China can build up the islands but if China cannot use them to control the SCS because the US contains China, then you can call it a wast of money from China.
How you call that to contain China when US patrol come only once a month or less while we're there in SCS 24/7, 356 days with these bases, we monitor all ships and air traffic that pass through SCS under our noses and we don't need to claim to control SCS but everyone already know the meaning and the effect of our present 
.
Close the mr @Deino this thread is/will becoming a troll feast flame baiting thank you
All for political show. Washington knows it can't do much about it, so the next best thing is to sail warships around them. Honestly, it's a win-win scenario; China continues militarizing islands and expanding its maritime scope while the US gives the impression that it is challenging the islands without having to go to war. If you're the United States, this is the best you can do without igniting war or causing serious diplomatic harm.
That is all we need to do. Containment is not restricted to the physical realm but also the logical. As long as one power can navigate the SCS without being hindered by China at any time, everyone will see the region as free for all.It's so hilarious
Failure in 'logic'. We do not claim that body of water as our own, nor have we tried to assert any form of control of access to it, nor have we established any permanent or semi-permanent stations in the region.According to your logic, we sail though Malacca strait without being hindered by US navy in Singapore mean US is useless over there? and we logically contain US
Of course you had a failure of logic. The context of 'containment' is to arrest an expansion. The US is not expanding our territorial waters claim in the Malacca Strait, do we? China is trying to claim the entirety of the SCS as hers. Therefore, we are containing you even if all we do is sail thru the area just one a month. We do not even need a fleet to make that containment obvious for all to see. Any US flagged vessel will do the job.
, if that how you define a containment then it's fine with us, we like this one better.
The only 'contradiction' here is in your mind because of you failed to understand the context.You just contradict yourself first: you said containment is to arrest an expansion: did US stop China from expansion on it own territory? or maybe US has no legitimacy to interfere into China business then you turn around by claiming that sail thru is considered as containment
, so to stop a man from claiming that house what you have to do it's walk across his front yard as way to prove that you're stopping his claim....make sense I'm wondering if the man claiming the house is hopeless or if the man that walk across the front yard is. 
