StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Yahoo Buzz
Mixx
Google Buzz
PlurkThe Chinese navy has been throwing its weight around in East Asia. A US Navy commander asks how much longer the US can do anything about it.
On the night of March 26 the Cheonan, a South Korean Navy corvette patrolling in the Yellow Sea, mysteriously erupted in a cataclysmic explosion and sank to the bottom. The ship was just off Baengnyeong Island, near the Northern Limit Line, which is the armistice separation line between North and South Korea. Of the 104 crew on board, only 58 survived. Salvage operations confirm the ship was struck by a North Korean heavy torpedo armed with a 200 kg warhead.
Exchange the cast of characters from North and South Korea to China and the United States, and the sneak attack on the Cheonan is exactly the sort of nightmare scenario envisioned in an analysis I wrote for the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Orbis—’How the US Lost the Naval War of 2015‘.
The article foretells a devastating Chinese surprise attack using a newly-developed anti-ship ballistic missile against the Yokosuka-based nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington. The parallels between the 2015 thought experiment in Orbis and the Cheonan disaster are eerie. In the hypothetical scenario, China shoots an advanced DF-21 ASBM into the American aircraft carrier, and then denies it, leaving the United States in the same quandary that Seoul now finds itself. Any defensive response risks a major war while bolstering North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il.
The prospects for a Chinese surprise attack are, of course, debatable. The greater issue, however, is how China has invested decades in a patient and aggressive campaign to slowly push other countries out of the East China Sea and South China Sea. The US Navy is the main target, as it’s the largest obstacle to Beijing’s strategy. The result: a well-coordinated campaign of legal, political and military pressure—and sometimes aggression—to gradually bring the littoral seas under Chinese domination.
Beginning in 2000, for example, China initiated increasingly provocative warship and aircraft maneuvers, and even started using armed oceanographic ships and fisheries enforcement vessels to try to disrupt routine US military survey missions in the East China Sea. In 2001, a Chinese fighter jet aggressively intercepted a US Navy propeller-driven EP-3 surveillance aircraft 75 miles from Hainan Island. The fighter jet collided with the US aircraft, resulting in the loss of the jet and pilot. The heavily damaged EP-3 made an emergency landing on the island. In 2003, a similarly aggressive intercept occurred.
In another of the many instances of harassment of US naval and air forces, on March 7 of 2009, Chinese maritime forces stalked the USNS Impeccable ocean surveillance ship. Working in tandem with an intelligence ship, an oceanographic ship and a fisheries enforcement vessel, two commercial cargo ships crossed the bow of Impeccable, stopping directly in front of the ship. President Obama dispatched the USS Chung-Hoon to provide armed escort for the surveillance ship. In response, China sent its largest and most modern ocean surveillance patrol ship, the Yuzheng 311, into the South China Sea to assert China’s ‘rights and interests.’
Photo Credit: US Navy
mandrewsf
China is not a threat. PLAN lacks the technology, military spending and naval experience to make it a credible challenge of U.S. naval hegemony. Note that China does not even have an aircraft carrier yet, and the two under construction are relatively backward diesel-powered platforms. And even if China could field a credible surface fleet, its weakness in air power (i.e. its lack of 5th generation fighters) will mean that most of its ships are in mortal peril if a war with the U.S. does break out.
Also, the only possible cause for a war between China and the U.S. is if a war in Taiwan breaks out. This will only happen if Taiwan declares unilateral independence, but the U.S. also pledged to not defend Taiwan if Taiwan did do something so foolhardy.
Meanwhile, drop the Impeccable incident please… The only thing this incident shows is that China no longer lack the power project capacities to project naval power beyond immediate coastal regions. Naturally they would not then tolerate U.S. surveillance ships strolling around its top secret sub bases. That’s not really saying much about Chinese “aggression.”
Michael
I’m no expert, but it seems to me that most (if not all) of these arguments could also apply to Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Unless China has plans to take these countries over before they can build their own ASBNs and air forces, its hegemony would only last for a short time.
Paul
I find it curious people are always fighting the last war when they envision a future war. The Chinese and American military schemers are in the same boat so-to-speak on this, especially with aircraft carriers.
Why the Americans continue to focus on aircraft carriers has some modicum of sense in the context of operating in the WESTPAC, so far from home shores. In the context of sea power and control though, carriers are also-rans compared to subs and have been for a long time. Look at total tonnage – both military and merchant – sunk by class of ship that did the sinking in WWII and it was true then as well, but no one noticed (Silent Service too silent maybe?).
But China with carriers? That doesn’t make sense on any level. What do they need a carrier for in the South China Sea? Or to assault Taiwan? Look at a map, look at modern combat aircraft combat radii. It would be a spectacular waste of money for the Chinese to build and then train up the whole industry it takes to float and fight a blue water carrier, which would be little more than a target – for a sub.
Jimmy China
The Yanks better get used to the idea that the PO is no more the exclusive property of the US. Like it or not the PLA is getting stronger. Yeah I know the US will prevail in a war. The point is if the US wants to win, the damage to the US will grow as time goes by .
Admittedly the Chinese are surrounded by US forces. No sane US president will unleash a nuclear strike on China unless he is absolutely – repeat absolutely – convinced no Chinese nm not even a single one can reach US territory.
The notion spread by the media and US security analysts that the PLA is a big threat to US national security is a big, big lie. In terms of weaponry the Chinese are outgunned by a mammoth margin. That said, the only threat facing the US is a war in Taiwan.Then the PLA will become a big threat to US forces attacking Chinese targets.The US cannot expect a safe environment like in the Vietnam war and others where the countries were unable to retaliate.
The Chinese are upgrading after years of neglect. They only want to defend themselves and make it painful/costly call it what you like if the US were dumb enough to attack the China of 2010. Maybe in 1996 the pain won’t be so great.
cynic
To what benefit is a war with the United States for China? Just because we “Americans” are stupid don’t presume the Chines are-what businessman (and the true driving force of china is business) is going to kill his customers?
The Chinese have a military for one purpose-to control the billions of people within it’s borders: a rational idea for a totalitarian regime that, unlike the employing the well honed myth of “democracy” that keeps the peasants in line in the United States, relies on more heavy-handed tactics. Not that I would put it past the knuckle draggers to propose the same for those of us here who vigorously disagree with their nonsense.
A navy, new ports-to protect commercial shipping. Maybe from us, let alone pirates-speaking of which, why doesn’t our over-priced Navy do something about that little problem? Our admirals probably don’t wasn’t to stain their white pants or risk having a ship knocked out by some low-tech war-fare. I recall the words of my Uncle who served in the last World War (not the campaigns of the Caesars this empire has been wasting our money with) made to me after visiting a naval vessel back in the late 70″-”What’s happened to my navy?”
This article like all the other similar inane fictions of the last 55 years amounts to simply another red herring tossed out to a gullible public to deflect the real problems this country has today-can’t you remember your basic Pogo? And to separate more greenbacks from the citizen’s wallets. It would be nice if many of our military professionals would get real jobs.
mandrewsf
To control the citizenry, a few WWII vintage tanks and a batch of AK-47s will do. Building ships is not a smart way to control civilian populations. Thus your statement does not make much sense.
Chris
Despite the concerns expressed below, one has to realize that events are developing and potentially arriving at a point in time when the US will be unable to confront a threat from China if and when they decide to flex their muscles. Every day that we expend in SW Asia, in terms of blood and treasure, diverts our attention from the long term picture that must surely include the Chinese. Our inability, or unwillingness, to confront domestic concerns of energy consumption and sources, financial regulatory measures, and education reform, not to mention the overwhelming public debt that, oh, guess who subsidizes, doesn’t speak well of our ability to strategically manage the issue in the Asia-Pacific. I wouldn’t be surprised if, instead of a military confrontation, China uses the simple leverage of economic blackmail to assert its power and influence over the United States. Of course, as we know from our own history, having the iron fist in the velvet glove is a pre-requisite for any assertion of power in the global community. As a former professor of mine has suggested, the idea of the 21st century being the Chinese Century isn’t a matter of ‘if’, but ‘when’. Will we be prepared for that time?
Joseph Tan
Writers usually use this kind of stuffs into terrifying Congress using China as the punching bag in order to pass money – “carrots”- into the military like during the Cold War. But one must be realistic – America is broke. Fortunately recovery comes at the right moment otherwise more companies will be going under. Now it is Greece, Iceland, Portugal and Spain. If recovery does not come in time, it could be the US. Count your lucky stars. Stop spending unnecessarily on the military. Be prudent like Gates and Obama. It may not be so lucky the next time. America may disintegrate like the ex- Soviet Union. (I certainly hope not – God bless America)
Jeff
Stop using the Chinese as the scarecrow to lobby for more dough for the good ol’ USN. A 600-ship navy sounds grand, but a ship can’t go on land and into a cave to smoke out Osama and his ilk, can it? Besides, if you really want a beefed up navy, shouldn’t you be nice to the Chinese, since they will be footing a substantial portion of the bill? I, for one, refuse to go down the path of the British Empire in the first half of the 20th century: a nominal superpower pretending to rule the waves but in reality a bankrupt husk being propped up by the financial muscles of the United States. Take Secretary Gates statements to heart, “Eisenhower was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle-bound, garrison state — militarily strong, but economically stagnant and strategically insolvent”… So Mr. Kraskas, please stop pushing us down the path of the Soviet Union. I suspect you much prefer seeing a reduced but active navy over a 600-ship one that is rusting in ports like the old Soviet Navy.
John T. Kuehn
On the one hand I agree that some of this is saber rattling (of the other guy) to pump up expenditures for Defense industry welfare. However, the commentator on Kraska’s article betrays an almost surreal lack of imagination and awareness about geography. Navies are not designed to apply land power, despite the rather large number of sailors augmenting the Army and Marine Corps in the current land fights (personally I would end that program–the IA program). Navies are designed to execute maritime strategey on behalf of maritime powers and to support maritime trade. Last time I checked most of US trade moves via the sea and we have more coastline than China and Vietnam combined. Get a clue. Read chapter 1 of The Influence of Sea Power upon History or Robert Kaplan’s latest article in Foreign Affairs, “The Revenge of Geography”.
John T. Kuehn, Associate Professor of Military History, US Army Command and General Staff College.
Jeff
Thanks for the non-sequitur. I am sure the Chinese are well aware of geography as well, and this is precisely why they are building up their navy, to protect their extensive merchant shipping, especially through the strait of Malacca. I don’t think the Chinese will leave such an important task to the Pacific fleet and the fleets of Southeast Asian countries. Beyond the strait of Malacca, there lies the Indian ocean, through which most of China’s oil shipment must traverse to reach China. Therefore, there is a lot to patrol and protect for the PLAN, and I see no problem with their current expansion. The Chinese have been free-loading on the USN for a while now, but this will not continue. The Chinese will continue to develop independent capabilities to protect their own shipping, as any sane, major trading nation should. What would happen if we have another economic setback that severely curtains our (financial) ability to put the necessary number of ships at sea to protect international trading routes? Don’t you think the Chinese ought to prepare for that very real possibility?
Jeff
Oh, by the way, Chinese coastline is 14,500 km in length, versus some 19,924 km for the United States. By your logic, the Chinese navy ought to have 72% of the number of ships possessed by the USN. Is this what you are advocating? If so, and given the fact that China has nowhere near 70% of the ships we have, why then are you uncomfortable with the current Chinese naval expansion?
Moreover, you have completely missed my point, which is: the current composition and posture of the USN is not suited for the kinds of military operations and challenges we are faced with today. My saying that a ship cannot get into a cave and smoke out Osama was simply a sarcastic remark aimed at bringing home the aforementioned point. Are we clear now? It seems to me that those who advocate continued rises in defense spending, despite the precipitous decline in our ability to afford it, have neither logic nor economic sense on their side. Their calls for yet more ships, planes, and tanks are mostly animated by their irrational fear and childish lust for high-tech toys rather than the desire to confront real and present dangers. All responsible adults should endeavor to put a stop to this nonsense. If we don’t, the Chinese will, simply by canceling our credit cards. Which would you choose, guns or butter, when you already have more guns than the next 15 neighbors combined?
PDavis
Then you must be a very happy person now. The US Navy currently has 283 active ships, the article above says the Chinese Navy has 260 ships, so they are well over that 72% figure you gave. Therefore, China is safe and secure, and all incidents will now stop, correct?
George
You conveniently ignore that the U.S. fleet is completely modern, whereas the Chinese fleet is mostly a collection of relics.
TCMSOL
The interesting thing will be when the PLA has an enhanced capability and how that will influence the PLA and Politburo. As can be seen the PLA has a far more aggressive posture than the Politburo soft-power model. In regards to Taiwan a trade war and sanctions. In relation to Japan at a point in time when soft power would have been more suitable compared to an aggressive stance by the PRC Navy. Which resulted in a change in Japanese position on the Futenma air base. It shows a level of strategic immaturity and a long term strategic blunder. Surely it would have been in the PRC national interest to see the Futenma base and US Marines moved to Guam. So it will be interesting to see how the PLA and the Politburo find a balance of who indeed is going to run the shop as their power grows. My analysis is there is going to be conflict, similar to the Soviet Union in the later years.
Jeff
The very fact that Japan wanted and still wants to relocate the Futenma base is a testament to the success of Chinese “soft diplomacy” over our ham-fisted, roughshod style of diplomacy. If I had been told ten years ago that Japan would consider relocating the base, I’d be laughing it off as a fantasy; but the fact that it did happen tells me that China indeed has far more strategic maturity than the US. Moreover, your attributing Japan’s wavering on the Futenma issue to “the aggressive stance by the PRC navy” is amateurish hogwash, for facts do not bear this out. If by “the aggressive stance by the PRC navy” you referred to the 10-ship PLAN fleet’s unannounced “transit” through the waters between two Japanese islands, you would be well advised to re-check facts, for the said “transit” took place AFTER Hatoyama had announced that Futenma base would stay. Reaction necessarily follows action and effect follows its cause, unless time in your world goes backward.
As for how the PLAN buildup would affect the PLA and the Politburo, rest assured, the Chinese are far more patient and disciplined in the application of military power. I’d be more worried about the impact of our own military’s perceived abundance in fighting power on the US strategic intentions and calculus: remember, it is not the Chinese are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you still want to examine our strategic maturity vs. Chinese strategic “immaturity”, or is that armchair of yours getting uncomfortable? I personally believe that China has been strategically brilliant in the past 30 years, for not only did they position themselves to become a formidable economic competitor, they also became our de facto banker, effectively constraining our strategic options vis-a-vis China, all without having to fire a single shot. That, my friend, is the acme of strategy. Don’t take this personally: fools are allowed to fancy themselves mature strategists.
Jeff
I knew this article was a bunch of hogwash as soon as I read, “an ultra-quiet Song–class AIP submarine surfaced…” The Song does not have AIP. I cannot believe a member of the Naval War College does not know this. Mr. Kraska is either unfit for duty or blatantly fear-mongering. His drawing a parallel between the alleged North Korean attack on the Cheonan and hypothetical Chinese attack on an USN carrier is a stretch at best, most probably a clumsy attempt at drumming up hostility toward the Chinese: look, the Chinese and the N. Koreans belong in the same sentence, and that must make China a junior member of the Axis of Evil! Cue ominous music…
Of course, Kraska revealed his real purpose later in the article, in the form of lamenting the so-called decline of the US navy. He is crying himself to sleep every night over the lost dream of 600-ship navy. Robert M. Gates has just recently made very specific comments on the Navy being obsessed with big ships and carriers that do not meet current strategic demands, which require a more flexible mix of ships (e.g. littoral combat ships) and away from nuclear subs and carriers. I wonder if Kraska is pushing back by using the Chinese as the bogeyman yet again.
Monk
Regarding the point about Song-class subs and AIP, please read the sixth paragraph of
“China’s Subs Lead the Way”
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_China_0303,00.html
Jeff
That is a seven-year old source… Song in fact does NOT have AIP, period. The AIP-enabled subs in the PLAN are the new Yuan Class diesel electric subs. The latest assessments on the PLAN make all this clear. Still can’t believe somebody in the Naval College does not know something this simple… Again, I have to grumble about my hard earned money going to waste.
Monk
Read the report carefully. He is referring to what was reported in the *Washington Times* and other sources. Read pp. 37-38 for details. I didn’t see any mention of AIP except in the following page, where he refers to the Type-041 Yuan class (not Song) boats.
What happened is that you took one phrase (“ultra-quiet”) and wrongly assumed that the author is referring to AIP.
Eric Phillips
Hello, thanks for sharing here:
I read the pages here and the article ‘How the US Lost the Naval War of 2015′ and was struck by the futuristic journalism :)
Recent events between Taiwan and China indicate a thawing of that relationship with both countries establishing official ties in tourism. This forces me to rethink of Taiwan as the potential domino or tipping point signal.
The USSGW paid a lengthy visit to Manila Bay last summer and reportedly stopped at Subic when underway. China’s more recent visit was lower key.
I have a few questions I’d like your views on sir:
1. Why would the USS GW be a “lone wolf” on any mission afloat and if not, how would that impact the scenario presented?
2. The Submarine capabilities at Guam have grown tremendously and this locale represents a ‘quick’ reenforcement and indeed continual monitoring of the sea lanes here.
3. How does China’s reach into Space exploration & technology which reportedly lifted-off with 11 launches in 2008 influence their decision making to take such an explosive action against a US Ship?
4. Doesn’t the US have capabilities from Space that are Over-the-Top-Secret that will send laser-like surgical signals to prevent such an aggressive action or has there been a developmental stoppage in Space Weapons?
thanks,
Eric
Eric
July 8th report … link attached.
http://www.infowars.com/u-s-missiles-deployed-near-china/
PR
All these pro-yankie are saying to ever beef up the military machines as if they haven’t got enough of it. They got 11 carrier battle group and many ever more sophisticated war machines in the pineline. It seems the more they have, the more they are more insecured. But it is better to have more than to have less so they think.
The US already has many enemies and hidden enemies in the world. The yankie don’t understand that they can’t afford to make China their enemies. Like it or not, the world is becoming multipolar world.
Like it or not, China is not the soviet union. And that says it all without any further explanation.
Power and wealth to anyone country becomes corrupt in the long term even at the very best intention.
Bryce
This article only seeks to analyze China’s supposed rise to Naval Hegemony through purely a military context without seeking to note the many similar interests that both the PRC and the US share. China does not have a long history of being aggressive or combative towards the United States Navy with a few exceptions. In addition assuming that China would not seek to grow the size of their Navy and expand their operating area was never a question of when or if, but rather how the United States Navy would greet them. China is not a direct threat to the United States as of yet and should be treated accordingly. Instead of taking a stance of possible confrontation with the Chinese must like the British did with the Germans in the lead up to World War I, the United States should seek to promote better relations with the Chinese much like Bismark did with other rising powers. As Secretary of Defense Gates said, “One Cold War is enough.”
Mike Allen
The United States must work to strengthen the militaries of our Asian allies. The United States cannot stop Chinese hedgemony alone, it will take a united and powerfull free asia. Surplus navy and coast guard ships as well as surplus F16 jets should be given to the Philippines so that they can cover their stragically located sea area. Six to eight US Marine Harrier Jump Jets should be donated to Thailand so that their aircraft carrier will be fully combat ready and the US should asisst Thailand in finding and buying two surplus submarines. Last, if Taiwan is ready to quit playing around? Then the US should be willing to sell sixty F 16 and twenty F 15 jets to Taiwan immediatly. Failure to do so is to invite a Chinese invasion.
PJ
Ballistic missiles will end aviation as we know it, if attempting to command the air in vicinity of Taiwan. It only takes one ballistic missile to kill 30 aircraft parked in the open. Shelters to cover them are extremely expensive when the ballistic missile warhead could be swapped with a penetrator. Air craft carriers are relevant, but in a way like the battleship — force projection and access generation only if they are a massed force that can be defended from air/subsurface threats. It’s not about 600 ship navy, it’s about having the right weapons to do our job… the most bang for the buck comes from sub launched offensive ballistic missiles.
Jeff
What year do you currently live in, Mike? Well, I, along with the rest of humanity live in 2010, and just earlier this year, China and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) formed the largest free trade zone in the world (by population) wherein all existing tariffs have been slashed to close to zero. China, South Korea, and Japan are finalizing a trilateral free-trade deal as we speak, and they should, seeing that China is the largest trading partner with both countries. Additionally, Taiwan is to hammer out a similar free-trade framework with China, and guess who the largest trading partner is for Taiwan? Sadly, it is only some of us who still buy into the fiction that our “allies” are frightened by the big, bad, red Chinese and yearn for our protection. It is high time for a reality check: we are getting pushed out and locked out throughout Asia, for the Chinese speak the real language everybody understands: trade and profits. What do we speak, beyond the stale old sermons on the war on terror? Oh, one last thing, since you live in the 1970s’, I should advise you that in the 21st Century, the Chinese are our greatest creditors. Yeah, let that sink in for a while, but don’t let it stop you from looking forward to the 21st Century.
Ly Tran Le
I don’t know what century you live in Jeff, but surely not the era I live in. Better yet, your continuing outcry regarding China being “our creditors therefore we should just grin and bear it, blah blah” is getting a little tired after the third post. Come to think of it, I’m not sure if it is any better than treating China as the latest boogey man.
Your assertion about China living in peace and harmony with its neighbors vis a vis ASEAN is a load of hogwash. China has stepped up its agression over the years particularly on the South China Sea: Claiming the entire Spratlys along with all the continental drifts as belonging to China; harassing harmless fishermen from Vietnam and the Philippines; threatening retaliation against oil and gas exploration companies from US, UK and France if they collaborate with Vietnam and other neighboring countries; the list goes on…
Despite all the romanticism you may hold for China, the reality is that China will be worse than the Soviet Union, if this trend continues. The US may have miscalculated in Vietnam, but even to the Vietnamese the US will never be seen as the aggressor in terms of land invading, resources hogging and culture destroying like the way China has done in the past against its smaller neighbors.
Jeff
“I don’t know what century you live in Jeff, but surely not the era I live in. Better yet, your continuing outcry regarding China being “our creditors therefore we should just grin and bear it, blah blah” is getting a little tired after the third post. Come to think of it, I’m not sure if it is any better than treating China as the latest boogey man.”
- I live in the Good ol’ USA. It seems that you are (mentally) stuck in Vietnam. By the way, your outcry regarding “big bad red commie Chinese are always itching to beat the crap out of the peace-loving little red commie Vietnam blah blah blah” is getting a little tired as well.
“Your assertion about China living in peace and harmony with its neighbors vis a vis ASEAN is a load of hogwash. China has stepped up its agression over the years particularly on the South China Sea: Claiming the entire Spratlys along with all the continental drifts as belonging to China; harassing harmless fishermen from Vietnam and the Philippines; threatening retaliation against oil and gas exploration companies from US, UK and France if they collaborate with Vietnam and other neighboring countries; the list goes on…”
- Oh? A Free Trade zone with ASEAN is a declaration of outright aggression? Frankly, if China claims the South China sea as her own, then so be it. Heck, why does the Viet Cong want it? China’s claim over the area probably precedes the existence of Vietnam. Heck, I think China has a legitimate claim over Vietnam itself as well. FYI, even Taiwan claims the South China sea as well, but do you call that aggression? Wait, the Filipinos do as well, but do you call that a Filipino aggression about Vietnam? Get real please: it’s all about resources. What? You don’t seriously believe we went to Iraq over WMDs, do you? If you do, then I don’t suppose you also believe that we killed millions of your fellow Vietnamese over your outrageous aggression in the Gulf of Tonkin?
“Despite all the romanticism you may hold for China, the reality is that China will be worse than the Soviet Union, if this trend continues. The US may have miscalculated in Vietnam, but even to the Vietnamese the US will never be seen as the aggressor in terms of land invading, resources hogging and culture destroying like the way China has done in the past against its smaller neighbors.”
- I don’t have rose-tinted glasses on me. I am merely being realistic. Sure, we can get away beating the living daylight out of a little appendage of a country called Vietnam, but I don’t think we can get away with pissing off the Chinese. Why is that so difficult to understand? Yes, I do agree that we did not commit any aggression in Vietnam. We were just trying to educate the commies on values of liberty and freedom. The napalm on kids was just to add some zest, and it was fun all around. Leave your historical animosity toward China out of this. We don’t give a rat’s a$$ about how you Vietnamese feel about the Chinese or how you feel about anything for that matter; otherwise, we would have knocked before spraying all that napalm on your kids.
Ly Tran Le
“China’s claim over the area probably precedes the existence of Vietnam. Heck, I think China has a legitimate claim over Vietnam itself as well.”
If you have had any real knowledge about history in that part of the world, then you would be hesitant to open mouth and insert your own foot. China has no legitimate claim over anything.
“FYI, even Taiwan claims the South China sea as well, but do you call that aggression? Wait, the Filipinos do as well, but do you call that a Filipino aggression about Vietnam?”
Neither Taiwan nor the Philippines claimed the right to all of South China Sea. China is the only one who irresponsibly drew up that scheme hoping no one would be able to do anything, thus gaining legitimacy over time. What China claimed effectively restricted every nation surrounding the SC Sea to 12 nautical mile limits. That, by the way, is an important sea lane for international shipping between Europe, the Middle East to Japan, South Korea and of course the USA. So, unless you really know about the situation, don’t pretend that you do.
“If you do, then I don’t suppose you also believe that we killed millions of your fellow Vietnamese over your outrageous aggression in the Gulf of Tonkin?”
What do you know about the Vietnam War to make such a ludicrous comment? First of all, the US didn’t kill millions. The Vietnamese did most of that to themselves. But really! Judging from what I read, there is no need to educate a dead horse.
Jeff
“If you have had any real knowledge about history in that part of the world, then you would be hesitant to open mouth and insert your own foot. China has no legitimate claim over anything.”
- Who cares if China’s claims are legitimate or not? Might makes right. Works every time. If Vietnam wants it, it’s gonna have to get it. The question legality is just for bloviating. Simple, no?
“Neither Taiwan nor the Philippines claimed the right to all of South China Sea. China is the only one who irresponsibly drew up that scheme hoping no one would be able to do anything, thus gaining legitimacy over time. What China claimed effectively restricted every nation surrounding the SC Sea to 12 nautical mile limits. That, by the way, is an important sea lane for international shipping between Europe, the Middle East to Japan, South Korea and of course the USA. So, unless you really know about the situation, don’t pretend that you do.”
- Oh? So it’s not an act of aggression against Vietnam if China ceased to claim ALL of South China Sea? So what if China claimed 95% of it? Would you then be OK? What preposterous reasoning you have!
As I said, I don’t give a damn if the little Commies in Vietnam is crying himself to sleep over being bullied by the Big Commies in China. Should we trust the sea lanes to the little Commies? I don’t think so. It’s a job too big for the Viet Cons. Oh, one more thing, by “important sea lane” I presume you were referring to the strait of Malacca, which lies well WEST of South China Sea. Hello, maps are freely available online. Who’s got a knowledge deficit here?
“What do you know about the Vietnam War to make such a ludicrous comment? First of all, the US didn’t kill millions. The Vietnamese did most of that to themselves. But really! Judging from what I read, there is no need to educate a dead horse.”
- Oh yes, thanks for the correction. We simply send a bunch of observers to Vietnam to get a close-up, first-hand account of how Vietnamese infighting, and that was the extent of our involvement in the Vietnam War. Judging from what I read, you are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Ly Tran Le
Might makes right? For someone who pretends to be the advocate for the USA, you sound more like a typical bully who would negotiate his own principle for the right price.
How do you get from the Strait of Malacca to South Korea and Japan? Around the East side of the Philippines? Nice! You really don’t know what’s going on in that region, do you? By making callous remarks regarding “little commies” while catering to the real commies it proved my point again. Why don’t you just go right out and say that the USA should just give up its traditional zone of interest in the South China Sea. Better yet, the USA should just give up half of the Pacific and collaborate with the Chinese Navy for patrolling waters west of Hawaii.
John
How the US Lost the Naval War of 2015 is flawed. A DF-21 would be detected, its not a stealthy weapon like a sub launched torpedo at a ship not geared for ASW. The Carrier would be in a battle group and other ships would be there so the idea of a “pre-planned Chinese rescue” wouldnt work either. Also the carrier would probably have a BMD ship in its group seeing as Chinese is one of the main reasons the USN is so interested in BMD ships.
That said China is a massive threat to the western world and The United States and other western nations continue to downsize their cold war forces rather than update and increase them. The main problem I see for the USN isnt defending against anti-ship ICBMs. I think a carrier battle group would be safe from all but a massive combined attack, not just one DF-21.
I think the USN is getting too small, too old, and not deadly enough. To me the LCS boats are pretty toothless compaired against the Perry class boats the were built to replace. The navy wont have enough Virginia class boats to counter Chinese nuke and non-nuke boats. I think the carrier groups will be kept away from shore not because of anti-shipping missiles cruise missiles or ICBMs but due to the lack of range and ability of their aircraft. Against land based and carrier based Su-27s the hornet doesnt stack up and the F-35 doesnt have long enough range or payload to be a true fleet defense fighter. It might have longer range than an F-14 on paper but the lack of long range air to air missiles and a lower number of total missiles cuts that down a bit. Unless they are planning to build a stealthy drone that can loiter away from the carrier and carry a ton of aim-120s I cant see the carrier group being protected by anything other than the air defense ships. The USN cruisers and destroyers have far less anti-shipping weaponry than most other nations. The USN is still using cold war era weapons like the harpoon while formerly 3rd world nations like India and China are building their own high speed anti-ship missiles or cloning russian weapons.
There isnt any money to fix this now. Other than the Virginias everything the navy has done seems to have been screw up. The navy killed the zumwalts because they wasted a ton of money on a boat they dont want. So they are going to build more Burkes (which arent light years ahead of the Chinese Type 52 boats). The air force cant afford their F-22s (and we wont sell it to Pac rim allied nations who can afford it) and everyone is getting screwed on the F35 (which may or may not be a non-dogfighting missile bus). The army wasted their cash on The Future Combat program or whatever all those light weight “net centric” tanks were called. There is no current cruiser replacement. The marines cant get their new high speed aavp replacement to work… and now the armor is too light for IEDs. Wouldnt it make sense for the US to chop a carrier group or two and spend some of that money on more attack subs and deadly surface ships. I hope I’m wrong.
Jeff
“That said China is a massive threat to the western world and The United States and other western nations continue to downsize their cold war forces rather than update and increase them.”
John, did you know that Nixon went to China and that the Cold War is over? Why then should we increase our “cold war” forces when the Cold War has been over for 20 years? The only threat the Chinese presently pose is on the economic front, as we are indebted to them up to our necks. The bigger threat to my beloved America and the Western world in general, however, comes from those among us who still live as if the Cold War never ended and who still believe that we can afford all this military spending when the real battle is being wage in the arenas of trade and economic competition. If we are not careful, 50 years from now, history will say that it was the Chinese who won the Cold War, for both the Soviets and the Americans had bankrupted themselves with their lavishing spending on the military.
PDavis
Just wondering if you are unaware of the parallels between the current buildup in China, their building of ports in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, their claims of small bits of territory, etc., and the building of ports in South America, the claiming of Pacific bits of this and that, and the general attitude of the Japanese just prior to WWII? This isn’t something new or unheard of, and the warnings about Japan were being laid out years before Pearl Harbor, and were, of course, poo poohed by those who knew better. Even Will Durant warned that we were trending towards war with Japan, (Our Oriental Heritage, last chapter, almost the last page.) and of course it just wasn’t possible. Until it happened.
Jeff
What parallel with Japan? I see only a parallel with the US in the first half of the 20th century. Let’s see here, where shall I start?
1) “their building of ports in Pakistan and Sri Lanka”… Hmmm, we built the Panama Canal, to promote commerce and enable our navy faster transit time.
2) “heir claims of small bits of territory”… not sure what small bits of territory you are referring to, but we invaded and took over the Philippines and Hawaii, not exactly small, are they?
3) “and the building of ports in South America”… see 1)
4) “and the general attitude of the Japanese just prior to WWII?”… ah what? Japan invaded and occupied large swaths of Mainland China and clashed with the Soviet Union years before its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Are you saying China has invaded some neighboring countries that I am not aware of?
All in all, you are not very decent at history. So what if the Chinese are building ports, most of which are deep container ports to handle commerce shipping? Sure, they might park a warship or two here and there, but so what? For one, they can afford to do so, and two, why should they continue to waste their money on our treasury bonds when they can invest it better elsewhere; instead of buying worthless papers, they are pouring concrete and building something useful. Someone is being jealous here; but this is not the right attitude when all of us have loan applications being reviewed by Beijing.
Ly Tran Le
I find it amusing how a reader like Jeff gets mesmorized with the myth that China is our “banker” and thus behaves like a real subservient debtor to the benefactor aka China.
While China may have a “huge” economy, it is still about the size of Japan’s and 1/4 of the US. By saying that the US is helpless against a rising China simply because they “own” us is a major myth perpetrated by the likes of Jeff. Did you ever contemplate the reason why China is so dependent on the US dollars that they had to fill their foreign reserves with green backs and bought into our treasury bills? (By the way, Japan is also a big holder of US treasury bills -second after China, so what does that make them?)
Jeff conveniently ignores the entire history of China’s aggression against Vietnam and lately the South China Sea, which technically is the East Sea of Vietnam. But let’s not get into that because that just irritates the heck out of China, which is trying to show a peaceful front to the world while aggressively advancing its military apparatus.
While it is true that the Chinese Navy is not near the level of strength and sophistication of the US Navy, this article at best points to the fact that someday soon it will.
Jeff
“I find it amusing how a reader like Jeff gets mesmorized with the myth that China is our “banker” and thus behaves like a real subservient debtor to the benefactor aka China.”
- How do you define “banker” then? Hello, a Vietnamese-to-English dictionary and a dose of common sense should suffice, or so I thought.
“While it is true that the Chinese Navy is not near the level of strength and sophistication of the US Navy, this article at best points to the fact that someday soon it will.”
- Soon? Let’s not forget, as you said, the Chinese economy is “still about the size of Japan’s and 1/4 of the US”. China cannot afford to lavish such princely sums on a navy as large and sophisticated as ours.
“Jeff conveniently ignores the entire history of China’s aggression against Vietnam and lately the South China Sea, which technically is the East Sea of Vietnam.”
- Boo hoo… I suppose you have not heard about our little adventure in Vietnam. What, you thought it was just a minor deforestation operation (with agent Orange)? If China wants to have Vietnam, so be it. Let them fight their way to Vietnam and claim the country. Me worried? No. Nobody cares about Vietnam.
Ly Tran Le
Seemed like I touched on the right nerve, right Jeff? Your attitude regarding Vietnam showed that you are nothing but a sympathizer to the red Chinese (period). A lot of hum-hos on your part won’t sway the minds of those who have lived and learned to well how to deal with China in that neighborhood. Your opinions are reduced to a lot of nonsenses when your first response is to belittle the messenger. Typical Han Gian! We know who you are.
Jeff
“Seemed like I touched on the right nerve, right Jeff? Your attitude regarding Vietnam showed that you are nothing but a sympathizer to the red Chinese (period). A lot of hum-hos on your part won’t sway the minds of those who have lived and learned to well how to deal with China in that neighborhood. Your opinions are reduced to a lot of nonsenses when your first response is to belittle the messenger. Typical Han Gian! We know who you are.”
- No, I am merely siding with the Capitalists, and damn fine ones the Chinese are, unlike the Viet Cons. It’s good that you were able to escape from Communism to the Land of the Free. However, assuming that you are now an American citizen, you should leave the historical animosity of the old world behind. As an American, you are expected to place American interests above all else, and our interests call for cordial relations with the Chinese. If you prefer continuing your historical hostility toward the Chinese, then feel free to move back to Vietnam.
However, if you are not a citizen, then you are just trolling here. Don’t speak for USA if you ain’t a citizen.
Ly Tran Le
Thanks for the reminder. But really! Who’s trolling here if it wasn’t you? Let me guess: Because of my Vietnamese sounding name therefore you immediately made racist remark and jumped to conclusion that all Vietnamese are commies, right? How typical!
It appears that you are the one who are not defending American interest here. Did you all of a sudden decide to write the policy for the USA and call for cordial relations with China? Who voted you to the office?
Speaking of old world remorse. While my attitude toward China -not to the Chinese- is that of a keen awareness of a nation with past aggression toward its neighbors, your position is that of turning a blind eye to the obvious and hoping the problem will go away if we just play nice. Well, play nice is what we get on 9/11/2001. I am not saying that China will become a terrorist nation, but did the USA ever invade with the intention to assimilate Mexico? Did the USA ever declare that the entire Gulf of Mexico and everything in it belong to the USA? Did the USA harass harmless fishermen from those surrounding nations in the Gulf, capturing their boats and demanding payments? Did the USA warn all the foreign oil exploration companies to stop doing work with Mexico or we will retaliate against them? You’re getting the picture?
mandrewsf
Funny thing is, this did happen: see Great White Fleet, Veracruz intervention, U.S. Mexican War, Monroe Doctrine, etc. etc. etc….
There is a reason why Latin American countries so fear and revile the Great Northern Colossus.
Concerned American
“While the United States has the forward-deployed USS George Washington on a short tether, oftentimes Washington has no other carrier in theater, meaning that even two or three Chinese carriers operating in the area likely will exceed the number of US flattops.”
Not entirely true. Most recently, the supercarrier Carl Vinson was repositioned from the East Coast to San Diego–bringing the city’s grand total to 3. Six of 11 aircraft carriers and 29 of 52 attack submarines now operate in the PACOM area of responsibility. There is serious talk of having a second permanently-forward deployed supercarrier as part of the current Guam buildup. And let’s not forget Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, along with our friends in the region: India, South Korea, Japan.
The United States is aware of the Chinese threat and is acting accordingly.