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 ...
Remember: The Russians tested Kennedy in 1962 and we backed them down then.
They thought he was weak because he was young
He took it right up to the limit
This may require the same thing
Ummm..., gawwd...! I hope not. I remember those days... the “duck and cover” in the school hallways, the bomb shelters being sold at the Texas State Fair... LOL..
You said — “Having this guy at the helm (if he could find a helm) makes me nervous too.”
—
Well..., don’t expect him to be landing on an aircraft carrier... :-)
Just a guess but IMHO this info is 5-7 days old,,,
IIRC everytime the joint-ops time comes up lil’kim starts
his hell’razin’,,,
Now he wants to play “Wocket Shrips!”...;0)
It is not as if this is a random act by the U.S. just to irritate China.
The South China Sea, from the Malacca Straight between Singapore and Sumatera in the south, to the Bashi Channel between Luzon and Taiwan in the north is a very busy and important sea trade route from/to the middle east and the countries in the North Pacific, including the U.S. This trade route has been international waters and is recognized by all nations as a sea trade route.
China has long disputed this and now make an effort to expand their area of control to include all the South China Sea. If they are successful, China will be able to control shipping through the South China Sea and to the Philippines, Viet Nam, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the United States,and to use that control to extort political and economic concessions from all the countries that rely on that route for economic trade. Think oil tankers from the Middle East.
Their success would lead to further claims later. As an Uncle of mine said about his property expansion plans, He said that he only wanted to get that which was next door. And that seems to be China’s plan also.
It would only be selling us out if they believed in us in the first place. My opinion is that they inherently don't believe that we have added value to start with. As such, I don't think they believe they are selling anyone out, only that they are returning our nation to a position that is more equal to an averaged nation.
A rising tide may lift all boats, but my opinion is that they believe that if you get rid of all the water, all the boats are equal just the same...
Ok, I see where you’re coming from. :-)
I hate to seem to be defending obama, BUT, it's CHINA that's picking a fight with US!
WTH????
That’s in response to that pic of m obama and hillary.
Agreed, O's approach is weak and projects weakness - the exact thing that our enemies will (not want to, will) capitalize on.
are you confidant in his ability to go to war with CHINA?
No. Not due to lack of our military's capabilities, due to lack of willingness.
Actually, I don't think there will be such a necessity. China depends on exports to pacify the masses. Any disruption in exports or their economy will result in civil unrest. In the event of a serious military conflict, nationalism will certianly maintain the peace for some time, but time is not on their side. Passing time requires creating jobs they can't create without an export market (the largest of which is us). Additionally, they have become food importers. My opinion is that food is a poor weapon, but the fact of the matter is they can't feed their own any more (a reason they will always be looking west and Russia will always be keeping a wary eye). Nothing scares the ruling class more than hungry people...
Who has Russia in it’s back pocket?
They will certainly work together where their goals align, particularly where it works to our disadvantage, but don't be mistaken - there isn't a lot of trust between the two. For all the cold war rhetoric, the majority of Russia's forces have been positioned at their eastern front to my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong on this).
The Russia who has Iran in it’s back pocket?
Russia uses Iran like a puppet. Sell them stuff, take their money. Remember the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rule. Russia wants Iran's gold. Irans gold got less valuable with drop in oil prices. Iran still serves Russia as a good disruptor and smoke screen. Why the hell not sell them advanced missles? They get the cash (something Russia really, really needs), and the middle east and US gets to deal with the mess of Iran having advanced systems. It's just business, and in my opinion, smart business for the Russians.
We will virtually be the only continent on our side because Russia will block oil to Europe, they’ll be begging us to surrender. Iran will have the middle east in a frenzy against us and China is just HUGE.
I don't believe that is true. Russia can block natural gas to Europe, but doesn't have the capabilities to stop international oil flow. Disrupt, jack the prices up, sure, but they can't stop Canadian oil from getting to us without hitting us here. If that happens, the availability of oil will be the least of issues at hand.
If Iran gets out of line (if not sooner) Isreal will reduce their capacity if we are unable or unwilling.
Chian is a HUGE country, but not so much a huge threat, for now. They are a third world nation with a second world military. I don't care how much cannon fodder they have, we will never invade - no reason to. They try to touch us, we will touch them. A billion hungry people that lose their handlers makes for real civil problems and the proletariat know that. Hopefully O understands that also.
I have little respect for O regarding his ability to lead the protection of us at this time. Any time I see weakness, and trust that I am only seeing at the highest and distorted levels in the news - this game is being played at every level imaginable, I know we are in more danger than before.
Weakness begets attacks.
Sending unarmed ships into harms way given the recent Chinese agression is foolhardy. Either we have a right to be there or we don't. Assuming we do, we have every right to protect our unarmed ships from agression by having armed ships sitting there ready to protect them from agression.
Who gives a rats ass whether China thinks it's agression. If it is open seas, international waters, etc., they have no right acting agressively or dangerously with US ships or a raft of martian immigrants.
This is a sphere of influence issue. International law apparently says we can be there. China's intention is to kick us out and expand the spehere of influence. Think of it as a buffer, the bigger they make it - the longer it takes for us to hit them. The longer it take sto hit them the more countermeasures they have. The more chances they have to stop us from hurting them, the more they will attack us.
Weakness begets attack.
By Eugene Tang and Tian Ying March 13
China, the U.S. government?s largest creditor, is ?worried? about its holdings of Treasuries and wants assurances that the investment is safe, Premier Wen Jiabao said. ?We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States,? Wen said today at a press conference in Beijing that marked the closure of the annual National People?s Congress meeting. ?Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am a little bit worried. I request the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China?s assets.? China should seek to ?fend off risks? as it diversifies its $1.95 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves and will safeguard its own interests, according to Wen. He requested that Chinese investors held $696 billion of U.S. Treasuries as of Dec. 31, an increase of 46 percent from the prior year.
Merrill Lynch & Co.?s U.S. Treasury Master index shows the securities declined 0.5 percent last month, after falling 3.1 percent in January, the worst since April 2004, as President Barack Obama sells record amounts of debt to fund his $787 billion bailout. The dollar has dropped 17 percent against the yuan since China ended a fixed exchange rate in July 2005
. ?Our goal is to maintain a basically stable yuan at a balanced and reasonable level,? Wen said. ?At the end of the day, it is our own decision and any other countries can?t press us to depreciate or appreciate our currency.? While the yuan has weakened 0.2 percent against the dollar this year, there has been a ?drastic depreciation? in the euro and Asian currencies that has put a lot of pressure on Chinese exporters, Wen said.
The Obama administration has backed away from January comments by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that the Chinese government manages the currency to gain a competitive advantage
These word from Wen are brutally direct. I would not be surprised if they were coordinated with the military confidence-testing.
Please qualify the international waters within which our ships may sail without "looking for trouble." To my knowldge, US ships sailing in international waters don't typically look for a fight or "trouble" as you name it.
If legal international waters is not an adequate definition of the areas within which our ships may sail, what should be?
How would you define the backyard we should stay out of? The legal definition, China's definition, our coastline?
Remember - there are people that want to make waters that are legally "international" their property.
" China expands sub fleet
Little is known about China's nuclear forces and efforts by Pentagon officials to engage Chinese military leaders about their strategic weapons and forces has not been successful. China's government has insisted its current modernization is part of a peaceful development, but the contrasting strategic nuclear-forces buildup is worrying, defense officials said. The missile-submarine buildup would provide Beijing with a major upgrade on current capabilities. In 1983, China built one Xia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, reportedly with 12 1,000-mile range JL-1 missiles. But that solitary submarine has only twice test-fired its missiles and never ventured beyond China's regional waters.
Although the range of the JL-1 limits the Xia's utility as a deterrent platform, targets throughout the region, including U.S. military facilities, could be targeted with the JL-1 from launch points inside traditional Chinese navy operating areas," the ONI said.
On China's new attack submarine, the ONI stated that China already has launched and is performing sea trials on an unspecified number of Type 093 nuclear-powered attack submarines. Published reports in China have said two Type 093 attack submarines are deployed and use "foreign technologies" and advanced anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.
The new advances are part of China's efforts to bolster its anti-ship weapons to permit strikes at greater ranges from the Chinese coast than its current diesel-powered submarine force offers, the ONI said. China currently is upgrading its current force of about 55 attack submarines -- most of them easy-to-track diesel boats -- with more-advanced and harder-to-track vessels, including Russian-made Kilos, and its own Song- and Yuan-class submarines.
Each of these submarine classes, which are quiet platforms with anti-ship cruise missiles, is an integral part of China's regional anti-access strategy," ONI said. "The quieting incorporated into these submarines is required for successful operations in the open ocean operating areas which could facilitate the [Chinese navy's] wartime mission of keeping enemy combatants outside of strike range of the theater of operation."
The Chinese are known to have a very advanced sub force:
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/default.asp
The real potential of loosing a carrier (and more), first time since WWII, is sobering.
Again, long term protracted war...we win. But almost certainly the cost in blood in treasure in that war would greatly surpase that of the Iraq war. China is no Iraq. And, let's not give the starving lunitic millions of N. Koreans, nor the Russians, an easy way to their goals by being 'tied-up' in another big time consuming conflict...unless of course our national security is directly threatened.
This latest incident, weather in international waters (as we condend) or in their territorial waters (as they contend) is all about flexing muscles and postering and should not be allowed to escalate and further than that IMO.
We will virtually be the only continent on our side because Russia will block oil to Europe, they’ll be begging us to surrender. Iran will have the middle east in a frenzy against us and China is just HUGE.
Not a war I want him to get ballsy in, you know?"
Agreed!
They certainly are. But, they are no more dangerous than the current millitary game. A fight on either front, military or economic will hurt both, with China taking the worse.
China knows this, and knows that their economic position may be even more perilous than their military position. They can control military issues but they completely lack control of economic issues. The only card they have on that front is a chest of IOU's. Uncle Sam could run the printing pressess even harder if they wanted and China knows it.
Plus, if we can't buy lead filled crap, they still have to figure out how to keep a billion people from being pissed off that they can't get a job making lead filled crap.
China's hand is way overplayed in my personal opinion.
In an event in 2002, the MSC Oceanographic Ship USNS Bowditch was harassed in a similar manner while conducting operations in the Yellow Sea, 60 miles off the China coast.
China seems to want to deny the right of passage in international waters for 200 to 300 miles off their coast.
I apologize if I misrepresented your statements or missed sarcasm. That was certainly not my intent.
I do agree a full out war with China would be brutal, and costly in ways that most people alive today have not experienced. Personally, I do not want to experice that either.
This latest incident, weather in international waters (as we contend) or in their territorial waters (as they contend) is all about flexing muscles and postering and should not be allowed to escalate and further than that IMO.
Agreed regarding that is about flexing muscles. I also agree that escalating to a full fledged war at this point is not appropriate. I also don't believe it is likely. China knows it has too much to lose in that fight (right now). Question is, how far will they push their bluff in my opinion.
However, I do honestly believe (personal opinion) that we must stand our ground. If China wants to make a play for siezing international waters, they must be the ones who have to decide whether or not to escalate. It may seem like a pissing match on the surface, but this is about more. Dicking around with unarmed ships is penny ante bullshit and China knows it.
What they do (and we do) with armed ships raises the stakes and makes everyone decide just how serious they really want to be.
We need to know how serious they want to be. I only hope that O knows he has the winning hand and doesn't fold to early...
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.