SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the artificial-islands-part-of-real-dispute dept.
US warships sail in disputed South China Sea amid tensions
Navy warships have sailed near islands claimed by China in the disputed South China Sea twice in the past few days, the United States military told Reuters on Thursday, at a time of tension between the world's two largest economies.
The busy waterway is one of a number of flashpoints in the US-China relationship, which include a trade war, US sanctions, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Earlier this week during high-level talks, China called on the US military to stop flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and adding "new uncertainties" over democratic Taiwan, which is seen as a wayward province and claimed by China.
[...] On Wednesday, the littoral combat ship Gabrielle Giffords travelled within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef[*], Commander Reann Mommsen, a spokeswoman for the US Navy's Seventh Fleet, told Reuters.
On Thursday, the destroyer Wayne E. Meyer challenged restrictions on innocent passage in the Paracel islands[**], Mommsen said.
"These missions are based in the rule of law and demonstrate our commitment to upholding the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations," she added.
[...] China claims almost all the energy-rich waters of the South China Sea, where it has established military outposts on artificial islands.
However, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to parts of the sea.
The United States accuses China of militarising the South China Sea and trying to intimidate Asian neighbours who might want to exploit its extensive oil and gas reserves.
[*] Mischief Reef
[**] Paracel Islands
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 23 2019, @08:32AM (6 children)
Are you saying the US is willing to end humanity over a few ships in the middle of nowhere?
Regardless of your feeling about it, the whole point of an aircraft carrier group is to apply force without nukes. This goal can't be achived with China currently so the carriers over there are simply a joke. We are playing morons to the whole world.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 23 2019, @11:35AM (2 children)
A nuclear exchange with China would not end humanity. It would not be fun, but humanity would survive.
I think the most current, salient aspect of the carriers in that area is that China is attempting to arrogate the entire South China Sea to itself. It's why it's building up those reefs. The US carriers sailing through those waters are a means to brush them back. It's as much to help out its allies in ASEAN as it is Korea and Japan.
These days ASEAN is feeling might uneasy about Chinese hegemony. Remember, Vietnam fought a war with China after they were done kicking the US out, a war they won. Those guys even offered recently to lease Cam Ranh Bay back to the US Navy. That's extraordinary.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 23 2019, @06:38PM
Forgive me, but the only reason for an aircraft carrier existence is to apply force without using nukes. This ability is lost over there so sending the group is similar to riding horses in front of enemy tanks. Yes, it is a very honorable deed which was tried by many militaries, but the result was always disappointing.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 23 2019, @06:50PM
Forgot to mention, the main result of a war with China would be Russia being the only remaining superpower. Perhaps it is the real goal of Russian policy - do during the WWIII what the US did during WWII and enjoy the results.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday November 23 2019, @01:19PM (2 children)
I'm not USian, but it is obvious that they would not tolerate the sort of threat that eliminated a carrier group.* I said nukes would be used in response if that was the only effective option.
Also, a nuclear war will not end humanity. It might end the current political world order, but humans are tough and tenacious. They will survive, even if a nuclear war kills nine-tenths of them.
*note the past tense. Carriers have upwards of 5000 people on them. Sinking one is like nuking a medium-small town. If someone manages to sink a US carrier, they will be nuked if there is no other option to destroy them. Up to that point there will be a lot of hot air, but when the big ships start sinking, expect retaliation.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 23 2019, @06:42PM (1 child)
So, what's the point of having an aircraft carrier? Why don't we put some reservists on cruse ships and send over there for a little training?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday November 25 2019, @12:17AM
It's an interesting point on the military landscape. Sailing a carrier group around isn't regarded as a nuclear threat, even though it is, because they have so many other force projection options. Sinking a carrier group, on the other hand, would be regarded as a nuclear level attack.
In other words, a carrier group is protected by MAD, without actually provoking it.
A few reservists on a cruise ship would have no such protection.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.