The Foreign Policy Essay: Why China Will Become a Global Military Power

[FairAndUnbiased]

hahahaha did we ask you to post in this thread? (check post #13)

you only have potential to match our population number by number

I don't think India's population will ever match China's.

 

[Aepsilons]

Your knowledge in history is impressive, gotta give you that dude. In the past few millenia China did perform numerous events of external political-military intervention to maintain regional order.

Since 1949, PRC also did intervene twice for geopolitical causes that like. You mentioned Korean war, PRC's motive was to counter US-led containment on the communist bloc (some said PRC was passively dragged into it after McArthur pushed to the border, either way the motive was same). And 1979 war with Vietnam, PRC was to relieve Viet pressure on Cambodia as well as to suppress USSR influence in the Indo-China peninsula. And 2 more wars that carry less geopolitical color, China-India border war 1962, China-USSR border war 1964-1969.

However I would say as the cold war color is fading, international trading gaining center stage, the chances of such events happening again is really vague as least for China. Moreover, the new generations of people, including the leadership, are way more pragmatic, they no longer have strong ideological beliefs like that fathers / grandpas.

In contrast to PLA's increasing military capabilities, I would say China's geopolitical willingness is going in an exactly opposite direction i.e. decreasing. Actually it's interesting to hear outside voices like blaming China not willing to do more in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Combating Ebola? Sure PLA send the medic and bio teams. Disaster relief? Fine, rescue and engineering. Combating "insurgents"? Oh that depends, PLA very likely may not have the experience and know-how to do the job so might as well say no.

Global reaching or not, PLA's mission is just to guarantee Chinese people's safety and their rightful interests, both at home and far away.

Hi Buddy,

When you mentioned the Sino-Indian War of 1962, that was the start of the discord between China and India in the present epoch – isn’t it? As much as Zhou Enlai tried to guarantee peace between the two nations, there was one policy that led to the eventuality of that military clash between the two nations of China and India: The McMahon Line. The McMahon Line was the pretext for India’s Jawans to establish military outposts in territories that China had claimed , and well, the takeover of Tibet was necessitated to counter that vestige of the British Raj – The McMahon Line.

Gotta give if it to you guys for holding your territorial claims during the Sino-Indian War and also during the Sino-Soviet Border War. Since the end of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, China was able to successfully reclaim most if not all the territories that belonged to China during the late Qing Dynasty (let’s agree that Taiwan is part of that through de-facto status) and this is what gives the CPC the Mandate.

It is in my conservative estimate that China – in 10-20 years – will experience a dramatic paradigm shift – in that she will eventually be sending her blue water navy to conduct more active patrol and operations outside her traditional sphere of interest. This year’s (2014 RIMPAC) showed to the world, especially to the JMSDF and to the USN that China is capable of conducting fleet support operations in the high seas and has been actively extending her reach deep into the Pacific Ocean. This is only natural, nevertheless. And I agree with you that China is focused on securing China first and the interests abroad. We can see that in a developing Chinese (PLAN) foot print in Gwadar, Pakistan; in Sri Lanka; in Bangladesh and beyond.

I am actually in the position that sees China’s growing military activity and capability as a positive light. China, as an ascendant power, has the responsible role in helping shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the stability in the world; be it global terrorism, growing piracy (which threatens the world’s shipping fleet), and any other assymetric exigency. I believe that Japan and China have a responsibility to work through differences and work together in ensuring stability not only in East Asia, but beyond. The world cannot depend on the American Navy and the American Military anymore. There is a developing paradigm shift…and its pointing in Asia.

 

[Shotgunner51]

Hi Buddy,

When you mentioned the Sino-Indian War of 1962, that was the start of the discord between China and India in the present epoch – isn’t it? As much as Zhou Enlai tried to guarantee peace between the two nations, there was one policy that led to the eventuality of that military clash between the two nations of China and India: The McMahon Line. The McMahon Line was the pretext for India’s Jawans to establish military outposts in territories that China had claimed , and well, the takeover of Tibet was necessitated to counter that vestige of the British Raj – The McMahon Line.

Gotta give if it to you guys for holding your territorial claims during the Sino-Indian War and also during the Sino-Soviet Border War. Since the end of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, China was able to successfully reclaim most if not all the territories that belonged to China during the late Qing Dynasty (let’s agree that Taiwan is part of that through de-facto status) and this is what gives the CPC the Mandate.

It is in my conservative estimate that China – in 10-20 years – will experience a dramatic paradigm shift – in that she will eventually be sending her blue water navy to conduct more active patrol and operations outside her traditional sphere of interest. This year’s (2014 RIMPAC) showed to the world, especially to the JMSDF and to the USN that China is capable of conducting fleet support operations in the high seas and has been actively extending her reach deep into the Pacific Ocean. This is only natural, nevertheless. And I agree with you that China is focused on securing China first and the interests abroad. We can see that in a developing Chinese (PLAN) foot print in Gwadar, Pakistan; in Sri Lanka; in Bangladesh and beyond.

I am actually in the position that sees China’s growing military activity and capability as a positive light. China, as an ascendant power, has the responsible role in helping shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the stability in the world; be it global terrorism, growing piracy (which threatens the world’s shipping fleet), and any other assymetric exigency. I believe that Japan and China have a responsibility to work through differences and work together in ensuring stability not only in East Asia, but beyond. The world cannot depend on the American Navy and the American Military anymore. There is a developing paradigm shift…and its pointing in Asia.

Yup those were pretty much all the wars PRC has fought. Two for geopolitical causes, two border wars. As geopolitical confrontation giving its stage to international trading, chances for China to fight wars like that are vague. Don't get me wrong, geopolitical confrontation is still taking place, just that this time is more like GO ("围棋") chess game, i.e. full bandwidth (not military alone), long time span, vague sovereign borders (hard to see the front lines), fought between power groups instead of sovereign nations. However border wars may still happen especially if fueled by blind nationalism, but that's no big deal though.

You mentioned Gwadar and other ports in that geography, those are along the maritime silk route (a Chinese strategy focus, "海上丝绸之路"), naturally falls into the category of national interests and hence should be reachable militarily.

Beyond the scope of national interests, there is not much international security responsibilities China can carry until people want China to do so. And even by then people ask China to do it, whether Chinese taxpayers are willing to pay an extra 1-2% GDP for policing the world is big unknown. I would say US should continue this momentum of policing the world since WWII, their professional USN guys are doing OK jobs, and American taxpayers have long accepted/supported a defense spend at 4-5% GDP. There is no need to change this world order, just do some fine tuning. PLA just ensure basic Chinese interests are protected, and get prepared if "dark side" prevails in US.

 

[gambit]

The world cannot depend on the American Navy and the American Military anymore.

Yes, you can. At least of the US Navy, anyway.

At the end of WW II, the US decided to impose an American perspective on the world's oceans, and that perspective is -- capitalism. The US built not only a fleet of ships capable of presenting America but also powerful enough to enforce that American perspective -- on allies and adversaries -- on what the world's oceans are meant to be:

- Free.

Over the past few decades, especially during the Cold War, all the countries in the world, including landlocked ones or especially them, realized the economic benefits of having sea lanes opened to all and they were glad the Americans are willing to foot the bill. In return, to varying degrees, they conceded to US demands on many issues. The smaller the country, the greater the vulnerability of its sea lane access, especially if there are hostile neighbors. The presence of a US Navy warship, and there is no need for a capital vessel, is often enough to give pause to any potential armed conflict between sea faring countries, compelling the parties back to the negotiation tables. And when the US Navy is ordered to flex its muscles, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis back in 1962 and recently in Desert Storm, everyone is reminded that the US Navy is not a beast they want to provoke.

It actually does not take THAT much resources to enforce that freedom on a global scale. Despite most of the Earth's surface is covered in water, ruling out landlocked, any body of water on the oceans is actually very difficult, if not currently impossible, to take control over. Stationing ships for long duration anywhere is stressful on the ships and more so on the humans crewing those ships. Simply put, we are not meant to live in the water. So it is actually far less about US physically policing the world's oceans and it is more about denying anyone even the idea of trying to take control of any body of water on the world's oceans without answering to the US Navy.

The world's countries that have sea lanes access knows the incalculable value of security and freedom that the US Navy provided.

 

[Indos]

I would say the change is more in circumstance than in thinking.

Do I need a nice car? No, but it's nice to have one. That was true when I worked at Walmart and it is true now. The difference being I can now afford one, and we are where we are now.

China has a growing global presence, our people are wealthier, our nation has more money, etc. When we made the decision to not get involved, we had no interests to speak of, our people were far less self aware(Lets see indonesia try that crap again and see how many of their natives are left this time around), we had no money then and all the cahs needed to improve the livelihood of our people.

So all these factors contributed to the non interference policies.

Did our strategy change? Yes. Was the previous strategy a lie? No. All it is, is that when we look at needs and wants we would come to a different conclusion. Same as me, when I made that purchase, not thatI don't sometimes regret it.

Dont worry, we dont like chaos as well, and as a Muslim I will prevent any injustice happen in my nation and will happily crush any criminals, so lets hope I can get power here as soon as possible

BTW, not so simple to crush Indonesia, even by China. We have Muslim brothers that will help us around the world. We also have close relation with USA and Russia. You seems still not able to see the difference between fact and garbage website information regarding the tragedy you implicitly mentioned. It is better for Indonesia and China get hand in hand together.

 

[Genesis]

Dont worry, we dont like chaos as well, and as a Muslim I will prevent any injustice happen in my nation and will happily crush any criminals, so lets hope I can get power here as soon as possible

BTW, not so simple to crush Indonesia, even by China. We have Muslim brothers that will help us around the world. We also have close relation with USA and Russia. You seems still not able to see the difference between fact and garbage website information regarding the tragedy you implicitly mentioned. It is better for Indonesia and China get hand in hand together.

I mostly got my info from American sites and news agencies like CNN, and such, also Australian networks, so I'm not sure what you consider their authority is on this issue.

But what's in the past is in the past. We are nothing if not forgetful.

LOL
Another Chi-bot here.

lol @Nihonjin1051 one of us! one of us! one of us!

 

[Aepsilons]

I didn't dig in it, just knew it was like cutting butter with a hot knife. We don't care much about India anyway.

This is all I can find ..


View attachment 184712

In my honest opinion, that border conflict was utterly unfortunate and preventable. A las, it is history.

Yes, you can. At least of the US Navy, anyway.

At the end of WW II, the US decided to impose an American perspective on the world's oceans, and that perspective is -- capitalism. The US built not only a fleet of ships capable of presenting America but also powerful enough to enforce that American perspective -- on allies and adversaries -- on what the world's oceans are meant to be:

- Free.

Over the past few decades, especially during the Cold War, all the countries in the world, including landlocked ones or especially them, realized the economic benefits of having sea lanes opened to all and they were glad the Americans are willing to foot the bill. In return, to varying degrees, they conceded to US demands on many issues. The smaller the country, the greater the vulnerability of its sea lane access, especially if there are hostile neighbors. The presence of a US Navy warship, and there is no need for a capital vessel, is often enough to give pause to any potential armed conflict between sea faring countries, compelling the parties back to the negotiation tables. And when the US Navy is ordered to flex its muscles, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis back in 1962 and recently in Desert Storm, everyone is reminded that the US Navy is not a beast they want to provoke.

It actually does not take THAT much resources to enforce that freedom on a global scale. Despite most of the Earth's surface is covered in water, ruling out landlocked, any body of water on the oceans is actually very difficult, if not currently impossible, to take control over. Stationing ships for long duration anywhere is stressful on the ships and more so on the humans crewing those ships. Simply put, we are not meant to live in the water. So it is actually far less about US physically policing the world's oceans and it is more about denying anyone even the idea of trying to take control of any body of water on the world's oceans without answering to the US Navy.

The world's countries that have sea lanes access knows the incalculable value of security and freedom that the US Navy provided.

I agree to most of your points -- and the United States Navy definitely is in a league of its own. But in regards to ground forces and activation -- it shouldn't be left to the United States to go in alone, anymore. The intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan --- saw much American blood spilled and with the result of enraging and destabilizing the area.

In the future, I believe that the United States should be supported with key allies and partners that may not be necessarily part of the American-dominated sphere in helping put down threats to global stability. For one example -- ISIS -- i believe it is in the responsibility of not just the United States, but also responsible members of the global community to address this threat. As a military man yourself, Sir @gambit , you know that the theater of war is constantly changing and that there are times where an unlikely ally becomes pivotal. Aside from the traditional hum drum of asia-pacific contest of dominance (China vs USA), I am in the position that believes that China can be a partner for global peace. After all, in regards to the Ukrainian issue -- even despite being a long time partner of Russia's , the Chinese side showed their responsibility by maintaining neutrality and abstaining in security council vote. Tho they could have easily voted in favor of Russia --- their abstention was --- even surprising for the West and other P5 members.

China, despite our governments' apprehension to some of their policies, is a nation that we can entreat upon. And her ascendancy as well as her growing economic integration with the West (EU / USA/ JAPAN) shows this ever. They (Chinese) value stability over other forms of passions. That , in my opinion, will be a conduit to further interaction with China in the future.

 

[Shotgunner51]

@Nihonjin1051 A bit off-topic (can't find any thread about this so I post my view here), just read through some news about massacre of 2,000 civilians in Baga Nigeria by Boko Haram, mostly children, women and elderlys. Unbelievable astrocities of epic scale, this is a typical situation I can think of that needs US intervention, a role PLA can't play.

It's frustrating that we can't do anything about this.

 

[Aepsilons]

@Nihonjin1051 A bit off-topic (can't find any thread about this so I post my view here), just read through some news about massacre of 2,000 civilians in Baga Nigeria by Boko Haram, mostly children, women and elderlys. Unbelievable astrocities of epic scale, this is a typical situation I can think of that needs US intervention, a role PLA can't play.

View attachment 184722

It's frustrating that we can't do anything about this.

Yes, indeed, my friend. This act of barbarity is just utterly unbelievable. What's sad is that as news of the shooting in France went viral, news media regarding this latest attack by Boko Haram --- rarely was seen.

In regards to Boko Haram; the leader of that group , Mohammed Yusuf, was influenced by violent form of Salafist Ideology that focuses on violent jihad. The problem in Nigeria should be handled by the Nigerian Government, and the ethnic and communal divide in that country should be done through community-to-community initiatives. Perhaps global partners such as China, United States, Japan, EU -- can play a role by contributing funding of infrastructure in war torn areas -- focusing on schools , hospitals. But in regards to military solution ? I don't think the US should intervene wide scale -- as it has the potential to light areas in that country that may be sympathetic to Boko Haram and its violent movement.

 

[Ahmed Jo]

Of course we do, we like beef, and Mongolia being a grassland nation most likely sells us some good quality beef.

I should have expected this answer.. Lol American slang will not help me out here. Anyway, what I meant to ask is are there any particular political tensions between China and Mongolia?

 

[gambit]

I agree to most of your points -- and the United States Navy definitely is in a league of its own. But in regards to ground forces and activation -- it shouldn't be left to the United States to go in alone, anymore. The intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan --- saw much American blood spilled and with the result of enraging and destabilizing the area.

In the future, I believe that the United States should be supported with key allies and partners that may not be necessarily part of the American-dominated sphere in helping put down threats to global stability. For one example -- ISIS -- i believe it is in the responsibility of not just the United States, but also responsible members of the global community to address this threat. As a military man yourself, Sir @gambit , you know that the theater of war is constantly changing and that there are times where an unlikely ally becomes pivotal. Aside from the traditional hum drum of asia-pacific contest of dominance (China vs USA), I am in the position that believes that China can be a partner for global peace. After all, in regards to the Ukrainian issue -- even despite being a long time partner of Russia's , the Chinese side showed their responsibility by maintaining neutrality and abstaining in security council vote. Tho they could have easily voted in favor of Russia --- their abstention was --- even surprising for the West and other P5 members.

You are correct that land intervention is different. Land masses are the only places that man can establish long term claims and successfully defend those claims. But despite the advent of air travel and control, we, meaning those with sea lanes access, are still essentially naval powers. It is not those who can 'control' the oceans, but rather those who can impose his/their will(s) upon them, who will continue to dominate global issues and create that 'bandwagoning' effect around those issues.

China, despite our governments' apprehension to some of their policies, is a nation that we can entreat upon. And her ascendancy as well as her growing economic integration with the West (EU / USA/ JAPAN) shows this ever. They (Chinese) value stability over other forms of passions. That , in my opinion, will be a conduit to further interaction with China in the future.

There are many forms of stability. My take is that China is least interested in the form of stability that came from moral consensus. My house borders three neighbors and we, without putting anything on papers, agreed that it is immoral to trespass on each other's property without permission or good cause, such as a fire, for example. When China claimed to be owner, not merely master, of the entire South China Sea region, that is a clear sign of China's desire to dominate Asia and impose a Chinese version of stability irreverence of neighbors. That body of water is meant to divide Asia into discrete pockets of manageable issues.

I have the book The Japan That Can Say No by Shintaro Ishihara. Nationalism was rife throughout that book. In a way, I do not consider that any discredit to any Japanese. But what made possible Japan's economic, and hinted at military, rise was that Japan was protected by the US Navy. Protected in the sense that Japan's livelihood was near total dependency on the oceans and the US denied others, including the mighty Soviets, the ability to deny anyone access to the same. Simply put, the US denied the possibility, never mind probability, of anyone to gain control of any body of water on the oceans. That made possible for Ishihara's misguided belief that Japan could say 'No' to the US. Never mind the inevitable backlash from the few US Congressional blowhards, which fizzled out to nothing anyway.

With the claim to be owner of the SCS, China is not merely saying 'No' to the US, but 'F U' to the US and to China's neighbors. China is trying to do what the US denied others during the Cold War: Control a body of water on the oceans.

This is not merely denial of control like how the US have done, but actually claiming the SCS under territorial sovereignty. You can have a vast desert as part of your country and as long as your neighbors respect that claim, it is irrelevant if that desert is barely inhabited. If anyone tries to trespass on your property, you would raise the army to defend that piece of barely habitable land. That is the privilege and burden of territorial sovereignty. China believes she has that privilege to the SCS and is equally confident that she can defend the SCS.

If Asia is foolish enough to accept China's claim to the SCS in the name of regional stability, then the Asian countries might as well submit to China as vassal states. May be China will give you a lollipop in the form of something similar to the French Union.

 

[Aepsilons]

You are correct that land intervention is different. Land masses are the only places that man can establish long term claims and successfully defend those claims. But despite the advent of air travel and control, we, meaning those with sea lanes access, are still essentially naval powers. It is not those who can 'control' the oceans, but rather those who can impose his/their will(s) upon them, who will continue to dominate global issues and create that 'bandwagoning' effect around those issues.


There are many forms of stability. My take is that China is least interested in the form of stability that came from moral consensus. My house borders three neighbors and we, without putting anything on papers, agreed that it is immoral to trespass on each other's property without permission or good cause, such as a fire, for example. When China claimed to be owner, not merely master, of the entire South China Sea region, that is a clear sign of China's desire to dominate Asia and impose a Chinese version of stability irreverence of neighbors. That body of water is meant to divide Asia into discrete pockets of manageable issues.

I have the book The Japan That Can Say No by Shintaro Ishihara. Nationalism was rife throughout that book. In a way, I do not consider that any discredit to any Japanese. But what made possible Japan's economic, and hinted at military, rise was that Japan was protected by the US Navy. Protected in the sense that Japan's livelihood was near total dependency on the oceans and the US denied others, including the mighty Soviets, the ability to deny anyone access to the same. Simply put, the US denied the possibility, never mind probability, of anyone to gain control of any body of water on the oceans. That made possible for Ishihara's misguided belief that Japan could say 'No' to the US. Never mind the inevitable backlash from the few US Congressional blowhards, which fizzled out to nothing anyway.

With the claim to be owner of the SCS, China is not merely saying 'No' to the US, but 'F U' to the US and to China's neighbors. China is trying to do what the US denied others during the Cold War: Control a body of water on the oceans.

This is not merely denial of control like how the US have done, but actually claiming the SCS under territorial sovereignty. You can have a vast desert as part of your country and as long as your neighbors respect that claim, it is irrelevant if that desert is barely inhabited. If anyone tries to trespass on your property, you would raise the army to defend that piece of barely habitable land. That is the privilege and burden of territorial sovereignty. China believes she has that privilege to the SCS and is equally confident that she can defend the SCS.

If Asia is foolish enough to accept China's claim to the SCS in the name of regional stability, then the Asian countries might as well submit to China as vassal states. May be China will give you a lollipop in the form of something similar to the French Union.

All valid and poignant points. Thank You, Sir.

 

[Steakhouse]

China still 5 yrs away from a naval power that can challenge USN in SCS, 1st China need to effectively break off the US naval containment within the first island chain before China can further advance toward a global military projection. Controlled the near sea before branching out of global reach with PLAN global projection. In other to at least cause serious damage to USN in SCS, China need at least 3 aircraft carrier strike force to link up with inland China missile force and PLAF for a complete cover of the airspace that protecting PLAN operating in the SCS, by building artificial island for military and addition of of PLAF, PLAN force multiply through airspace and sea China can effectively deny USN complete dominating of the airspace in SCS, without air cover will increase USN carrier task force vulnerability from being destroy or severely damage by China AA/AD capacity, able to push USN carrier further out of SCS which will diminish the amount of USN power projection in SCS.

 

[Genesis]

There are many forms of stability. My take is that China is least interested in the form of stability that came from moral consensus. My house borders three neighbors and we, without putting anything on papers, agreed that it is immoral to trespass on each other's property without permission or good cause, such as a fire, for example. When China claimed to be owner, not merely master, of the entire South China Sea region, that is a clear sign of China's desire to dominate Asia and impose a Chinese version of stability irreverence of neighbors. That body of water is meant to divide Asia into discrete pockets of manageable issues.

China may have had the claim since the 40s, but China never made a serious effort to press it until you Americans humiliated us.

You may think us hitting your spy plane back in the 90s was aggressive to you, but looking at it from our perspective, you made us lose a pilot, putting carriers into the Taiwan strait to intimidate us, and stopping our shipment to Iran simply because you think we had something in there.

You can take that however you like, but the fact of the matter is that's how we felt, and looking at US history, that's exactly how you would also feel.

Is that a good enough reason to claim all of SCS? That's not up to you to decide.

I have the book The Japan That Can Say No by Shintaro Ishihara. Nationalism was rife throughout that book. In a way, I do not consider that any discredit to any Japanese. But what made possible Japan's economic, and hinted at military, rise was that Japan was protected by the US Navy. Protected in the sense that Japan's livelihood was near total dependency on the oceans and the US denied others, including the mighty Soviets, the ability to deny anyone access to the same. Simply put, the US denied the possibility, never mind probability, of anyone to gain control of any body of water on the oceans. That made possible for Ishihara's misguided belief that Japan could say 'No' to the US. Never mind the inevitable backlash from the few US Congressional blowhards, which fizzled out to nothing anyway.

With the claim to be owner of the SCS, China is not merely saying 'No' to the US, but 'F U' to the US and to China's neighbors. China is trying to do what the US denied others during the Cold War: Control a body of water on the oceans.

We are saying No to the US, but controlling this body of water is no indication of stopping freedom of navigation, as our see traffic even exceed yours, but even without this you cannot just say that's what we will do, the only thing you can say is that we will not allow US military presence there. That's only bad in your perspective, but actually has little impact on others.

Unless you are to assume China will be unreasonable in our actions, however that again is just your opinion.

You have no basis to say we will be like that, nobody does.

This is not merely denial of control like how the US have done, but actually claiming the SCS under territorial sovereignty. You can have a vast desert as part of your country and as long as your neighbors respect that claim, it is irrelevant if that desert is barely inhabited. If anyone tries to trespass on your property, you would raise the army to defend that piece of barely habitable land. That is the privilege and burden of territorial sovereignty. China believes she has that privilege to the SCS and is equally confident that she can defend the SCS.

If Asia is foolish enough to accept China's claim to the SCS in the name of regional stability, then the Asian countries might as well submit to China as vassal states. May be China will give you a lollipop in the form of something similar to the French Union.

The real loser of this if it happens is America losing its influence. Which as you correctly point out, would be foolish.....For you.

If you can make up your mind and take action simply on your hunches or your suspicions, then that would validate our claim more than anything, as from our perspective, it's not only just, but very necessary.

 

[Aepsilons]

China may have had the claim since the 40s, but China never made a serious effort to press it until you Americans humiliated us.

You may think us hitting your spy plane back in the 90s was aggressive to you, but looking at it from our perspective, you made us lose a pilot, putting carriers into the Taiwan strait to intimidate us, and stopping our shipment to Iran simply because you think we had something in there.

You can take that however you like, but the fact of the matter is that's how we felt, and looking at US history, that's exactly how you would also feel.

Is that a good enough reason to claim all of SCS? That's not up to you to decide.




We are saying No to the US, but controlling this body of water is no indication of stopping freedom of navigation, as our see traffic even exceed yours, but even without this you cannot just say that's what we will do, the only thing you can say is that we will not allow US military presence there. That's only bad in your perspective, but actually has little impact on others.

Unless you are to assume China will be unreasonable in our actions, however that again is just your opinion.

You have no basis to say we will be like that, nobody does.



The real loser of this if it happens is America losing its influence. Which as you correctly point out, would be foolish.....For you.

If you can make up your mind and take action simply on your hunches or your suspicions, then that would validate our claim more than anything, as from our perspective, it's not only just, but very necessary.

Now now, let's not be too over-critical, my dear. China's CPC has made it known that it claims the South China Sea as its own. We know that many of the islands and shoals in that region are either controlled or inhabitted by various powers -- for example, Vietnam has administrative control of most of those islands, while the Philippines, Brunei and even Malaysia have administrative control over various other islands that China claims. Please refer to image #1:

Image #1: list of islands effectively administered by China, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam.

Clearly China will not abrogate its claims now because doing so would weaken the national mandate of the CPC in leiu of the national image. At the same time you cannot expect Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam to abandon their shoals and islands which they already effectively administer -- outside the point of gun. Now can you ? So what can the region do? What can China do?

Well, if Sino-Japanese inter-ADIZ dynamic can shed some semblance of understanding on the possible solution to tihs is this --- differences in claims are natural and normal , but systems should be set in place either in the case of a maritime hotline to effectively reduce the instance of flare ups or -- at least have the mechanism in place to implement damage control in the event of an unforeseeable circumstance. You know -- as well as I do -- that Japan and China have ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zones) that crosses each other, yet at the same time there have been -- ZERO (0%) instance of shooting or military related deaths between the Japanese Air Self Defense Force and the People's Liberation Army Air Force. Why is this? Please refer to Image #2. Its because of responsible inter-governmental-based military to military communication mechanisms set in place. I believe the same thing can be implemented in South China Sea and in the greater ASEAN region.

Image #2: The Japanese and Chines ADIZ, note their cross-over.