US-China war 'inevitable' unless Washington drops demands over South China Sea

[jimmy olsen]

Even if aircraft carriers are vulnerable to  their antiship missiles, wouldn't America's complete dominance in submarine warfare completely destroy the Chinese fleet?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html

US-China war 'inevitable' unless Washington drops demands over South China Sea

Warning from state-run China newspaper as Beijing reveals plans for development of disputed South China Sea islands


By Julian Ryall, Tokyo

3:35PM BST 26 May 2015

China's armed forces are to extend their operations and its air force will become an offensive as well as defensive force for the first time, in a major shift in policy that will strengthen fears of accidental conflict.

A policy document by the state council, or cabinet, said China faced a "grave and complex array of security threats", justifying the change.

The People's Liberation Army, including its navy and air force, will be allowed to "project power" further beyond its borders at sea and more assertively in the air in order to safeguard its maritime possessions, the white paper stated.

The navy will add "open seas protection" to a traditional remit of "offshore waters defence", it said.

The posture risks escalating the tension over disputed islands in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Pacific, where the United States is determined to protect the interests of allies like Taiwan and the Philippines.

Only last week, a US aircraft ignored repeated warnings from the Chinese military to fly a reconnaissance mission over the islands.

Global Times, a tabloid newspaper run by the Communist Party, said that China might have to "accept" there would be conflict with the United States.

"If the United States' bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea", said the paper, which is often seen as a mouth-piece of hardline nationalists in the government in Beijing.

State media reported on Tuesday that Beijing had begun building two lighthouses on reefs in the Spratly Islands, a smattering of outcrops that are claimed by an array of countries including not only China but also Vietnam and the Philippines.

Last month, satellite imagery revealed the Chinese had almost completed an air strip on another reef - Fiery Cross - while they are turning another rock, Mischief Reef, into a full island through land reclamation.

The Global Times article described the construction of runways, harbour facilities and buildings on the disputed Spratly Islands as the nation's "most important bottom line".

Speaking at a press conference in Beijing, Yang Yujun, a spokesman for the Defence Ministry, dismissed international criticism of China's policies in the South China Sea, claiming the work was the same as building roads and homes on mainland China and that it would benefit "the whole of international society".

"From the perspective of sovereignty, there is absolutely no difference", he said, adding that "some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs".

Analysts say neither Washington nor Beijing appear to be in the mood to back down and that there is a serious risk of a minor incident in airspace around the islands escalating rapidly.

"I think the concern has to be that China misjudges the situation", said Robert Dujarric, director of the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies at the Japan campus of Temple University.

"Neither party wants a war if it can be avoided, but there are red lines for both sides", he said. "I worry whether Beijing considers the US to be a declining power and assumes that Washington will back down if it shoots down a US observation aircraft".

Washington chose to "de-escalate" a major crisis that blew up after a Chinese fighter collided with a US Navy intelligence-gathering aircraft off Hainan Island in April 2001.

However, Prof. Dujarric said there would be a different response if a similar incident were to occur in what Washington insists is international air space over the South China Sea.

Recent developments have provoked new concerns in the region, with Ma Ying-jeou, the president of Taiwan, calling for the different nations laying claim to the South China Sea to put their differences aside and carry out joint development of natural resources.

[Zanza]

No one fights a war over a bunch fucking Coral Reefs.

[jimmy olsen]

No one fights a war over a bunch fucking Coral Reefs.

The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.

[Zanza]

The Chinese territorial ambitions are like 1% of the Japanese ambitions of WW2. Would the US have fought the Pacific War over the Spartly Islands?

[Admiral Yi]

The Chinese territorial ambitions are like 1% of the Japanese ambitions of WW2. Would the US have fought the Pacific War over the Spartly Islands?

Probably if the Japs had fired a couple times on planes and ships transiting the area.

[Razgovory]

I don't know.  They did shoot up the Panay.  And nobody is interested in fighting a war over some coral reefs. Zanza is right.

[Ed Anger]

[Grey Fox]

If they do that, they'll never get their money back.

[citizen k]

I don't know.  They did shoot up the Panay.  And nobody is interested in fighting a war over some coral reefs. Zanza is right.

I think it has more to do with the gas and minerals underneath.

[Zanza]

Blood for oil at a time where the US is self sufficient in fossils for the first time in a century or so?

[Monoriu]

China won't go to war over these.  They can't afford to lose.

[Zanza]

Probably if the Japs had fired a couple times on planes and ships transiting the area.

They don't do that though. And what ships should they fire at? Liberia flagged freighters carrying Chinese containers to Eurasia? Why? There is no Lusitania.
To keep the analogy to the last Pacific War: Last time it took shooting at ships on battleship row in Oahu. That's a bit more escalation than a protest over some American recon plane flyby...

[Admiral Yi]

They don't do that though. And what ships should they fire at? Liberia flagged freighters carrying Chinese containers to Eurasia? Why? There is no Lusitania.
To keep the analogy to the last Pacific War: Last time it took shooting at ships on battleship row in Oahu. That's a bit more escalation than a protest over some American recon plane flyby...

Maybe I'm being a little cryptic.  I voted not gonna happen.  The US is never going to tell China, stop building bases on those reefs, or stop your exploratory drilling, or we will declare war.  Only way shooting starts is if China fires on a plane or ship in "their territory."

[grumbler]

I don't agree with Zanza that the US would ignore the Chinese shooting down US planes (the Panay incident ended with japan apologizing and paying compensation), but do agree with Mono that the Chinese won't shoot down the US planes.

I'm not sure why this is in a thread by itself.  Don't we have a thread on this already?

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know.  They did shoot up the Panay.  And nobody is interested in fighting a war over some coral reefs. Zanza is right.

I think it has more to do with the gas and minerals underneath.

Right.  Which means its about money.  Which means this is really a negotiation.
The oil and minerals are going to China no matter what because that is where the demand is.  Chinese companies will be involved because they are the big players in the region.
Only question is who is going to skim off the royalties and how much goes to who.
That is something you posture over, but not go to war over.

And yes, wars have been fought for less.  It's not impossible.  But the PRC leadership is more careful than that.  Stability is the paramount goal.