China's Island Factory 199
An anonymous reader writes: The BBC has a lengthy investigative report about China's efforts to create and expand artificial islands in the South China Sea. They've been going to coral reefs and atolls, dredging the bottom for material, and dumping it on top of the reef to create new land. On at least one of the new islands, China will build an air base large enough for fighter jets to use. This highlights one of China's main reasons for constructing these islands: sovereignty and strategic control of the surrounding area. "The U.S. government does not acknowledge China's claim, and the U.S. Pacific fleet continues to sail regularly through the South China Sea. But the Chinese navy is beginning to grow more assertive. In December 2013 China sailed its brand new aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, into the South China Sea for the first time. Shadowing it, at about 30 nautical miles, came the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Cowpens. A Chinese amphibious assault ship approached and ordered it to leave the area. The commander of the Cowpens refused, saying he was sailing in 'international waters.'"
Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers (Score:4, Insightful)
They're rattling an awful lot.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Little late for that.
Even Obama acknowledged this years ago when he stated that the U.S. would shift its attention from the Middle East to Asia.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, that's part of it.
I mean, do you think it's not sabre rattling to sail one of our cruisers into a contested region?
China's sabre rattling in this region, Japan is sabre rattling in this region, we're sabre rattling in this region, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Koreas are playing along too.
Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers (Score:5, Insightful)
Building artificial islands in contested waters is rattling the sabre a lot more than just sailing a few ships through it.
Re: (Score:2)
Was the water contested before the island was build? ... but international laws, regarding sea coasts and sovereignty are pretty clear. Otherwise countries like the UK or the netherlands would be in trouble every few years.
After the island ws build it certainly was not, so the cruiser was - as a military vessle - without reason in a foreign territory.
Perhaps in some people minds it was still comtested
Re: (Score:2)
Was the water contested before the island was build?
Yes.
After the island ws build it certainly was not ... international laws, regarding sea coasts and sovereignty are pretty clear.
International law on these issues is anything but clear, and are subject to a great deal of argument, which is why there are always contested areas.
As for the UK, it's a natural island that has been inhabited by the same peoples for centuries (at the least - you can argue about 1066). Now that's clear.
Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers (Score:5, Insightful)
International law on these issues is anything but clear, and are subject to a great deal of argument, which is why there are always contested areas.
As for the UK, it's a natural island that has been inhabited by the same peoples for centuries (at the least - you can argue about 1066). Now that's clear.
International law, as put in practice for centuries, is pretty clear: as long as I can beat the crap out of you I can sail wherever I want.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is good, because the US can no longer beat the crap out of anyone. While the US still has the largest military penis in the world, they can't really afford to use it any more because the last few escapades have bankrupted them and they can no longer afford the Viagra they need to make it an effective tool to fuck anyone else. So yea, they can bomb a bunch of ISIS amaterus and call it a war. In reality, it's more like a 5 year old stomping on ants. A real war? With a major power? I think we'd find the
Re: (Score:3)
Feel free to sufficiently provoke the US to test your hypothesis. I'll check the Vegas line and watch on video.
Re: (Score:2)
It's highly arguable whether any of these hot spots currently involve vital interests of the US. Penis-measuring is, as you note, a rather expensive proposition at this level. The American public generally shrugs, or at most bitches a little at the cost in dollars, but a decade plus of body bags and young men with missing limbs have reduced appetites for being the world's cops. That would change quickly in the case of a threat to a close ally, let alone US possessions.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a difference here, or did you just feel the need to visit thesaurus.com today?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.Beating the crap out of someone has it's uses. International law is useless without someone willing to enforce it. And since the 3 most powerful countries on the planet did not join the ICC that organization is also impotent. Every international territorial boundary of note since the beginning of human civilization has been drawn in blood,and often more than once. Diplomacy only provides the time needed to re-arm for the next war.
Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not wrong, that is nitpicking. ... that is wrong.
While the Cowpens might have the right to travel there, the parent claimed it was "international waters"
As we are obviously talking about the area close to the "artificial" island, it might as well have been in the 12nm zone of that island.
So that would have been Chinese waters and not international ones.
Now the final question remains how artificial that island was ... certainly it s more than a platform.
Re: (Score:2)
"China used to be very powerful in the region".
By that logic, the Babylonians own a large portion of the Middle east.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I kinda would be. I mean, they're pretty much bound to ask to come in and fuel up eventually. It's not like they have a blue-water navy. Yet.
So really that would just be a neighbor bringing his white elephant out to play, and you just happen to sell peanuts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, we should simply build a lot of islands exactly 201 miles from the Chinese coast and declare them "ours", and institute 200 mile range out towards the chinese coast, then bitch when their ships launch.
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with my logic, as your logic simply would fail anyway.
You can not declare an "island ours" if it is outside of your territorial waters. A no brainer, isn't it?
But you can extend your territorial waters buy building an island 1 nm away from the edge. As that island is automatically yours _AND_ it automatically extends your territorial waters by another 200nm.
Next time please think before you post such nonsense, it does not make you look smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you proposing to build islands at a nanometer scale?
Re: (Score:2)
Nautic miles, not nano meters.
Obviously we are talking about territory, not proteins.
But nice attempt of nit picking.
Re: (Score:2)
Built islands from outcropings,etc below the water line do not count towards extending range of the territorial limits.
Many of the South China Sea territories are in dispute or are considered to be in international waters. China refuses to acknowledge other nations claims to many of South China Sea territories.
Good point. By that standard, the same would be true of anchored ships and hydrocarbon drilling rigs.
Re: (Score:2)
> Was the water contested before the island was build?
Big time. The airspace above it too. The warlike history of the nations in this area is scary.
Current international laws are newcomers to this area where squabbles go back a long fucking time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since the islands are built within the Philippines exclusive economic zone the islands are automatically illegal under international law.
China doesn't recognize the territorial claims in the area of the other countries and is trying to push their version of who owns the area
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China's also been prominently reported as a proponent of developing cities that float on dihydrogen monoxide.
Those crafty bastards! Trying to expand the empire by loophole, rather than sword.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
These were previously open international waters, so any nation coming along and claiming them needs to be challenged.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but we're a giant fucking empire. Sabre rattling to preserve hegemony is historically something every giant fucking empire did.
Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers (Score:5, Informative)
US warships really shouldn't be anywhere near China
They're not. The Spratly islands (map here [google.com]) are hundreds of miles from China. They're much closer to the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Should we avoid sailing near any of those countries in case China's next claim is that those countries are all historically part of China?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We/Google shouldn't be calling it the South China Sea.
Vietnam call it the Eastern Sea, lets face it, more of the sea is closer to them.
Philippines call it the West Philippine Sea
Re: (Score:2)
How close it is to which country should play absolutely no part in ownership - there are enough overseas territories of countries like the US, Canada, the UK, France et al to show that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Why should the US have a military presence and posturing half way around the world? We shouldn't. Look at all the wars and world ire it causes.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone uses / used the Chinese alphabet because they were "first past the post" in the region, not because the Chinese at one point owned it all.
The Japanese learned it when they sent scholars to learn in China. They then proceeded to improve on it by making simpler alphabets (Kana) so that it did not take 10 years of dedicated study to learn enough to read/write a shopping list.
The Koreans acquired the writing system through Buddhism, and they too decided to improve on it and made Hangul (IMO the most e
Re: (Score:2)
Or, I have better things to do than read slashdot 3 hours after posting?
In any case, here is the relevant section [wikipedia.org] of the wikipedia article on Hangul, which does a far better job at explaining than I can.
Now go back under your rock, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
I only have layman interests in languages. I don't particularly want to read some wikipedia article on languages.
As do I, though I have taken a few linguistic courses as well. In any case, 'layman interests' is exactly what Wikipedia is for. I sent you to the specific section of the page which answers your question, unlike your relativity example which is the top level page of something I did not express any interest in (to you). If you don't care enough to read the Wikipedia article, being that you're an AC, I'm not sure you're worth answering anyway.
If you must know *why* I think it is that great, The part I link
Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers (Score:5, Informative)
Russia and China float boats in international waters off our coast all the time. China just doesn't have much in the way of a navy capable of stationing them there. Russia, in particular, is known to cruise their subs all over and rumor has it they've shadowed US military ships going in and out of ports. International waters are international and open to use by all. This is not the first and certainly won't be the last time superpowers poke at each other from international borders while saying "I'm not touching you!"
Re: (Score:3)
international waters are international waters.
if we dont treat them as such, then they arent really international waters.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what. Happens quite a bit. Russian patrol boats are seen outside of Alaskan waters on a regular basis.
Hell, we've even let Canadians dock here. We did hold the line at Greenpeace, though.
Cowpens (Score:4, Insightful)
Bald Simians! (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been going to coral reefs and atolls, dredging the bottom for material, and dumping it on top of the reef to create new land.
Destroying fisheries in the process. But hey! They can just go into international waters and fish there - it's not like the World's fisheries are in trouble or anything.
A Chinese amphibious assault ship approached and ordered it to leave the area. The commander of the Cowpens refused, saying he was sailing in 'international waters.'"
Some day, we bald apes are going stop our petty squabbles.
Nah! Who am I kidding.
Re: (Score:3)
Some day, we bald apes are going stop our petty squabbles. Nah! Who am I kidding.
It could happen....with nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop, or I will write a strongly worded letter! (Score:2)
Also an "amphibious assault ship" i.e. a troop ship designed to attack land, ordering a US cruiser, the largest navel ship not a aircraft carrier now that battleships are faux pas, is pretty funny. Regardless of law or rights or superpowers, that is like me trying to threaten an Abrams tank using my station wagon, or maybe more accurately my bicycle... It is no wonder they told them to take a hike.
China's nine-dashed line (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh well.. I expect a typhoon or two will swamp those attempts at man-man islands.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the island will tip over. Or at least, a certain Congressman may believe so.
Re: (Score:2)
Fall into a swamp, maybe.
Re:China's nine-dashed line (Score:4, Insightful)
They looked over at their russian neighbors and noticed that spreading bullshit around was surprisingly effective in claiming new territory for fun and profit.
Its brand new (used) aircraft carrier (Score:5, Informative)
Liaoning is not brand new - it's a refurb of an old Soviet carrier.
Unrecognized Sovereignty (Score:1)
Somehow, I doubt that the next typhoon that blows through there will recognize Chinese Sovereignty, either. There's a reason many of those are only reefs and not islands that stick up above the waves all the time.
Any precedent? (Score:2)
Is there any precedent for a country to create new land like this, and claim territory around it? If international law is good for anything, it seems like this would be a good time to cite it.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole region is contested. Every party from Russia down to Vietnam and the Philippines is squabbling over bits of dirt so they can claim the huge oil & gas reserves that are under the sea bed there.
We saw an escalation a couple of months ago when China towed a drilling platform out into contested water and got into a dust up with so local coast guard ships (I can't remember who the other country was - Vietnam I think).
Destabilisation in the middle east is sharpening the focus on finding secondary s
Compare to US and Gulf of Mexico (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
how many carriers in the modern US fleet were made after 1945? Why maintain them during the cold war? Why maintain them now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:By Country (Score:5, Insightful)
Against who exactly? We have air bases just about everywhere, ICBM's , long range bombers etc.
They're huge slow(ish) moving, crazy expensive floating cities that could be made irrelevant with a salvo of cheap, dumb missles. (aegis be damned) They're dreadnoughts waiting for their Taranto.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect aircraft carriers are where the battleships were in the First World War. Great for force projection against lesser navies, but have to stay far from shore to keep from being overwh
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm, the crews of the battleships that bombarded Normandy before and after the landings would be interested to hear that, I suspect. Small, cheap torpedo boats were no match for the destroyers build specifically to 'destroy' them. For every weapon there is a counter weapon, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles are a threat to aircraft carriers, but the problem for small ships has always been target identification. For all the technology, it's still a big ocean, and an aircraft carrier is still effective
Re: (Score:2)
They're huge slow(ish) moving, crazy expensive floating cities that could be made irrelevant with a salvo of cheap, dumb missles. (aegis be damned) They're dreadnoughts waiting for their Taranto.
The reason you damn them is exactly the reason they are relevant.
Floating cities. Carrier groups are essentially a military base on the move.
Hospitals, ammo dumps, fuel/food resupply, helicopters and airplanes, drones, marines, logistical support, etc.
The idea that we can adequately project force with only bombs is ludicrous and not something that can be explained in a /. post.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is still the 'force projection' is so laughably asymmetrical, and those carriers are all things considered relatively easy targets. are they still a necessity?
Column A: at war with literally any other nation state in the world. they'd just need to load up a few hundred missiles. When a few million dollars worth of ordinance can bring down a ship with a price tag of over $4B you have to question the actual value of said ship.
Column B: dealing with something like ISIS or a less powerful military
Re: (Score:2)
Because the 1800's taught us that wars on our own soil are bad. See, for example, the British burning Washington D.C. during the War of 1812 (which actually lasted 1812-14). The reason it is called the WHITE House was a not-so-subtle "Screw You!" to the British when we rebuilt it after they burned it to the ground.
The 1900's taught us that wars "over there" are much better. The US was the major eco
Re:By Country (Score:4, Insightful)
Military/Industrial Complex and show of force in many theatres.
And they're really friggin' hard to build on short notice
Re: (Score:2)
We could print them, perhaps.
Re:By Country (Score:5, Informative)
In the event of an extended war, the US is presumed to need to build aircraft carriers. The best way to maintain institutional knowledge of how to build carriers is to build them, and the minimum construction pace that retains this knowledge is about one carrier every five years. Since the non-combat lifespan of a nuclear carrier is about 50 years, this gives the US a fleet of ten to eleven carriers.
Re: (Score:3)
Also don't forget the fact that these floating cities are *nuclear*. They only need to be refueled once every 20 years. Running full speed ahead for weeks on end does not shorten this span. Its speed is limited by the other diesel ships in the carrier group though.
There have been some recent advances in catalytic fuels research that can take sea water and create jet fuel. With the nuke onboard all spare energy that would normally be unused could go towards creating fuel. Nothing is cl
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you know this from actual knowledge or if it is simply deduction, but a post on Slashdot that makes sense, amazing! :)
The Anon makes it all mysterious, as I'm sure we all assume it is some US Naval Admiral posting in secret...
Re: (Score:2)
Nazi germany died with the help from outside. ... albeit later ... from the inside, just like 'communist' east germany did. .... or ... or Sparta. ... however they are the guys who invented facism and had the first facistic
If that had not happended it had died
Same for Japan. Totalitarian regimes don't last for ever, see: Chile, Argentinia (both regimes crafted and suported by the USA), Iraq (crafted by the USA, destroyed by it too, replaced by something even more evil) or
Yeah, american fan boys love Sparta
Re: (Score:2)
this is interesting stuff...i like the take on history
American involvement...now, I agree that totalitarian regimes eventually fall...but it is precisely **because of America** that the major totalitarian powers fell in the 20th Century
Yes...Russia, Japan, Germany...all defeated by America
Now...Chile, Argentina, Iraq (x2)...etc...Yes that was the same America!
Here's the key to undestanding the contradiction: America, just like the world itself, is in constant struggle between our democracy and our oligarchy
Re: (Score:2)
Quite nice post, but regarding Russia I must have missed the history when "america defeated it".
Russia was "defeated" if at all by: Afghanistan, Chernobyl, the Polish uprisings and reforms, the east german uprisings and the reunion, the debacle in Yugoslavia, the other reformations in other "eastern" countries and finally by Russia itself.
The americans had not much to do with that.
Nevertheless and insightful post.
Re: (Score:2)
sure let's give credit where credit is due: Gorbechov and his scalp birthmark opened Russia, then the world stood by as oligarchs filled the power vaccum
President Reagan is a fraud & his legacy is a pox upon my fair country
that being said, i feel that the example of the 'West' and especially America using "soft power" like economics and pop culture, proved that freedom/democracy is the only way to govern people
Re: (Score:2)
No - carriers played little role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, as their Navy was largely confined to ports during the bulk of WW2 through the might of the Royal Navy. Anti-submarine patrols were conducted by long range aircraft from bases in Canada, the US and Ireland rather than carriers in the Atlantic.
Re: (Score:2)
Escort carriers were indeed used in the North Atlantic, but they most certainly did not render the u-boat threat "impotent/extinct", as they attacked convoys mostly at night. They did provide more protection, but they did not eliminate the threat.
Re:By Country (Score:5, Informative)
An 11 carrier Navy fleet is not sustainable.
Assumptions to test this hypothesis:
1) Countries other than the US (with carriers) are making rational decisions on how many carriers to buy
2) The total number of carriers a country can support is based on it's GDP
3) Data from Wikipedia about Carriers and GDP is accurate
So, based on that metric it takes $2.28 Trillion of GDP to rationally support one aircraft carrier and the US could support 7 of them.
Problems with this logic:
1) Not all countries have an equal need for aircraft carriers, it depends on the importance of sea lanes and force projection
2) Most countries listed are US allies who are underspending on their military establishment since they know the US will be there to protect them
3) China is an outlier since they have $8.3 trillion in GDP and only one carrier, if they are removed suddenly the data shows it only takes $1.4 Trillion of GDP and the US could support 11 carriers
Conclusion:
Given the US need for open sea lanes in order to maintain trade, a political desire for forward force projection in order to avoid conflict in the continental US and the gigantic size of the US economy it's likely that the current number of US carriers is actually appropriate.
Following those same lines I predict China will build five more carriers amidst rising tensions in the Pacific.
Re: (Score:2)
Note: China is already constructing additional carriers. However compared to something like the USN Gerry Ford they are sorta lame.
Re: (Score:2)
But are they constructing additional pylons?
Re:By Country (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm interested in this because I am a China "expert". I had Top Secret clearance with a US ally and have negotiated with the Chinese government. I have already modded so am now posting anon.
It is likely that aircraft carriers are outdated technology. They are vulnerable to sinking by many means. A possible deterrent for incoming ballistics is a "star wars" type technology that the US claims it has but won't demonstrate. So, bluff. The argument that the Chinese wouldn't spend money on carriers if they were o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Following those same lines I predict China will build five more carriers amidst rising tensions in the Pacific
I was from China, and have been keeping a very close eye on what's happening in China. Please allow me to chime in
China is not America
Unlike America China does not have any ambition of global control, nor any need to become the world's policeman
China's immediate concern is the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea - open lanes to the Pacific and the Indian oceans
China will do everything it can to ensure that it gets a free passage way in both the abovementioned seas --- and China knows America/Japan are the tw
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike America China does not have any ambition of global control
Not yet, it takes a while for rising powers to get to the point of having global ambitions. For China this time is still in the future. If and when their GDP becomes the #1 in the world then it would be time to re-discuss this issue.
Re:Hypocrits (Score:5, Informative)
Why does one deed excuse the other? It's not like anyone complaining about the chinese annexation of the Spratley's was alive to condone the annexation of Hawai'i by the US.
Both were and are bullshit. Extending national boundaries through force is something we were supposed to leave behind after WW2. Apparently, some people think that the lessons from WW2 don't apply to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, WW2 and WW1 were the same war, just with a 20 year pause. At least from a European and lessons learned perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
WWI is still being fought in the middle east. After the Ottoman Empire fell, England, France and eventually the USA moved in and Germany encouraged the Arab Muslims to Jihad in response. The Jihad is still happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrits (Score:4, Insightful)
To an extent, not exactly the same. When the US annexed/took-over Hawaii the US didn't claim all land between the US coast and Hawaii as US waters. My "I haven't checked Google to be sure" guess is the waters within 100 miles of the US west coast and a 100 mile circle around Hawaii are the only waters declared as US waters.
Re: (Score:3)
My "I haven't checked Google to be sure" guess is the waters within 100 miles of the US west coast and a 100 mile circle around Hawaii are the only waters declared as US waters.
The US claims territorial waters only up to 12 nautical miles from the shore, which is the maximum allowed by international law.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, they did, but they've since backed off of the claim. Current limits: US Maritime Limits & Boundaries [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Practically speaking, empire building has been accomplished historically by annexation via invasion... or the threat thereof. This has been a generally accepted method of increasing one's sovereign soil.
The concept that a nation can float a semi-permanent habitat into international waters and call it their territorial waters, well, it's more than a little self serving and short-
Re: (Score:2)
The Netherlands are doing it constantly ... since more than 500 years. But indeed it is surprising that e.g germany or denmark is not doing the same.
Re: (Score:2)
We (Denmark) would be doing it up around Greenland ... and thats a fracking cold and inhospitable place to be building islands.
Instead, we're planning on going to war with Canada over Hans Ø / Tartupaluk.
(not really)
Re: (Score:2)
A brief history of Tibet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
Without having gone into much detail, it looks to me like Tibet hasn't been much of an independent nation for the last 800 years or so. They were part of the last empire of China (Qing dynasty), then left to itself from 1912 to 1950, when the modern China re-asserted its power. Until then, Tibet was a feudal society with a ruling elite and large numbers of serfs - to my mind that is the real evil in the case of Tibet and the reason why Dalai Lama ca
Re: (Score:2)
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Re: (Score:3)
"If China gets the base built, it's really hard to sink an Island."
Tell that to the Bikini Atoll!
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. At least there is one who reacts like I do.
Dump soil on coral reefs to make islands is evil. Especially for such a stupid reason.