Reuters: U.S. weighs more South China Sea patrols to confront 'new reality' of China
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The United States is considering intensified naval patrols in the South China Sea in a bid to challenge China’s growing militarization of the waterway, actions that could further raise the stakes in one of the world’s most volatile areas.
The Pentagon is weighing a more assertive program of so-called freedom-of-navigation operations close to Chinese installations on disputed reefs, two U.S. officials and Western and Asian diplomats close to discussions said.
The officials declined to say how close they were to finalizing a decision.
Such moves could involve longer patrols, ones involving larger numbers of ships or operations involving closer surveillance of Chinese facilities in the area, which now include electronic jamming equipment and advanced military radars.
Read more ....
Previous Post: U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis Issues A Warning To China (June 2, 2018)
WNU Editor: The Chinese response to James Mattis has been harsh (see above video). What's my take .... it looks like both sides are gearing up for a confrontation. For the Chinese .... this is a problem. If they openly confront the U.S. on the seas, or intercept U.S. surveillance planes in the air .... they risk blow-back from the U.S. in other areas. And from what I reading in China, they are wondering if the U.S. is setting China up to do just that .... and then use such an incident to impose tariffs and a whole host of trade restrictions on Chinese goods.
6 comments:
It's all going to hell
This could be expressed the other way. "For the Americans this is a problem. If they confront China on the seas or intercept Chinese surveillance planes in the air, they risk blowback from China in other areas."
Perhaps China is setting us up for just this sort of thing. I'm not reading about this in the US media. Of course there is a disturbing tendency among US leadership to overestimate our abilities while underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries.
So far we've been extremely fortunate. Unfortunately good fortune eventually runs out. At some point, good decisions actually have to be made.
Maybe we do need to confront China in this area. Maybe we can "win." If so, what do we "win?" A fair debate is definitely needed on this. Confronting China is not going to be easy and victory is far from guaranteed. Even if we win what do we actually "win?"
I listen few time this video and, because I'm French born and very accustom to communist language, I find a brazen "wood tongue" for changing 100% the sense of the reality.
By International Tribunal judgement these man made islands are ILLEGAL! The Navy has navigate in this sea during 70 years, there's is NO change from USA. But the real CHANGE is new weapons from China on these illegal island. But with the "wood tongue" they put the guilt on USA.
Jac,
UN tribunals will not help America. As a French person, you've got the good life that very few Americans can ever hope to have!! You won the lottery!! Be grateful for how you were born!! This is why Americans fought so hard during WWII. We hoped you French would accept us as equals in the presence of your manifest magnificence. So far we've failed to measure up to either you, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, or Canada. Perhaps someday we might succeed and be worthy of you.
Usa illegally sanctions nations, are illegally in countries who did not give authorization. If they don't respect the law, why should others?
B. Poster, your irony on jac is without sense. Is the USA with their Manifest Destiny ideology that bring Philippines into colony in 1899-1902, with over half million of civilians deaths (the real first genocide of the 20th century), and built military bases here without be part of NATO.
And jac, aside of the international hypocrisy (even Israel is illegal in the occupation of Palestinian territory), if the Philippines want their country back, so need to oust both: China and USA, before becoming the Syria of far east. If they have the strength to do that.
Post a Comment