Why China Has the Right to 'Build Sovereignty' in the South China Sea

[Genesis]

What saved China up until now, what made the American conservatives restrain themselves is the fact that Western business interests were making good profit from china and china had not shown a clear intent to challenge US until Xe came along. The equation has changed now. The challenge is clear and the route to confrontation is difficult to avoid. If you know anything about what's going on in USA you would know that in the last 2 weeks all the military and geopolitical think tanks have gone into full anti china mode, that's how it starts, have to prepare public opinion first.

1989 Chinese economy was minuscule was save it from sanctions is the American's desire to gain one more ally and to reform us to their liking. It didn't work out that way.

You like to focus on the military side of things, but all the fields needs to be considered, which makes military actually not that high up in the places where we need to do battle.

What 1989 meant was the US can impose sanctions not only on external crisis, but also internal, so to say America cannot sanction Russia for Human Rights is not supported by history, or American and Canadian boycott of Chinese Olympics.

This SCS gave another reason, sure I don't deny that, but in many ways it's not the most serious, and it's certainly not the only thing between us.


So the original point is if we don't claim SCS, and Russia don't do Ukraine everything would be fine, and I have showed proof that, if the time is there and they are vulnerable enough the US will impose sanctions and will do it on a multiple of reasons.

When you said that Obama is not a wimp, you showed me that you really don't understand US politics.

I'm not a neo con and all of a sudden I lose credibility? I know I would with other neo cons, probably you, but this is a rational debate, that should have no agenda. So calling someone a wimp with no concrete evidence to support, and let's say firing like a mad men is off the table.

 

[Beidou2020]

China didn't go far enough in exterminating the terrorists in 1989.

China was run by a weak leader in Deng who released those terrorists.

China should have killed the terrorists and their entire families.

Those terrorists trying to topple the CPC should never be treated as 'humans'. They are worthless filth!

 

[Huan]

Yes, go ahead and ask the americans in the forum, they will tell you how easy it is to take out those islands and by the way, a few american commanders already said that too.



I really don't have time, some people have work to do, you know? Ask @Nihonjin1051

I'm on a business trip on china and lunch break is almost over, I can continue at night.

I will look forward to your real answer then.

 

[Carlosa]

We'll see, though declaring war on a major power, it's difficult to say the least. The Americans just got back from Iraq remember.

I haven't seen any talk of US carrier groups start firing off shots, even the Mccain isn't suggesting that, he said add cost not all out war..

Just look at what they are doing to Russia and that's a big nuclear power, something that china still is not.

 

[Genesis]

Yes, go ahead and ask the americans in the forum, they will tell you how easy it is to take out those islands and by the way, a few american commanders already said that too.

ok, we need to discuss this rationally, and please read carefully, as I have of your posts, I never said it was difficult. I said, would Americans take that action, as that is a real war.

Considering, one we are not defenceless, and two economic, political and other factors that needs to be addressed, which makes any non-full on invasion difficult to justify at the very least.

And we have no plans on marching to Hanoi or Manila.

 

[Carlosa]

Then, I will look forward to your real answer then.

You will get it and it will be the last one.

 

[Huan]

1989 Chinese economy was minuscule was save it from sanctions is the American's desire to gain one more ally and to reform us to their liking. It didn't work out that way.

You like to focus on the military side of things, but all the fields needs to be considered, which makes military actually not that high up in the places where we need to do battle.

What 1989 meant was the US can impose sanctions not only on external crisis, but also internal, so to say America cannot sanction Russia for Human Rights is not supported by history, or American and Canadian boycott of Chinese Olympics.

This SCS gave another reason, sure I don't deny that, but in many ways it's not the most serious, and it's certainly not the only thing between us.


So the original point is if we don't claim SCS, and Russia don't do Ukraine everything would be fine, and I have showed proof that, if the time is there and they are vulnerable enough the US will impose sanctions and will do it on a multiple of reasons.


I'm not a neo con and all of a sudden I lose credibility? I know I would with other neo cons, probably you, but this is a rational debate, that should have no agenda. So calling someone a wimp with no concrete evidence to support, and let's say firing like a mad men is off the table.

I think Carlosa has a habit of giving personal insults against other forum members instead of engaging in constructive discussion.

 

[Genesis]

Just look at what they are doing to Russia and that's a big nuclear power, something that china still is not.

We are a big enough nuclear power, and America isn't doing anything military, but economic and political. Russia cannot respond in military.

We can respond to Americans in economics and political, we aren't as strong in that field as the Americans, but strong enough to know Americans cannot impose sanctions, the AIIB just proved that.

 

[Beidou2020]

Yes, go ahead and ask the americans in the forum, they will tell you how easy it is to take out those islands and by the way, a few american commanders already said that too.



I really don't have time, some people have work to do, you know? Ask @Nihonjin1051

I'm on a business trip on china and lunch break is almost over, I can continue at night.

U.S. can't do a damn thing to stop China's construction.

NOT A DAMN THING.

China called America's bluff and now America is getting exposed for the scared little wimp that it always was.

U.S. military don't have the guts to get into a war with the PLA.

China will build what it wants, when it wants, however the hell it wants in the SCS.

U.S. hot air empty warnings will be laughed at by China.

 

[HRM YANG]

Yes, go ahead and ask the americans in the forum, they will tell you how easy it is to take out those islands and by the way, a few american commanders already said that too.



I really don't have time, some people have work to do, you know? Ask @Nihonjin1051

I'm on a business trip on china and lunch break is almost over, I can continue at night.

Don't act like a complacent cock, asking this asking that, that make you like a pedlar

 

[Carlosa]

I haven't seen any talk of US carrier groups start firing off shots, even the Mccain isn't suggesting that, he said add cost not all out war..[/QUOTE]

You really have no idea how the American conservatives and neocons are talking about china right now. And McCain, well, there is a big difference between what he says in public, particularly out in the open and in international meetings, etc and how he really thinks, I would be a bit worry if I were you.

U.S. can't do a damn thing to stop China's construction.

NOT A DAMN THING.

China called America's bluff and now America is getting exposed for the scared little wimp that it always was.

U.S. military don't have the guts to get into a war with the PLA.

China will build what it wants, when it wants, however the hell it wants in the SCS.

U.S. hot air empty warnings will be laughed at by China.

It seems like we'll find out soon. I think the PLA is only good at barking and blaffing and doesn't have the guts to take on the US.

Don't act like a complacent cock, asking this asking that, that make you like a pedlar

Go back to kindergarden kid, leave this for adults.

We are a big enough nuclear power, and America isn't doing anything military, but economic and political. Russia cannot respond in military.

No, you are not, you are very weak as a nuclear power, your strategic subs are super noisy, very easy to track. Most of your ICBMs don't have the range, your bombers don't have the range. This will change, but it takes time. China can't afford to get into a nuclear exchange with US.

Russia on the other hand is actually at least as powerful as the US in the nuclear arena. some say its even superior. Russia's conventional forces can take over most of western Europe in a few days and they have plenty of tactical nukes if things go bad for them, they can't be defeated.

We are a big enough nuclear power, and America isn't doing anything military, but economic and political. Russia cannot respond in military.

We can respond to Americans in economics and political, we aren't as strong in that field as the Americans, but strong enough to know Americans cannot impose sanctions, the AIIB just proved that.

Time out, need to get back to work, can continue tonight.

 

[Genesis]

You really have no idea how the American conservatives and neocons are talking about china right now. And McCain, well, there is a big difference between what he says in public, particularly out in the open and in international meetings, etc and how he really thinks, I would be a bit worry if I were you.

Perhaps, but if he can't say war in public for the election, he can't say war anyways. Unless things escalates dramatically, which I don't think it will. I don't think we will be able to maintain a better status quo in the region, but I don't think we will start firing at all sides. I have talked about it in another threat, which covers our investment in civilian projects and why it be a waste if we started military moves, especially when our civilian projects far outstrip even the US, like our coast guard.

INo, you are not, you are very weak as a nuclear power, your strategic subs are super noisy, very easy to track. Your ICBMs don't have the range, your bombers don't have the range. This will change, but it takes time. China can't afford to get into a nuclear exchange with US.

Russia on the other hand is actually at least as powerful as the US in the nuclear arena. some say its even superior. Russia's conventional forces can take over most of western Europe in a few days.

ok, let's accept we are very weak in Nuclear, as you speculated. So what? The second part is the meat of the discussion.

We can respond to Americans in economics and political, we aren't as strong in that field as the Americans, but strong enough to know Americans cannot impose sanctions, the AIIB just proved that.

Military needs a military response, economic needs an economic response.


Also please consider this I have written and let me know your thoughts.

1989 Chinese economy was minuscule was save it from sanctions is the American's desire to gain one more ally and to reform us to their liking. It didn't work out that way.

You like to focus on the military side of things, but all the fields needs to be considered, which makes military actually not that high up in the places where we need to do battle.

What 1989 meant was the US can impose sanctions not only on external crisis, but also internal, so to say America cannot sanction Russia for Human Rights is not supported by history, or American and Canadian boycott of Chinese Olympics.

This SCS gave another reason, sure I don't deny that, but in many ways it's not the most serious, and it's certainly not the only thing between us.


So the original point is if we don't claim SCS, and Russia don't do Ukraine everything would be fine, and I have showed proof that, if the time is there and they are vulnerable enough the US will impose sanctions and will do it on a multiple of reasons.

and
your response, and my response.

SCS is the opportunity for confrontation, the other issues don't provide the opportunity, that's the key difference. China provided the opportunity in a silver platter.

Yes it does provide opportunities, it provided US to set up TPP, trade wars, anti dumping regulations, keeping our currency out of reserve currency, stopping others from joining our bank.

Now you can argue it's effectiveness, but you can't argue, those are far more serious moves than some fly by around our islands.

Had we not succeeded in AIIB, our credibility would be severely harmed, had we not developed a large domestic market, skilled workforce, complete supply chain and effective as well as comprehensive infrastructure. We be toast.

Had we not been trading currencies with other countries, conduct as much trade as we did, sign as many treaties as we have, our currency would not be as widely used today nor would it be in the discussion.

All these have far more serious consequences than not having the SCS.

Again, all these have nothing to do with Vietnam, nor SCS, but they are key interests and a failure to win here would severely damage Chinese economy and prestige. The SCS is also important to us, it is a key interest, and I will further expand on it in the next part.

also lastly, this, if we accept the premise, China as a nation will still exist and not just be a waste land in 2035.

We are in the age of Super Powers, not great powers. Germany, Italy and Japan against UK, US(at the time), France, and Russia, were roughly equal in strength.

Today, one US can take on the world in a direct confrontation, and win. Neither of those powers can or close. For China to win against the US, we need to do something similar. That essentially eliminated even Japan to the realm of minor power status of the last world war, like Norway or Denmark.

Being in the Asia Pacific, the amount of US power, US can call upon is limited, relatively. If China can get close enough to that power, it hardly matters what the likes of Japan does.

Consider the entire current Chinese strength to US strength in the area, we are about equal, unless they start putting more assets there. Now consider if 70% of ALL US forces are in the theatre, that means 8 carriers, and 18 more LHD and LPD and more DDGs, Nuke Subs, 140 something F-22s, two thousand more other 4+ gen fighters to go with 400 thousand ground troops and marines.

Would Japan. Vietnam, Philippines switching to our side make the difference for us?

If we are looking at current projections, by 2035, that's roughly what we will have, short on carriers, more on other war making assets.

 

[Carlosa]

I think Carlosa has a habit of giving personal insults against other forum members instead of engaging in constructive discussion.

Really? Have you seen how most chinese members talk here or are you blind?

Perhaps, but if he can't say war in public for the election, he can't say war anyways. Unless things escalates dramatically, which I don't think it will. I don't think we will be able to maintain a better status quo in the region, but I don't think we will start firing at all sides. I have talked about it in another threat, which covers our investment in civilian projects and why it be a waste if we started military moves, especially when our civilian projects far outstrip even the US, like our coast guard..

Did you see the trade balance with US? almost 3 to 1, who has the most to lose?

Also please consider this I have written and let me know your thoughts.
and
your response, and my response.
also lastly, this, if we accept the premise, China as a nation will still exist and not just be a waste land in 2035.

Ok, last one before I go.

I do consider the economic aspect; I told you that's the reason why china got away with things until now. This is not 1989 and the stakes are far, far more important. US has a policy where it needs to maintain the unipolar world, they have a policy of preventing the rising of any challenger by any means, you know what people I'm talking about right? Its very well known, I don't have time now to get links, etc.

So, Its now or never, there is no space for 2 tigers in the asian mountain. This situation could it have been made much more difficult for USA to set up, but china, behaving like.... well, like china, made it easy for US. Just wait for after Obama, at the latest.

Ok, no more until tonight, business is more important.

 

[Beidou2020]

I haven't seen any talk of US carrier groups start firing off shots, even the Mccain isn't suggesting that, he said add cost not all out war..

You really have no idea how the American conservatives and neocons are talking about china right now. And McCain, well, there is a big difference between what he says in public, particularly out in the open and in international meetings, etc and how he really thinks, I would be a bit worry if I were you.



It seems like we'll find out soon. I think the PLA is only good at barking and blaffing and doesn't have the guts to take on the US.



Go back to kindergarden kid, leave this for adults.



No, you are not, you are very weak as a nuclear power, your strategic subs are super noisy, very easy to track. Most of your ICBMs don't have the range, your bombers don't have the range. This will change, but it takes time. China can't afford to get into a nuclear exchange with US.

Russia on the other hand is actually at least as powerful as the US in the nuclear arena. some say its even superior. Russia's conventional forces can take over most of western Europe in a few days and they have plenty of tactical nukes if things go bad for them, they can't be defeated.



Time out, need to get back to work, can continue tonight.

PLA absolutely humiliated the US military in the Korean war when the PLA took back control of North Korea from the US by kicking out American forces from the China-North Korea border all the way back to South Korea

Even in the only direct war that's been fought, China has beaten the US.

US is just a weak and dying power trying to stay relevant and China is exposing to the whole world what a coward the US really is.

US give hot air warnings, China gives the middle finger and just builds.
US is no longer feared or even respected.

China is showing exactly how to deal with the US.

 

[Kurlang]

U.S. Naval Update Map: June 4, 2015

U.S. Naval Update Map: June 4, 2015
The Naval Update Map shows the approximate current locations of U.S. Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Ready Groups, based on available open-source information. No classified or operationally sensitive information is included in this weekly update. CSGs and ARGs are the keys to U.S. dominance over the world's oceans. A CSG is centered on an aircraft carrier, which projects U.S. naval and air power and supports a Carrier Air Wing, or CVW. The CSG includes significant offensive strike capability. An ARG is centered on three amphibious warfare ships, with a Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked. An MEU is built around a heavily reinforced and mobile battalion of Marines.

Carrier Strike Groups
• The USS Carl Vinson CSG with CVW 17 embarked is underway in the Pacific Ocean.

• The USS Theodore Roosevelt with CVW 1 embarked is underway in the U.S. 5th Fleet AOR supporting maritime security operations and conducting theater security cooperation efforts.

• The USS George Washington CSG with CVW 5 embarked is underway in the U.S. 7th Fleet AOR.

• The Harry S. Truman is underway in the Atlantic Ocean for flight deck certification.

Amphibious Ready Groups/Marine Expeditionary Units
• The USS Iwo Jima ARG with the 24th MEU embarked is underway for a deployment in the U.S. 5th Fleet AOR supporting maritime security operations and conducting theater security cooperation efforts.

• The USS Wasp is underway in the Atlantic Ocean to conduct deck-landing qualifications.

• The USS Essex ARG with the 15th MEU embarked is underway in the Pacific Ocean for a scheduled deployment to the Middle East.

• The USS Boxer is underway in the Pacific Ocean for routine training.

• The USS Bonhomme Richard is underway in the Pacific Ocean for its summer patrol.