A good time to take military action in the South China Sea

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by gaijin, Sep 30, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Newspapers here in Hong Kong are much more interesting than the boring rubbish that I had to put up with in Tokyo...


    'Wage war in South China Sea'
    Energy expert says China must punish Philippines and Vietnam in the disputed area to warn others

    Minnie Chan
    Sep 30, 2011

    There is logic, benefit and good reason for China to wage a war in the South China Sea, with the Philippines and Vietnam being the two key targets, an energy expert says.
    A commentary published in the Global Times - a newspaper under the Communist Party's People's Daily - on Tuesday said the South China Sea was the "ideal battlefield" for China to wage small-scale wars with rival claimants to territory in the area.

    The article, headlined "The Time to Use Force Has Arrived in the South China Sea", was written by Long Tao , a strategic analyst with the China Energy Fund Committee, a non-government think tank.

    Long listed several reasons to support his view, saying China would not lose anything by going to war.

    "To China, [a war in the South China Sea] is the ideal battlefield. I feel that in a battle in the South China Sea, we should reduce the area(s) we strike, and lock down those who are acting out the most right now, the Philippines and Vietnam," he wrote, adding that punishing the Philippines and Vietnam would also warn other Southeast Asian countries to stop making trouble.

    "We don't need to imitate the efforts of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. This is a war that we would definitely win. We should fight artfully, and very possibly have it become a moral education expedition, winning them [other countries] over with tactics."

    Long criticised some Chinese scholars' view that military conflicts should be avoided in the South China Sea because of the likelihood of intervention by the US.

    "Currently, the US has not completely got out of the 'war on terror'. Problems in the Middle East are still unclear. The US is fundamentally unable to start a second war in the South China Sea. America's rigid position is all a bluff," he wrote.

    "There's logic, there's benefit, and there are restraints, but still we must hold true to our principles. With regards to China's determination for a large-scale war and actual preparation for a small-scale war, China has given the right to choose between war and peace to other nations."

    Long's article was soon circulated by internet users, with almost 2,000 messages supporting his view. An English version of his commentary was posted on the English website of China Iron and Blood, a military website collecting popular articles from Chinese forums, on Wednesday.

    Also on Tuesday, the Global Times published an article by Sun Peisong , a director of the government-backed Lianyungang Development Research Institute in Jiangsu province, that criticised Long's view, saying any critical moves made by China in the South China Sea disputes would be exaggerated by the US in order to contain China's rising global influence. Both Sun and Long's commentaries were published side by side.

    However, more than 1,000 infuriated internet users branded Sun a "traitor".

    Many military experts with links to the People's Liberation Army were reluctant to comment on Long's article because it "was a sensitive topic" at odds with the country's peaceful development policy.

    Civilian military analyst Ni Lexiong said Long's article represented the view of some mainlanders on the South China Sea issue and that it was rare for a publication such as the Global Times to publish it.

    "All military experts know that China is capable of dealing with such a war, but our leaders still lack courage and determination," Ni said.

    A retired PLA colonel, who requested anonymity, said the government's tolerant policy on the South China Sea disputes was a result of its inability to exploit and develop oil and natural gas reserves in the area.

    "But a war will be inevitable if the Philippines and Vietnam push China into a corner," he said.

    • Excellent Topic Excellent Topic x 1
  2. Enjoy your day off yesterday, Gaijin
  3. Indeed mate - I escaped, finally, from Tokyo and have landed in HK. When are you going to buy me a beer?
  4. Didn't Vietnam dish out a kicking to china a while ago? Vietnamese are tough little bastards.
  5. OOh, will this spectacle come with a super widescreen, a really comfy sofa and plenty of popcorn and beer, I could see the smaller countries becoming allies and it wouldn't be the easy run the Chinese would think. Plus the US interest would make for exceptional viewing.

    No way we could get involved as we couldn't muster a Regiment, a Pedalo and a Sqn of Sopwith Camels at the moment.
  6. I may be mistaken but I am not sure how his anaylsis that the US involvement in 2 Land wars would prevent their pacific fleet (7th?) from raising hell should they wish to; it might just give the US a war to feel righteous about for a change as they defend the weaker nations.

    • Like Like x 1
  7. And therein lies the basic flaw in their argument.
  8. good food, sexy women and an enemy wearing a uniform!

    to the ships!.........ah.
    • Like Like x 4
  9. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    "However, more than 1,000 infuriated internet users branded Sun a "traitor".

    Guess this was missed in all the frothing at the mouth excitement there? China doesn't need to do warry stuff to get what it wants.
  10. Remind me please someone, who owns all the US debt? That's the 7th fleet staying put then.
  11. I can't see the Chinese waging any wars of aggression - they're pretty determined to become the major economic player and aren't going to want to piss off the US, the EU and Japan.

    I reckon they'd be happy to flatten anyone if they started on China, though.
  12. A bit of yellow jingoism eh?

    I maybe wrong here but hasn't the PLAN been poorly planned (like what i did their) with little investment in their fleet and lots of old kit sure the philapines and vietnam may have even older kit but the Japs have a vested intreast in the area and one of the most powerfull navys in that part of the world and a record for ruining chinas party and as others have pointed out the US navy is still the heavy hitter of the pacific.
  13. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    The assumption that China could have a go at VN and/or the Philippines while Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia sat nibbling their paws may be flawed - those countries might reckon they were going to be next, and that rather than each smaller country being picked off piecemeal, an alliance of all might be better value, particularly if they could ask Uncle Sam and Australia for a bit of heavy metal help.

    However, come back in ten years' time when China has developed her fleet a bit more (carriers and all that) and the US has cut its defence spending for economic reasons, and there might be a different scenario.

    Would we send our one and only working carrier to help? depends on the Govt of the day. Cameron is enjoying his spot as pseudo-Blair Supreme Warlord, if he is still around he might just go for it.

  14. And remind me again how likely the US would feel required to honour that debt if they got into a shooting war with the PRC?

    D'ya hear there, make ready for sea.
  15. An low-ranking analyst from an NGO think tank for the energy sector comes up with a scenario and suddenly it's PRC policy?

    Christ on a bike, folks. The UK defence budget is getting slashed, just come to peace with it.