1) Losing a few thousand people and doing nothing will also lose the hearts of the people.
We have witnessed the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the result of Iraq and Afghanistan after 911.
Patriotism is a powerful tool my friend. China's population is four times that of America, it is not something to bat an eyelid on. Especially when the possible arena is only a stone throw away.
Who wants to unite and turn 1.3 billion Chinese against them and see what China is truely capable are free to try. But which one has the balls to? Quite possibly Non.
America understands what is at stake for them if they get involved, and knows what to expect should push comes to shove. Let alone those that are in dispute. They are in no shape or form ready for a direct confrontation with China. Not now, not anytime soon.
Well, first of all, you assume everybody in China care about SCS, that's your first assumption.
Second of all, you assume everybody in China is willing to die for a clause. That's your second assumption.
Problem is, for a conventional war. China cannot bring the fight to America while America will use it's asset in Asia, as well as proxies to make Chinese pays. You can destroy Guam, or South Korea or even Japan for that matter, but it will not damage US continental strength and thus, it does not do as much damage as you may think. On the other scale, China will be bombed both in the mainland and on the island, and while US have enough firepower now or in the future to turn at least the Chinese Eastern Seaboard into Iraq. It would take years for China to recover.
The only way China can hit back at US is by ICBM and nuclear mission, then it would be a lose-lose for the world, so again, the question remain, would China escalate the war for just merely a few thousand people?
2) Everyone knows what is to expect. Hence there will be no direct confrontations with China. That is unless they want to lose their economy, power projection capabilities and see sharp reductions in population.
War with China may give birth to new powers, reshape the region and quite possibly the world. Russia and major powers in Europe will take over, Japan will be freed from its shackles, North Korea will steamroll the south. India, with comparable population will substitute China. Only they will benefit from this war (unless we go all out nuclear, then everybody loses).
We can expect further warnings, political joustings or, perhaps, minor skirmishes. Just not war.
War with China will not give birth to a New World Order, unless China can reach to continental US conventionally, which is not possible at this stage. US will use existing asset to go to war, as with any other war they have fought, while the battleground will be SCS and China, you would have to consider what it would have done to Chinese coastal region before you fly the war flag.
From where it is going, we can see US will keep sending ship over to SCS to Chinese island and China will keep on giving warning, a war on SCS will done nothing or next to nothing to the US,but will do a lot more harm to China.
As your logic, it is not invasion. Who are approve the action which UK/USA invade Iraq? UN, Iraq people even Saddam himself invite UK/USA to come into Iraq for killing so many people including Saddam.
UN approved the invasion as per Resolution 678. You are just too thick to understand what it said, maybe simply your understanding of English is not up to the par?
US's FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) is exercising US official position of innocent passage through territory water.
That means that US is asserting their perceived right of innocent passage even if US recognize that particular territory water.
Therefore the FONOP operation do not say anything about the sovereignty of the territory water. i.e. the operation by itself do not indicate that US challenge the sovereignty of that territory water. In fact, the opposite could be argue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freed...ed_States_.22Freedom_of_Navigation.22_program
On several occasions, U.S. armed forces have conducted operations in areas claimed by other countries, such as
naval operations in the
Gulf of Sidra in the 1980s. Throughout the years U.S. forces have been performing "Freedom of Navigation" operations in the
Straits of Gibraltar,
Strait of Hormuz,
Straits of Malacca, and the
Indonesian Archipelago, the
Black Sea under the name 'Silver Fox',.
[9]
One of the notable operations conducted as part of Freedom of Navigation program
[10] was performed by
USS Yorktown, during which, on February 12, 1988 she was "nudged" by Soviet frigate
Bezzavetny in an attempt to divert the vessel out of Soviet-claimed territorial waters; some observers[
who?] have called the event "the last incident of the Cold War."[
citation needed]
Consider the facts of past operations above, does US challenge the sovereignty of Strait of Gibraltar, Strait of Hormuz or Straits of Malacca etc...????!!!
LOL at your logic, you are literally saying since 1+1=2, then 2 must come from 1+1
FON ops are to ensure ships pass thru
INTERNATIONAL WATER or
AIRSPACE despite all other claimant and their view, in effect, it's a US view to say "You can think whatever the hell you want, but we think it is an international water or airway" end of story.
FON ops does not admit that this action are conduct under foreign sovereign, on the contrary, it is the opposite that's true. It is illogical to say since US Challenge the sovereignty of a given nation, they must first accept that nation hold the sovereignty right of the location where FON Ops are conduct. Simply because if US did accepted that nation's sovereignty right, then there would not be a FON ops in the first place.
, following your comments, find you become madder, I am very happy China become more and more “aggressive”, and ignore you and USA.
