The U.S. Navy’s amphibious assault ships USS Bonhomme Richard (bottom) and USS Boxer (second from top) are pictured in the East Sea during Exercise Ssang Yong 2016 March 8. PHOTO: REUTERS/U.S. MARINE CORPS/CPL. DARIEN J. BJORNDAL/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS
Reuters: U.S. plans third patrol near disputed South China Sea islands: source
The U.S. Navy plans to conduct another passage near disputed islands in the South China Sea in early April, a source familiar with the plan said on Friday, the third in series of challenges that have drawn sharps rebukes from China.
The exact timing of the exercise and which ship would travel inside a 12-nautical mile limit around a disputed island was not immediately clear.
The United States has conducted what it calls "freedom of navigation" exercises in recent months, sailing near disputed islands to underscore its right to navigate the seas. U.S. Navy officials have said they plan to conduct more and increasingly complex exercises in the future.
The U.S.S. Stennis carrier strike group is currently operating in the South China Sea. The next freedom of navigation exercise is unlikely to be conducted by a carrier like the Stennis, but rather by a smaller ship, the source said.
Read more ....
Update #1: US plans third patrol near disputed islands in South China Sea (South China Morning Post)
Update #2: South China Sea Controversy Update: US Plans Freedom-Of-Navigation Patrol Despite Warning From China (IBTimes)
WNU Editor: I guess the U.S. is not taking seriously Chinese warnings to stay out ..... China Warns The U.S. Navy To Be Careful In The South China Sea.
What'll happen when the Chinese Navy decides to sink one or more of the US ships patrolling? Will the US take the Chinese threat seriously then? At that point, the US will have one of two options. 1.)Try and engage the Chinese militarily or 2.)redeploy all forces away from the South China Sea where these ships and other military assets might actually have a fighting chance of defending the American mainland.
ReplyDeleteIf option 1 is chosen, then this means even more US ships are lost while the Chinese emerge from this either completely unscathed or with only minimal losses compared to the American and an "allied" side it may have. Choosing such an option would not only result in humiliating defeat but would place America's national defense in an even more precarious position than it is already in as these lost personnel, ships, and other equipment will place the defense of the American mainland in an even more difficult position than it is already in. If option 2 is chosen, this means utter humiliation for the Americans but at least the Us military avoids further damage and there may still be a chance of defending the American mainland.
I think the best option is option 1, however, choose option 1 BEFORE the Chinese sink one of our vessels. Furthermore the US is much more reliant on "made in China" than China is on "sold to the USA." This combined with China's superior military position would seem to make it unwise in the extreme for the American government to try and challenge China's position in the South China Sea on behalf of either itself or any "allies" it may have.
The "deal maker" has promised if elected to renegotiate these ridiculous trade agreements and defense "alliances" that America is currently captive to. Renegotiating the trade agreement, redeploying our forces to positions that make sense for our security needs, and stream lining the regulatory process to make things more cost effective for American manufacturers would seem a better option. In time, proper defense deployments and improved US manufacturing resulting from a more favorable regulatory environment just might give us some leverage in dealing with China. Right now we have very little to none and patrolling in the South China Sea it seems can only make matters worse for the United States!!
The artifical islands will be gone within hours.
ReplyDeleteB Poster seems to have a myopic view of American military capability. On almost every point you misunderstand the game board. Yet, America could well be nicked in an initial confrontation. But I can't imagine that China will take the bait of FON cruises, as a worthwhile reason to bring further disrepute and sanctions and kinetic effect on their precious islands and elements of their defensive effort.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the islands are a political, diplomatic obstacle, but militarily, they cannot confront a serious offensive effort by America. Once the international tribunal rules on the Phillipine issues, the hammer will drop diplomatically.
Will this cause the intelligentsia of the CCP to re evaluate the nine dash line and Xi's caustic rule and diplomacy or will it cause all leadership in China to congeal behind Xi and the fake Chinese sea boundaries? Either way, they better re think their path toward superpower status, and offer the world an image of a pliable and worthy leadership style as opposed to the ongoing strong arm attitude against external and internal forces. No one likes a bully. Take your hundred fishing boats off Malaysia and the coast guard escorts back to China, and play by the rules for a change. Or not.
Agreed tired
ReplyDeleteTCBB and Adam,
ReplyDeleteAs to TCBB's last paragraph, I would tend to agree that Chinese behavior probably needs to be changed, however, engaging in actions that might lead to a military confrontation, a military confrontation we cannot win I might add (the Red Sea might just part or something like this may happen and perhaps we could win but it would seem unwise in the extreme to place one's national policy in the second decade of the 21st century on such an outcome.)
While we do not "like" bullies, the Chinese really don't care. They are the most powerful force in the region and they know this. To base policies on what we "like" as opposed to reality is to base policies on ideology as opposed to real world realities sounds like ideology. With all due respect we've had quite enough ideologically based foreign policy over the last fifteen years to last multiple lifetimes!!
We could get a change of behavior. I would suggest the following. 1.)Build up our manufacturing capabilities. I've suggested elsewhere on this site and elsewhere how we might do this. I think you've probably read my other posts. Doing so would give us some leverage when negotiating with the Chinese that we currently don't have because of our dependence on them for "made in China." 2.)Countries like Japan and South Korea should develop a nuclear weapons capability along with the necessary delivery capabilities or, at the very least, the ability to develop one very quickly. 3.)Countries such as Japan and South Korea should build up their conventional military capabilities. 4.)America should upgrade it's nuclear arsenal and the delivery systems as well as redeploy all it's military forces to positions that give them a fighting chance to defend the American mainland.
Keep in mind even doing all of this is still probably not going to be enough to win a war with China but it could make the inevitable victory pyric enough for them that they dare not consider the invasion. Faced with this situation I see a really good chance of getting the desired change in Chinese behavior.
Lastly, I'm reminded of Sun Tzu to roughly paraphrase "know yourself and know your enemy and you will always prevail, know yourself but not your enemy and for every battle you win you will lose a battle, know neither your enemy nor yourself and you will succumb in every battle." Unfortunately many folks seem to understand neither themselves nor the adversary or the potential adversary.