According to a "Megastructures" documentary, because Shanghai harbour is to small for the new generation of container ships.
What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
161–170 of 178 posts
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#162The question is, is President Xi willing to risk military conflict to enforce whatever new lines he draws on the map? I don't think he is. As we saw the air zone China drew that overlapped Korea, Japan and Taiwan, it was promptly ignored by all countries and when the US stealth bombers were flying China was silent . An actual combat that results in Chinese loss would be detrimental to the continuity of Xi's party and…
China does have 2.3 million active troops and 700 million humans who would be able to serve if needed. They are considered the 3rd most powerful military. What is the risk?
Logistics. I don't think people realize that to move around army of even 10% of that 2.3 million, you require significant logistic support (sort of like upkeep in Warcraft 3). You then have to question which country has the access to most of the world's ports and bases outside of their own. Most importantly, you need to be on good terms and friends with these host countries. This is what China is going up against. A huge military resting at home means jack all if you can't mobilize it and upkeep it.
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Agreed. There's a lot of frickin' ocean, and they'd have to saturate it, one missile for every 20 sq. miles, in order to have a hope of hitting a carrier. That's assuming the USN ships don't try to shoot down said missiles. They've got a lot of missiles, but not that much. China can talk trash all they want, but there's not much they can do–or would want to do, really.
The fact is, the United States is effectively guaranteeing the trade lanes for everyone. They have not tried to own the oceans for themselves as others did. They have not tried to own resources or markets for themselves the way the Europeans did in the age of mercantilism.
China does what it does out of paranoia. And because people have been jerks to them in the past. But they know that what they have is not effective for waging expansionist war. Those missiles could make it really, really hurt if the United States were to try to take a military action against the Chinese mainland, because that would place a number of CBGs in close proximity to the mainland, where it'd be much easier to track and launch said missiles at them. A more ambitious project would be to cut off American support for Taiwan, and that would be a much longer-term issue for both sides, and one that is not abetted by these islands.
As for the islands, there isn't even any military value in holding them. They are a military liability rather than an asset. Unlike Guam, etc., they are not useful as a staging point, because the range of modern ships makes them kind of useless as a staging or refueling point. They are small–they don't even have fresh water–and thus they are easy to saturate with a few cruise missiles (the USN has 3000 tomahawks in inventory, last I checked?), so, forget about trying to put serious static defenses there. When you look at the fluff, yea, it seems alarming, and that's what it's for. It's politics. The Chinese are doing it because they know the Vietnamese and the Filipinos can't, and the U.S. will just #facepalm and mostly go back to staring at maps of the Middle East the next month, in spite of all the talk of an Asian pivot.
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless they're going to swim or row, those 700 million humans who could fight if needed don't do much in a naval war. The risk is, if the Chinese pick a naval fight and their navy gets pummeled, it's a PR disaster. That's a risk for the leadership, not so much for the country.
That's 700 million potential factory workers, military support staff, and soldiers, and the factories are already built, US companies paid for many of them.
so what does that have to do with naval warfare? You going to build thousand islands on sand during wartime?
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#165The question is, is President Xi willing to risk military conflict to enforce whatever new lines he draws on the map? I don't think he is. As we saw the air zone China drew that overlapped Korea, Japan and Taiwan, it was promptly ignored by all countries and when the US stealth bombers were flying China was silent . An actual combat that results in Chinese loss would be detrimental to the continuity of Xi's party and…
>> A military conflict that would be launched by China so far away from it's coastline makes no sense where US has dozens of nearby bases How does a military conflict between China and US even look like, I always thought it immediately escalates to nuclear war.
I don't think so unless nukes is all they had (ex. North Korea). The first side to threaten nuclear attack would be effectively declaring military defeat.
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#166The question is, is President Xi willing to risk military conflict to enforce whatever new lines he draws on the map? I don't think he is. As we saw the air zone China drew that overlapped Korea, Japan and Taiwan, it was promptly ignored by all countries and when the US stealth bombers were flying China was silent . An actual combat that results in Chinese loss would be detrimental to the continuity of Xi's party and…
"...it was promptly ignored by all countries and when the US stealth bombers were flying China was silent." News for you: http://news.yahoo.com/u-airlines-advised-china-flight-plans-...
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The Nazi narrative was all about reclaiming what was rightfully the German people's land and resources after they were depressed by the reparations from WWI. It was created to get people behind the party and it worked.
We got involved with Europe's affairs because we made a killing selling them military equipment to blow each other up. Then it started to seem as if the Nazis might take over the continent. To drive this point home, we sold weapons to the Nazis until 1941.
Pearl Harbor happened because we started an oil embargo with Japan.
Vietnam was a proxy war, it's inherently about not letting the enemy gain land or an ally in a certain territory.
There is something to gain behind every aggression and it is usually material and for personal profit to the those initiating it.
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#168Ironically, the NYT is banned by the great firewall here in China. On nomenclature, Indochina Sea would perhaps be a reasonable candidate for a more honest toponym, being as it is both suggestive of the general area and adequately distanced from any specific modern political entities.
honestly, how does indo come into picture?
Indochina was the name for the eastern projection of the upper mainland Southeast Asian peninsula region under French domination - hence, "French Indochina". The name probably derives from the fact that the historic and modern cultures of the region are a mix of Chinese and Indian: a little known fact is that there were all-out Hindu kingdoms as close to modern China as central Vietnam, northern Burma, southern Laos and Cambodia. Indian influence is also heavily felt in Burma, Thailand, and upper Laos, for instance in writing systems (abugidas), language, mythology, law, religion and royal/court rituals.
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
That actually seems like a pretty good strategy, TBH. Not saying this in an inflammatory way, as this seems applicable to a lot of other areas. Execute massive land grab first to get strategic high ground, and then bitflip your previous moves to be wrong for anyone else to do. That makes sure that anyone else trying to catch up to you is unable to do so. Boom. Barriers to entry. Done.
The British empire built itself on the backs of foreigners (everything up to and including slavery) and in many way shaped the world the way it is now. However the world has moved on, that it moved on at a time when the West was dominant (for now) wasn't planned it was just how it was.
> the world has moved on
If your definition of "the world" excludes the words largest country by territory and the largest country by population.
It would seem more fitting to instead say "the West has moved on".
Re: What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
#170America do this thing in the whole word while China just do this thing in China Sea....
An important difference is that Americans are diverse, not as the world itself, but more than any other large nation. A far cry from homogeneous societies.