China media warns US of War over South China Sea Dredge Islands

China claims 90% of the South China Sea
++
one of the fiercely disputed Spratly Islands, the UN body found, were “capable of generating extended maritime zones … [and] having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the tribunal found that it could — without delimiting a boundary — declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.”

The tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, constructing artificial islands and failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone. At Scarborough Shoal, where it said fishermen from the Philippines and China had traditional fishing rights, it said China had restricted these rights. It added that China had created a serious risk of collision when its patrol boats had physically obstructed Philippine fishing vessels.

The tribunal also condemned China’s land reclamation projects and its construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands, concluding that it had caused “severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china
 
anatta said:
Blocking China from islands it has built in contested waters would lead to "devastating confrontation", Chinese state media have warned.

The angry response came after secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson said the US should deny Beijing access to new islands in the South China Sea.

Two state-run papers carry editorials strongly criticising his comments.

The hawkish Global Times tabloid warned that any such action would lead to "a large-scale war".

Beijing has been building artificial islands on reefs in waters also claimed by other nations. Images published late last year show military defences on some islands, a think-tank says.


Speaking at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Mr Tillerson likened China's island-building to Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.



China's official response, from foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang, was muted. China had the right to conduct "normal activities" in its own territory, he said.

Asked specifically about the remark on blocking access, he said he would not respond to hypothetical questions.
'Unrealistic fantasies'

But editorials in the China Daily and the Global Times were more direct in their comments.

The China Daily suggested Mr Tillerson's remarks showed ignorance of Sino-US relations and diplomacy in general.


"As many have observed, it would set a course for devastating confrontation between China and the US. After all, how can the US deny China access to its own territories without inviting the latter's legitimate, defensive responses?"

_90359711_south_china_sea_110716_624map.png


he Global Times, a nationalist daily, suggested that Mr Tillerson's "astonishing" comments came because "he merely wanted to curry favour from senators and increase his chances of being confirmed by intentionally showing a tough stance toward China".

China would ensure his "rabble rousing" would not succeed, it went on.

"Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish."

The Obama administration has spoken out strongly against the island-building, pledged to ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and sending navy ships to sail in contested areas.

But it has not threatened to block access to the islands, a step likely to enrage Beijing.

Mr Tillerson did not explain how the US might block access to the islands, and both Chinese papers suggested a wait-and-see policy.

"It remains to be seen to what extent his views against China will translate into US foreign policies," the China Daily said.
Click to expand...

Are you afraid of China?
 
Oh

"Just did mate, an international tribunal at the Hague declared that China's commandeering of the Spratly Islands is illegal," M #20

a) That's news to me.

b) On what basis? Dredging is illegal? Or

c) Dredging is illegal when China does it?

"what else do you need to know?" M #20

Got a sister?
 
sear said:
"Just did mate, an international tribunal at the Hague declared that China's commandeering of the Spratly Islands is illegal," M #20

a) That's news to me.

b) On what basis? Dredging is illegal? Or

c) Dredging is illegal when China does it?

"what else do you need to know?" M #20

Got a sister?
Click to expand...

Aspergers boy, are you afraid of China?
 
I agree with Anatta. All we need to do right now, is maintain a strong naval presence in the area, and by way of that presence, continue business as usual. Tillerson was brilliant with his answer as it put China on notice.
 
#27

As the world's vigilante' to enforce our vision of the law?

Or the world's bully, to impose might makes right?
 
sear said:
#27

As the world's vigilante' to enforce our vision of the law?

Or the world's bully, to impose might makes right?
Click to expand...

Without free international shipping lanes this country (and the rest of world) would be brought to its knees.
 
If were looking at legal crap the philippines and other countries base their claim on unclos. The chinese base it on old maps that the islands have been chinese since xxx dynasty. Since it was never settled that is highly unlikely.

Of course UN rulings are also non binding :P
 
J Craft said:
I agree with Anatta. All we need to do right now, is maintain a strong naval presence in the area, and by way of that presence, continue business as usual. Tillerson was brilliant with his answer as it put China on notice.
Click to expand...

obama's mistake was focusing too much on teh russkies when the next threat for the upcoming phase in history is China.

Russia cannot maintain its army and dominance with a gdp the size of italy. China can with a GDP rivaling the US.
 
tsuke said:
obama's mistake was focusing too much on teh russkies when the next threat for the upcoming phase in history is China.

Russia cannot maintain its army and dominance with a gdp the size of italy. China can with a GDP rivaling the US.
Click to expand...

And the people. They have lots of people.
 
sear said:
"Just did mate, an international tribunal at the Hague declared that China's commandeering of the Spratly Islands is illegal," M #20

a) That's news to me.

b) On what basis? Dredging is illegal? Or

c) Dredging is illegal when China does it?

"what else do you need to know?" M #20

Got a sister?
Click to expand...

Lol..Sears. thinks this is about dredging....don't you just love liberal shallowness. ...I bet the Chinese could make an island out of them.....
 
Sailor said:
And the people. They have lots of people.
Click to expand...

ONe of the main difficulties with the chinese as well is that they are trained to think long term. In the US we think of things in terms of the election cycle. IE what you can do in your 8 years.

Despite being communist right now the chinese still see themselves as the continuation of the same culture from the Ming, Yuan, Qin, Han, etc. so they are a culture spanning thousands of years. Longer even than Rome. It gives them a different mindset when planning.

For instance they know they will never ever compete with the US navally so to deny the US the ability to interfere with their trade in times of war they are developing the silk road once again and modernizing it.
 
tsuke said:
ONe of the main difficulties with the chinese as well is that they are trained to think long term. In the US we think of things in terms of the election cycle. IE what you can do in your 8 years.

Despite being communist right now the chinese still see themselves as the continuation of the same culture from the Ming, Yuan, Qin, Han, etc. so they are a culture spanning thousands of years. Longer even than Rome. It gives them a different mindset when planning.

For instance they know they will never ever compete with the US navally so to deny the US the ability to interfere with their trade in times of war they are developing the silk road once again and modernizing it.
Click to expand...

Very good insight there.
 
tsuke said:
ONe of the main difficulties with the chinese as well is that they are trained to think long term. In the US we think of things in terms of the election cycle. IE what you can do in your 8 years.

Despite being communist right now the chinese still see themselves as the continuation of the same culture from the Ming, Yuan, Qin, Han, etc. so they are a culture spanning thousands of years. Longer even than Rome. It gives them a different mindset when planning.

For instance they know they will never ever compete with the US navally so to deny the US the ability to interfere with their trade in times of war they are developing the silk road once again and modernizing it.
Click to expand...
by 2020 China’s navy will already increasingly look like a smaller version of the U.S. Navy and will be “the second most capable ‘far seas’ navy in the world.”
In five years, the PLAN’s capabilities would dwarf most other navies – China would have as many aircraft carriers as Britain and India, more nuclear attack submarines than either Britain or France, and as many AEGIS-like destroyers as all the other non-US navies combined. China would have two aircraft carriers, 20-22 AEGIS like destroyers and 6-7 nuclear attack submarines, while United States would have eleven aircraft carriers; 88 AEGIS like destroyers; and 48 nuclear attack submarines.

While China would still be far behind the U.S. Navy, its growing capabilities could already begin to have significant implications for the United States and other actors in five years, McDevitt argues. He paints a rather grim picture. By 2020, seeing Chinese warships in the far reaches of the Indian Ocean and the Meditteranean would become a much more routine affair, and some U.S. allies and partners may grow increasingly nervous. It would also become more challenging for the U.S. Navy to keep track of far seas deployed PLAN submarines, while U.S. sea control off of the Middle Eastern and East African hot spots can no longer be assumed. Most alarmingly, McDevitt notes that the image of a Chinese ‘global’ navy will attenuate perception of U.S. power
http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/will-china-have-a-mini-us-navy-by-2020/
 
anatta said:
by 2020 China’s navy will already increasingly look like a smaller version of the U.S. Navy and will be “the second most capable ‘far seas’ navy in the world.”
In five years, the PLAN’s capabilities would dwarf most other navies – China would have as many aircraft carriers as Britain and India, more nuclear attack submarines than either Britain or France, and as many AEGIS-like destroyers as all the other non-US navies combined. China would have two aircraft carriers, 20-22 AEGIS like destroyers and 6-7 nuclear attack submarines, while United States would have eleven aircraft carriers; 88 AEGIS like destroyers; and 48 nuclear attack submarines.

While China would still be far behind the U.S. Navy, its growing capabilities could already begin to have significant implications for the United States and other actors in five years, McDevitt argues. He paints a rather grim picture. By 2020, seeing Chinese warships in the far reaches of the Indian Ocean and the Meditteranean would become a much more routine affair, and some U.S. allies and partners may grow increasingly nervous. It would also become more challenging for the U.S. Navy to keep track of far seas deployed PLAN submarines, while U.S. sea control off of the Middle Eastern and East African hot spots can no longer be assumed. Most alarmingly, McDevitt notes that the image of a Chinese ‘global’ navy will attenuate perception of U.S. power
http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/will-china-have-a-mini-us-navy-by-2020/
Click to expand...

11>2. China knows its not going to compete with the US navy period. Its already experiencing economic slowdown.

BUT! it knows the US cannot sustain a landwar with china. The US populace will revolt at the casualties it causes, which is why the chinese nightmare scenario is a friendly russia as all of a sudden a hostile force may appear on their border.
 
tsuke said:
11>2. China knows its not going to compete with the US navy period. Its already experiencing economic slowdown.

BUT! it knows the US cannot sustain a landwar with china. The US populace will revolt at the casualties it causes, which is why the chinese nightmare scenario is a friendly russia as all of a sudden a hostile force may appear on their border.
Click to expand...
I don't disagre with this - but China is already spending $220+billion/year on it's defense moderization program.

But unlike it's fighter jet program that seeks to "swarm" whatever version of the JST F-35 it comes up against;
China is building more for local hegemony ( S.China sea ) -but will be rolling out some surface ships for international fleet use also.

I completely agree with you on why the US should be triangulating against China with Russia ( so called Russia card)
and why our current hysteria against Russia is so destructive to US interests in the long run
 
anatta said:
I don't disagre with this - but China is already spending $220+billion/year on it's defense moderization program.

But unlike it's fighter jet program that seeks to "swarm" whatever version of the JST F-35 it comes up against;
China is building more for local hegemony ( S.China sea ) -but will be rolling out some surface ships for international fleet use also.

I completely agree with you on why the US should be triangulating against China with Russia ( so called Russia card)
and why our current hysteria against Russia is so destructive to US interests in the long run
Click to expand...

if it comes to like an actual fight though your going to have the 11 fleets concentrated against china's 2 as america will use all its military force in that scenario instead of trying to mantain a global presence during that fight. At that point it wont really matter how good the chinese jets are.

if it was US vs. china china would quickly be reduced to land based aircraft but the US will not be able to invade so its a stalemate.

The China-Russo plan right now seems to be to develop the silk road and set up something like the continental system.

Read up on Napoleon and what he tried to do when it became clear they werent going to defeat britains navy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top