Why the US May Go to War in the SCS

[William Hung]

Why the USA may go to war in the South China Sea - TransConflict

By Dr. Ian Ralby

It is no secret that the South China Sea is an area of conflict and controversy, but understanding the interests and role of the United States in that region is not intuitive. The situation centers on competing territorial claims by China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia over several sets of islands. Attempts by these nations to control the disputed territories have become increasingly intense, bordering on violence, and vessels have narrowly avoided collision in recent displays of hostility. As the BBC reported on 15 October 2014, it even appears as though the United States is practicing for war with China in case the conflict heats up.

Most articles on the subject explain that what is at stake is a mix of territory, fishing rights, mineral rights and control of shipping lanes. It is understandable why, given the economic value of those rights, the states competing over the claims would be willing to resort to violence, especially since a number of the claims involve emotionally charged historical ties and concern national identity and pride. But why would the US, which is already facing potentially extensive engagements in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, be at all inclined to enter a naval war with one of its closest peers in terms of economic resources and military might? The full answer involves a number of different justifications, but one of the most important ones has received very little attention. As it requires a nuanced understanding of international maritime law, most articles and reports on this simmering conflict in Southeast Asia have failed to even mention it. Simply put, if China gains the disputed territory, it may be able to block access of US Naval vessels and aircraft through most of the South China Sea.

There are a number of obvious reasons why the US would not want China to succeed in the various territorial disputes. Unequivocal Chinese hegemony throughout the South China Sea would be a considerable setback in the Obama Administration’s “Pivot to Asia”. It would also greatly increase China’s maritime domain and access to fisheries and mineral resources. The US often focuses more on the process of resolving the disputes rather than the outcome. The one thing worse than unequivocal Chinese hegemony would be Chinese victory in the territorial disputes on account of bullying, hostility and force.

As much as the US may want to block the territorial expansion of China, prevent its further enrichment through access to plentiful resources, and curb its hegemonic influence, one of the main reasons the tension in the South China Sea could mount to the point of open conflict between the world’s two largest powers is a disputed interpretation of international maritime law. The free movement of American warships and military aircraft through the South China Sea is of sufficient strategic importance that the US would be prepared to fight for it. In many ways, this matter is actually more fundamental to US interests than the situation in Ukraine or the rise of ISIS in the Middle East. That is why the US may be willing to go to war over the interpretation of an international convention to which it does not belong.

 

[Huaren]

Why the USA may go to war in the South China Sea - TransConflict

good surely they must be getting bored with decades of conflicts of words in east asia but no real open conflicts like in africa, middle east or even europe, and US wont be the sole superpower on earth if they are not involved in as many open conflicts as possible.

 

[mike2000]

Who the hell wrote this article? Thinking the U.S will engaged in a war in SCS is wishful thinking/follishness at best. No nuclear power/major power' will ever fight another, full stop. The U.S can provide weapons,training,support to other small claimants, but engaging directly into a war with another nuclear armed power for some rocks? lool Keep dreaming.

The U.S already has too many allies to rely on in the region, so these little islands wouloldnt change much, Morever the U.S navy is simply decades ahead of any near compretitor with a blue water navy no coutnry in the region has. So there wont be any war in which the U.S will get involved in the region, same with east Asia/Ukraine crisis. Indrect support/sanctions yes, direct intervention no, NEVER.

 

[Basel]

Now economically US can't afford a war although militarily they can and even win one, but it will destroy US economy and may start a chain reaction which can even cause threat to existence of USA.

 

[C130]

and we would do this why again??
it's obvious China is going to have to do a few things before it even get's to the point of war over SCS

China Vs. Vietnam
China Vs. Taiwan/Japan
which at point it'll lead to this

total annihilation isn't worth it.
this would be no bush war in the Middle East or Africa.

 

[bolo]

Who the hell wrote this article? Thinking the U.S will engaged in a war in SCS is wishful thinking/follishness at best. No nuclear power/major power' will ever fight another, full stop. The U.S can provide weapons,training,support to other small claimants, but engaging directly into a war with another nuclear armed power for some rocks? lool Keep dreaming.

The U.S already has too many allies to rely on in the region, so these little islands wouloldnt change much, Morever the U.S navy is simply decades ahead of any near compretitor with a blue water navy no coutnry in the region has. So there wont be any war in which the U.S will get involved in the region, same with east Asia/Ukraine crisis. Indrect support/sanctions yes, direct intervention no, NEVER.

if this guy is a real doctor he should be treating people not write BS geopolitical article

 

[Neemo neemo]

Who the hell wrote this article? Thinking the U.S will engaged in a war in SCS is wishful thinking/follishness at best. No nuclear power/major power' will ever fight another, full stop. The U.S can provide weapons,training,support to other small claimants, but engaging directly into a war with another nuclear armed power for some rocks? lool Keep dreaming.

The U.S already has too many allies to rely on in the region, so these little islands wouloldnt change much, Morever the U.S navy is simply decades ahead of any near compretitor with a blue water navy no coutnry in the region has. So there wont be any war in which the U.S will get involved in the region, same with east Asia/Ukraine crisis. Indrect support/sanctions yes, direct intervention no, NEVER.

I think you are looking it from a different perspective. US may engage with China in SCS, but if that happens it will be a limited conflict confined in SCS region near those disputed territories. Not US nor China is going in an all out war ever. But limited conflict is still on table. and in a limited conflict nobody is fool enough to nuke other country and destroy itself as well. Specially like China, which still has to develop credible ballistic missile defence where US has one, and has the capability to level whole of China 20 or more times.

 

[William Hung]

[QUOTE

Who the hell wrote this article? Thinking the U.S will engaged in a war in SCS is wishful thinking/follishness at best.

Dr. Ian Ralby is Founder and Executive Director of I.R. Consilium through which he and his team work with governments and organizations on solving complex security-related problems. He has worked extensively with governments in West Africa, the Caribbean, and the Balkans among others. He holds a BA in Modern Languages and Linguistics and an MA in Intercultural Communication from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; a JD from William & Mary Law School; and both an MPhil in International Relations and a PhD in Politics and International Studies from the University of Cambridge.

 

[mike2000]

and we would do this why again??
it's obvious China is going to have to do a few things before it even get's to the point of war over SCS

China Vs. Vietnam
China Vs. Taiwan/Japan
which at point it'll lead to this

View attachment 145943

total annihilation isn't worth it.
this would be no bush war in the Middle East or Africa.

I agree with you bro. I myself dont know which idiot even wrote this article.lol Why will the U.S go to war for some islands whom by the way several countries are claiming/fighting over? lool
As for China Vietnam Naval conflict/war, to be honest it wont even be a war, Vietnam wont last a week in a full scale naval conflict. As for Taiwan, in a naval conflict against the Chinese, they will last only a few days longer than Vietnam.

However China -Japan naval conflict will be another matter altogether. Both are quite powerful(have the most powerful Navy in Asia) and it might end in a stalement for a while, But considering Chinas industrial production capacity, it might be able to sustain a long prolonged war better than Japan(but this isnt certain as well, since Japan has a more advance Navy). However, i dont think this will be needed, since the U.S will intervene to mediate/solve the issue before it gets to this point at all.

Moreover all of this is just cheap talk, i dont see any war at all ever happening between China and Japan, nor China-Taiwan. little skirmishes, sending of boats in senkakus here and there yes, but no war. Both have too much to loose.
But for Vietnam, its another matter, since they both have a quite troublesome relationship which can flare up quite quickly, as we witnessed during the recent flare up/burning of factories in Vietnam during the oil rig incidence. So this one i think is mroe likely to happen than withthe other countries i mentioned.

I think you are looking it from a different perspective. US may engage with China in SCS, but if that happens it will be a limited conflict confined in SCS region near those disputed territories. Not US nor China is going in an all out war ever. But limited conflict is still on table. and in a limited conflict nobody is fool enough to nuke other country and destroy itself as well. Specially like China, which still has to develop credible ballistic missile defence where US has one, and has the capability to level whole of China 20 or more times.

lool who says engaging in a 'limited conflict' in the SCS wouldnt call for an all out war between the 2? Theres no gurantee for that, and the U.S nor any sane power/country for that matter wont ever take that chance. Same as in Ukraine, the U.S or even us we could have intervene for humanitarian purposes while wishing it will sremain a 'limited conflict' , but we didnt simply because its too big a danger/risk to take, You know when a war starts but we never know when it will end. It can easily escalate to a full out war, since no coutnry will like to go down as the defeated one.

So expecting the U.S to enter a war(which can lead to its own destruction as well), it has no real/major gain in, is wishful thinking to be honest. There will simply never be a war between the U.S, RUSSIA,CHINA and even India. Everybody saying otherwise is simply day dreaming. its just out of question. Yes training/politcal and military support/arming/sanctions etc Yes, direct intervention NOPE. if not we will have long done this in Ukraine.

 

[Neemo neemo]

I agree with you bro. I myself dont know which idiot even wrote this article.lol Why will the U.S go to war for some islands whom by the way several countries are claiming/fighting over? lool
As for China Vietnam Naval conflict/war, to be honest it wont even be a war, Vietnam wont last a week in a full scale naval conflict. As for Taiwan, in a naval conflict against the Chinese, they will last only a few days longer than Vietnam.

However China -Japan naval conflict will be another matter altogether. Both are quite powerful(have the most powerful Navy in Asia) and it might end in a stalement for a while, But considering Chinas industrial production capacity, it might be able to sustain a long prolonged war better than Japan(but this isnt certain as well, since Japan has a more advance Navy). However, i dont think this will be needed, since the U.S will intervene to mediate/solve the issue before it gets to this point at all.

Moreover all of this is just cheap talk, i dont see any war at all ever happening between China and Japan, nor China-Taiwan. little skirmishes, sending of boats in senkakus here and there yes, but no war. Both have too much to loose.
But for Vietnam, its another matter, since they both have a quite troublesome relationship which can flare up quite quickly, as we witnessed during the recent flare up/burning of factories in Vietnam during the oil rig incidence. So this one i think is mroe likely to happen than withthe other countries i mentioned.



lool who says engaging in a 'limited conflict' in the SCS wouldnt call for an all out war between the 2? Theres no gurantee for that, and the U.S nor any sane power/country for that matter wont ever take that chance. Same as in Ukraine, the U.S or even us we could have intervene for humanitarian purposes while wishing it will sremain a 'limited conflict' , but we didnt simply because its too big a danger/risk to take, You know when a war starts but we never know when it will end. It can easily escalate to a full out war, since no coutnry will like to go down as the defeated one.

So expecting the U.S to enter a war(which can lead to its own destruction as well), it has no real/major gain in, is wishful thinking to be honest. There will simply never be a war between the U.S, RUSSIA,CHINA and even India. Everybody saying otherwise is simply day dreaming. its just out of question. Yes training/politcal and military support/arming/sanctions etc Yes, direct intervention NOPE. if not we will have long done this in Ukraine.

Reason for war? - Protecting US' hegemony. History repeats itself. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next decade. It is bound to happen. Remember USSR and Cuba crisis?
Now reason why it won't be an all out war? - Because both countries can not win on ground.

 

[William Hung]

lool who says engaging in a 'limited conflict' in the SCS wouldnt call for an all out war between the 2? Theres no gurantee for that, and the U.S nor any sane power/country for that matter wont ever take that chance. Same as in Ukraine, the U.S or even us we could have intervene for humanitarian purposes while wishing it will sremain a 'limited conflict' , but we didnt simply because its too big a danger/risk to take, You know when a war starts but we never know when it will end. It can easily escalate to a full out war, since no coutnry will like to go down as the defeated one.

So expecting the U.S to enter a war(which can lead to its own destruction as well), it has no real/major gain in, is wishful thinking to be honest. There will simply never be a war between the U.S, RUSSIA,CHINA and even India. Everybody saying otherwise is simply day dreaming. its just out of question. Yes training/politcal and military support/arming/sanctions etc Yes, direct intervention NOPE. if not we will have long done this in Ukraine.

You're wrong again. Ever heard about the Sino-Russia border conflict in 1969? Where hundreds of thousands of soldiers were committed and hundreds died? Possession of Nukes did not prevent that conflict from happening and it did not escalate into an all-out war either.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I agree with you bro. I myself dont know which idiot even wrote this article.lol Why will the U.S go to war for some islands whom by the way several countries are claiming/fighting over? lool
As for China Vietnam Naval conflict/war, to be honest it wont even be a war, Vietnam wont last a week in a full scale naval conflict. As for Taiwan, in a naval conflict against the Chinese, they will last only a few days longer than Vietnam.

However China -Japan naval conflict will be another matter altogether. Both are quite powerful(have the most powerful Navy in Asia) and it might end in a stalement for a while, But considering Chinas industrial production capacity, it might be able to sustain a long prolonged war better than Japan(but this isnt certain as well, since Japan has a more advance Navy). However, i dont think this will be needed, since the U.S will intervene to mediate/solve the issue before it gets to this point at all.

Moreover all of this is just cheap talk, i dont see any war at all ever happening between China and Japan, nor China-Taiwan. little skirmishes, sending of boats in senkakus here and there yes, but no war. Both have too much to loose.
But for Vietnam, its another matter, since they both have a quite troublesome relationship which can flare up quite quickly, as we witnessed during the recent flare up/burning of factories in Vietnam during the oil rig incidence. So this one i think is mroe likely to happen than withthe other countries i mentioned.



lool who says engaging in a 'limited conflict' in the SCS wouldnt call for an all out war between the 2? Theres no gurantee for that, and the U.S nor any sane power/country for that matter wont ever take that chance. Same as in Ukraine, the U.S or even us we could have intervene for humanitarian purposes while wishing it will sremain a 'limited conflict' , but we didnt simply because its too big a danger/risk to take, You know when a war starts but we never know when it will end. It can easily escalate to a full out war, since no coutnry will like to go down as the defeated one.

So expecting the U.S to enter a war(which can lead to its own destruction as well), it has no real/major gain in, is wishful thinking to be honest. There will simply never be a war between the U.S, RUSSIA,CHINA and even India. Everybody saying otherwise is simply day dreaming. its just out of question. Yes training/politcal and military support/arming/sanctions etc Yes, direct intervention NOPE. if not we will have long done this in Ukraine.

Even Japan's current naval assets won't last long against us in a conflict.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You're wrong again. Ever heard about the Sino-Russia border conflict in 1969? Where hundreds of thousands of soldiers were committed and hundreds died? Possession of Nukes did not prevent that conflict from happening and it did not escalate into an all-out war either.

Back in 1969, we were a young nuclear power, the Soviets believed that they can fully gain the advantage over us even in the nuclear conflict.

But since 1979 in a war against Vietnam, the Soviets didn't move a muscle since we had equipped ourselves with the nuclear delivery vehicles.

 

[mike2000]

Reason for war? - Protecting US' hegemony. History repeats itself. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next decade. It is bound to happen. Remember USSR and Cuba crisis?
Now reason why it won't be an all out war? - Because both countries can not win on ground.

U.S already has its hegemony in Asia and all over the world as things stands, no reason for it to get into a war after spending trillions in afghanistan and Iraq for no real gain. I dont even know how some of you here can even think/believe the U.S will get into a war in SCS for some islands which as i said earlier MANY/SEVERAL different countries are contesting for. These countries should first solve their disputes among themselves before asking for any western/U.S help. how can we intervene when all of them are all disputing these islands? talk less of the U.S risking a war which will affect its economy/trade and maybe even its homeland .loool Wishful thiking at best. As i siad the U.S will provide support/arms/training/miltary vessels/diplomatic and economic aid and even sanctions but NEVER will it get involve in this senseless war in which several claimants are veeing for same prize by itself. NOPE.

As for U.S cuba crisis, did the U.S ever engaged in war(even limited one for that matter) with the U.S.S.R? NOPE. not because it didnt want to(there was several reasons for it to engage in one, more than today) but simply because the risk of getting involved in such a conflict escalating is simply too big to take. Moreover the U.S wasn't fighting for its terroritory, just to maintain its primacy/hegemony on earth. That's why they both threatened each other during the Cuban crisis, but at the end none of them gave into starting a war with each other(however limited it might have been). And mind you, this was as close to the U.S mainland/survival as it has ever been, yet it didnt go into war with the U.S.S.R, so why will it go into a war that doesnt even remotely threatens it in the SCS?lool

Asia needs to try and resolve their disputes peacefully or by share ownership/joint exploration in SCS, else they should fight it over and settle it once and for all , so we can all have peace, since they all have to much ego to agree to share the resources there. Dont expect the U.S to come and shed its blood for you people while resking its own survival for some follish reason. Never going to happen.

 

[William Hung]

Back in 1969, we were a young nuclear power, the Soviets believed that they can fully gain the advantage over us even in the nuclear conflict.

But since 1979 in a war against Vietnam, the Soviets didn't move a muscle since we had equipped ourselves with the nuclear delivery vehicles.

@mike2000 said there will never be a direct armed conflict between US, Russia or China, so I used the 1969 conflict as an example that it could.

He said a limited conflict could escalate into an all-out war so these major powers will never dare to engage directly against each other in any limited conflict. I want to show him that in 1969, it happened. And it did not escalate into an all-out war.

So @mike2000 is wrong to say that these kind of limited conflict will never happen between the big powers because such conflict can escalate into an all-day, etc.