The U.S. just sent a carrier strike group to confront China

[Agnosticsherbet]

The U.S. just sent a carrier strike group to confront China The U.S. Navy has dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea.

The carrier John C. Stennis, two destroyers, two cruisers and the 7th Fleet flagship have sailed into the disputed waters in recent days, according to military officials. The carrier strike group is the latest show of force in the tense region, with the U.S. asserting that China is militarizing the region to guard its excessive territorial claims.

Stennis is joined in the region by the cruisers Antietam and Mobile Bay, and the destroyers Chung-Hoon and Stockdale. The command ship Blue Ridge, the floating headquarters of the Japan-based 7th Fleet, is also in the area, en route to a port visit in the Philippines. Stennis deployed from Washington state on Jan. 15.

The Japan-based Antietam, officials said, was conducting a "routine patrol" separate from the Stennis, following up patrols conducted by the destroyer McCambell and the dock landing ship Ashland in late February.

[valerief]

1. So what are they fighting over and why? nt

[hack89]

4. A massive illegal territory grab by China in the South China Sea. nt

[Hortensis]

41. Here's a map of the area China claims. Just a little big

and a little problematic to all the nations that, among other things, fish and traverse these waters, and of course don't want Chinese war ships and bases off their shores. Malaysia and Vietnam are members of the TPP, some others are members of APEC.



I had to look up UNCLOS, and here's a article from last November about the issues underlying this.

International Law Is the Real Threat to China's South China Sea Claims: If an arbitral tribunal finds China in breach of UNCLOS, the international pressure on Beijing would be enormous.

Tensions escalated between Washington and Beijing last week as a U.S. warship approached an artificially created Chinese island in the South China Sea. But the real threat to China came in the courtroom, when an arbitral tribunal in The Hague held that it has jurisdiction over key issues in the Philippines’ dispute against China over its South China Sea claims. Whether the Philippines wins or loses in the next phase of the case, the ruling will have serious consequences for China’s role as a world power.

Although China says its claims to the South China Sea are indisputable, the Tribunal’s ruling only escalates a long-running conflict. Besides being one of the world’s busiest maritime routes, the South China Sea is rich in fish stocks as well as oil and gas deposits. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan, and Malaysia all have overlapping claims in the sea. To cement its position, China has recently built seven artificial islets over uninhabited reefs and shoals. China believes that it controls the 80-90 percent of the 1.35 million square-mile sea that falls within the “nine-dashed line,” a feature drawn on Chinese maps by its Nationalist government in 1947.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/international-law-is-the-real-threat-to-chinas-south-china-sea-claims/

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. China's attempt to claim the entire South China Sea as a lake.

Which they back up with a fleet of warships and warplanes.

[valerief]

9. Thanks, but what does this take away from the U.S.? nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. It violates the sovereignty of every nation that must sail through the South China Sea

Billions of tons of cargo and civilian ships of almost every nation that has ships travel through the South China Sea. If hey wished, they could charge every nation to sail through their lake, and even deny the right of some nations to use those waters.

It also allows china to make a singular claim that all resources beneath the Sea are there, including oil that may or may not be there, not to mention manganese and other minerals.

And it violates the rules of the sea that have been in force for centuries.

[valerief]

15. Thanks. You mean the U.S. will lose money via TPP trade. nt

[appal_jack]

38. No, the US would lose its money entirely.

Unless you're older than 45, the US Dollar has never been even partially backed by gold in your life time. Ever since Nixon over-spent on the Vietnam War and decoupled US currency from gold, our dollar has had two reasons for its value. One is that it is the international standard currency for trade in oil and other valuable goods. But that reason only persists because of the second reason: US military strength regulates the norms, routes, and openess of all trade and shipping.

One might oppose further corporate power via trade deals like the TPP (As do I). One might wish to see the US act more judiciously and fairly to protect human rights over profit across the globe (I share this wish). But one cannot pretend that the US Dollar will be worth more than the paper on which it is printed if China starts controlling shipping and trade through the Pacific. Every grocery item we buy, every piece of electronics, every everything that we can afford is only affordable because the rest of the nations of the world trust the US to keep the system cranking, occasional glitches and frequent injustices notwithstanding.

When the right wingers tell us to thank a veteran because they protect our freedoms, they are partially correct. It's true that the US military has done little to explicitly protect Constitutional Rights, either at home or abroad. But the military has kept this government in liquid capital via the security, continuity, and power it projects across the globe.

I wish we had other measures of value behind our currency, but at present, we don't.

-app

[Hortensis]

42. Extremely good, succinct explanations, Agnostics.

[randys1]

27. They are building fucking islands out there as I recall. This is serious shit

Imagine if the CIC was Trump or Rubio or Cruz

Fucking nightmare

[NutmegYankee]

6. Freedom of Navigation through international waters.

China is trying to claim a massive stretch of international waters as it's own territory.

[valerief]

10. Thanks, but how does this hurt the U.S.? nt

[NutmegYankee]

11. A lot of our merchant marine vessels sail these waters.

China thinks that it is internal waters, and they can stop our vessels like a coast guard action. On the other hand, we and practically every other nation view those waters as international waters, so such a stop and boarding action would be an act of piracy and/or war.

[valerief]

14. Thanks. I figured since just about all our commerce is with China, it shouldn't make

a difference. I guess, though, since they're not part of the TPP, well, that might make a difference in ways I'm too ignorant to understand.

[NutmegYankee]

16. It's a lot more commerce than just China.

Oil to the West Coast, food stuffs and coffee, as well as a lot of clothing.

[Nevernose]

17. Taiwan, Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan

All regularly use (or are actually IN) the China Sea without even including actual trade with China. It's already a big deal and the TPP isn't even signed yet; imho this has nothing to do with the shitty TPP deal.

It's still mostly a giant phallus-wielding contest, since China won't do anything to jeopardize international trade, their main source of income.

[valerief]

19. Right, so it's really no threat, just something that can be used as

a threat if need be. A reason for war, because people would never enlist for war for the real reasons. It's always something vague, like freedom and liberty. Or to fight communism or terrorism or some shit like that.

[Nevernose]

24. It IS a threat

Just not anyone in the political chain takes very seriously. I've got many, many Chinese connections, know some pretty important people, have visited multiple times, can cuss in Chinese, etc. (an important skill).

The Chinese are definitely, 100% building those islands to antagonize us. The Chinese are no better or worse than we are, and give their own people bullshit about Anerican aggression, etc (though in my experience, I've never actually met a Chinese person that believed that, nor met a Chinese person that didn't love at least the idea of America). In fact, the main difference between our two oligarchies, as far as I can tell, is that the Chinese are more honest with their citizens and occasionally go out of their way to improve society (at the government's vision of society).

My personal theory, which I have no way of substantiating, is that this is the two political governments giving their militaries a little slack on the leash. Gotta keep those generals happy at all costs, right?

[Ghost Dog]

29. Hmm. So there should be room for mutual comprehension

and no need for more than symbolic aggresion, right?

Better Chinese 'coastguards' in those waters than American or Japanese, wouldn't you agree?

And better by mutual agreement, ie. diplomacy.

Diplomacy requires a degree of mutual respect.

[Hortensis]

44. Valerief, the world has become an interdependent community.

A huge, aggressive move like this would ultimately affect everyone on the planet in some way, many disastrously. And when aggression like this isn't discouraged, it is typically followed by more aggression.

As for China being a "policeman," I'd think of it more like being a crooked sheriff who's taking over this small (large) town (sea) so he can do with it as he likes. This is about a lot more than territorial protection. There's a lot of wealth out there to rustle.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. It doesn't-- it just makes one wonder why we can have...

a navy base in the Philippines while they can't have one in the Paracel Islands.

The South China Sea is in their sphere of influence, and while their claiming they own the whole thing would be a problem, they seem to consider it pretty much the way we think of the Gulf of Mexico. Nobody's claiming it's illegal for us to have a base at Guantanamo.

I don't know what Kerry is doing about it, but this is a case for international agreements, not Navy exercises. The Navy is often used to "convince" recalcitant nations to do sign on the dotted line, but I don't think China is afraid of us.

On a slightly positive note, more Chinese presence in the area might help reduce piracy, which is epidemic there.

[valerief]

21. Ah, I see. So China would be the policemen there, like we're the policemen everywhere else. nt

[Calista241]

22. If they want to pick up the slack, i'm okay with that.

But our allies in the region, Japan, the Philippines, and numerous other countries, have relied on us to perform this function. In the case of Japan, we're obligated by treaty to do so.

If we want to change our policy, that's fine, but we'll need to give our allies time to ramp up to provide this service on their own.

What China is doing, is like us claiming the entirety of the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii. Other countries wouldn't stand for that, and we can't allow China to do the same.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Sort of. Who knows how it would work out over the years...

China is playing it a lot smarter than the old Soviets did by buying up the competition instead of killing it off. They realize now that supporting the Viet Cong, North Korea and others really doesn't get them squat. The Cold War is over and the trade war is on.

One primary purpose of the TPP is to build a trade base in competition with China, with Japan and the US being the anchors, so that China can't just walk over the world commercially. China is economically and politically now in the same position the US has been in in the past, and that worries a lot of people.

I'm not sure it should. If China takes over much of world trade from us, it takes over a lot of problems and expense, too. England ruled the world at one point, but not one Brit wants that job back. Germany lost two wars big time, but is now much better off being a secondary player.

Perhaps it's best we learn to live with the future instead of fighting it.

[LittleBlue]

28. It really doesn't

China isn't doing this primarily to control navigation through waterways. They want the rights to the surrounding oil that could be locked in the sea floor. Not to mention fishing rights.

Every country has a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone around their land territory, meaning China isn't just claiming an island or some waterways. An island of only .1 square mile can theoretically gain them roughly 126,000 square miles of sea floor.

[valerief]

37. It's always friggin' oil!!!!! nt

[yeoman6987]

7. I thought it was to ensure NK doesn't use their Nukes.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. It has no bearing on nukes from North Korea.

It is an economic power grab.

[AgerolanAmerican]

25. They're fighting over whose dick is bigger

There are quite a few countries in that area that should be dealing with the problem without the US needing to get involved. All of China's neighbors have very specific common cause in this matter, but they let the US do the fighting for them because we volunteer.

Bring the boys back home. Let the rest of the world take care of itself.

[Lodestar]

2. Link please!

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Fixed, and here it is.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/03/stennis-strike-group-deployed-to-south-china-sea/81270736/

[Wounded Bear]

3. Let's hope they don't....

go all Gulf of Tonkin on us. I have faith in the Pres, but shit like this is worrisome.

[newthinking]

20. 3 Myths about Beijing’s South China Sea ambitions

This is a fairly decent article that does a little better job of describing what is going on than the MSM, which is more committed to pleasing the MIC.
Keep in mind China is watching as NATO is moving facilities (likely including Nuclear Weapons) right up to Russia's boundary. It is not illogical to think it better to push for a larger boundary. Many of the "old rules" have been breached and a lot of this is a result.

I can't vouch for the rest of the site.

3 Myths about Beijing’s South China Sea ambitions

http://globalriskinsights.com/2016/03/3-myths-about-beijings-south-china-sea-ambitions/

China has been accused of stoking regional tensions in the South China Sea. However, China’s grievances in the dispute have often been misinterpreted – for Beijing, the South China Sea is about national security.

Every few weeks China does something in the South China Sea which heightens tensions in the region. In doing so, it tarnishes its international image and damages important relationships it has spent decades fostering. So why does Beijing continue?

In a dispute as complex as the South China Sea, facts and opinions often become blurred. Here are three myths about China which are commonly thrown around:

"China is acting ‘aggressively’"

To understand China’s moves in the South China Sea is to understand its history and perception of its role in the world. Simply labelling Beijing ‘aggressive’ ignores the point and promulgates the dispute.

First and foremost, Beijing views the South China Sea as a national security issue. Historically, China’s inward-looking focus and neglect of the sea ultimately led to the ‘century of humiliation’ when foreign powers forced Beijing’s hand and opened it up to international trade.

Foreign powers established their own judicial systems in major cities under a system of non-reciprocal extraterritoriality – a concept which still evokes discomfort in China. Whenever Beijing attempted to take a stand, foreign powers would pillage cities along the coast and extract further concessions from the government, commonly known as the Opium Wars.

In the Chinese psyche, the century of humiliation began because Beijing was incapable of defending its coastline. Foreign powers arrived in China through the South China Sea and imposed trade at gunpoint, China’s society and system of governance which had prospered for more than 1000 years was overturned in the space of a few decades.

Therefore, China’s artificial island building and massive ramp up of naval activities is about safeguarding what it perceives as its ‘backyard’ to prevent similar situations from happening again. Similarly, controlling trade flows in the South China Sea is Beijing’s insurance policy against economic crippling. After all, if a trade blockade were erected in the South China Sea, China would stand to lose the most.

[Ghost Dog]

31. This ^^^

... And, China does have an earlier great naval history.

[LittleBlue]

26. This is so pointless

We've done this how many times? Sailed x fleet to show China we're tough. Meanwhile while we're sailing through these "disputed" waters, China continues to build artificial islands and place weapons on them.

These exercises are purely symbolic and ultimately futile.

[NutmegYankee]

33. If China can't keep foreign navies from sailing through, it's not sovereign territory

They have to face a dilemma, admit that nobody respects their pathetic claims, or attack any ships that enter unauthorized to defend their "territory".

[LittleBlue]

34. That's the other point of the island

By building artificial islands, they essentially have stationary battle platforms. Make them big enough, and the Chinese can put much more firepower on them than the carrier group can carry.

The US is panicking because every year the island gets much bigger. But at least one of the islands has a runway, so they can launch aircraft to defend it. Eventually they'll get big enough to enforce their territorial claims.

I cannot fathom what the US is hoping to get by doing this. It does nothing but patriotically provoke the Chinese people to support their government.

[NutmegYankee]

35. Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.

If China attacked the US, we would just use submarine launched cruise missiles to destroy the radar and runways. Now that island is just a few soldiers with small arms.

Anti-ship missiles are useless against submarines.

[LittleBlue]

36. I will go out on a limb and say

by the time China gets confident enough to actually confront us, they'll likely have a submarine fleet to defend it, not to mention anti-missile defense systems.

[NickB79]

39. Then we hit it with B-2 stealth bombers. nt

[NutmegYankee]

40. The range of submarine launched missiles is several hundred miles.

It's a very large ocean. Unlike on the surface, where radar can locate any vessel, sonar is not as effective and also has the nasty effect of giving the emitter away.

[LittleBlue]

45. Good idea. Then they can retaliate against our military facilities in Okinawa and South Korea

Which is why we will never attack their islands. Not to mention they can kill our carriers.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-carrier-killer-really-threat-the-us-navy-13765

No US president will take us to open war with China over islands. The Chinese know it, we know it, that's why we keep these futile sailing exercises. "We're doing something, see!" No, we're actually not.

[NutmegYankee]

46. It isn't us who would start an attack.

If we continue to sail through international waters that they claim and they don't stop us, the claim is invalid. The only way to back up their claim is to attack us and prevent us from "trespassing".

The US Navy knows what they are doing. We are more than capable of beating off an attack.

[LittleBlue]

47. There won't be an attack at all. When China inevitably achieves military superiority

in the region, they'll park their navy in front of ours to block these exercises. They'll dare our politicians to start a war over islands few Americans have ever heard of. And we won't. And then China will have finalized their annexation by right of conquest.

That's how this plays out.

[NutmegYankee]

48. LOL

Not going to happen. And btw, a blockade is also an act of war.

[LittleBlue]

49. Lol @ thinking the congress will approve a war with China when we couldn't even pass an

authorization for war in Syria. They've asserted that the islands are sovereign Chinese territory for a reason. It's so we know they won't back down. We will. Because the islands don't mean anything to the average American.

[NutmegYankee]

50. Freedom of Navigation is a huge deal for our nation.

Maritime commerce is a major priority. And once again, the Chinese are the ones who will fire the first shot. They will attack and possibly kill American sailors. And if they do so, we will already be at war by the time Congress takes it up.

[LittleBlue]

52. It really isn't. The average American doesn't care about

previously unknown islands. Even though the EEZ is a 200 mile radius around the islands, its territorial sovereignty only extends 12 miles. Nobody is blockaded by that. In the end, it won't be worth it.

The Chinese won't have to fire a shot. They've already got what they want: access to the oil.

[NutmegYankee]

53. It's not a big deal for you.

They seek to extend their territory to cover the water and cut off major shipping lanes. It's not about the EEZ.

Both parties support Freedom of Navigation. If that's not important to you, go form a new Appeasement "Don't hurt me daddy" party.

I'll stay with the Democrats and keep international maritime commerce flowing freely.

[LittleBlue]

56. Dude, this isn't about free shipping lanes. Any ship can easily avoid these islands

The conflict is about the hundreds of billions in oil under the sea floor. Forgive me for not wanting to die in a conflict with China over oil.

[PoliticAverse]

51. Or we'll just send a crazed tank commander. n/t

[KG]

30. the u.s. waves its weenie, china chuckles...

[bemildred]

43. I think we are the ones who are supposed to get worked up about it.

I can't believe they think the Chinese will take this sort of buffoonery seriously.

[Adsos Letter]

54. No mention of subs in the article.

I would imagine the Stennis group has at least one sub, possibly more, operating with them.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. No one mentions the submarines attached to a battle group.

Or currently operating in the area. I suspect the Chinese will have theirs as will the Russians.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. USA!! USA! How about a chorus of "God Bless America"!!

Erect Bogeyman, wave flag, demand more money for the Pentagon, and send in the fleet.

Works every time. Unfortunately, (or, fortunately), usually makes things worse and ends in disaster.