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.

Er, go Vietnam (that just feels weird).

 Frazzled wrote:
Er, go Vietnam (that just feels weird).

Given the nature of modern chinese land and sea disputes with vietnam, I'd wager that a modern war would go differently. China is an order of magnitude more capable now and Vietnam has stagnated. Chinas interests with the region are now purely resource based as well, meaning that their isn't an ideological aspect to the confrontation to rouse insurgent efforts.

If China were to absorb Vietnam, it would certainly cement their claim over the south china sea.

Orange is Vietnam.

 Ketara wrote:
If China were to absorb Vietnam, it would certainly cement their claim over the south china sea.

Orange is Vietnam.

It's very unlikely that china would try to take over Vietnam while the EU and the United States are still hegemonic world entities.

Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

 Frazzled wrote:
Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

China has taken control of Vietnam four times in history. It's not afghanistan, it's been grabbed time and time again.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

China has taken control of Vietnam four times in history. It's not afghanistan, it's been grabbed time and time again.

Easy to grab. Hard to keep.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

China has taken control of Vietnam four times in history. It's not afghanistan, it's been grabbed time and time again.

Easy to grab. Hard to keep.

China had it for over 100, over 500, and over 400 years. The last one was 20 years, but Ming dynasty expansion was weird. Either way, they've had it for coming on 1000 years. There's precedent for it getting kept.

Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?

 AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?

The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.

 AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?

Supplies, I suppose. Viet Nam is surrounded by stalwart allies of China. Once naval routes are cut off, the country is virtually isolated from the outside world.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?

The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.
EDIT: I doubt it would be much beyond that. There doesn't need to be on China's behalf.

However, attempting to blockade the huge vietnamese coastline seems... well, impossible.

 AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?

Because China cares about the south china sea, not the jungles of Vietnam. China wants resources, not territory.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?

The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.

I don't see it. There's nothing to be gained by dominating the Vietnamese coast. See the US-Vietnam conflict. Nam is more likely to fight it out with thier Kilo boats and pull thier main surface units....not much to begin with to the extreme south.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
However, attempting to blockade the huge vietnamese coastline seems... well, impossible.

The threat of having your ships sunk would cause civilian trade to practically vanish. Sure, some would be able to get through, but few would try. Overland routes would become incredibly valuable at that point.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
However, attempting to blockade the huge vietnamese coastline seems... well, impossible.

They don't have to. China is saying the South China Sea is theirs so they just blast any Vietnamese naval asset they come across. Its not like Vietnam has a massive fleet to worry about to begin with.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?

The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.

I don't see it. There's nothing to be gained by dominating the Vietnamese coast. See the US-Vietnam conflict. Nam is more likely to fight it out with thier Kilo boats and pull thier main surface units....not much to begin with to the extreme south.

As just noted, they don't have to. China is claiming the entire sea. They just take out any Vietnamese assets they come across in their water, assuming a game of naval pushy shovey sabre rattling doesn't work. Effectively, China could treat the Vietnamese navy like pirates and destroy as opportunities arise. Its a low risk strategy for them. After all, what is Vietnam going to do?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
However, attempting to blockade the huge vietnamese coastline seems... well, impossible.

They don't have to. China is saying the South China Sea is theirs so they just blast any Vietnamese naval asset they come across. Its not like Vietnam has a massive fleet to worry about to begin with.

Now this starting to sound more plausible than an hypothetical land grab to "extend" chinese sovereignity over the South China Sea. They just deny the vietnamese control over their own territorial waters, become the de facto rulers of the sea, and scr*w international law.

Sounds adequately chinese, IMHO

Yep.
I'd proffer they will push as hard as they can on all the bordering countries on the sea to get as much as they can without a major fight. Its what Frazzled would do.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Other countries have tried to take over Vietnam. It usually didn't go so well.

However this would likely be a naval fight where China has a distinct advantage.

Why would a potential Sino Vietnamese fight be naval?

The conflict would likely start at sea. Might be some artillery duels as in the 70s. China doesn't need to invade and Vietnam doesn't have the forces to invade.

Incorrect.

As things currently stand, the Vietnamese are making no real attempt to mine those offshore resources, they have neither the funds nor the technology. The same thing that prevents them from contesting their naval space from China is the same thing that prevents them from exploiting their sea based resources.


No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India. As of July this year, India's state owned and run Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (or ONGC) renewed their partnership with the Vietnamese Government to continue to exploit offshore resources in those zones ruled as belonging to vietnam by the UN (all of which more or less fall under China's claims). As such, Vietnam's Navy is neither here nor there. The main problem for China is that whilst Vietnam still exists as a state, they can continue to license their offshore resources for extraction by India. And indeed are keen to do so, as they view India's naval power as their guarantee of safety against Chinese aggression.

This means that if China moved to solely seize control of the aquatic zones owned by Vietnam, they'd run into conflict with the Indian Navy, not the Chinese Navy. And that of course, is an entirely different kettle of fish. The Indians only have a single aircraft carrier presently (and that's the World War 2 era ex British Carrier HMS Hermes) and a Landing Platform Dock, but that's due to shortly change. And exceptionally so.

India bought the Russian built carrier Admiral Gorshkov about eight years ago, and it's due to enter service this year after an extremely expensive upgrading and refitting in the USA. India is also mid-construction on two of their own home designed Vikrant Class aircraft Carriers, and is drawing up plans for an even larger Aircraft Carrier which they aim to have finished construction on by 2017 (although a more realistic date would be 2020). Add on a reasonable number of destroyers, frigates, submarines, MiG's and Harrier Jump jets, and you realise that the Indian Navy is genuinely not too shabby.

These plans mean that India is likely to possess four carriers in five years time, making them the obvious threat to China's naval ambitions around Vietnam. Obviously, having to engage in a full Blue Water fleet naval war against a similarly armed opponent is entirely undesirable, and should be avoided if at all possible. The best way to circumvent such a thing would be to annex Vietnam. If Vietnam no longer possesses a Government or exists as a nation, India would be forced to either withdraw, negotiate with China for new licenses, or claim the south china sea as their own (unlikely).

I do not see this as being very likely to happen personally, but it illustrates a perfect example as to why the Chinese Government would be inclined to pursue a land war against Vietnam. If war is in the works, it certainly be a more digestible and certain prospect than engaging in a naval war with India.

No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.

(and Japan and South Korea, as well as fishing rights for Indonesia)

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.

(and Japan and South Korea, as well as fishing rights for Indonesia)

You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Shuma.




This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Japan and South Korea are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of little consequence to them.

 Ketara wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.

(and Japan and South Korea, as well as fishing rights for Indonesia)

You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Shuma.




This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Japan and South Korea are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of little consequence to them.

You see this map? You see the part that says ocean? The one that's on the other side of the world from japan, china, the Phillipines, and Indonesia? It has their fishing boats in it. A lot of them. You think the distance between the north and south china seas is meaningful? Do you honestly think, with a straight face, that South Korea and japan don't have major economic interests in those waters and the historical clout and economic base to utilize them? Ignoring the fact that I claimed Indonesia as well, inferring a pan Asian interest in the large body of (one vital to Asian shipping lanes and stuck between several industrialized nations) water in the first place.

You really have a pretty poor read of Asian economics if you don't think the south china sea is meaningful to the second and fourth largest Asian economies, both largely export driven with huge interests in sea resources.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.

(and Japan and South Korea, as well as fishing rights for Indonesia)

You may want to check up on your geography before jumping to correct, Shuma.




This is a map of the China Sea. Please note where the South China Sea is, and where Japan and South Korea are in relation to it.
I'm sure a fellow as clever as you will quickly understand why the South China Sea is of little consequence to them.

You see this map? You see the part that says ocean? The one that's on the other side of the world from japan, china, the Phillipines, and Indonesia? It has their fishing boats in it. A lot of them. You think the distance between the north and south china seas is meaningful? Do you honestly think, with a straight face, that South Korea and japan don't have major economic interests in those waters and the historical clout and economic base to utilize them? Ignoring the fact that I claimed Indonesia as well, inferring a pan Asian interest in the large body of (one vital to Asian shipping lanes and stuck between several industrialized nations) water in the first place.

You really have a pretty poor read of Asian economics if you don't think the south china sea is meaningful to the second and fourth largest Asian economies, both largely export driven with huge interests in sea resources.

No my dear sir, I understand all of that. But in the same way you misread me as saying 'South China Sea' as 'China Sea' and are now desperately trying to backtrack and cover it, you're making the same mistake of not reading what I said properly. Allow me to reiterate for you.

No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India.

The real or main issue. Not the only one. That's why I bypassed Indonesia and general trade and shipping. China is not likely to suddenly impose tariffs on all Japanese and Korean shipping, and a minor Indonesian fishing rights dispute does not figure on the same scale as oil and gas rights off of Vietnam currently. Neither Japan nor Korea nor Indonesia have any real clashes have any substantial issues with China with regards to the South China Sea as things stand.


Do try to read what I say before jumping to contradict.

The carrier thing is really overhyped massively. China has no fighter jets to launch from it and won't for several years since the Russians cancelled the Su-33 deal with them (forcing them to basically illegally copy it as the J-15, which won't be around for several years). Moreover it's quite a small ship for carrier standards. Lastly, it's mostly being used as a technology demonstrator and training ship so that eventually China can put a real carrier in service. And given that it took them roughly 15 years to refit an 80%-built Soviet ship, that won't be for a while.

One has to keep in mind that currently, the count is 11 supercarriers for the US (and about 10 mini-carriers) whereas the rest of the world combined has 0 supercarriers and 9 mini-carriers. Even if China manages to eventually put 1 supercarrier into service, the huge military discrepancy won't even come close to being closed. If the Chinese are smart, they won't try to do what the Soviets did and keep trying to build a supercarrier that just ends up being a wasted investment eventually ending up as a ASW ship or coastal defense craft.

No my dear sir, I understand all of that. But in the same way you misread me as saying 'South China Sea' as 'China Sea' and are now desperately trying to backtrack and cover it, you're making the same mistake of not reading what I said properly. Allow me to reiterate for you.

The south china sea is the primary shipping lane to the east of africa, the south of western asia, and the middle east from Japan and South Korea. It's one of the most important shipping lanes in the history of mankind, if not the most important. Don't talk down to me, you obviously lack context for this beyond what specificity was provided for you by an article on Indian oil exploration if you're going to pretend that those economies aren't inherently reliant on areas that the Chinese are attempting to place borders around.

The real or main issue. Not the only one.

Tell that to Indonesia, the Phillipines, and Malaysia. If you wanted to speak to specific instances of conflict you should have specified that that was the driving motivation in sino veitnamese disputes. The monetary value of those oil fields is peanuts compared to other effects of the redesignation of the SCS.

That's why I bypassed Indonesia and general trade and shipping. China is not likely to suddenly impose tariffs on all Japanese and Korean shipping, and a minor Indonesian fishing rights dispute does not figure on the same scale as oil and gas rights off of Vietnam currently.

There is significant historical precedent for China imposing tarifs on asian trade goods and every indication that they wouldn't be opposed to doing so now. Given their current disputes with both SK and Japan and the soft power control of modern shipping this would grant it's highly likely there would be efforts to do exactly that, especially in the case of a slowing or recessionary Chinese economy.

Neither Japan nor Korea nor Indonesia have any real clashes have any substantial issues with China with regards to the South China Sea as things stand.

Again, you have a poor read on the intention of Chinese expansion into the south china sea. One of the primary pillars of the communist parties continued dominance is the continuous absorption of historically Chinese territories. The south china sea is considered such, as are the hotly disputed spratly islands and Senkaku islands. China is willing to push it's economic might around in east asia, but the driving forces between the south china sea and island based disputes is as much nationalist as it is resource driven. The Senkaku islands aren't in the SCS, but sino japanese conflict isn't limited to that space, nor is the threat of blockade or naval conflict. Japan needs the SCS to stay open and would be foolish to trust the Chinese to not misuse control of the waters.

Do try to read what I say before jumping to contradict.

Do try to read what you say before hitting submit and using overly vague generalizations to describe a complex issue with a dozen sides.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The south china sea is the primary shipping lane to the east of africa, the south of western asia, and the middle east from Japan and South Korea. It's one of the most important shipping lanes in the history of mankind, if not the most important. Don't talk down to me, you obviously lack context for this beyond what specificity was provided for you by an article on Indian oil exploration if you're going to pretend that those economies aren't inherently reliant on areas that the Chinese are attempting to place borders around.

and

There is significant historical precedent for China imposing tarifs on asian trade goods and every indication that they wouldn't be opposed to doing so now. Given their current disputes with both SK and Japan and the soft power control of modern shipping this would grant it's highly likely there would be efforts to do exactly that, especially in the case of a slowing or recessionary Chinese economy.

This is all very well and good, but completely and entirely irrelevant. You do like to spin irrelevancies to cover up for the fact that you're trying to contradict things I never said. Korean and Japanese shipping in the South China Sea, whilst unquestionably important, is not currently an area of conflict. There are no Chinese boarding parties attacking international shipping, and little risk that they suddenly will begin to do so.

As to your laughable claims that China would suddenly attempt to impose tariffs on all shipping in the South China Sea, that's not going to happen any time soon. Why? Because it is:-

a) Physically impossible, China does not currently have the naval assets required to blockade the entire South China Sea and board and force all merchant shipping into paying their tariffs, and
b) the one thing guaranteed to start a major war.

Nevertheless, this is all highly diversionary and irrelevant to my main point, which was that the current major issue and risk of conflict in the South China Sea is between India and China off Vietnam. Trying to pretend that you have some bigger picture and then mentioning an irrelevant fact about how important shipping through there is like its a major revelation, is guaranteed to make you seem like you're erecting strawmen.

The real or main issue. Not the only one.

Tell that to Indonesia, the Phillipines, and Malaysia. If you wanted to speak to specific instances of conflict you should have specified that that was the driving motivation in sino veitnamese disputes. The monetary value of those oil fields is peanuts compared to other effects of the redesignation of the SCS.

Redesignation? China has claimed the place. It has in no way attempted to enforce that claim upon international shipping and will not do so for the reasons given above.

As to the scale of conflict being measurable, I would consider it the main one currently. Feel free to disagree, and then designate another and reason as to why it is larger and more important.

Neither Japan nor Korea nor Indonesia have any real clashes have any substantial issues with China with regards to the South China Sea as things stand.

Again, you have a poor read on the intention of Chinese expansion into the south china sea. One of the primary pillars of the communist parties continued dominance is the continuous absorption of historically Chinese territories. The south china sea is considered such, as are the hotly disputed spratly islands and Senkaku islands. China is willing to push it's economic might around in east asia, but the driving forces between the south china sea and island based disputes is as much nationalist as it is resource driven. The Senkaku islands aren't in the SCS, but sino japanese conflict isn't limited to that space, nor is the threat of blockade or naval conflict. Japan needs the SCS to stay open and would be foolish to trust the Chinese to not misuse control of the waters.

All very pretty, but not what I was talking about really. My comment was on specific areas of conflict, not on the impact of general Chinese expansionist policy . I'm dealing with specific cases of conflict, not the general thrust of Chinese policy. To reiterate:-

Do try to read what I say before jumping to contradict.

You still appear to not have read it. The issue you currently quarrel with is that I claimed that the main (or largest) conflict in the SCS currently is between Vietnam, China, and India. You are now arguing that general Chinese expansionist policy and its impact in the area is a more important conflict. Which is nice, but not really a counter to anything I said, as the two things are on a different scale. What you're attempting to argue now is akin to entering a discussion on the most important battle in Russia in WW2, and claiming that the Russian campaign was the most important conflict.

Your consistent strawmen and continuous changing of what you're attempting to argue merely confirm to me that you misread what I wrote originally, took offence at my mildly patronising correction, and are now desperately scrabbling around for something to argue back with.

Do believe China has VTOL aircraft to operate off the carrier.

This is all very well and good, but completely and entirely irrelevant. You do like to spin irrelevancies to cover up for the fact that you're trying to contradict things I never said. Korean and Japanese shipping in the South China Sea, whilst unquestionably important, is not currently an area of conflict. There are no Chinese boarding parties attacking international shipping, and little risk that they suddenly will begin to do so.

And you love to laser focus on things to the exclusion of surrounding events and sometimes even reality. If you don't think there is risk of the Chinese boarding international shipping and fishing vessels you haven't paid attention to the last few years of news. They've done that and more. Certainly not en masse, but with increasing frequency.

As to your laughable claims that China would suddenly attempt to impose tariffs on all naval shipping in the South China Sea, that's not going to happen any time soon. Why? Because it is:-

a) Physically impossible, China does not currently have the naval assets required to blockade the entire South China Sea and board and force all merchant shipping into paying their tariffs, and
b) the one thing guaranteed to start a major war.

Why do people always think that a blockade has to be a giant concrete wall to stop shipping? All it has to do is make it uneconomical for shipping companies to use those routes. A few seized ships will do, china doesn't need to prevent black market shipping or blockade runners because those are a fractional margin of the shipping that would be stopped due to simple risk mitigation by the entities involved (non Chinese entities of course).

As for causing war, well yes. It would. This thread has touched on that subject numerous times. It would certainly be damaging to Chinese interests, so I don't suspect such a thing would occur without significant leadup. Leadup like the major Sino Japanese disputes currently escalating and which have already become violent combined with territorial expansion into a contested body of water by an emerging superpower under critical strain to expand it's resource base. To assume that no nation would act in an aggressive manner against it's current self interest is to ignore the majority of wars in human history.

Nevertheless, this is all highly diversionary and irrelevant to my main point, which was that the current major issue and risk of conflict in the South China Sea is between India and China off Vietnam.

Oh, last time you said it was India. It's as if your first point was badly stated. Mitt.

Trying to pretend that you have some bigger picture and then mentioning an irrelevant fact about how important shipping through there is like its a major revelation, is guaranteed to make you seem like you're erecting strawmen.

There is a very real and escalating conflict over the sprately islands that is every bit as real as the tensions with Vietnam. Chinas aggressive attitude toward japans acquisition of the senkakku islands has escalated beyond both of those situations. Pretending that these event's aren't interlinked is foolish.

All very pretty, but not what I was talking about really. My comment was on specific areas of conflict, not on the impact of general Chinese expansionist policy . I'm dealing with specific cases of conflict, not the general thrust of Chinese policy. To reiterate:-

Your comment directly stated that there was a shadow conflict between Indian oil interests and the Politburo and that it was the real conflict of the south china sea. Not Indonesian fishing interests (which have the most common occurance of incidents) or the Spratelys (which have actual land territory under escalating military dispute). Your comment was badly stated and implied ignorance. Get over it.

Your consistent strawmen and continuous changing of what you're attempting to argue merely confirm to me that you misread what I wrote originally, took offence at my mildly patronising correction, and are now desperately scrabbling around for something to argue back with.

If I was misread it it's because it was badly written. Which it was, since you've decided to backfill on it up until the point where it was fleshed out to a reasonable degree. Stating that something is the "Real conflict" in a region like that is foolish. There are several major territorial disputes, and the ones that have actually involved guns firing aren't the ones you seem to think are "real". Is Vietnam under the greatest existential threat? Sure. But oil conflict exists between China and every nation claiming the Parcels, and the Phillipines effectively annexed them last year.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

And you love to laser focus on things to the exclusion of surrounding events and sometimes even reality. If you don't think there is risk of the Chinese boarding international shipping and fishing vessels you haven't paid attention to the last few years of news. They've done that and more. Certainly not en masse, but with increasing frequency.

I wasn't 'laser focusing' on anything. I was talking about an issue, namely a reason why China might decide to invade Vietnam by land. That reason was the Indian angle. You appear to have taken great offence that my reasoning for a land war in Vietnam has not encompassed fishing rights with uninvolved nations, and the impact of Chinese expansionist policy on Japan and Korea (to return to your original comments).

As for causing war, well yes. It would. This thread has touched on that subject numerous times. It would certainly be damaging to Chinese interests, so I don't suspect such a thing would occur without significant leadup. Leadup like the major Sino Japanese disputes currently escalating and which have already become violent combined with territorial expansion into a contested body of water by an emerging superpower under critical strain to expand it's resource base. To assume that no nation would act in an aggressive manner against it's current self interest is to ignore the majority of wars in human history.

Oh, last time you said it was India. It's as if your first point was badly stated. Mitt.

There is a very real and escalating conflict over the sprately islands that is every bit as real as the tensions with Vietnam. Chinas aggressive attitude toward japans acquisition of the senkakku islands has escalated beyond both of those situations. Pretending that these event's aren't interlinked is foolish.

Your comment directly stated that there was a shadow conflict between Indian oil interests and the Politburo and that it was the real conflict of the south china sea. Not Indonesian fishing interests (which have the most common occurance of incidents) or the Spratelys (which have actual land territory under escalating military dispute). Your comment was badly stated and implied ignorance. Get over it.

If I was misread it it's because it was badly written. Which it was, since you've decided to backfill on it up until the point where it was fleshed out to a reasonable degree. Stating that something is the "Real conflict" in a region like that is foolish. There are several major territorial disputes, and the ones that have actually involved guns firing aren't the ones you seem to think are "real". Is Vietnam under the greatest existential threat? Sure. But oil conflict exists between China and every nation claiming the Parcels, and the Phillipines effectively annexed them last year.

The funny thing is that I actually just went back re-read the context, and realised this is absolutely ridiculous. Here it is for posterity's sake:-

As things currently stand, the Vietnamese are making no real attempt to mine those offshore resources, they have neither the funds nor the technology. The same thing that prevents them from contesting their naval space from China is the same thing that prevents them from exploiting their sea based resources.

No, the real issue in the South China Sea is India. As of July this year, India's state owned and run Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (or ONGC) renewed their partnership with the Vietnamese Government to continue to exploit offshore resources in those zones ruled as belonging to vietnam by the UN (all of which more or less fall under China's claims). As such, Vietnam's Navy is neither here nor there.

Funny thing that quote, 'the real issue'. I just realised that when placed in context, as opposed to read through endless quote bars and irrelevant dialogue, the meaning changes substantially, rendering my initial defences inaccurate, and your attacks on it utterly absurd. I apologise Shuma. Your misreading was so woefully inaccurate and delusional from your second counter, I got caught up in it as well, and began to think I'd said something I simply didn't. So allow me to reclarify and retrace this profound absurdity back to the beginning, and please do forgive me for going along with your reasoning without realising it.

The phrase 'the real issue in the South China sea is India', is referring to how it is not the Vietnamese government and their naval capabilities which is to be considered with regards to a naval war, but rather those of India. Context is such a wonderful thing. I do indeed regard this particular conflict as the premier conflict issue in that area, but that is actually entirely unrelated to the original point. The initial topic of discussion and quote are to do with China going to war Vietnam, and the naval/land forces that are involved.

So no, it is not 'badly written'. It has not been 'fleshed out'. It was simply completely removed from context in order contradict me on something, and by involving things like shipping and expansionist policy, diverted and mutilated beyond all recognition. All because you didn't want to admit that you misread 'South China Sea' as 'China Sea'. Although I wouldn't ascribe your arguments as being deliberately manipulative to that end, rather more of a case of you making an initial mistake and then desperately grasping at something to debate with due to disliking the tone in which I was addressing you.

Having said that, I'm probably slightly to blame there, a patronising tone rarely garners a positive reaction, especially with you Shummie (judging by our past history).