemony. China sells arms to anyone who is willing to buy--------Its purely business. China is not invading countries nor sponsoring terrorists like USA is doing globally.-----Infact these US misadventures are the prime reason that China has developed acute mistrust in US.

 

[Penguin]

Childish shenanigans wont add any weight to your flawed argument.

This is just another way of saying "I have no clue how to deal with you substantively"

 

[Djinn]

This is just another way of saying "I have no clue how to deal with you substantively"

This is just the apt way of saying 'Don't speak without having any knowledge of the matter at hand'

 

[Penguin]

What China does on it's territory is Chinese internal affair. US should quit trying to act like a global police, when all it has done is mess things up. You speak of fictional rivalry between China and Russia-----------And completely forget how USA nuked Japan. China and Russia are strongly bonded and together they oppose US hegemony. China sells arms to anyone who is willing to buy--------Its purely business. China is not invading countries nor sponsoring terrorists like USA is doing globally.-----Infact these US misadventures are the prime reason that China has developed acute mistrust in US.

The point is, of course, whether the artifical structures are territory ("land") to begin with.

Remarks about US acting like global police are irrelevant. I look at the relation between China and Russia from the perspective of recent history. The fact that US nuked Japan is also completely irrelevant: IIRC correctely China and US were allies at the time and Japan a mutual foe, with Japan committing severe attrocities on the population of China. China sells weapons when it is in its strategic interest, and is also interested in points where its naval and air forces can ; touch down' globally, to extend its reach. That is not purely business. Currently, China and the United States have mutual political, economic, and security interests, including, but not limited to, the prevention of terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, although there are unresolved concerns relating to the role of democracy in government in China and human rights in both respective countries. The two countries remain in dispute over territorial issues in the South China Sea. As for invasions, Spratleys 1988? Chinese entered northern Vietnam in the late 1970s. Paracels 1974? Sino-Indian war 1962. Korean war 1951. Besides, just because you don't choose that particular instrument now doesn't mean you're not a player in the same game.

This is just the apt way of saying 'Don't speak without having any knowledge of the matter at hand'

Have you actually ever read the whole UNCLOS document?

Missiles are there to protect the freedom of navigation, especially the free navigation of Chinese vessels.

'nough said. Thanks for making that point.

 

[21stCentury]

Normal development. Soon we'll even see Chinese destroyers and carriers patrolling and even stationed on those artificial islands. American trouble making in China's lake will become severely limited in the coming years.

 

[TaiShang]

What SPECIFIC potential threats?

The very existence of the US in our peripheries.

Potential means China is concerned. That's enough excuse. The fact that inter-state relations is chaotic by itself is a potential threat. We are determined to take the threat perception to the limits until we neutralize US advantages.

The existence of a foreign entity near our periphery is a potential threat to us. Besides, we need not to justify it to no body.

Not on a per capita basis.

As a nation, China is the largest trading nation and the largest trading partner with the largest number of states having China as their largest trading partner.

Unclos is very specific about EEZ etc. As well as about artifical islands.

They did. And it is not.

Are not determined unilaterally.

Bilaterally.

Any naval ship has the right to sail past at 13nm, irrespective of nationality. The 12nm limit only applies to the extent there is actual agreement on sovereignty and the island is a real island, not an artificially constructed one.

When there is no agreement, sovereignty will be imposed. Lack of recognition does not matter.

Unclos does not give a country the right to shooo away any surface or are traffic. 200nm deals with exploitation of seabed.

True. China will have 200NM over Nansha. It won't shoo away trade ships or innocent passage.

The point was not who is better, the point was 'whose point of view' (ie. bias)

Yes. Better is very subjective. The US regime media is very biased.

Keep f*cking with international waters/air and ultimately, eventually there will be a backlash. Count on that.

The backlash is on you and that's for long. Just as you do not care, we do not care.

Still holier than thou, I see.

China is the beacon on the hill. Very exceptional, greatest developing nation.

Normal development. Soon we'll even see Chinese destroyers and carriers patrolling and even stationed on those artificial islands. American trouble making in China's lake will become severely limited in the coming years.

Exactly. The US will be incrementally pushed away from the waters it has no business with in terms of military policing. Here is not the Middle East or Latin America it can toy with with impunity. Not any more.

 

[gambit]

Any naval ship has the right to sail past at 13nm, irrespective of nationality. The 12nm limit only applies to the extent there is actual agreement on sovereignty and the island is a real island, not an artificially constructed one.

How about this...I have a 12 nm territorial limit from my shores. At 11 nm, I build an island and claim a 12 nm extension. And so on...

This is essentially what China is doing with these 'islands'. It does not matter the legal status of these islands, whether they are real or fake under UNCLOS. Unlike land where you or I can put up fences to stake our claims and be somewhat permanent, the ocean is not so amenable. In order to control the entirety of the SCS, China need at least a facade of legality, so first the sporadic history of China's presence in the SCS and now these man-made islands.

 

[Djinn]

The point is, of course, whether the artifical structures are territory ("land") to begin with.

Remarks about US acting like global police are irrelevant. I look at the relation between China and Russia from the perspective of recent history. The fact that US nuked Japan is also completely irrelevant: IIRC correctely China and US were allies at the time and Japan a mutual foe, with Japan committing severe attrocities on the population of China. China sells weapons when it is in its strategic interest, and is also interested in points where its naval and air forces can ; touch down' globally, to extend its reach. That is not purely business. Currently, China and the United States have mutual political, economic, and security interests, including, but not limited to, the prevention of terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, although there are unresolved concerns relating to the role of democracy in government in China and human rights in both respective countries. The two countries remain in dispute over territorial issues in the South China Sea. As for invasions, Spratleys 1988? Chinese entered northern Vietnam in the late 1970s. Paracels 1974? Sino-Indian war 1962. Korean war 1951. Besides, just because you don't choose that particular instrument now doesn't mean you're not a player in the same game.


Have you actually ever read the whole UNCLOS document?

You are making all the irrelevant points and here is why.
The topic is about China deploying weapons on islands and China has deployed them on Woody Island, which isn't man made and is Chinese territory.

 

[EastSea]

USA come back to Asia. It is the solution.

 

[jkroo]

You are making all the irrelevant points and here is why.
The topic is about China deploying weapons on islands and China has deployed them on Woody Island, which isn't man made and is Chinese territory.

You are right.

Many people even do not know the differences before point fingers. It's ridiculous!

I personally welcome these kind of actions to protect our business routes and interests.

Go fnck sh!t free navigation, use military vessels to try free navigation is a totally uncivilized naked threat.

We just need more coast guard ships, navy war ships and remote sensor systems to ensure the security of South China Sea.

ADIZ in SCS is just needed.

 

[BoQ77]

You are making all the irrelevant points and here is why.
The topic is about China deploying weapons on islands and China has deployed them on Woody Island, which isn't man made and is Chinese territory.

You are wrong.
The issue raised because, China deployed missiles/ weapons to disputed islands ( Woody island - Paracel islands ) and man made islands ( Johnson South Reef, ... Spratly islands).

Don't pretend like those are undisputable territories of China.

Those written in the history and there're tons of clear evidence in clips, history book, photos provided by many sides including China.
about clashes between China - the invader and other claimants - the occupiers of those islands.