"This is the Chinese navy ... You go!"

[Steelgrave]

As the article points out (and most historians of U.S. history already know) right of free passage has been an American doctrine since our beginning. Additionally, the Pacific, while not necessarily the "American lake" of old, is vital to U.S. security, both economic and militarily.

I also like the idea of free passage, so long it is not violating recognized territorial waters.  But please explain what about the Spratlys is "vital" to US economic and military security.  See, that is the point I am not getting.

They're not. It's the concept of free passage and respecting internationally agreed-upon 12 mile borders that is vital here. It's not about where it's happening, it's about China having no right to plant a flag in internationally recognized waters and claim this is now Chinese territory. After all, what's to stop China from arbitrarily redrawing any border which doesn't suit them?

[mirth]

I also like the idea of free passage, so long it is not violating recognized territorial waters.  But please explain what about the Spratlys is "vital" to US economic and military security.  See, that is the point I am not getting.

It's not the Spratly's specifically, but the entire area.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims.

We've long considered free passage a vital national interest. We've fought wars over it. If we let any one nation interfere with it, we open up the possibility of anyone and everyone laying claims over patches of ocean as they see fit.

[mirth]

double post

[Centurion40]

As the article points out (and most historians of U.S. history already know) right of free passage has been an American doctrine since our beginning. Additionally, the Pacific, while not necessarily the "American lake" of old, is vital to U.S. security, both economic and militarily.

I also like the idea of free passage, so long it is not violating recognized territorial waters.  But please explain what about the Spratlys is "vital" to US economic and military security.  See, that is the point I am not getting.

They're not. It's the concept of free passage and respecting internationally agreed-upon 12 mile borders that is vital here. It's not about where it's happening, it's about China having no right to plant a flag in internationally recognized waters and claim this is now Chinese territory. After all, what's to stop China from arbitrarily redrawing any border which doesn't suit them?

The armed forces of the country into which the Chinese are encroaching, that's what.  Same as anywhere else.

[Steelgrave]

As the article points out (and most historians of U.S. history already know) right of free passage has been an American doctrine since our beginning. Additionally, the Pacific, while not necessarily the "American lake" of old, is vital to U.S. security, both economic and militarily.

I also like the idea of free passage, so long it is not violating recognized territorial waters.  But please explain what about the Spratlys is "vital" to US economic and military security.  See, that is the point I am not getting.

They're not. It's the concept of free passage and respecting internationally agreed-upon 12 mile borders that is vital here. It's not about where it's happening, it's about China having no right to plant a flag in internationally recognized waters and claim this is now Chinese territory. After all, what's to stop China from arbitrarily redrawing any border which doesn't suit them?

The armed forces of the country into which the Chinese are encroaching, that's what.  Same as anywhere else.

Not good enough. That's allowing the Chinese to deny our fleets passage in international waters and is a terrible precedent to accept. That simply won't be tolerated and we have resisted such attempts time and time again in our history.

[Centurion40]

We've long considered free passage a vital national interest. We've fought wars over it. If we let any one nation interfere with it, we open up the possibility of anyone and everyone laying claims over patches of ocean as they see fit.

Ok then, if that really is the point here, then get the USN to pick a piece of the South China Sea that reasonably does not lie within the 12 mile zone of any nation, and park a chunk of the 7th Fleet in it.

Fly this flag on the ships:



With the words "freedom of the seas bitches" written on it.

Make those Admirals feel relevant!

[Steelgrave]

HA, I love that patch!   ;D

[Centurion40]

As the article points out (and most historians of U.S. history already know) right of free passage has been an American doctrine since our beginning. Additionally, the Pacific, while not necessarily the "American lake" of old, is vital to U.S. security, both economic and militarily.

I also like the idea of free passage, so long it is not violating recognized territorial waters.  But please explain what about the Spratlys is "vital" to US economic and military security.  See, that is the point I am not getting.

They're not. It's the concept of free passage and respecting internationally agreed-upon 12 mile borders that is vital here. It's not about where it's happening, it's about China having no right to plant a flag in internationally recognized waters and claim this is now Chinese territory. After all, what's to stop China from arbitrarily redrawing any border which doesn't suit them?

The armed forces of the country into which the Chinese are encroaching, that's what.  Same as anywhere else.

Not good enough. That's allowing the Chinese to deny our fleets passage in international waters and is a terrible precedent to accept. That simply won't be tolerated and we have resisted such attempts time and time again in our history.

So don't accept it.

That being said, we were pretty pissed-off when y'all went through the Northwest Passage without our permission.  It was deemed unnecessarily arrogant.

[Steelgrave]

I suspect we won't accept it. And about that Northwest Passage thing....sorry!

[Centurion40]

I suspect we won't accept it. And about that Northwest Passage thing....sorry!

Meh.  At least y'all are consistent. 

Besides, we're not overly worried that you'll invade.  Culturally and economically y'all took us decades ago! And I'm ok with that.  I just wish that our dollars were in sync, so that I don't get hooped at the register the next time that the Mrs. drags me on a shopping spree to Kittery, or the family ambles down to Florida.

[mirth]

HA, I love that patch!   ;D

+1

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

So a few thoughts are running through my mind, after having read the article and the comments to date.  The question that I keep struggling with is "Why is this the US' fight?"  Then it strikes me that I might be leaning towards a Libertarian-esque foreign policy view, and (as a Centrist) I sit here somewhat perplexed; wondering if there might be a racist streak in my foreign policy views (typical Centrist thinking) in that would I see the situation in Europe, vis-a-vis Russia, in the same light.  But that it a piece of navel gazing for another time.

Ok, sure the US has defence treaties with Japan, South Korea & the Philippines. But wouldn't that mean that the US would have the backs of the Japanese and/or Filipinos should they tangle with an enemy- in this case China?  Shouldn't it be Japanese or Filipino planes over the Spratlys pissing-off the Chinese (by shining a light on their nefarious shenanigans)?  Or are the Japanese and Filipino governments asking the US to fly these missions?  Or are they already doing their own sovereignty assertions, and it just isn't making the news? Or could it be US Admirals and Generals keeping things interesting so as to validate their budgets? 

Clearly the Chinese are expanding into territory where they have a tenuous claim, but they are still far from any US territorial holdings.  I know it's all a game to some, and it's probably good (in the long run) for the US to start digging its knuckles into the Chinese's ribs (so as to keep this shit far away from Hawaii).  But I can't help but think that this a Filipino, Malaysian, Vietnamese and Japanese problem first, and a US problem second.

As the article points out (and most historians of U.S. history already know) right of free passage has been an American doctrine since our founding. The Pacific, while not necessarily the "American lake" of old, is vital to U.S. security, both economic and militarily. It's not that the Chinese are threatening American territory, it's that they are threatening the right of free movement in international waters as well as the right of America to sail our navy wherever we want, so long as we are not violating lawful recognized borders. The big picture here, I believe, is the Chinese know their military cannot enforce their political will so long as America rules the seas. They are not big enough to challenge that superiority, as of yet, but are attempting to gain the same goals by bluster, obtrusion, and claiming something is so because they say it is.

The Chinese are like the guy who shoots his parents, then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan. They build where they have no right, ignoring other nations 12 mile recognized borders, then claim the same borders for themselves when we test them. Under no scenario should America purposefully go to war with China over this, however, continued overflights of international waters and incursions by naval units are lawful, justified and should increase. I don't think China has the balls to shoot first and the uproar can only continue to bring attention to China's growing imperialistic streak.

Well said.


Http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN0OB0CA20150526?irpc=932

The SAR, lighthouse thing, is all about claiming to be the legitimate goverment of the region. Of course once you can spread your domination with others accepting it, it becomes a habit.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

As the article points out (and most historians of U.S. history already know) right of free passage has been an American doctrine since our beginning. Additionally, the Pacific, while not necessarily the "American lake" of old, is vital to U.S. security, both economic and militarily.

I also like the idea of free passage, so long it is not violating recognized territorial waters.  But please explain what about the Spratlys is "vital" to US economic and military security.  See, that is the point I am not getting.

They're not. It's the concept of free passage and respecting internationally agreed-upon 12 mile borders that is vital here. It's not about where it's happening, it's about China having no right to plant a flag in internationally recognized waters and claim this is now Chinese territory. After all, what's to stop China from arbitrarily redrawing any border which doesn't suit them?

The armed forces of the country into which the Chinese are encroaching, that's what.  Same as anywhere else.

Not good enough. That's allowing the Chinese to deny our fleets passage in international waters and is a terrible precedent to accept. That simply won't be tolerated and we have resisted such attempts time and time again in our history.

So don't accept it.

That being said, we were pretty pissed-off when y'all went through the Northwest Passage without our permission.  It was deemed unnecessarily arrogant.

What is this? I thought we had treaty with the US that our militaries have right of way. Was this a long time ago?

[Nefaro]

Yeah, well said Steelgrave.

Once such a precedent is set, then such ocean-grabbing behavior would become commonplace and much shit would be started.

It's really quite similar to letting Russian carve off parts of it's neighbors with little consequences.  It will only get worse.

[JasonPratt]

Meanwhile from a scientific angle, permanent floating islands far out at sea were one of my next projected steps for developing tech that would allow for feasible long-distance travel and survival in space.  O0