That’s just it. There’s some intelligent and relevant thoughts being brought up… but 90% of the replies are the 5 usual suspects camping on the threads and throwing feces at each other , screaming the name of some network tv channel. Of all the asinine shibboleths out there…
Even the owner of the website won’t engage with them and he makes money if he drives traffic over here.
Anyhow, good talk.
Comparing WWII Naval battles with anything that MAY happen if US/China goes to war is like comparing the American Civil War to WWII.
A naval war today, or in the near future, between two technologically advanced countries, both nuclear armed, with surveillance, communication and navigation satellites circling the earth and extensive intelligens gathering capabilities in the air and on the ground, will be nothing like the “Battle of Midway”.
One thing to remember when you are finished comparing “apples with oranges”:
https://warriormaven.com/china/china-warships-us-navy
Is that both sides have the capabilities to sink ships at long range, using hypersonic rockets and multiple warheads, conventional or otherwise.
Another thing to remember is that China doesn’t have any strategy to attack US mainland, they are very much defense orientated.
China is hemmed in behind the “1st chain of islands” and would like to have control of the waters inside that line to ensure that their air defense will not be overwhelmed by carrier launched aircrafts. To do so they have to be able to sink enemy ships before they get within striking distance.
They must therefore be able to hit targets inside the “2nd chain of islands”, which includes US bases in Guam and Saipan among others.
This is actually based on an American strategy from just after WWII:
China has built it’s own strategy on this foundation:
Source:
Map of the area for illustration:
Let us hope that cool heads prevail and we avoid an actual showdown in the Pacific. It is not likely to end well for anybody.
You should read the books; there ARE similarities; new technology, the ability to “lose the war in an afternoon” as Churchill said of Jellicoe’s responsibility to maintain a fleet in being, and the parallel of China behind the islands and Germany hemmed in by narrow sea lanes.
Anyhow, each side is building. China because it wants a blue water Navy, the US to counter. If you believe China has strictly defensive aims, welllll…then if the US sits by nothing happens.
Of course if the Australians are worried, too…
No sense getting too deep into the weeds; seriously, if you are a Maritime history buff (as I believe you are) you will enjoy the read. Massie gets the personalities, the politics, the engineering…all good stuff! (And it is WWI, btw)
The water is blue behind the island barriers as well. Have you seen any sign that China is sending their Navy on “Freedom of Navigation” missions to provoke the US?
Yes they have a Naval base in Djibouti, mainly to protect their large merchant fleet from pirates and terrorists, like many other countries.
Maybe one day a group of Chinese navy ships will show up in the the Florida Strait on their way to a visit and joint excelsis with a friendly Latin American country? Flying oversized flags from their mast to make sure they are noticed, while passing well clear of US territorial waters to ensure they are within their right by UNCLOS.
That day is not near and hopefully never happen, but imagine the reaction it would create in the US, both from the general public and the political establishment. (Imagine “Spy balloon” x 100)
China has more ICBM launchers than US, Pentagon tells lawmakers - CNNPolitics
you are aware that the ‘IC’ in ICBM stands for ‘Inter-Continental’, as in, BETWEEN continents, as in, FROM Asia TO North America (or Europe) right?
As their huge fleet of ICBMs shows (FYI, that’s sarcasm). And by the way, what is your source that tells you what strategies they have/don’t have?
Do the waters inside that line extend beyond 12nm from their shore? If yes, then what right do they have to control those waters? I thought you were all about the world’s nations being able to navigate the world’s oceans in accordance with:
Regarding this:
They are well within their right to do so as the Soviets/Russians have been doing for 60+ years. Sure, some of the China hawks would howl, but nothing could be done about it (militarily).
No. Ships passing in international waters vs. encroachment over the heart of soverign territory is your own apples/oranges comparison
1 Like
Thank you for letting me know (in great details) what ICBM stands for, otherwise I would never have known. (You know, ESL sand all that)
Than you may be able to explain what MAD stands for and all this about Nuclear Deterrent?
China, unlike USA, has declared a “No First Use” policy, but they are capable of replying to a nuclear attack, if anybody are suicidal enough to use their ICBMs to attack anybody.
No Chinese leader has asked; “what do we have these things for if we cannot use them?”
Do you remember the Russian “research ship” that passed the USEC in international waters some years ago and all the excitement that caused?:
Or visa versa, right?
Yup… And it didn’t start WW3 then either.
No comments on China’s right to navigate per UNCLOS but also having right to the seas half way to Guam?
UNCLOS give right to lawful friendly passage, even in territorial waters and international fairways.
China is not stopping merchant ships of any nationality from lawful passage per UNCLOS.
War ships approaching with ill intent is NOT covered by UNCLOS rights of passage.
China’s claim to all waters within the “9-dash Line” have been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague.
Even in the South China Sea China is NOT hindring free passage of civilian ships, or naval vessel on lawful unprovokative passage.
BTW; It is a case between the SCS claimants and does not involve the US.
PS> Of course, USA has not ratified UNCLOS so are not bound by the convention, nor are able to claim rights by it.
I am sure all those ships are purely defensive. Like I mentioned, this was the very reason of Imperial German naval growth. They wanted to be “like” and liked by the UK. “They have colonies and a global presence, we should, too. We have every right to be like them.”
See how that works? Two men knee-deep in a pool of gasoline, each holding hundreds of matches, staring at each other? Then some idiot walks by with a lit cigarette… (Not my analogy, btw…SNL from the 80s)
I think the US has more to worry about from domestic sources than from China (and TikTok):
PS> No fullstopp.
Maybe some wise words from an Asian leader that has managed to keep friendly relations with both China and the US is in place?:
Really? Not sure Filipinos and Vietnamese would agree with that assessment.
These incidents happened 1000s of miles from China. Which article in UNCLOS covers these actions?
1 Like
Fishing boat are not Merchant ships and excess use of force is nothing that the CCG is alone on.
Merchant ships are moving freely in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, wherever they are bound, or which flag they are flying. Naval vessels on friendly missions likewise.
I and many other here have sailed in the SCS and Taiwan Strait unhindered, but you may have been “shot at by the Chicom Navy, or got flogged for chewing gum in Singapore”?
(All fanciful sea stories by somebody with an overactive fantasy)
China lost the case in the PCA on the dispute over territorial rights in the SCS. but refused to accept the verdict:
Not unusual for Superpowers to ignore, or refuse to accept verdicts in International courts, or refrain from becoming members. (Not naming name, but you know who)
BTW. territorial disputes are between the countries involved, not a third party. (except international organizations under UN auspices)
The distance from Hainan (Haikou) to Palawan (Puerto Princesa) is less than 1400 km as the craws fly:
Paracel Islands are only 400 km. from Hainan
Whitsun Reef is 175 nautical miles west Palawan Island
Overactive fantasy, or lack of geography knowledge?
FYI; Guam is 3700 km.from Hainan. Still within range for Chinese Shore-to-Ship rockets fired from there. Chinese DF-26 rockets (aka “carrier killers”) have a range of 4,000 km:
Your correction is noted and appreciated.
Standing by for your justification for China’s actions in international waters.
Don’t mention, my pleasure
Standing by for justification of unnecessary provocation in water 1000s of miles from homeland:
Yes the Paracel islands have been disputed for almost 100 years and still are. At the moment the dispute is between China (PRC), Vietnam and Taiwan (ROC) Nobody else is involved.
Per today the Paracel Islands (aka Xīshā Qúndǎo) is populated by 1440 Chinese nationals according to CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/paracel-islands/#introduction
They should know, they have enough resources to find out such things. (Like from open Chinese sources)
If you mean this latest action against USS Milius the answer is given in the quoted article in gCaptain News:
Other actions, like those against Indonesian boats fishing in Indonesian EEZ, is not justified.
In fact, any action against vessels on lawful passage in International waters, or against vessels engaged in lawful fishing activities within any country’s EEZ by a third party, is against international law.
er…except for the Phillipines
The Philippines are NOT involved in any claim to the Paracel Islands.
Here is a map showing the baselines and EEZ per UNCLOS for each of the claimants:
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Extent-of-EEZ-of-countries-across-the-South-China-Sea_fig2_319349082
If everybody would just stick to that, no problems.
But here is the overlapping claims, incl. China’s "9-dash line:
Source: Timeline of the South China Sea dispute - Wikipedia
When you on top of this mess gets outside parties with their own agendas involved, you got potential for a major conflict that none of the claimant wants.
PS> Dispute in the SCS is nothing new. Back in 1979-80 I was Captain on a drillship working for CONOCO in disputed waters between Vietnam and Indonesia. We could see the lights from another rig, working for VietsovPetro but also in the disputed zone.
Last year’s 30 year plan… which was a work in progress (and that’s being kind). The Navy failed to submit a 30 year plan this year.
3 Likes
Not for nothing, but what is the point of a 30 year plan if you change it every year. Doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose?
1 Like