South China Sea Forum

[Cossack25A1]

It may be unsinkable but that is from human perspective (i.e. using weapons to sink an island). What if a tsunami hits that island?

 

[Martian2]

It may be unsinkable but that is from human perspective (i.e. using weapons to sink an island). What if a tsunami hits that island?

Use helicopters and aircraft to airlift personnel off the island. Ships will sail out to sea where the wave disturbance is small.

Damaged equipment can be replaced.

A possible mitigator is to build a seawall. Also, perhaps build some sandbars to slow a tsunami down.

In the end, a valuable military asset entails risk.

The Chinese SOSUS will be useful in giving warning to the island personnel ahead of time when an earthquake triggers a tsunami.

first time I ever heard of an comparasion of an Island to Aircraft Carrier, I dont know what @Martian2 is smoking but I want some of that...

An Island is not the same as an aircraft carrier, primarily because you can move an Aircraft Carrier but you cant move an Island.

Also an Island defence would only be a good initiative when you can defend them. Air, Land and Sea, and if you cant, then that would only be a giant graveyard for the defender. Simply because you would have nowhere to run...

Oddly, you are the first person who does not understand that I'm comparing two military assets. An aircraft carrier carries jet fighters. Similarly, an island contains an airfield, jet fighters, missile batteries, radars, helicopters (with sonobuoys), ammunition, etc.

I was on Bloomberg News comment section for about three years. Often, I compared the four acres on a US aircraft carrier to China's unsinkable aircraft carrier of 9.6 million square kilometers. No one ever complained.

You are the first person who does not understand the analogy.

 

[Rechoice]

Chinese Song Dynasty artifacts from South China Sea prove sovereignty

The following photographs prove Chinese Song Dynasty (960-1279) galleons traversed the entirety of the South China Sea islands and maritime territory. China had sovereignty over the South China Sea hundreds of years before the existence of the Philippines (1946) or Vietnam (1945).
----------

Over 60,000 Song porcelains discovered in South China Sea

"Over 60,000 Song porcelains discovered in South China Sea
2015/1/31 17:04:17

Photo taken on Jan. 28, 2015 shows an archaeologist showing ancient coins discovered on the Nanhai (South China Sea) No. 1 ship at the "Crystal Palace" at the Marine Silk Road Museum in Yangjiang, south China's Guangdong Province. After seven years of excavation, more than 60,000 porcelain artifacts from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) have been discovered on the ship, which had lain undersea for more than 800 years and was put into protection in the Marine Silk Road Museum after its salvage in 2007. (Xinhua/Liu Dawei)

Photo taken on Jan. 29, 2015 shows artifacts discovered on the Nanhai (South China Sea) No. 1 ship at the "Crystal Palace" at the Marine Silk Road Museum in Yangjiang, south China's Guangdong Province. After seven years of excavation, more than 60,000 porcelain artifacts from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) have been discovered on the ship, which had lain undersea for more than 800 years and was put into protection in the Marine Silk Road Museum after its salvage in 2007. (Xinhua/Liu Dawei)

Photo taken on Jan. 28, 2015 shows archaeologists checking the cracks on the Nanhai (South China Sea) No. 1 ship at the "Crystal Palace" at the Marine Silk Road Museum in Yangjiang, south China's Guangdong Province. After seven years of excavation, more than 60,000 porcelain artifacts from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) have been discovered on the ship, which had lain undersea for more than 800 years and was put into protection in the Marine Silk Road Museum after its salvage in 2007. (Xinhua/Liu Dawei)

Photo taken on Jan. 29, 2015 shows Chen Fangcai (C), an expert in traditional shipbuilding, examining the Nanhai (South China Sea) No. 1 ship at the "Crystal Palace" at the Marine Silk Road Museum in Yangjiang, south China's Guangdong Province. After seven years of excavation, more than 60,000 porcelain artifacts from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) have been discovered on the ship, which had lain undersea for more than 800 years and was put into protection in the Marine Silk Road Museum after its salvage in 2007. (Xinhua/Liu Dawei)

Photo taken on Jan. 29, 2015 shows an archaeologist covering the Nanhai (South China Sea) No. 1 ship with cloth for protection at the "Crystal Palace" at the Marine Silk Road Museum in Yangjiang, south China's Guangdong Province. After seven years of excavation, more than 60,000 porcelain artifacts from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) have been discovered on the ship, which had lain undersea for more than 800 years and was put into protection in the Marine Silk Road Museum after its salvage in 2007. (Xinhua/Liu Dawei)

Photo taken on Jan. 28, 2015 shows archaeologists taking protection measures of the Nanhai (South China Sea) No. 1 ship at the "Crystal Palace" at the Marine Silk Road Museum in Yangjiang, south China's Guangdong Province. After seven years of excavation, more than 60,000 porcelain artifacts from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) have been discovered on the ship, which had lain undersea for more than 800 years and was put into protection in the Marine Silk Road Museum after its salvage in 2007. (Xinhua/Liu Dawei)

Photo taken on Jan. 28, 2015 shows archaeologists registering a porcelain discovered on the Nanhai (South China Sea) No. 1 ship at the "Crystal Palace" at the Marine Silk Road Museum in Yangjiang, south China's Guangdong Province. After seven years of excavation, more than 60,000 porcelain artifacts from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) have been discovered on the ship, which had lain undersea for more than 800 years and was put into protection in the Marine Silk Road Museum after its salvage in 2007. (Xinhua/Liu Dawei)


Source: English.news.cn"

In ancient time , Chinese goods were exported to many countries around the world. This artifacts were found there, is in consequence of storms in East Sea of Vietnam, and trading ships were sunk in this rock and reefs there.

This is meaningless arguments of Chinese propaganda.

 

[jhungary]

Use helicopters and aircraft to airlift personnel off the island. Ships will sail out to sea where the wave disturbance is small.

Damaged equipment can be replaced.

A possible mitigator is to build a seawall. Also, perhaps build some sandbars to slow a tsunami down.

In the end, a valuable military asset entails risk.

The Chinese SOSUS will be useful in giving warning to the island personnel ahead of time when an earthquake triggers a tsunami.



Oddly, you are the first person who does not understand that I'm comparing two military assets. An aircraft carrier carries jet fighters. Similarly, an island contains an airfield, jet fighters, missile batteries, radars, helicopters (with sonobuoys), ammunition, etc.

I was on Bloomberg News comment section for about three years. Often, I compared the four acres on a US aircraft carrier to China's unsinkable aircraft carrier of 9.6 million square kilometers. No one ever complained.

You are the first person who does not understand the analogy.

lol dude, a SAM and an Aircraft Carrier both were military asset, both were used to destroy enemy aircraft, can you please compare the both.

Just because you compare it on bloomberg and nobody complaint does not equal to that make any sense. Of course you can compare an apple to an orange anywhere, that does not mean the conparasion mean anything

And by the way, I have been fighting in the middle east before you have your Bloomsberg account, as if your present in bloomberg mean anything..

 

[Martian2]

first time I ever heard of an comparasion of an Island to Aircraft Carrier, I dont know what @Martian2 is smoking but I want some of that...

An Island is not the same as an aircraft carrier, primarily because you can move an Aircraft Carrier but you cant move an Island.

Also an Island defence would only be a good initiative when you can defend them. Air, Land and Sea, and if you cant, then that would only be a giant graveyard for the defender. Simply because you would have nowhere to run...

lol dude, a SAM and an Aircraft Carrier both were military asset, both were used to destroy enemy aircraft, can you please compare the both.

Just because you compare it on bloomberg and nobody complaint does not equal to that make any sense. Of course you can compare an apple to an orange anywhere, that does not mean the conparasion mean anything

And by the way, I have been fighting in the middle east before you have your Bloomsberg account, as if your present in bloomberg mean anything..

You were a grunt. Big deal.

 

[jhungary]

You were a grunt. Big deal.

lol, i was an officer, not a grunt.

By the way, it would make much more sense if you compare an airfield to an aircraft carrier, but you are talking about Island vs Aircraft Carrier. Not the same

 

[Martian2]

lol, i was an officer, not a grunt.

By the way, it would make much more sense if you compare an airfield to an aircraft carrier, but you are talking about Island vs Aircraft Carrier. Not the same

Give me a break. You're one of those people that love to argue endlessly over semantics. Gambit comes to mind.

The island in the citation clearly mentions an airfield. You are making a distinction without a difference and ignoring the obvious context. Why would I bother putting in the citation? It's obvious that I'm pointing out the military capability of the island/airfield.

 

[jhungary]

Give me a break. You're one of those people that love to argue endlessly over semantics. Gambit comes to mind.

The island in the citation clearly mentions an airfield. You are making a distinction without a difference and ignoring the obvious context. Why would I bother putting in the citation? It's because I'm pointing out the military capability of the island/airfield.

dude, you are not.

An country can and indeed have an airfield, so by your logic, i can compare China and US Aircraft carrier? lol

If you want to say an airfield, you say an airfield. But you did not, you compare building an island and an aircraft carrier.

and by the way, you also ignore my point i pointed out in the very first post, instead of focusing on this issue lol

 

[Martian2]

dude, you are not.

An country can and indeed have an airfield, so by your logic, i can compare China and US Aircraft carrier? lol

If you want to say an airfield, you say an airfield. But you did not, you compare building an island and an aircraft carrier.

Except for you, everybody knew that I wasn't referring to an island resort.

 

[jhungary]

Except for you, everybody knew that I wasn't referring to an island resort.

Can you yell me which lobe in this post the word "Airfield" exist?

Dragon vs. Eagle: South China Sea balance of power

China is currently reclaiming seven islands with 600 acres of land in the South China Sea. In comparison, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers with a surface area of four acres each. In total, the U.S. has 44 acres.

The advantage of the U.S. 44 acres is its mobility. However, the disadvantage is those 44 acres can be sunk.

China's 600 acres are unsinkable. Also, China is busy building its own aircraft carriers to level the playing field.

In conclusion, China is winning the South China Sea stare-down. China is likely to reclaim islands beyond the seven currently. In three years, Chengdu J-20 heavy stealth fighters will augment Chinese firepower in the South China Sea. Around 2020, we may see the emergence of Chinese Nimitz-class supercarriers.

 

[Martian2]

Can you yell me which lobe in this post the word "Airfield" exist?

The citation only had one paragraph, but you were too lazy to read it. I've underlined the relevant phrase in red. Can you read it now?

 

[jhungary]

The citation only had one paragraph, but you were too lazy to read it. I've underlined the relevant phrase in red. Can you read it now?

lol dude, then that was not exactly "you said" in this situation now aint it...lol

By the way, I wasnt looking at your post to begin with, not that I am lazy or anything, but simply my original conment was not a direct reply to you.

The parameter is the same, if you want to compae an airfield, you would have said an airfield, lol the fact that you are compareing an Island to an aircraft carrier remain unchange

 

[Martian2]

I give up. If you don't understand that seven Chinese militarized islands in the South China Sea shift the balance of military power, nothing I write will convince you.

For everyone else, I have included my original posts below and you can make up your own mind whether China is gaining the upper hand in the South China Sea.
----------

Dragon vs. Eagle: South China Sea balance of power

China is currently reclaiming seven islands with 600 acres of land in the South China Sea. In comparison, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers with a surface area of four acres each. In total, the U.S. has 44 acres.

The advantage of the U.S. 44 acres is its mobility. However, the disadvantage is those 44 acres can be sunk.

China's 600 acres are unsinkable. Also, China is busy building its own aircraft carriers to level the playing field.

In conclusion, China is winning the South China Sea stare-down. China is likely to reclaim islands beyond the seven currently. In three years, Chengdu J-20 heavy stealth fighters will augment Chinese firepower in the South China Sea. Around 2020, we may see the emergence of Chinese Nimitz-class supercarriers.
----------

McCain Points To ‘Dramatic Change’ In Chinese-Built Islands | Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

----------

China is building an anti-stealth Integrated Air Defense Network in the South China Sea

Imagery shows progress of Chinese land building across Spratlys - IHS Jane's 360

 

[帅的一匹]

Those islands r not important to VN, we dont need to argue wt a friend like Phil in the court. We may share the isls wt all ASEAN friends, but not China

Lie

 

[Zero_wing]

Lie

this coming from Imperialist Maoist funny