Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 178 posts

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#151

Post by honest_joe »

Xixi wrote: post #149
honest_joe wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not really control the senkaku islands. At least not from chinese POV :P And yes Dokdo (Takeshima in Japan) is a big thing in Korea.

Controlling is not really a matter of point of view. It's a matter of patrolling, and sending boats away if they are not allowed in the area, etc. Japan inherited this control from the US, and China is perfectly allowed to dispute ownership of the islands. But claiming that Japan is not -at present- controlling the islands is simply not correct. The Liancourt Rocks case is interesting, because it is so asymmetric: al…

Japan"bought" the islands from private owners (funny right?).

I do not feel that there will ever be any real friendship between these two countries. I would compare it to polish russian relationship.

Koreans have every right to feel strong about it. Every damn right. But this is a discussion for another evening.

And replying to your comments above i was talking about the situation in asia in general. You should also know that Korea donated a war ship to Philippines. Do you think this gesture did not have anything to do with the situation in the area ? I very much doubt so.

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#152

Post by fraserharris »

run4yourlives2 wrote: post #96
logfromblammo wrote: post #17

It all comes down to the international laws of the sea. Planting your flag on a 1m wide rock above the high tide line enables an exclusive zone with radius 12 NM for excluding all foreign vessels, a radius of 24 NM for enforcement of your laws, and one with radius 200 NM for exclusive economic activities, like oil drilling, undersea mining, and fishing. It's a resource grab. China wants the fish and the seafloor. Wha…

It's not a resource grab... those are major shipping routes. It's an economic control grab.

The shipping routes are in international straights. China would not disrupt them because Chinese ships would be at risk in other waterways they can not project power to.

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#153

Post by run4yourlives2 »

cygwin98 wrote: post #112
run4yourlives2 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a pretty big difference in China sending a couple of warships to the gulf and USSR setting up a nuclear missile base with missiles pointed at the US on Cuba.

Nuclear missles or "90000 tons of diplomacy" are both certain kinds of deterrence, nothing more, nothing less. If US does not have those carrier combat groups, China wouldn't care either.

Instant destruction that you can't defend against is not the same as an annoying ship floating around off your coast.

The proper comparison to cuba is Star Wars type missile shields. And USSR/Russia has long been quite opposed to that, for good reason.

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#154

Post by cowardlydragon »

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #133
timiblossom wrote: post #33

The building to convert reef to island is one of the first steps to claim the entire Southeast-Asia sea by China. It will then have the self-declared ownership right to block all sea/air traffics through this region and bully other neighboring countries. Besides having a huge oil/gas reserve and fishes, in term of economic impact, this sea is as important as or more than Panama Canal or Suez Canal. A country with the…

Can I call horseshit on HN again? The Strait of Malacca (which is close by) would be on par with the Panama Canal or Suez. The South China Sea is not a transit point for goods in the same manner, and is not as important. When you look at China's claims in comparison with everyone else's claims, (especially Vietnam's), it does not look that outlandish, and everyone in the region effectively wants to be able to say "th…

Our blue water navy would be at the bottom of the ocean in the first day if any of them are in ICBM range of China in a war.

The navy has zero defenses that can stop a 1970s ballistic antiship missle.

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#155

Post by run4yourlives2 »

fraserharris wrote: post #152
run4yourlives2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a resource grab... those are major shipping routes. It's an economic control grab.

The shipping routes are in international straights. China would not disrupt them because Chinese ships would be at risk in other waterways they can not project power to.

If you look at the map, China is attempting to claim ownership of said straights.

Your second point is accurate, but China having the ability to disrupt a route brings it up to par with other powers, whereas right now they are solely at the mercy of foreign nations wrt other waterways, with no ability to respond in kind. This gives them that ability.

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#156

Post by greedo »

cowardlydragon wrote: post #154
lambdasquirrel wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I call horseshit on HN again? The Strait of Malacca (which is close by) would be on par with the Panama Canal or Suez. The South China Sea is not a transit point for goods in the same manner, and is not as important. When you look at China's claims in comparison with everyone else's claims, (especially Vietnam's), it does not look that outlandish, and everyone in the region effectively wants to be able to say "th…

Our blue water navy would be at the bottom of the ocean in the first day if any of them are in ICBM range of China in a war. The navy has zero defenses that can stop a 1970s ballistic antiship missle.

Well, considering the range of an ICBM is by definition "intercontinental," your caution is a bit misplaced. First, the DF-21d isn't an ICBM, it's approx unclassified range is 900 miles.

And of course the USN has defenses. First are soft defenses like ECM, followed by AEGIS and SM3.

Not only are there defenses against the missile themselves, but it's not like the navy would just sit idle while being targeted. They'd work the entire kill chain, and most of this is assuming that the DF-21 can even find the carriers...

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#157

Post by xkiwi »

run4yourlives2 wrote: post #94
xkiwi wrote: post #84

I am surprised most of us only believe/get news from CNN & MSNBCish. Vietnam is the one who building in the South China Sea. Vietnam is building two islands: West London Reef and Sand Cay, at the year of 2010. Vietnam build islands, CNN FOX cricket, cricket. China build islands, it is against international law. - http://amti.csis.org/west-reef-tracker/ - http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/16087/20150508/vietnam-...…

I think the difference here is that Vietnam isn't extending it's claim to thousands of miles off shore. The article clearly shows Vietnam is building islands too. It also shows them being pretty close to mainland Vietnam.

  The robbery just such a small amount, it should not be charged.
  Since the amount is so small, i am going to forgive it.
You mean the difference like this?

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#158

Post by SeoxyS »

woodchuck64 wrote: post #38
kspaans wrote: post #3

Given the various names for that stretch of water, I'm surprised the NYT doesn't spin the article by calling it e.g. the West Philippine Sea. Maybe because South China Sea is more recognizable in a headline?

Petition to change name of South China Sea to Southeast Asia Sea: https://www.change.org/p/change-the-name-south-china-sea-to-... 420,000+ signatures so far...

Indochina Sea has a nice ring to it and is mostly accurate.

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#159

Post by task_queue »

orf wrote: post #26
jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Spratly islands are in the middle of one of the most important sea corridors. Ultimately, even nationalism is about money, after all which war ever in the history of man did not start as a dispute over resources or territory?

Ones involving love, religion or ideology? Blanket statements like that never hold water.

I'm having a hard time thinking of an example of any of these that weren't about land or resources.

Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea

#160

Post by sangnoir »

task_queue wrote: post #159
orf wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ones involving love, religion or ideology? Blanket statements like that never hold water.

I'm having a hard time thinking of an example of any of these that weren't about land or resources.

I'm no history buff, (apologies for the insta-Godwin): but was WWII fought over land or resources?

How about the US' involvement in Vietnam, that seems like an ideological war.

Post reply on HN