The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minnow"

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

The only thing that will stop them taking over the planet is their own arrogance and inefficiency. But it won't stop them starting WW3. It just means they will lose, because they pxxx off everyone else because of their arrogance.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

A war against whom? That presupposes that one or more countries will take them on, which I very much doubt. The UN will be neutered; America, with its $17+ trillion debt - much held by China - and its less than stellar performance in conflicts and the ensuing peace since 1945, will play the part of Sweden. Certainly not Europe or Britain: there may be the usual wringing of hands in Parliament and the Foreign Secretary will tell the Chinese Ambassador that "it's a poor show, old boy" as he hands him a large whisky. South Korea will be "reminded" of its client state status and kept at bay by the North.

After the Philippines, it may be India's turn.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

There is more than one potential scenario. I dont believe there would be no resistance.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

Resistance from whom, exactly?

Have a look at the maps that Methersgate has posted. If we assume that China gets its way and "owns" the territory delimited by its Nine Dash line - which it will - it will also own and control the air space above. This it can shut down to all aircraft other than its own - which is currently the case in China now: only about 20% of all China's air space is available for non-military flights. By strategically placing warships along the eastern and southern coasts, it could enforce an air and sea blockade of the Philippines and starve the country into submission without necessarily a shot being fired.

The only country that could possibly stop them would be America but it has no bases closer than Guam and Darwin, thanks to short-sightedness on the part of the Philippine Government following the Pinatubo eruption and more outbursts of recent faux nationalism. It is also a bit doubtful if the American electorate will want its armed forces involved in yet another conflict thousands of miles from home against an Asian enemy; Korea and Vietnam were important lessons.

China, with its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, will, of course, veto any action or statement criticising Beijing and they may find an unwilling ally in Russia. China has enough friends in Africa and other non-aligned nations making any declaration against China by the General Assembly difficult and certainly not unanimous.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

I am familiar with the maps Methersgate has posted.

Methersgate predicts world war 3. An equally plausable scenario that implies some resistance, to say the least. What say you about that? At least I have conceded that your projection is plausible.

Well, yours is just one scenario. It is not shared by all despite your normal overly assertive style. Take a look at "Methergate's" maps. Japan isn't going to lay back and let it happen. Well they might, anything could happen but...

Take a step back and think again.

Japan will stand up to China, says PM Shinzo Abe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24684683


"If Japan does resort to enforcement measures like shooting down aircraft, that is a serious provocation to us, an act of war"

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

That note in the bottom left.... I wonder what the complete statement says?

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

"Not necessarily authoritative"

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

The USA has a defence agreement with the Philippines; the weakness in this is that it does not commit the USA to respond if the Philippines is the aggressor. This was of course to give the USA a get out for silly stuff like Macapagal's claim on Sabah.

So if China casts the Philippines as the aggressor (not hard to do) the USA need not respond.

This is not something that most Filipinos are aware of - they think they are living in a US security bubble

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

"Not" was indeed one of the words that sprung to mind....

Interesting how it (the outer red line) comes to an abrupt halt at the coast of the Japanese mainland. Then where does it go/ Does it hug the Japanese southern coast? Does it cut through the island of Japan? How do the Japanese see that line?

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

I really don't think China will cause World War 3 although wars have been declared for less than is at stake here. China is carefully picking-off the other claimants to the Spratleys one by one. That is its preferred tactic which is why it won't agree to arbitration and it doesn't recognise UNCLOS. You say there will be resistance but by whom? There may well be a few shots fired at Chinese ships by the Philippine Navy, such as it is, but they are no match for and will be neutered by China's vastly superior force. Don't forget also China's fifth column - the few thousand well-armed members of the military wing of the PCP. Even assisted by US special forces, the Philippine Army has been unable to put them out of business.

China doesn't really want the Philippines as such, what it wants is what is under the surface of the Philippines - fish, minerals, oil and gas and these it will simply take.

Japan is a different kettle of fish. Like the Philippines, it has a mutual defence treaty with the US but unlike the Philippines it is less likely to be seen as the aggressor thus the US will be able to honour its commitment. Japan is economically far more important to the US than the Philippines and there will, I think, be considerably less resistance by the American public to a US involvement in a Sino-Japanese conflict.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

So. It's World War 3 on the one hand and China will walk in and take what they want on the other. Anybody else for a guess at the future? Like a game of pin the tail on the donkey...

I am surprised at your slant on this as I thought you were all for investing in what you felt was a bright future for the Philippines....so the Chinese are going to walk in, unhindered, to the Philippines and leech its resources and the Philippines will come out of it all with a rampant economy?

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

Japan scrambles jets amid China dispute

"Japan scrambled fighter jets for a third consecutive day on Sunday in response to flights by Chinese military aircraft over the Okinawa islands, amid simmering tensions between the two powers in the region. A Chinese reconnaissance plane was spotted by the Japanese Air Self-Defence Force on Friday and again over the weekend, this time accompanied by a bomber jet.
The Chinese aircraft did not enter Japanese airspace but the fact that jets have been scrambled for a third day is likely to raise concerns that a prolonged state of high alert could escalate military tensions, especially in the case of an accident."



http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/01d53768-3ede-11e3-b665-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2iuxg6VTO

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

Oh well spotted, John ....

It is China's more long-term ambition to claim the Philippines which it views as a historic client state. That claim isn't going to be asserted any time soon; maybe a few decades. But in order to achieve its "stage 1" boundary, it must first be assured of its ownership of the entire area enclosed by its "Nine Dash line" as well as its claim to islands currently administered by Japan. In the interim, the three major credit ratings agencies have all upgraded the Philippines to "investment grade" and the country's economy is flourishing.

But you may consider that investing in a country that might be subsumed by another in 20, 30 or 40 years' time to be a poor investment; up to you. Using that same bizarre logic, you may believe that British Government and Treasury Bonds would be a poor investment in view of the possibility that the UK may well cease to exist as an independent self-governing nation - and possibly in a short timescale!

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

China is not playing international politics by the same rulebook as everyone else. Given a conflict between "legitimacy" in the Chinese sense of that word and international law, "legitimacy" wins every time.

The Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs have upped the ante by referring China to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:

http://www.itlos.org/

This has seriously pxxxxed off China. Good for the Philippines, say I.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

Interesting that you put a time scale on things. In the meantime I cannot forsee the Philippines not retaliating, or its neighbours, somewhere over that timeframe. And, if the Japanese are involved it will take the Chinese eye of the Philippine, Vietnam and Malay ball, somewhat. The Chinese might need to cope with retaliation on many fronts.

And consequentally investment will be undermined by jitters until your forecast resolution date(s).

You say nobody will be interested in helping the Philippines, but the Americans and others arent going to just let the Chinese go ahead and blockade the Pacific off as depicted in Methersgates 2nd red line.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

Of course China is peeved: it wants to resolve the issues on its own terms and not have them open for international scrutiny or debate. It has, as I understand it, already let it be known that it does not recognise ITLOS (nor, for that matter, UNCLOS) and won't abide by any ruling in its disfavour. The Philippines does appear to have assembled a fairly formidable team of British and American legal experts to prepare and present its case though.

But the case is not currently listed on the ITLOS web site's list of cases.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

There are a lot of games to go before the end of the season....

"At the start of the season, the bookies couldn’t quite decide.

Three joint-favourites for the Premier League title were installed: Chelsea and the two Manchester clubs.

As it stands, no-one is any the wiser.

The top two after seven games are clubs you may remember from the early 2000s: Arsenal and Liverpool.

Manchester United are ninth and being inspired by a 12 year-old who may as well have been born at sea, such is the confusion over his nationality, while City have looked impressive and inept in similar quantities.

All the while, the Saints are marching into the Champions League.

And yet, while making any kind of predictions on this 31.8% English Premier League is harder than ever, I am feeling confident about Chelsea’s chance of success in May.

Draws away at United and Spurs, and solid, if not exhilarating victories over Fulham, Villa, Hull had José Mourinho’s fingerprints all over them.

Add in some wobbles against Everton and Basel, some fantastic post-match interviews and tailor-made suits and it’s so far, so standard.

Yet there is cause for optimism.

Here we are, two points off the top, nestled behind two ‘Are We Really Worried About Them Over The Course Of A Whole Season?’ teams in Arsenal and Liverpool, proud owners of the second best defence in the league (behind 2014/15 CL winners Southampton), and a Champions League group that shouldn’t cause too many sleepless weeknights."



Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/can-you-win-league-chelsea-2367889#ixzz2j2SYumaC
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

Retaliate - how and with what? The Philippine armed forces are under-manned and hopelessly ill-equipped by comparison with China. It may have two former RN Corvettes and two former US Coastguard Cutters each armed with pom-pom gun, but they are no match for the warships China can bring to bear. And China will have de facto rule of the skies. Any armed retaliation by the Philippines will be fruitless and will almost certainly be met with the loss of many Filipino lives.

Aquino has announced intentions to buy some fighters from Korea and a few patrol boats from Japan but Congress hasn't allocated the funding as yet. Given that Congress wants to continue with some form of "Pork Barrel", it may use that as a bargaining chip - 'if we get to keep our Pork Barrel, we'll give you some money to buy your planes and boats'.

China has the largest standing military force in world currently and many millions in reserve. The only country in the region capable of mounting any worthwhile resistance would be Japan but China could use both economic as well as military weaponry to keep Japan at bay. Vietnam is a client state and will ultimately do what it is told by Beijing.

China has been very shrewd and pretty much assured itself that the US will not interfere in the South China Seas. Were it to do so, China could simply cash-in its huge holding of US debt and It could also stop shipments of all the consumer products it manufactures on behalf of American companies. The effect of both these measures would, I think, be devastating to the US economy and the threat of that alone would be enough to ensure that the US' response would be confined to a war of words. Something that China would listen to with closed ears.

America really doesn't want to get into a shooting war with China and to be quite honest, we shouldn't want it to either. Given the long supply lines from the region back to the US, a conventional war isn't realistic so the temptation will be to let loose a few ICBMs with nuclear warheads: nobody wins in that scenario.

Re: The South China Sea conflict, as seen by the New York Times today "shark and minn

It wouldn't take a lot to disrupt the Chinese in their objective. Large army or no large army. Unless said large army invades the Philippines then it will be of little use.

And we aren't talking about just the Philippines here. Like I said before, Japan is a big hurdle for the Chinese. Also, remember the Romans...

Your whole argument is based on certain assumptions. Anybody can do that. We can always make a good case for anything with some convenient assumptions in place. Take away some of your assumptions and it is a different ball game.

I have as much faith in premiership football punditry.

I think you want to "sell" the idea that the Philippines is a stable country with a great future and conveniently get around the difficulties presented by the Chinese by the minimal damage scenario that you paint. It probably makes you feel more comfortable about your decision to move there. The thing is, if your scenario was to come to fruition how happy will you be being in a Chinese outpost?