This is why they had war crimes trials after WWII, there are people who wanted war because they believed their own propaganda and didn't understand that they could lose. The hawks, as always, underestimated the full effect democracies can bring to bare once public opinion is mobilised.
South China Sea thoughts?
- Thread starter SpartanSG
- Start date
you guys hype up the thing a bit too much. China/US relationship wont be too good and wont be too bad either. Both economy rely on each other. China also know its not in position to fight a war now, which will jeopardize its economy. It has time to wait, it already wait 60+yrs. As for phillippine, the new president obviously want to talk with China, so I doubt China will create a base on scarborough shoal. These thing tend to heat up then quietly goes now after few years.
you're ignoring the chinese hawks who have been becoming far more strident. and the reality is that every assessment made about tempo and candor coupled with action has come to pass
wishing it away requires the hawks to wind it back - and they haven't. its all been bought forward by 10 years as clearly shown by action and activity
Just a reminder of the damage the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney did to the US because they thought they could steam roll entire rejoins into submission. We are were we are today because a couple of Hawks picked some fights that weren't work picking then tried to do it on the cheap, making losing a very real possibility.
China has their own Rumsfeld's and Cheney's, ready to pull the trigger without any thought to the consequences and leaving it to other to clean up.
China has their own Rumsfeld's and Cheney's, ready to pull the trigger without any thought to the consequences and leaving it to other to clean up.
gazzzwp
Member
I just wanted to share this appalling article in RT this morning:
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356031-beijing-manila-us-war/
The thrust of the article is to paint the US as the bad boys spoiling for a conflict while the other parties seemingly are negotiating peacefully around coffee and cakes.
It really is appalling. What does RT feel that China can offer? A chocolate mouse for being so militarily weak? God help those nations if the US does withdraw militarily from the area.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356031-beijing-manila-us-war/
The thrust of the article is to paint the US as the bad boys spoiling for a conflict while the other parties seemingly are negotiating peacefully around coffee and cakes.
It really is appalling. What does RT feel that China can offer? A chocolate mouse for being so militarily weak? God help those nations if the US does withdraw militarily from the area.
I'm not ignoring them, there is no doubt China want to expand its influence in ScS, then India ocean. But at the top level those who made decision has clear mind, and knows they are not ready. In the future the world will likely become more of a multi-polar world, but it doesn't mean there will be conflict, as modern war between two Major power are devastating. Both China/US has symbiotic relationship in term of economy. On the military front, both have hot line, rules and direct communication when ships encounter in ScS. Just past month China was in the RIMPAC. The building of island is on reef which was in their control since 60-80s. These event is far from what Russia did in Ukraine.
Yes the ones at the top do have a clear mind, a clear mind bent on pure unmitigated robbery in the SCS against all international law. The PRC has clearly abrogated international agreements that it has signed, such as UCLOS. Nothing that it does, especially in this context, is done without the approval of the Party and Leadership in particular.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
RT just strikes me as Putin's mouthpiece these days. Kind of incredible to watch a modern propaganda machine like that at work. Then again I can think of at least one Western outlet that isn't much better :hitwall
just because war is illogical doesn't mean that its avoidable - everything china is doing is inexorably moving towards confrontation - she attempted to paint the US as the primary vehicle for regional discontent - and yet all she has done is encourage virtually every country in a territorial dispute with china to seek US assistance, be it soft or hard assistance
oh come on. china coming to RIMPAC was a western (US with partner discussions) invitation and initiative - china has attended in the past as an uninvited guest (UDT)
the hot line was something that the US has pushed for the last 5 years as china was ignoring accepted rules of the road and was making no attempt to defuse incidents at sea - unlike the soviets who knew that defusing local events was critical to avoid escalation
china has done ZERO to mitigate escalation - buidling up reefs to gain territory is illegal - chinas done it. she declared no military installations on those reefs less than 2 years ago - and yet now we see images of long range interceptors, HAS, deep draught vessel facilities, and the clear and obvious militarisation of those reefs
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
GF, just out of interest, is there a general awareness of the tensions and how the "stuff might hit the fan" with regards to the SCS in Australia by the public? Is the media hyping or ignoring this situation? In NA it is not getting significant attention IMO. In the US case, likely because of the upcoming elections, in Canada, because junior has his head parked in his sunshine starved orifice and the Canadian public is too busy demanding additional socialist handouts.
No. gneral public are clueless and the media are hopeless
its only issues interest sites like this where awareness is higher.
the general public are aware of problems in the SCS but there is no intellectual rigour coming from mainstream media
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I for one find it baffling. We're on the cusp of one of the most geopolitically volatile regions on the planet with perhaps the fastest changing strategic landscape and the country is oblivious. I actually found it curious that this fact/defence generally didn't feature more prominently in the recent election. I would have thought the Coalition might campaign on this as a one of their strengths but no dice
Boatteacher
Active Member
Indeed it really irritates me the way economic writers make pronouncements about our failure to embrace Chinese investment in sensitive areas as a policy failure or racism without the slightest apparent awareness of how SCS issues could potentially play out in the near term.
An indeed the application of economic pain (and cyber attacks) is likely to be the first Chinese response to displeasure with Australia's stance.
The recent comments by a former premier of a major state, who I thought regarded himself as an international relations (and history) boffin, were little short of a disgrace.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Apologies mods if this is a one liner, but I totally agree.
He's an egomaniac and serial apologist to the chinese - it affects his personal revenue as a consultant. Witness the last Q&A where he an PJ O'Rourke demonstrated a clash of the self important etc.....
He's nowhere near the academic intellect of beasley
Not to mention the locals who suffered because of flawed decisions made by others. At one point an average of 150-200 people were being killed daily in sectarian violence in Iraq. Quite a few lessons learnt from Afghanistan could have led to certain mistakes not being made in Iraq but unfortunately nobody in power heeded those lessons.
ironically it was the uniforms and the analysts who advised against those decisions a number of times
gazzzwp
Member
Interesting article in RT this morning about the US flying a Stealth Bomber (B-2 Spririt) , B-52 and B-1 into the SCS.
https://www.rt.com/usa/356338-strategic-bombers-guam-power/
It will be interesting to see if any other media reports this later in the day. Some comments made in the blog below refer to how many B-52's were shot down by the Vietnamese and so with modern Chinese SAMS they should these days be an easy target which is a fair point.
Except of course that first strike weaponry will I would image be stealth fighters to remove SAM batteries from the contested air space. It does make me wonder what part B-52's could possibly play against a well armed adversary?
Anyway not to digress, I have no information yet on how far they flew into the SCS or what repsonse the PLA made if any.
https://www.rt.com/usa/356338-strategic-bombers-guam-power/
It will be interesting to see if any other media reports this later in the day. Some comments made in the blog below refer to how many B-52's were shot down by the Vietnamese and so with modern Chinese SAMS they should these days be an easy target which is a fair point.
Except of course that first strike weaponry will I would image be stealth fighters to remove SAM batteries from the contested air space. It does make me wonder what part B-52's could possibly play against a well armed adversary?
Anyway not to digress, I have no information yet on how far they flew into the SCS or what repsonse the PLA made if any.
posted in the USAF thread this morning - and from a more reputable source
Boatteacher
Active Member
It seems to me in relation to the SCS that we are seeing being played out an example of game theory.posted in the USAF thread this morning - and from a more reputable source
Everyone but China wants at the very least to preserve the status quo (even if some of the SCS countries might want to go further and be able to exploit fully their perceived EEZ). China is determined to demolish it and the ILOS to boot.
The practical problem is that, while China is playing it well, there is only one other player who can play it with an equal hand; and thus meaningfully contribute to the game’s result. And they aren’t playing meaningfully notwithstanding their recent overflights.
Smaller countries around the SCS have an inherently weak hand; able to produce only very limited worrying uncertainties for China and incredibly vulnerable economically, militarily and in cyber space.
My own view is that the Philippines played to its strength by referring the matter to international adjudication. Maybe they have to duck for cover now, but they’ve considerably weakened China’s international position; especially since so many left leaning western commentators are too inclined to describe any defence of the ILOS in the SCS in ignorant US imperialistic terms.
Australia too has a somewhat weak hand. It would be nice to think China is dependent on us for raw materials (as some commentators have suggested) but very much doubt it. They can go elsewhere. We on the other hand are exposed to any trade sanction by them and I don’t doubt could be hurt by a “plausibly deniable” or at least unprovable cyber attack. Militarily we could achieve little in the SCS; and indeed could not even respond in a satisfactory manner to an attack on a FON exercise there.
We’ve just had the silly position where, a week after an organ of the Chinese Government specifically threatened to shoot down our planes and do injury to us, the Government is severely criticised for knocking back handing over to complete Chinese control vital infrastructure on security grounds. The Government is forced to “pretend” it had nothing to do with the bidder being Chinese and the commentariet is all too willing to cry “racist”, encouraging the Chinese themselves to make the same claim. And yet, no-one is willing to come out and say “you ignorant fools, you must be kidding”.
At the very least we need a Barnaby Joyce type minister who’s willing to make the specific link, even if (like the Chinese use all the time) it’s someone who can be “plausibly disclaimed”.
Really, only the US can play the game on equal terms; able to inflict the unstated and ill-defined threat (economic, military or otherwise) of as much harm to them as they can do to the US and thus keep the situation in stasis.
All this time the US seems to be in its own state of Executive blindness. Indeed, with Russia, China and North Korea all dialling up their rogueness quotient, I was appalled to read yesterday the President is thinking of disclaiming a US first strike ability; exactly the opposite to what game theory requires at exactly the wrong time (horrible though the possibility of nuclear exchange is, such a step probably increases its eventual likelihood).
I’ve asked before whether there is some recognised answer to how often FON’s should be conducted to be effective. My own answer has formed into “frequently”, starting now. If somebody pulls a trigger for an alleged breech of sovereignty, it should be such a clear breech of long established protocols that no defence of misunderstanding can be raised.
And if (perish the thought) I was US president, I think by now I would have had a long talk with the captains of industry warning them that they needed to think through what happens if the US needs to impose technology transfer bans as some sort of soft power application and of the danger of them losing access to their Chinese supply chains altogeather.
All of which is probably the reason I should stay out of politics