Live data from Hacker News

China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

latimes.com

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#71
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will do so with ~2% of GDP in defense spending, basically what Trump wants NATO members to comit. This "2%" figure is a top contender for "the biggest load of bullshit in politics" award, I (as a German, if it's relevant) hate it with a passion. The reason is simple - all this target does is incentivize waste and disincentivize control and oversight. After all, if the only thing that's compared is how much money…

I don't disagree, I don't know what a sensible contribution system for NATO should be. Only how it's structure right now isn't working for US, and it's probably not going achieve Macron's desire for an European Army fit for EU foreign policy... which remains a meme on the level of India Superpower 2020. EU has all individual components and industrial capability to forge something formidable. But the nature of the Uni…

NATO is an instrument of US power. When Trump says European countries should pay in more he is wanting his cake and eating it, too.

Yes, Europeans should invest more in Defence, but not in NATO, which should be let to fade into history.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#72
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will do so with ~2% of GDP in defense spending, basically what Trump wants NATO members to comit. This "2%" figure is a top contender for "the biggest load of bullshit in politics" award, I (as a German, if it's relevant) hate it with a passion. The reason is simple - all this target does is incentivize waste and disincentivize control and oversight. After all, if the only thing that's compared is how much money…

If Germany was actually making a contribution to the common NATO defense then I doubt anyone would quibble about whether they were complying with the 2% target or not. The real problem is that the German military has been reduced to a jobs program and is no longer combat effective. Do they have any working submarines now or are they still all broken? How many aircraft are actually mission capable today?

> the common NATO defense

Against whom? In practice, NATO is an offensive alliance: Afghanistan, Libya and Bosnia were not defensive wars.

NATO military spending already dwarfs that of any potential rival. Every dollar spent on the military is a dollar not spent on social programs, hospitals, schools, and other things that actually improve people's lives. Rather than pressuring everyone to ratchet up military spending, the world would be much better served by disarmament.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#74
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can look up the various legal arguments China uses to assert their claims, but this is a fairly impartial analysis of positions from all parties [0]. Significantly, it includes reactions from various international observers around the time, uninfluenced by current geopolitical tensions. Security council countries like Britain, USSR who outright recognize Chinese sovereignty (ROC or PRC) over Paracel, Spratly Fran…

I don't think your case is very good. I read through that paper, which is not very much about the treaties, but I also didn't find any compelling arguments that the treaties say more than below. What I gather they say is Japan gives up rights to the SCS and territories they siezed from China are returned to China (RPC, ROC, whatever). However it doesn't say the Spratlys and the Paracels are returned to China, for exa…

It's not my case. It's summary of ROC/PRC argument, which predates others and had garnered major international support in a time when these disputes had no geopolitical relevance. Now it does, so the the ambiguities in language gets re-prosecuted, and is exactly what everyone nitpicks over. China thinks it sufficiently transfers islands over to Chinese sovereignty, Philippines doesn't, hence the dispute. There's also historic claims vs UNCLOS regulation, what supersedes what with 6 parties + US, it's a mess. Really, the only viable settlement mechanism will be hard power.

Which is inevitable, even in the 60s when significant countries were fine with Chinese claims, these legalities barely mattered to resolving the disputes since no interested party had the power to enforce anything. There's so much resources and security tied to maritime control in this region that this is only a dispute that can be solved through force. Along the same lines, it doesn't matter what regional or major world players think about Chinese legal arguments if China can enforce it via tonnage. Right now the only viable opposition is USN + FONAPS. But that's kind of status quo US+China is comfortable with, everyone dick waves without touching tips.

The important point in terms of "claims" is where previously plurality parties endorsed Chinese legal nitpicks (hence China has the earliest and strongest claims), now they do not, not because other claimants have better arguments, but because geopolitical interests changed. The quality of the arguments do not matter, nor the laws if we're honest. China explicitly did not submit to UNCLOS arbitration mechanism, so the PCA ruling hack was not to decide on sovereignty but maritime boundary but defining what is / is not features to deprive China (and other countries) of EEZ and territoriality. Right now China "adheres" by limiting weaponization, and drafting other legal arguments to legitimize holdings for more territorial perks. But that's just a stalling tactic until Chinese Navy is large enough to control the region defacto.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#75
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, I don't know what a sensible contribution system for NATO should be. Only how it's structure right now isn't working for US, and it's probably not going achieve Macron's desire for an European Army fit for EU foreign policy... which remains a meme on the level of India Superpower 2020. EU has all individual components and industrial capability to forge something formidable. But the nature of the Uni…

NATO is an instrument of US power. When Trump says European countries should pay in more he is wanting his cake and eating it, too. Yes, Europeans should invest more in Defence, but not in NATO, which should be let to fade into history.

Sure, hence jab about European Army. A coalition of countries that can make Airbus should be able to cobble together functional defense. Or semiconductors, or indigenous tech platforms to rival silicon valley. They just haven't. I personally think EU just hasn't been pressured hard enough to try sincerely, but I wouldn't rule out that maybe EU is just systematically incapable.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#76
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO is an instrument of US power. When Trump says European countries should pay in more he is wanting his cake and eating it, too. Yes, Europeans should invest more in Defence, but not in NATO, which should be let to fade into history.

Sure, hence jab about European Army. A coalition of countries that can make Airbus should be able to cobble together functional defense. Or semiconductors, or indigenous tech platforms to rival silicon valley. They just haven't. I personally think EU just hasn't been pressured hard enough to try sincerely, but I wouldn't rule out that maybe EU is just systematically incapable.

A common defense is a big integration step.

The military is the strong arm of the political power. Giving a military branch to the EU would seal the deal in terms of creating a federal state.

This is why such initiatives are very limited and often more symbolic than anything else (e.g. Franco-German units) because sovereignty and control are very tricky matters to handle.

Then some countries, notably Germany, have issues with military power for historical reasons.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#77

With continually declining US, its presence to keep the peace is waning. Asia is looking more and more like Europe right before WWI. The main difference is the presence of global ballistic missiles. Hopefully, that will help keep the peace in a post US empire world

hopefully, but given 30,000+ years of human history, they won't.

the flash point will probably be when Xi Xinping dies of old age and the different chinese subfactions fight over who gets to be next president for life.

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#78

With continually declining US, its presence to keep the peace is waning. Asia is looking more and more like Europe right before WWI. The main difference is the presence of global ballistic missiles. Hopefully, that will help keep the peace in a post US empire world

hopefully, but given 30,000+ years of human history, they won't. the flash point will probably be when Xi Xinping dies of old age and the different chinese subfactions fight over who gets to be next president for life.

imo If you were right, we would have had WWIII in the 20th century already. The cost of war with nuclear weapons is just so high with MAAD that it has kept the peace. Of course, I could be wrong. It just takes one insane person...

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#79
China will do whatever China wants to do because there will be no consequences. Just western governments “criticising” them but still consuming their goods which is fine with China. They don’t seem to care what anyone thinks of their policies because they know the world will continue doing business with them regardless of what they think of China

Re: China attacks fishing boats in conquest of South China Sea

#80
post #15
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like you have no “legitimate” “claim” to your smartphone, hand it over. Conquest isn’t the only way countries gain territory by a long shot, and whataboutism can’t justify what China’s doing today either.

A better point would be that the current CCP regime in Beijing has no legitimate claim to be any kind of government with any legal claim over any territory whatsoever. An unelected government is not a government, it's just a group of thugs who happen to have control over a capital city. If China has any sort of legitimate government at all it's the one in Taiwan which was at least elected by somebody . But really, ma…

There was a revolution in China. Many millions of Chinese people fought in it. It's not as if the Communist Party came to power by some accidental oversight.

Whether or not you like the government of the PRC, it is the government of China.

Post reply on HN