Posted on 03/12/2009 5:22:43 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron
From The TimesMarch 12, 2009
US warships head for South China Sea after standoffTim Reid in Washington A potential conflict was brewing last night in the South China Sea after President Obama dispatched heavily armed American destroyers to the scene of a naval standoff between the US and China at the weekend.
Mr Obama’s decision to send an armed escort for US surveillance ships in the area follows the aggressive and co-ordinated manoeuvres of five Chinese boats on Sunday. They harassed and nearly collided with an unarmed American vessel.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
“He wasn’t prophetic in any way, just a realism. Test the new kid and see where his stones are. Nothing new there, just always seems tense when it is nations playing with really big sticks.”
he said a bit more than that.
“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
“Gird your loins,” Biden told the crowd. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man.
Hey, old buddy! I referenced your comment #13 of this thread behind the following link. Thanks for the info!
China condemns US warship deployment as tensions mount
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2205700/posts?page=13#13
So what course of action/inaction should be taken? We either take an aggressive move and show the Chinese they simply cannot just start near side-swiping US ships (be they USN or USNS), OR we do nothing and have the Chinese think us weak.
As for the Chinese taking it as aggression, fact of the matter is that it was they who became aggressive first. I may not like Obambi, but he (or his handlers) did the right thing here. Can it go wrong? Yes, heck it can. However, doing nothing would have been a major blunder.
Patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel
“Patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
I depends on the patriot...and the scoundrel.
Topsail explain the situation to me in post #86, so I take back that question (thank you, Topsail!).
Do our ships actually have to BE there, to contribute to the fight, if there is one? I assume that their physical movement is mostly symbolic at this point?? Of course proximity wowuld certainly be a convenience...shorter flight time for missles and planes, etc.
"After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.
First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km. [snip]
If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack. Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.
After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.[snip]
"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.