http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8701/index.html
The BBC has an interesting report on the South China Sea, where China are trying to build islands to improve or create a claim to large areas of the sea.
New islands are being made in the disputed South China Sea by the might of the Chinese state. But a group of marooned Filipinos on a rusting wreck is trying to stand in the way.
Related Stories
A Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft is being deployed to Singapore amid growing tensions over territorial claims in the South China Sea:
The United States has deployed a P-8 Poseidon spy plane to Singapore for the first time. It is the latest in a series of US military actions seen as a response to China's increasingly assertive claims over territory in the South China Sea.
The US says it will also base a military reconnaissance plane at Singapore's Paya Lebar air base. US P-8s already operate from Japan and the Philippines, and surveillance flights have taken off from Malaysia. The P-8 was deployed on Monday, and will remain in Singapore until 14 December.
In addition to the P-8 deployment, the US says it will operate a military plane, either a P-8 Poseidon or a P-3 Orion, from Singapore for the foreseeable future, rotating planes on a quarterly basis. The US-Singapore agreement, announced after a meeting in Washington on Monday between US Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Singapore Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, also covers co-operation on counter-terrorism, fighting piracy, and disaster relief.
Previously: China's Island Factory
China Builds Artificial Islands in South China Sea
Chinese Weaponry Spotted on Artificial Islands
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:02AM
Wait, did I say that out loud? No, all these nations can try to build an island so they can claim a 200 nautical mile economic zone around it, but the victory will go to the island that can withstand a cat 5 typhoon.
I seem to remember, once, a short story, Melville? Jack London? One of those guys with some experience of the wrongly named "Pacific", where the protagonist was marooned (um, if you are a tea-partier, marooned means stuck, and is not related to the word "moron", even if you spell it "moran") and realizing that a storm that would overwash the low-lying atoll was inevitable, build a pyramid of coral stone some thirty feet high, to ride out the storm. And eventually, he needed it. But still, 200 MPH winds can do things you never thought possible. And get off my South China Sea, you young whippersnappers!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:16AM
My belief is that China is laying claim to waters so as to have undisputable claim for future underwater mining operations.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Pseudonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:20PM
No! You're doing it wrong.
You're supposed to call it SECRET underwater mining operations!
Now you'll never get on the Alex Jones show!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:15AM
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/ [nytimes.com]
(Score: 2) by quadrox on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:59AM
Jesus christ, what happened to plain old newspaper articles with words and images? If I wanted an entertainment show or documentary movie I would have loaded it on netflix.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday September 10 2014, @01:53PM
Is the BBC taking cues from medium.com on web design. That entire page was nigh-unusuable and an terrible eyesore.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Wednesday September 10 2014, @03:28PM
The BBC used to be a wonderful institution.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:48PM
Can be found here: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8701/media/bbc_newslogo.gif
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:25PM
Ouch. Well, the universe is in alpha anyway, so it won't matter.
(Score: 1) by Username on Thursday September 11 2014, @03:15AM
I wish islamic extremist would take offense to full page onload video and tiny text columns.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 10 2014, @03:01PM
If you look at a Chinese map of the world, the South China Sea already belongs entirely to the motherland. I don't know why they think artificial islands will strengthen that claim at all, since a claim is ultimately only real to the extent you can enforce it. Last I checked one US carrier battle group (the US has 11) can sink the entire Chinese navy in 15 minutes. More than possession of the necessary hardware, you kind of sort of need to build up institutional experience with using it effectively. China is working on buying or building attack subs and carriers now, but the US has close to 100 years with them through world wars, regional conflicts, and covert ops.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @03:25PM
Nukes.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday September 10 2014, @04:09PM
And that's the exact problem, thanks for playing.
If you look at a map, you see US bases all around China.
Not only do they want the mineral rights under the sea, but they want a legitimate reason to tell the US to go F-off a little bit farther from their ports, coast and navy operations.
Remember the spy plane a few years back? Got damaged in a collision, still managed to glide to a safe landing inside China.
Flip countries. Do you think the US would be keen on constant surveillance by Chinese/Russian planes and drones a few miles off each coast, and foreign military bases controlling all the narrow accesses between your ports and the open sea?
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday September 10 2014, @05:39PM
Last I checked one US carrier battle group (the US has 11) can sink the entire Chinese navy in 15 minutes.
If you look at a map, you see US bases all around China.
Not only do they want the mineral rights under the sea, but they want a legitimate reason to tell the US to go F-off a little bit farther from their ports, coast and navy operations. . .
Do you think the US would be keen on constant surveillance by Chinese/Russian planes and drones a few miles off each coast, and foreign military bases controlling all the narrow accesses between your ports and the open sea?
And this is where politics rears its ugly head. The U.S. could definitely drive back the Chinese Navy with little effort, the question becomes whether we would. China is a major (the biggest? dunno) trade partner for the U.S., and trade sanctions from them would seriously damage the U.S. economy. How much damage could the Chinese do by simply discontinuing the purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds? Moral high ground and supporting your allies is one thing; starving your people over fishing and drilling rights halfway around the world is something else entirely.
Remember that military action is just a vigorous form of diplomatic pressure.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 10 2014, @09:41PM
That relationship is two-way. Yes, the Chinese could stop buying U.S. Treasury bonds, but then they would seriously erode the value of their dollar reserves. And if America stops buying Chinese goods, Beijing would have a very difficult time telling its citizens to keep shutting up and being good little workers. The thing is, the roaring Chinese economy is quite hollow and everyone knows it. A little knock and the whole thing will come crashing down. As it is there are mass protests in the countryside all the time there because the peasants aren't really sharing much in the whole supposed national prosperity; of course, we hear little about that abroad.
So, yes, America would suffer serious consequences from conflict with China, but so would China. And you could argue pretty well that America and Europe have a lot more buffer in the form of its civil society and NGOs than do the party leaders in Beijing. As things stand now the West would win that war of attrition.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:05AM
Yes. People should consider that, in addition to the US itself, there are plenty of US allies with manufacturing capability: India, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Canada, the UK, and more. And, the US and Europe still grow much of their own food. In the event of a cold war between the US and China, western allied countries would be quite capable of sustaining enough manufacturing to keep people fed and the civil society functional. China would have more problems, not because of lack of production capacity, but because theirs is an entirely export driven economy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:04AM
Flip countries. Do you think the US would be keen on constant surveillance by Chinese/Russian planes and drones a few miles off each coast, and foreign military bases controlling all the narrow accesses between your ports and the open sea?
Flip here, we've already had an incident between the China and US back in 2009 [inquirer.net].
We can't protect our territorial waters with only a few (around 2, i think) littoral ships.
(Score: 1) by Username on Thursday September 11 2014, @03:19AM
Who in their right minds would think that fullscreen video, tiny column text, and images that will only appear when scrolled down would be good idea?
This is almost as bad as paypal or nytimes.