Okoboji
Registered User
That's the same crew who launched us straight into Hotdog Farsi Funhouse immediately off the cat stroke. Pretty sure I was getting yelled at right about the time I was cleaning up the jet.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
China ADIZ
- Thread starter jcj
- Start date
One can not ignore the fact that our silence on these territorial disputes may have embolden the Chicomms. In the process we have compromised our standing with firm allies. Given, back in my day the PRC was not the panda it is today. But I remember our policy to these SCS disputes being handled differently. My entire Mission Commander Board dealt with a scenario centered on the Spratlys. As I recall, through most of the modern dispute the US has stayed out of taking sides with regard to our allies and friends claiming certain islands and rights. For instance, we didn't favor Japan over the Philippines or Republic of China. But, it was clear we wouldn't put up with mischief from the PRC, or Vietnam. I suspect that nuanced policy was not the case leading up to the PRCs recent unilateral actions. This is, in the micro, how we will lose the Republic of China.
I think flying two BONGO FIVE-TWOs thru the ADIZ last week has probably made our voice louder and firmed up our stand on the issue. Could just be me.
Interesting. Would rather have thought you wouldn't really be asked to make "strategic or OLW decisions" as a MC…but to fly the tasked mission and adhere to the ROE extant at the time. I understand that even that is not without risk, which I guess would be yours to assess and respond to in situ.
The reason we have stayed largely out of most of the disputes is largely because it is way more trouble that it is worth. Who actually has a legal 'right' to the many of the islands disputed is very unclear, even the mere fact whether or not there is even something to legally dispute is not clear a lot of the cases. There is actually a definition in international law over what an 'island' actually is when making a claim and many of the disputed places in the South China Sea don't even qualify, reefs that are occasionally above water at low tide (Scarborough Shoal for example) are not islands a country can make a claim on and base an EEZ claim on. Some of the disputes are just plain absurd, like the one over Socatra/Ieodo/Suyan Rock. It is about 15 feet underwater but that hasn't stopped South Korea and China from having a dispute over it or even preventing the South Koreans from building a helo landing pad on it. What is the point in getting involved in a dispute that violates every international law and norm we have defended since the birth of our Navy?
And while you claim we don't get involved between allies but do when those who are not 'allies are friends' are involved, have you considered when it involves both allies and 'non-allies'? Many of the Chinese claims are echoed by ROC/Taiwan and then disputed by the Phillipines, Vietnam and Malaysia. There are two obvious allies/friends in that list, which one would we chose and how? And if intervened in other similar disputes that don't have competing allies we would look like very hypocritical and would even undermine some of our own claims or other ones by close allies (think Diego Garcia for example).
I am not sure how you can assert that our policy has changed with respect to thes competing claims. Having flown quite a bit in that region I was fully aware of our policy and that was to largely stay out of it. This was the policy when the Chinese took the Paracels from South Vietnam in 1974, after a no-kidding battle at sea, until today. Most importatnly however we have made it clear that we will stand by our treaty commitments to our allies and made that clear with our public flight of BUFFs through the ADIZ just three days after it was declared, a very rapid response in that sort of dispute.
Finally, I am not sure how these territorial disputes will have much impact on our relationship with the ROC. Again, they echo many of the same territorial claims as the PRC though usually much less forcefully. The ROC's future direction has whole a lot more to do with domestic politics and opinion than it does with our relations with them. Just like how the US didn't 'lose' China after WWII, if anyone was to blame for losing China then it would be Chiang Kai-shek.
Last edited:
Absolutely. But would it have been necessary if we had actually USED OUR VOICE more frequently and louder so as to deter the PRC from taking the action it did.? I much prefer the diplomatic voice over the military voice.
I was not asked to make strategic or OLW decisions in my MC Board. It was a rather large problem that involved the entire CVBG but still tactical in nature. The scenario, however, was presented to me in a broader context with history and background. And since we were preparing to deploy to the region, it was very practical so I took an interest and studied up a bit.
Flash makes some good points regarding claims and the nature of the geography in dispute. But while it might seem absurd to make a claim such as South Korea's it is completely rational. These islands, shoals reefs, whatever, are the location of very rich oil reserves and bountiful fishing. As to actual claims and choosing sides, I admit not being familiar with any claim wherein the PRC and ROC agree with each other over claims. I find that a curiosity, but I have been a little out of the area for awhile. As to handling any dispute where allies and friends compete, even if in agreement with some of our adversaries, we do as I recall being done in the early '80s when I was more familiar. We use our influence on friends to insure the disputes are resolved peacefully and trust they likely will as to their treaty relationships and nature of their governments. Regardless of an adversary's standing with a friend regarding disputes we made sure they knew we did not approve of them advancing their interests in the region. It was less about who we actually had befriended or allied with and more about stunting the advance or enrichment of our adversaries. We did not chose between any individual countries. We chose between nations that tend to play by the rules, honor their agreements, respect their neighbors, and those who don't. I don't see any conflict of interest. Belligerent, imperialistic totalitarian and/or communist governments do not get to play in our reindeer games. Japan, the ROC et al will play by the rules. The PRC, demonstrably, will not. As Flash said, it really isn't worth getting involved in the disputes wrt the actual claims. But it is absolutely worth checking the PRC's advance and emboldening them in future shenanigans. Hence my comment regarding losing the ROC.
I think the Chinese have made it clear that what we say or do often has little impact on their actions in the region. Their policies on territorial disputes extend even to areas which we have little to no interest, most notably along their border with India.
I think you are seeing fault where there is none, our policy towards these disputes has been remarkably consistent as far back as I can check across multiple administrations of both parties. It is also consistent with our stane to past and current territorial disputes to include the Kuril Islands, the Baltic states during the Cold War, Transnistria, the Falklands and Gibraltar just to name a few. Unless there is the threat of armed force we advocate the peaceful resolution to such disputes, supporting the sides that have a firm case and largely staying out of the rest with self-detirmination being the anchor which we have put our emphasis on in recent times. Since the disputed areas that in the East and South China Sea rarely have any people at all on them they remain in a sort of limbo internationally.
And in this latest case we have repeatedly stated our commitment to our alliance with Japan. Just because you haven't seen it in the news you read or watch doesnt' mean we aren't making our voice heard to them. When the Chinese chose to ignore our words we waved a big stick in their face, demonstrating to them and our allies that we take their latest provocation seriously. .
There is little in the way of rationality with the Socatra Rock dispute, it is a submerged rock and legally can't be claimed under any international law, custom or norm. Period.
It is critically important if a country wants to get at those resources if these disputed rocks are reefs, shoals or islands. Unless it is an extension of a country's continental shelf an EEZ claim can't be recognized unless it is an island by international definition. So some of these disputes are pretty pointless if no one can own them. Of note, while it is estimated there sunstantial oil reserves I don't think it have been confirmed yet.
Since they are both 'China' it shouldn't be a surprise at all, both make claims to the Paracels and Spratlys and both actively occupy islands in the region with Taiwan actually holding onto the biggest island in the Spratlys.
We haven't allowed the PRC to actually gain anything, once they pushed hard we pushed back. I am still a bit baffled as why you keep trying to bring the ROC into this when they have notably stayed out of this latest dispute. We have little to lose there anyways, it is either us or the PRC and it is up to them.
I didn't mean to imply we have let the PRC get away with anything regarding the SCS ADIZ. I mean to state that it was more obvious to me in the past that the US was clear and concise in the war of words. I also didn't mean to bring the ROC into this discussion because of any specific claim they may have in the area or party they may be to the ADIZ controversy. My point was that the PRC's greatest territorial claim is over Taiwan. The ADIZ is just the sort of unilateral incremental actions that seem not worth the effort to get involved in, or minimally object to, that may lead to the actual annexation of Taiwan and end of a real Chinese democracy. I am reasonably certain that any foreseeable US administration would use force if the PRC simply crossed the strait guns a blaze'n without provocation. It is also a rather unlikely scenario. I am less certain that some US administrations would recognize the sort of incremental soft power that would accomplish the same thing over time but not be worth going to bat over.
"Speak softly, and carry a big stick." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
I think the modern version is "Don't let your mouth write any checks your ass can't cash."
Actions are better than words...
Huge fan of the Colonel. I am familiar with much of his writings regarding everything from his days in college to NYC police commish to "retired" life as an African adventurer. I dare say he would not have spoken so softly or imprecisely that use of the big stick was more likely. Not saying that happened in the SCS ADIZ case, as we don't know all that happened behind the scenes leading up to it. But, history is ripe with conflicts gotten worse due to miscommunication. This is a case where there is little to lose by being firm with the Chicomms. Rather, allowing the current tragetory may lead to an air to air incident with our allies.
Like declaring red lines over chemical weapons use I suppose. But then that wasn't a case of not having the funds to cover the check but more like ordering the bank to stop payment with funds in the bank to cover it.
Well, at least Joe is over in Asia burnishing his cred for the next election. If he can keep from making too many folksy off the cuff remarks that do not translate, or worse mis-translate, he may just do some good.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...lidarity_with_japan_in_china_spat_106989.html
Joe sounded more like Neville Chamberlain that either Teddy Roosevelt ("This government wants Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!") or Winston Churchill.
He won't be a credible player in 2016.
Saw these and thought they were among the best articles on why the Chinese probably did what they did and also why their 'declaration' was a bit more than just an ADIZ one.
Long reads…both good, but long…with myriad separate issues raised in each. Lots of kerfuffle in both.
My personal bottom line: "Yeah, whatever…I'm not landing in China nor am I entering your sovereign airspace, I'm just doing the "innocent passage" thing, so relax…have a cigar."
bruinmedic
Member
I guess ramming is a ChiCom point defense until they get the whole flight-opps thing figured out.
Good for the Captain and Bridge Team. First rule of seamanship: Avoid collisions at sea.
I don't see any lingering "So what does this mean???" to the incident.