Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chinese control of South China Sea ‘short of war’ is complete
Great Power War ^ | 9/24/18 | USA Features

Posted on 09/24/2018 2:58:27 PM PDT by SleeperCatcher

In a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis in June, Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed that Bejing “cannot lose even one inch of the territory” in the South China Sea. That’s about as plain a warning as one gets: China will defend, militarily, it’s outsized claims in a body of water through which one-third of all global trade passes.

The U.S. would have little difficulty in taking out militarily significant targets on any of the islands in question. But that’s not really the point.

Through the construction of these artificial islands-turned-military bases, China acted brazenly but in a calculated way: When the decision was made to begin dredging sand and building artificial islands, Xi and the Chinese Communist Party calculated that no one in the region, including the United States, would directly challenge the construction.

(Excerpt) Read more at greatpowerwar.com ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: australia; china; doubleblogpimp; indonesia; jamesmattis; malaysia; militarizedislands; newzealand; philippines; singapore; southchinasea; taiwan; trolliner; vietnam; xijinping
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

1 posted on 09/24/2018 2:58:27 PM PDT by SleeperCatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

“To accomplish that objective, China must necessarily challenge the existing global order which is led by the United States.”

So much nonsense from this author.

China would have to build 1,000 strategic nukes and their respective delivery systems to effectively do as the author suggests.

They only have about 50-100 that can reach the US today. Against 1,500 we have ready to launch at them.

And nukes are the price of an Aircraft Carrier. Or US airfield. Or SSN etc.


2 posted on 09/24/2018 3:03:51 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

How about if we do the same thing, put in our own island bases and they will have to launch a war to stop us.


3 posted on 09/24/2018 3:07:16 PM PDT by Williams (Stop tolerating the intolerant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I don’t understand or believe the supposed limit on the number of Chinese ICBMs.


4 posted on 09/24/2018 3:08:57 PM PDT by Williams (Stop tolerating the intolerant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Williams

“I don’t understand or believe the supposed limit on the number of Chinese ICBMs.”

It’s not a limit.

It’s how many they have. Believe it or not.


5 posted on 09/24/2018 3:10:53 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?


6 posted on 09/24/2018 3:11:03 PM PDT by MCF (If my home can't be my Castle, then it will be my Alamo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

China could easily have paid the Clintons and/or Obamas for permission to smuggle nukes here directly and hide them in our major cities. It’s not like that wouldn’t be for sale, at the right price.


7 posted on 09/24/2018 3:12:49 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Number of arrested coup conspirators to date: 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

They’re snooping around Venezuela under the guise of humanitarian aid.


8 posted on 09/24/2018 3:17:24 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

Of that 1/3 of world trade, how much of it is to and from China, anyone know?


9 posted on 09/24/2018 3:25:45 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MCF

[Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?]


Is China willing to have 1000 its largest metro areas hit simultaneously by nukes in retaliation? China’s leader wants a more prominent place in history. He wants fame, not infamy. And like every other politician, he’s keenly interest in his personal physical survival and the survival of kith and kin. Against a nuclear power with retaliatory capability, there is zero chance he will use nukes. And that logic also applies to the US and Russia. National leaders are ego-driven individuals whose principal concern is to improve his standing in history. Starting a nuclear war that kills half his population is the route to eternal infamy. Any war between nuclear powers with city-killing nukes will be conducted by conventional means. It’s a lot like what happened during WWII with respect to chemical weapons. Both sides had them, but refrained from using them for fear of retaliation, even up to the point where one side surrendered unconditionally.


10 posted on 09/24/2018 3:26:59 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (They can have my pitbull when they pry his cold dead jaws off my ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

The good news is they do not have a large enough military to defend that much ground/seas.....


11 posted on 09/24/2018 3:30:23 PM PDT by Vendome (I've Gotta Be Me https://youtu.be/wH-pk2vZGw2M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Nonsense, no one is going to lob nukes at each other. Economics and influence in the Pacific rim is the key. Pressure all of the island nations to push China out (here's looking at your Saipan). Then pressure Latin America to start bidding to take over Chinese exports.

THAT is how you screw them.

12 posted on 09/24/2018 3:32:03 PM PDT by Salvavida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

Not our problem. No more American wars in Asia.


13 posted on 09/24/2018 3:34:48 PM PDT by Trumpisourlastchance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Quote: [So much nonsense from this author.

China would have to build 1,000 strategic nukes and their respective delivery systems to effectively do as the author suggests.

They only have about 50-100 that can reach the US today. Against 1,500 we have ready to launch at them.

And nukes are the price of an Aircraft Carrier. Or US airfield. Or SSN etc.]


The Chinese likely have thousands of nukes. They’ve certainly been spending large sums of money on their military that, when adjusted for salary differences (8:1), exceed US amounts.

Yes, they say they’ve only got hundreds. But why would they tell the truth? They’re certainly not averse to lying, in order to lull their perceived adversaries into complacency. Heck, they played dead while North Korean forces were running pell mell for the Chinese border after MacArthur’s landing at Inchon, and launched a surprise attack on US forces while the latter was attempting administer the coup de grace to the North Korean People’s Army.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
http://www.u3o8.biz/s/MarketCommentary.asp?ReportID=754347&_Title=10-Top-Uranium-producing-Countries

Quote: [In 2004, China stated that “among the nuclear-weapon states, China ... possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal,” implying China has fewer than the United Kingdom’s 200 nuclear weapons.[27] Several non-official sources estimate that China has around 400 nuclear warheads. However, U.S. intelligence estimates suggest a much smaller nuclear force than many non-governmental organizations.[28]

In 2011, high estimates of the Chinese nuclear arsenal again emerged. One three-year study by Georgetown University raised the possibility that China had 3,000 nuclear weapons, hidden in a sophisticated tunnel network.[29] The study was based on state media footage showing tunnel entrances, and estimated a 4,800 km (3,000 mile) network. The tunnel network was revealed after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake collapsed tunnels in the hills. China has confirmed the existence of the tunnel network.[30][31] In response, the US military was ordered by law to study the possibility of this tunnel network concealing a nuclear arsenal.[32] However, the tunnel theory has come under substantial attack due to several apparent flaws in its reasoning. From a production standpoint, China probably does not have enough fissile material to produce 3,000 nuclear weapons. Such an arsenal would require 9–12 tons of plutonium as well as 45–75 tons of enriched uranium and a substantial amount of tritium.[33][34] The Chinese are estimated to have only 2 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, which limits their arsenal to 450–600 weapons, despite a 16-ton disposable supply of uranium, theoretically enough for 1,000 warheads.[33] ]


14 posted on 09/24/2018 3:36:48 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (They can have my pitbull when they pry his cold dead jaws off my ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MCF

“Is the U.S. willing to have 20-30 of our largest metropolitan areas hit simultaneously by multiple nuclear weapons over the South China Sea?”

The much bigger question is whether China is willing to have every single one of their cities and military installations destroyed in the vain effort to challenge US power is a real way?

That’s their strategic calculus. They know if they use nukes, they cease to exist. And the only benefit they receive is the destruction of a couple of dozen US cities.

And that’s IF THEY SHOOT FIRST. If we shoot first, our counterforce capability is enough to negate their retaliation to maybe 10% of their arsenal.


15 posted on 09/24/2018 3:37:39 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

“The Chinese likely have thousands of nukes.”

More nonsense.

They would not be able to hide that arsenal from US surveillance. US intelligence pegs them below 300, mostly tactical.


16 posted on 09/24/2018 3:41:58 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida

“Nonsense, no one is going to lob nukes at each other.”

Any war between the US and China, or the US and Russia inevitably goes nuclear. And the losing side is most likely to cross the threshold first.


17 posted on 09/24/2018 3:47:04 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I really don’t see why we should go to war over some islands with nothing worthwhile on them in the South China Sea, let alone a nuclear war. Sounds pretty stupid to me.


18 posted on 09/24/2018 3:51:31 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

We should not give a damn about the south China Sea. Its thiers. So what. We would be pretty damn pi#$ed off if foreign navys tried to take the over the gulf of mexico, staights of alaska etc. Bring the troops home and put them on the mexican border.


19 posted on 09/24/2018 3:52:36 PM PDT by Fla.Deporable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SleeperCatcher

why have the enviroweenies been so strangely quiet about the disruption of ocean floor and environments for the little fishies affected by all the dredging? are they getting Chinese money to stay quiet?


20 posted on 09/24/2018 3:53:09 PM PDT by blueplum ( "...this moment is your moment: it belongs to you... " President Donald J. Trump, Jan 20, 2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson