Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

China is very dangerous but.... I doubt they have the equipment to move their army into a position to attack america.

In an all out war america would not have to justify every action they take, I think that they would do a lot of damage to china in an all out war if they pulled out al the stops however I dont think they would win but also I dont know if the end result would be called a win for china either

1. No
2. You misinterpret. I want Australia. Its #3 on Frazzled's Top Three Countries to Vacatian to or Take Over Tour.

Beer-Belgium check
Samba dancers-Brazil check
Shrimp and fesity fish (jumping Great Whites)-Australia check.

I'd add Mexico but we already have Tex Mex and organzied crime so no acquisition needed.

mussie76 wrote:China is very dangerous but.... I doubt they have the equipment to move their army into a position to attack america.

In an all out war america would not have to justify every action they take, I think that they would do a lot of damage to china in an all out war if they pulled out al the stops however I dont think they would win but also I dont know if the end result would be called a win for china either

In an "all out war" we would nuke each other, so your theory is correct.

Frazzled wrote:

mussie76 wrote:China is very dangerous but.... I doubt they have the equipment to move their army into a position to attack america.

In an all out war america would not have to justify every action they take, I think that they would do a lot of damage to china in an all out war if they pulled out al the stops however I dont think they would win but also I dont know if the end result would be called a win for china either

In an "all out war" we would nuke each other, so your theory is correct.

MAD- Keeping the world safe-ish since 1949.

Frazzled wrote:In an "all out war" we would nuke each other, so your theory is correct.

I think we should look at this from the military point of view. I mean, supposing the Chinese stashes away some big bomb, see. When they come out in a hundred years they could take over... In fact, they might even try an immediate sneak attack so they could take over our mineshaft space... I think it would be extremely naive of us, DakkaDakka, to imagine that these new developments are going to cause any change in Chinese expansionist policy. I mean, we must be... increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mineshaft space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! DakkaDakka, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!

I told you not to call me on this number.

Your Bucky loves you.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:In an "all out war" we would nuke each other, so your theory is correct.

I think we should look at this from the military point of view. I mean, supposing the Chinese stashes away some big bomb, see. When they come out in a hundred years they could take over... In fact, they might even try an immediate sneak attack so they could take over our mineshaft space... I think it would be extremely naive of us, DakkaDakka, to imagine that these new developments are going to cause any change in Chinese expansionist policy. I mean, we must be... increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mineshaft space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! DakkaDakka, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!

warpcrafter wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Well obviously, due to current deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is not in a position to start a war with China.

Totally, nobody is in a position to get into a war with China.

And that is *precisely* why the Chinese developed their own indigenous nukes and ICBM capability.

Quite frankly, the Chinese *did* respect international law - that's why the US spy ship wasn't captured or sunk.

But I think it would be *very* amusing if the Chinese military started overflights of the US, and parked intel ships off our coast...

mussie76 wrote:China is very dangerous but.... I doubt they have the equipment to move their army into a position to attack america.

In an all out war america would not have to justify every action they take, I think that they would do a lot of damage to china in an all out war if they pulled out al the stops however I dont think they would win but also I dont know if the end result would be called a win for china either

No, they're smarter than that. In case of actual war, China wouldn't invade for an auto-loss - they'd simply nuke us.

sebster wrote:This thread is full of crazy talk.

I also wouldn't put it past the US to wander ever so slightly into Chinese waters to get a better recon.

Now, *that* is crazy talk.

If a US Navy ship "strays" into Chinese waters, that is an overt act of war, and the Chinese *will* sink and salvage it.

The Chinese proved this already with the air force overflights, and they should continue to shoot down US Air Force craft entering their airspace.

dietrich wrote:I think events like this happen a lot more than the average person realizes.

Oh, unquestionably. It's just very hush-hush.

What bothers me is that the US is acting like a bunch of whiny bitches about it.

If you haven't the sack to play the game and take your lumps like a man, then stay home.

sebster wrote:

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:Hm, well it's time for the U.S. to "posture" back. Send armed escorts to patrol with the civilian ships. Let's see if they want to play chicken with a ship that has 10 inch guns.

Ah, the ship was mostly civilian crewed, but it wasn't a civilian ship. And why posture back? What's the end game in running battleships around the region?

If the Chinese get the US to burn a mountain of cash stationing a battleship off the Chinese coast, the Chinese win hands down.

I mean, we need to use a freakin' battleship for escort duty to deal with a handful of near-coastal frigates? Really?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

dietrich wrote:I think events like this happen a lot more than the average person realizes.

Oh, unquestionably. It's just very hush-hush.

What bothers me is that the US is acting like a bunch of whiny bitches about it.

If you haven't the sack to play the game and take your lumps like a man, then stay home.

Spoken like someone who's not, like actually on one of the boats.

This stuff does happen a lot. It used to be particularly bad with the Russians/East Germans prior to the end of Cold War I. People can and do get killed in this stuff.

And note: we do get trawlers and intel birds off our coasts, routinely. The Russians sent bombers right at Canada during the Obama visit.

It was Eisenhower who publicly offered overflight privileges for Russian surveillance birds if we could do the same, to prevent accidental freakouts and the risk of a first strike (pre ICBMs when bombers were it).

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sebster wrote:This thread is full of crazy talk.

I also wouldn't put it past the US to wander ever so slightly into Chinese waters to get a better recon.

Now, *that* is crazy talk.

If a US Navy ship "strays" into Chinese waters, that is an overt act of war, and the Chinese *will* sink and salvage it.

The Chinese proved this already with the air force overflights, and they should continue to shoot down US Air Force craft entering their airspace.

The thing is there are two zones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

Territorial sea

A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22 km) from its baseline. If this would overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is taken as the median point between the states' baselines, unless the states in question agree otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.

Conflicts still occur whenever a coastal nation claims an entire gulf as its territorial waters while other nations only recognize the more restrictive definitions of the UN convention. Two recent conflicts occurred in the Gulf of Sidra where Libya has claimed the entire gulf as its territorial waters and the U.S. has twice enforced freedom of navigation rights (Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), Gulf of Sidra incident (1989)).
Contiguous zone

The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km) wide, but could be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea there is no standard rule for resolving such conflicts, and the states in question must negotiate their own compromise. The United States invoked a contiguous zone on 24 September 1999.[2]

Both China and the US claim a 24 mile zone around their nations, but... see the conventions above.

Frazzled wrote:

This stuff does happen a lot. It used to be particularly bad with the Russians/East Germans prior to the end of Cold War I. People can and do get killed in this stuff.

And note: we do get trawlers and intel birds off our coasts, routinely. The Russians sent bombers right at Canada during the Obama visit.

It was Eisenhower who publicly offered overflight privileges for Russian surveillance birds if we could do the same, to prevent accidental freakouts and the risk of a first strike (pre ICBMs when bombers were it).

Sounds like that's his point. It's a safe bet that if some one was inside the waters you claim, and let's face it we have no reason to believe that they were beyond the claimed waters. I do note that we are told the distance from the coast (although not if there are Chinese islands claimed in that area) for the earlier incident but the distance from shore is not described in the wood dropping case. Sounds like everyone is playing chicken these days.

Think of it this way. China is doing the flying fists and saying "I'm just doing -this- and if you get hit, it's not my fault" that we all did when we were 8. Some of us when we're 28.

And the US is saying, "but I'm just on the walk up to your house, you have no reason to hit me."

It's a game of chicken. If you don't go after intel boats, you invite them to push the envelope even more. If you do go after them, someone might get hurt, which isn't what you really want either. You just want the dern kids to stay off your lawn!

And I like Ike.

@Frazz: I'm well aware the people get killed as part of these games, on both sides. It's just part of the game.

@efarrer: I'm also aware of the international limits, and note that the US boat was (deliberately) *well* outside Chinese waters.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Frazz: I'm well aware the people get killed as part of these games, on both sides. It's just part of the game.

@efarrer: I'm also aware of the international limits, and note that the US boat was (deliberately) *well* outside Chinese waters.

In the article at the start of this the US Boat in the second part of the story, the Victorious was 125 miles from the coast. The area is part of a disputed area in which China claims jurisdiction. Although most of the world does not agree, the economic exclusion zones are almost invariably messy in terms of travel rights. So you are kind of right. They were outside of the waters the US recognizes as being China's. However the 200 mile economic zone that the 1982 treaty allows for would place the boats within that zone, and whereas for the US that represents travel rights for the chinese it represents an abundent source of oil that's up for grabs. The oil alone makes it worthwhile for the PRC to engage in pissing matches over where the line of domestic control exists.

Basically for the Chinese it represents a domestic priority to exert sovreinty in that area because if they don't they could lose the oil fields.

Exactly so.

And because it's disputed territory, China is going to confront in those areas to the maximum limit possible.

But they're not going to sink anyone unless they're clearly in internationally-recognized Chinese waters.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly so.

And because it's disputed territory, China is going to confront in those areas to the maximum limit possible.

But they're not going to sink anyone unless they're clearly in internationally-recognized Chinese waters.

Even then a sinking is extremely unlikely. There's a world of difference between 'you're in breach and your boat has been forced out of our waters now apologise' and 'you're in breach and we've sunk the vessel and killed 15 of your citizens'.


Thanks for the information efarrer, I wasn't aware how tricky the boundaries got.

That's where I think you're very wrong.

China is *huge* on sovereignty. You cannot even begin to imagine just how wound up the Chinese get over this kind of thing.

If the US ship is heading toward breach, it will be obvious, and the US will be very clearly notified. Sending a military vessel unasked into internationally-recognized territorial waters is a clear, direct and overt challenge to China's sovereignty that cannot be tolerated, not by the slightest an inch.

If it's within the clearly-defined international limit, I don't doubt the Chinese will take every step to capture the ship, with or without its crew. And I don't doubt that the crew will take every step to scuttle the ship to avoid Chinese salvage. The only resolution is that the ship must be sunk in due course.

China won't even grant safe harbor to US naval ships, so I wouldn't dare to test the Chinese so brazenly, because they *will* react in an absolute fashion.

The real issue is being missed.

You lot are thinking like a pack of running dog media westerners.

China knows what it is doing, in accordance with their doctrines, after all in eastern logic it is long established you dont know your adversary until you have faced them. The USA has a new regime, they want to see how it ticks, cause an incident take notes and watch the stupid westerners think WTF until the next news item comes along. It's also a warning to Aun O'bama saying 'do not forget us' even though we are silent. It is their way, subtle effective and to the point and completely different to the brash front policy culture we see in Washington. Underestimate China at your peril.

JohnHwangDD wrote:That's where I think you're very wrong.

China is *huge* on sovereignty. You cannot even begin to imagine just how wound up the Chinese get over this kind of thing.

If the US ship is heading toward breach, it will be obvious, and the US will be very clearly notified. Sending a military vessel unasked into internationally-recognized territorial waters is a clear, direct and overt challenge to China's sovereignty that cannot be tolerated, not by the slightest an inch.

If it's within the clearly-defined international limit, I don't doubt the Chinese will take every step to capture the ship, with or without its crew. And I don't doubt that the crew will take every step to scuttle the ship to avoid Chinese salvage. The only resolution is that the ship must be sunk in due course.

China won't even grant safe harbor to US naval ships, so I wouldn't dare to test the Chinese so brazenly, because they *will* react in an absolute fashion.

I also think China is a lot smarter than the fanatics you're assuming. I think they understand the idea of escalation and forcing the other side into a corner. A US boat in breach of Chinese waters is a huge diplomatic coup for the Chinese. A violent conflict and pile of dead US sailors is a disaster for everyone.

And trying to compare denying safe harbour with sinking an unarmed boat is really long bow.

If a US Navy ship (armed or otherwise) needs to be violently repelled from within internationally-recognized territorial waters, it's a *huge* coup for driving back foreign invaders, no different from the Russians shooting down Gary Powers' U-2 or the Chinese splashing our spyplane.

*Major* props to the Chinese and Russkies on both counts, BTW, which is why the US needs to be smart and not give China the opportunity.

Great to see Frazz trying new things. He almost passed his usual gak off as a cute little personality quirk.
You cheeky devil.

I want to hear a US response to this allegation of audio or sonar equipment. It may have been an external test of experimental equipment or something interesting like that. Moreso, I want to hear what happened in parlay after the Chinese authorities stopped the ship. I'd also like to know what prompted the water cannon attack. The article is sadly lacking in detail, but like the Jessica Lynch incident, we probably won't hear about it until someone has made a ridiculous espionage movie.

The US has already admitted that they were sub hunting with a sonar array.

In Chinese water? For what? Red Octobers?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Great to see Frazz trying new things. He almost passed his usual gak off as a cute little personality quirk.
You cheeky devil.

I want to hear a US response to this allegation of audio or sonar equipment. It may have been an external test of experimental equipment or something interesting like that. Moreso, I want to hear what happened in parlay after the Chinese authorities stopped the ship. I'd also like to know what prompted the water cannon attack. The article is sadly lacking in detail, but like the Jessica Lynch incident, we probably won't hear about it until someone has made a ridiculous espionage movie.

Yes it was. So? Duh, they said that. They were in international waters.

Perhaps the navy needs to get ahold of a big-assed icebreaker and cruise the area with it. I'd bet there wouldn't be any "near misses" then.

ZF-