Well, technically China is already building man made islands in the South China Sea. They could, technically develop these enough so that it could house a squadron or so of planes. However, their effective range would be limited by the US Naval and Air units in Guam, and other islands that have US military forces based in it -- ergo, Wake, Midway, Northern Marianas, Solomon Islands etc.
U.S. Sends Second Carrier to Asia Amid Tensions with China
- Thread starter Aepsilons
- Start date
Well, technically China is already building man made islands in the South China Sea. They could, technically develop these enough so that it could house a squadron or so of planes. However, their effective range would be limited by the US Naval and Air units in Guam, and other islands that have US military forces based in it -- ergo, Wake, Midway, Northern Marianas, Solomon Islands etc.
BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Just follow the rule and laws. if they violated your territorial airspace and/or deny to leave once warned, you could shoot them down legally.
We could do the same if any foreign fighters or recon aircrafts violated our airspace.
Barrel rolling is meaningless.
The issue is they seem not to violate any international agreement.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Who knows how creative the Chinese are willing to be.
The thing is this...The Internet and exposure to the outside world is a double edged sword when it comes to modern Chinese, especially the young. It seems like half wants China to be more friendly towards other countries and half became more nationalistic and militant towards other countries, particularly the immediate Asian neighbors.
There are no priority targets for China's aggressiveness, only opportunities. If a weaker neighbor, like the Philippines or Viet Nam, provide China with an opening for a land grab, that weaker neighbor will be immediately targeted. Same for more powerful neighbors like Japan or South Korea. Currently, the US have a weak President when it comes to foreign policies. But that spinelessness will end in a couple yrs and China knows it. You guys have two yrs to sort out your differences and do something about China, lest the new US President sees nothing worth salvaging in Asia and leave you at China's mercy.
China does not need to actually occupy any island or piecemeal plots of land in order to control you. Regulations backed up by force will do just fine.
they won't be able to build artificial islands in western pacific. the least they can do is building bases in south america, as gambit said, venezuela, but then again, how can they afford it with only $150 billion def spending? they are left with two options, either they have to be pragmatic to increase the budget or they must accept their weakness. they are undecided means one faction tends to avoid projection of power. doesn't matter whether they seek to avoid war, war will come to them eventually
JSCh
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,235
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Then why the fuss?
It is the US that whine and issue a protest.
Anyway, for a Vietnamese that has one hell of a long coastline, and a long and thin geography with very little strategic space, maybe one day you are going to enjoy what you support.
Correct, you have a point about their defense spending limitation. In addition, I would actually say its a bad idea (very very bad idea) to be building man made islands in the South China Sea. If natural phenomena such as Typhoons serve as an indicator -- it is this, these are normal occurances in South East Asia. Typhoon Haiyan that wrecked havoc in the Philippines in 2013 -- which demolished a major city in the Philippines -- would and could easily obliterate a small man made island. Does the Chinese Military want to risk that? That's something they have already considered-- by about now.
Well said. Well then, this only reiterates the necessity of Japan's re-militarization. There is no backing away now.
what will you say about people who don't learn from past mistakes? yunnan had repeated earthquakes, still after each, when they rebuild, they go for the same style house building that causes death. instead of light materials, every time they use heavy stone bricks, may be for cheaper costs, seems they don't value human lives
they are now understanding why long range projection of power is important and why usa has it to protect interests abroad.
3 Chinese workers missing in Turkey: Chinese embassy - Xinhua | English.news.cn
a huge ransom will be paid, it appear.
BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
If they really invaded, you should shoot them down, if they don't invade, barrel rolling is meaningless in protecting your security while cause dangerous to both.
We worried more about your nine ( ten ) dashed line in SCS.
Let share the same feeling, when a big power dominate other coastline
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Ask yourself that. Our aircraft was in international airspace, so why the fuss ?
It is China who is whining here.
sahaliyan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- -1
I find this article is interesting
China: What China wants | The Economist
AN ALARMING assumption is taking hold in some quarters of both Beijing and Washington, DC. Within a few years, China’s economy will overtake America’s in size (on a purchasing-power basis, it is already on the cusp of doing so). Its armed forces, though still dwarfed by those of the United States, are growing fast in strength; in any war in East Asia, they would have the home advantage. Thus, some people have concluded, rivalry between China and America has become inevitable and will be followed by confrontation—even conflict.
Diplomacy’s task in the coming decades will be to ensure that such a catastrophe never takes place. The question is how?
Primacy inter pares
Some Western hawks see a China threat wherever they look: China’s state-owned businesses stealing a march in Africa; its government covering for autocrats in UN votes; its insatiable appetite for resources plundering the environment. Fortunately, there is scant evidence to support the idea of a global Chinese effort to upend the international order. China’s desires have an historical, even emotional, dimension. But in much of the world China seeks to work within existing norms, not to overturn them.
In Africa its business dealings are transactional and more often led by entrepreneurs than by the state. Elsewhere, a once-reactive diplomacy is growing more sophisticated—and helpful. China is the biggest contributor to peacekeeping missions among the UN Security Council’s permanent five, and it takes part in anti-piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa. In some areas China is working hard to lessen its environmental footprint, for instance through vast afforestation schemes and clean-coal technologies.
The big exception is in East and North-East Asia—one of the greatest concentrations of people, dynamism and wealth on Earth. There, both its rhetoric and its actions suggest that China is unhappy withPax Americana. For centuries China lay at the centre of things, the sun around which other Asian kingdoms turned. First Western ravages in the middle of the 19th century and then China’s defeat by Japan at the end of it put paid to Chinese centrality. Today an American-led order in the western Pacific perpetuates the humiliation, in the eyes of Chinese leaders. Soon, they believe, their country will be rich and powerful enough to seize back primacy in East Asia.
China’s sense of historical grievance explains a spate of recent belligerence. China has deployed ships and planes to contest Japan’s control of islands in the East China Sea, grabbed reefs claimed by the Philippines in the South China Sea and moved an oil rig into Vietnam’s claimed exclusive economic zone. All this has created alarm in the region. Some strategists say America can keep the peace only if it is firm in the face of Chinese expansionism. Others urge America to share power in East Asia before rivalries lead to a disaster.
America cannot walk away without grave consequences for the region and its own standing. Since the end of the second world war, American security has been the basis of Asian prosperity and an increasingly liberal order. It enabled Japan to rise from the ashes without alarming its neighbours. Indeed, China’s race to modernity could not have happened without it. Even Vietnam, America’s old foe, is clearer than ever that it wants America’s stabilising, reassuring presence.
Yet, if the liberal order is to survive, it must evolve. Denying the reality of China’s growing power would only encourage China to reject the world as it is. By contrast, if China can prosper within the system, it will reinforce it. That is why the United States needs to acknowledge one increasingly awkward aspect of its leadership: American advantage is hard-wired into the system in ways that a rising power might justifiably resent.
For a great power to find a new equilibrium with an emerging one is hard—because every adaptation looks like a retreat. Three principles should guide America.
First, it should only make promises that it is prepared to keep. On the one hand, America would be foolish to draw red lines around specks of reef in the South China Sea. On the other, if America is to count for anything, its allies need to know that they can depend on it. Although Taiwan is central to China’s sense of its own honour, America should leave Beijing in no doubt that it would come to the island’s defence.
Second, even in security, America must make room. China’s participation in America’s recent RIMPAC naval exercises off Hawaii was a start. China could be invited to join Asian exercises, including for disaster relief. And America should avoid a cold-war battle for the loyalty of regional powers.
Lastly, America will find it easier to include China in new projects than to give ground on old ones—and should make more effort to do so. It is nonsensical that America should be leading the formation of the region’s biggest free-trade area, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, without the inclusion of the region’s largest economy. And there is no reason to exclude China from co-operation in space. Even during the cold war American and Soviet astronauts worked together.
Let the dragon in
Why should China be satisfied with a bit more engagement when primacy is what it seeks? There is no guarantee that it will be. Just now the rhetoric coming out of Beijing is full of cold-war, Manichean imagery. Yet sensible Chinese understand that their country faces constraints—China needs Western markets, its neighbours are unwilling to accept its regional writ and for many more years the United States will be strong enough militarily and diplomatically to block it. And in the longer run, the hope is that the Chinese system will of itself adapt from one-party rule to some more liberal polity that, by its nature, is more comfortable with the world as it now is.
Drawing China into a strengthened regional framework would not be to cede primacy to it. Nor would it be to abandon a liberal order that has served Asia—and America—so well. It may, in the end, not work. But given the huge dangers of rivalry, it is essential now to try.
China: What China wants | The Economist
AN ALARMING assumption is taking hold in some quarters of both Beijing and Washington, DC. Within a few years, China’s economy will overtake America’s in size (on a purchasing-power basis, it is already on the cusp of doing so). Its armed forces, though still dwarfed by those of the United States, are growing fast in strength; in any war in East Asia, they would have the home advantage. Thus, some people have concluded, rivalry between China and America has become inevitable and will be followed by confrontation—even conflict.
Diplomacy’s task in the coming decades will be to ensure that such a catastrophe never takes place. The question is how?
Primacy inter pares
Some Western hawks see a China threat wherever they look: China’s state-owned businesses stealing a march in Africa; its government covering for autocrats in UN votes; its insatiable appetite for resources plundering the environment. Fortunately, there is scant evidence to support the idea of a global Chinese effort to upend the international order. China’s desires have an historical, even emotional, dimension. But in much of the world China seeks to work within existing norms, not to overturn them.
In Africa its business dealings are transactional and more often led by entrepreneurs than by the state. Elsewhere, a once-reactive diplomacy is growing more sophisticated—and helpful. China is the biggest contributor to peacekeeping missions among the UN Security Council’s permanent five, and it takes part in anti-piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa. In some areas China is working hard to lessen its environmental footprint, for instance through vast afforestation schemes and clean-coal technologies.
The big exception is in East and North-East Asia—one of the greatest concentrations of people, dynamism and wealth on Earth. There, both its rhetoric and its actions suggest that China is unhappy withPax Americana. For centuries China lay at the centre of things, the sun around which other Asian kingdoms turned. First Western ravages in the middle of the 19th century and then China’s defeat by Japan at the end of it put paid to Chinese centrality. Today an American-led order in the western Pacific perpetuates the humiliation, in the eyes of Chinese leaders. Soon, they believe, their country will be rich and powerful enough to seize back primacy in East Asia.
China’s sense of historical grievance explains a spate of recent belligerence. China has deployed ships and planes to contest Japan’s control of islands in the East China Sea, grabbed reefs claimed by the Philippines in the South China Sea and moved an oil rig into Vietnam’s claimed exclusive economic zone. All this has created alarm in the region. Some strategists say America can keep the peace only if it is firm in the face of Chinese expansionism. Others urge America to share power in East Asia before rivalries lead to a disaster.
America cannot walk away without grave consequences for the region and its own standing. Since the end of the second world war, American security has been the basis of Asian prosperity and an increasingly liberal order. It enabled Japan to rise from the ashes without alarming its neighbours. Indeed, China’s race to modernity could not have happened without it. Even Vietnam, America’s old foe, is clearer than ever that it wants America’s stabilising, reassuring presence.
Yet, if the liberal order is to survive, it must evolve. Denying the reality of China’s growing power would only encourage China to reject the world as it is. By contrast, if China can prosper within the system, it will reinforce it. That is why the United States needs to acknowledge one increasingly awkward aspect of its leadership: American advantage is hard-wired into the system in ways that a rising power might justifiably resent.
For a great power to find a new equilibrium with an emerging one is hard—because every adaptation looks like a retreat. Three principles should guide America.
First, it should only make promises that it is prepared to keep. On the one hand, America would be foolish to draw red lines around specks of reef in the South China Sea. On the other, if America is to count for anything, its allies need to know that they can depend on it. Although Taiwan is central to China’s sense of its own honour, America should leave Beijing in no doubt that it would come to the island’s defence.
Second, even in security, America must make room. China’s participation in America’s recent RIMPAC naval exercises off Hawaii was a start. China could be invited to join Asian exercises, including for disaster relief. And America should avoid a cold-war battle for the loyalty of regional powers.
Lastly, America will find it easier to include China in new projects than to give ground on old ones—and should make more effort to do so. It is nonsensical that America should be leading the formation of the region’s biggest free-trade area, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, without the inclusion of the region’s largest economy. And there is no reason to exclude China from co-operation in space. Even during the cold war American and Soviet astronauts worked together.
Let the dragon in
Why should China be satisfied with a bit more engagement when primacy is what it seeks? There is no guarantee that it will be. Just now the rhetoric coming out of Beijing is full of cold-war, Manichean imagery. Yet sensible Chinese understand that their country faces constraints—China needs Western markets, its neighbours are unwilling to accept its regional writ and for many more years the United States will be strong enough militarily and diplomatically to block it. And in the longer run, the hope is that the Chinese system will of itself adapt from one-party rule to some more liberal polity that, by its nature, is more comfortable with the world as it now is.
Drawing China into a strengthened regional framework would not be to cede primacy to it. Nor would it be to abandon a liberal order that has served Asia—and America—so well. It may, in the end, not work. But given the huge dangers of rivalry, it is essential now to try.
sahaliyan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- -1
I think the author made some very important points here,for example,if US is really has good wishes to China,why they want to form TTP exclude China,and exclude China from co-operation in space(make China develop the space technology alone)?
LeveragedBuyout
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,958
- Reaction score
- 60
- Country
- Location
China might have been included in TPP if it had shown more commitment to IP protection (which is critically important to the US, and brazenly disregarded by China for the most part), and an indication of a willingness to forgo the noxious JV requirements for foreign companies. Since it's doubtful China will even meet the minimum demands, let alone make concessions that would actually benefit the US, why should we bother to try? Besides, China seems happy enough with its BRICs friends.
As far as space technologies, while I agree that it would be best to work with China, there may be dual-use military concerns.
sahaliyan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- -1
BRICS is not a free-trade area,It works quite different,also I think the so-called IP protection is just an excuse,not the real reason,the real reason the TPP doesn't include China seems a political one
I also should pont out,the soviet space project also dual-use military concerns,however the most part of both China and soviet space projects are still civilian
China and US share some common interests,for example,we are both threated by Islamist extremism and help the global health protection,also why should we be rivals in Africa?we should work together to lift the Africans out of poverty.However in current situation,we can not cooperate because the mentioned reasons
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
I guess China and US can get along as equal great powers when/if the US is actually convinces itself that the rise of China is no threat and the Chinese actions far and away are not directed at US interests intentionally. Certainly, the order will be disrupted as China occupies a greater space and changes the rules long established as it sees fit as a great power.
The question is whether the US leadership has the mental capacity and understanding of the new world situation. Or are they crazy enough to start a war (directly or using pawns) against China?
Unfortunately, such stable mental state is not been observed in the US leadership.
In that regard, world peace is conditioned on the sanity and humanity of US leadership. We just hope there won't be crazy generals and hawkish senators and representatives outnumbering sane and dovish ones.
A multipolar world may not be as peaceful, but, still, it is not the unilateral power (or power bloc) to decide. Besides, if there is to be a unilateral hegemonic order (bloc of states), why should not that be a China-led bloc-ing?
I guess, China-Russia leadership has stopped short any crazy US action when the Obama regime was on the brink of declaring war on Syria. And today, Obama regime and its generals are mulling about cooperating with Assad against the ISIS in Syria-- which is the right thing to do and I salute the US generals who propose such a resolution.
What if China and Russia had not stop the US (almost by force) and Assad regime were gone today? The very forces that the US is now targeting in Kurdistan would have entirely controlled Syria.
See, multilateral order (or order under a non-US grouping) is in fact working very well and to the benefit of humanity.
An East Asia cleared from US military imperialism will certainly be more peaceful since China is historically more stable/peaceful country with a greater combined civilizational experience.
@Raphael , @Chinese-Dragon , @Edison Chen , @Genesis , @xunzi , @vostok , @senheiser, @terranMarine , @Grand Historian
The question is whether the US leadership has the mental capacity and understanding of the new world situation. Or are they crazy enough to start a war (directly or using pawns) against China?
Unfortunately, such stable mental state is not been observed in the US leadership.
In that regard, world peace is conditioned on the sanity and humanity of US leadership. We just hope there won't be crazy generals and hawkish senators and representatives outnumbering sane and dovish ones.
A multipolar world may not be as peaceful, but, still, it is not the unilateral power (or power bloc) to decide. Besides, if there is to be a unilateral hegemonic order (bloc of states), why should not that be a China-led bloc-ing?
I guess, China-Russia leadership has stopped short any crazy US action when the Obama regime was on the brink of declaring war on Syria. And today, Obama regime and its generals are mulling about cooperating with Assad against the ISIS in Syria-- which is the right thing to do and I salute the US generals who propose such a resolution.
What if China and Russia had not stop the US (almost by force) and Assad regime were gone today? The very forces that the US is now targeting in Kurdistan would have entirely controlled Syria.
See, multilateral order (or order under a non-US grouping) is in fact working very well and to the benefit of humanity.
An East Asia cleared from US military imperialism will certainly be more peaceful since China is historically more stable/peaceful country with a greater combined civilizational experience.
@Raphael , @Chinese-Dragon , @Edison Chen , @Genesis , @xunzi , @vostok , @senheiser, @terranMarine , @Grand Historian
Last edited:
Similar threads
