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 right to block or own it will harm the rest of the world. Currently, the allies have been formed with a group of countries Japan, Philippine, Viet Nam, America and others trying to stop China but they have not found any solution nor success yet.
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 "these are our waters you're passing through." The actors in this region are not as innocent as you would think they are.
You have to trace back to Japanese actions before WWII and look at the geopolitical insecurity of these countries in order to understand these motivations, and then recognize that China does what it does because it does not think that the powers-that-be will be able or willing to defend its economic interests in the future. The only reason why China seems scary is because it would appear as if it can actually build up and defend its claims, unlike everyone else, but even then, it doesn't have a blue water navy like the United States. They can't instigate an area denial attack on these claims without strangling their own economy either, so it's kind of a tempest in a teapot.
This. Thank you for being a voice of reason. Historical context is so important here, especially the lessons China learned the hard way. Like just what the U.S., U.K., France, and other countries can do to you if you show weakness.
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...
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.
If China block ships from the area it wont be too hard to block their ships from Panama and Suez canals and deny access to Americas
Watch their economy crumble if they are prevented from selling this cheap knacks to the rest of the world.
It be a stupid move and the Chinese are far from stupid unlike the the Russians who are doing their best to tick every checkbox on a rogue criminal state chalkboard
My word the southern reaches of the Chinese claim are extremely grabby! Is this just similar to haggling in a bazaar for an item listed at $30, which you personally value at $20 so you open with a lowballed offer of $10?
You're implying ASEAN members all act in unison -- they do not. They fight amongst each-other almost as much as they do with China.
And while they fight amongst each-other, China voices support for one while undermining that support in another fashion. Pitting them against each-other is common.
You're being generous. China is annexing territory that belongs to Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The same thing that Russia is doing in Ukraine. It's an act of war, the issue is that the world is very afraid of China (both militarily and economically).
No, it's a territorial claim - so far. It's not yet an act of war. Trying to enforce the claim will be an act of war.
Building the islands... well, everybody else who claims that area also seems to be building there. That could, arguably, be considered an act of war, but so far everybody's doing it and we do not yet have a war.
But the U.S. builds some bases pretty close to China's coasts... To be fair, some of those island bases in Asia are used for the CIA torture program, so its purported purpose is probably not aggression towards China.
It really sounds like the fascist/autocratic states in Asia (Russia/China) with its economy failing, is slowly resorting to territorial aggression against neighboring countries in order to claim more resources. With Russia bumping against all of europe, and China bumping against Japan/Korea/Taiwan/Vietnam/Malaysia/Indonesia/Phillipines, this is boding ill for global stability.
Why is it moral for the U.S. and U.K. to build bases on random little islands in Asia, but not China and other Asian countries?
Edit: Clarification, since so many of the smaller uninhabited islands have been claimed by the UK, US, and other Western nations, how is it wrong to build some uninhabited islands of your own?
Because in recent times building a base isn't used to justify ownership of all the surrounding sea's (and where that is done it's because we/they previously owned that island, like the Falklands).
Creating an island out of thin air and then claiming the territory around it is 1 step short of Sealand.
That said no we aren't perfect and we did stuff like this as well but two wrongs in this case don't make a right, this is nothing but a very destabilising move.
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.
In fairness how far back do we apply this, should the Italians be censored for what the Romans did in the North of England, or the Mongols for what they did to most of Europe or the Spanish for what they did in South America or what we (the British) did to...well basically everybody.
If you hold that no past behaviour is considered expired then pretty much every country on the planet or the people who live there before it was that country is responsible for something.
African tribes have warred for millenia, European tribes have warred for millenia, South America, Middle East, Far East pretty much everyone has at some point beaten up their neighbours and not so near neighbours.
Yeah, we could at least give Guam residents the right to vote. Them not having that right has a lot to do with racist legislators in a previous era feeling like votes by "alien races" (e.g., Asians) would be detrimental.
Here is the map that China wants to claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...