Hey /k/ I was having dinner with a USA friend and he put forward

>>31180536
China considers the SCS issue as a matter of national survival.

The North is more controlled by the Chinese, but there are competent US/Japanese/Taiwanese forces in the area.

The South is more restrictive on China, but the countriee are weaker and not united. Hence the island building in response to Vietnam's island building.

Why not gain significant leverage in the region?

>>31180536
>maritime blockade of China.
>90% of our shit is made in China
>closing the highest volume shipping lane in the world

yeah, your "friend" is fucking retarded

>>31181413
lol

>implying we can't enforce a maritime blockade of China any time we want to on 24 hours notice
The PLAN and PLACG are a bad joke compared to the USN. We've got SSNs, SSGNs, SSBNs, and carrier groups all over the western Pacific. Their belligerence is that of an overgrown five year old insisting they be allowed to sit at the adults table at dinner.

>>31181413
>>90% of our shit is made in China
This meme needs to die.

>>31180536

This entire situation is well known to people stydiying the international relations theory called "realism" [which is amongst the cynical theories, but often accurate] and to history students of china.

Add a little flavoring of a knowledge of naval warefare and stratagey and some economics knowledge too and you learn the following

>Yes, the chinese are shitting themselves about these routes being closed.
>Hence their assertiveness in the region
>Going for the cheap, close to shoreline, naval strats
>Hence the U.S. trying to gear up to combat naval mine warfare (which is way more fucking powerful than you might think) etc
>China either wants to CONTROL this area, or PREVENT ANYONE ELSE FROM BEING ABLE TO CONTROL IT IN A WAR SITUATION

- Massive importance for raw imports, especially oil
- Same for their exports
- Only practicable way of attacking china
- Routes from korea, or SE Asia are way easier to corrall than a full seaborne port capture.

China has every reason to be touchy about this area.

The best thing for world peace and america would be for america to just ALLOW china to get on with its shit insofar as it does not actually invade any of its smaller neighbors.
- She may be satisfied with this
- America opposing it will just put their backs up

>>31183255
Goddamn. Fiddycent getting sophisticated.

Wrong as fuck, but still a little more sophisticated.

It is correct that the USN could conduct an effective naval blockade of China, but incorrect to insinuate that such a thing would not be a crisis that makes the Cuban Missile Crisis look like that time Bush threw up on all those yellow people.

>>31183255
>An estimated $5 trillion worth of goods are transported through South China Sea shipping lanes each year, including more than half the world’s annual merchant fleet tonnage and a third of all maritime traffic worldwide.

So... we should just let a belligerent foreign actor with no legitimate territorial claim to the area militarize an entire area through which HALF THE WORLD'S SHIPPING TONNAGE PASSES just because... What? It might "get their backs up"?

Are you fucking retarded? That's like saying, "Well, I guess I shouldn't care that he put his boot on my neck. Maybe he won't stab me with that knife now."

>>31183255
>fiddycenter gets dub fives
One garlic bulb has been deposited in your Glorious People's Bucket.

>>31180536
>>31180993
>>31183255
All of this is wrong. China has a few choices here, such as don't be a dick to your neighbors, or to play by the rules of global economics and simply buy the land of the course of a few decades, or hell they could go the diplomatic route and forge alliances with their neighbors and build their own alliance to secure the protection of the sea, or they could pursue the path they are taking.

In order to achieve the stated goals of protecting China's coast, imports and exports, it is insufficient to control the South China Sea. China would have to control the straits of Malaca, and they only way to do that is to invade and capture parts of the ASEAN countries. Therefore to achieve what China is trying to achieve necessitates the invasion of their neighbors.

Of course their justification for this will be that every one of their neighbors is trying to destroy China, and funnily enough they cannot figure out that it is their actions that are uniting their neighbors against China.

>>31183508
You're assuming that Chinese foreign policy is intended to get them stuff from other countries, rather than pacify their own people by creating an external enemy.

>>31183526
That works out to be the same. Either way it starts as a consistent series of squabbles where they take a little more invariably leading to war with their neighbors.

As for politics you can always blame everything else on external groups; however, that doesn't mean you have to attack them and take from them.

China's belligerence in the South China Sea is more than anything else a result of them firing up their domestic patriotism over China's "historical territory", and so now they have the power to enforce those claims, they must do so to satisfy the patriotic members of the party and public.

It would be possible to contain China behind the island chains (South Korea - Japan - Okinawa - Taiwan - Phillipines), however I would think that that concern ranks below wanting to secure the fisheries and potential energy reserves.

>>31183255
Sounds familiar...
>Takes Czechslovakia.
That's cool.
>Takes Rhineland.
That's cool.

So who's gonna represent Poland in this analogy mah niggers?

>>31184251
Philippines probably. They are the weakest and most aggressive of the contenders for the SCS, so probably they will give the PLA some trumped up Casus Belli and get rolled because of it.

Way I can tell, they seem to be doing it because nobody seems to be doing anything to actually stop them.

Aside from some patrols and some strongly worded condemnations, nothing's happened.

>>31181507
>The PLAN and PLACG are a bad joke compared to the USN. We've got SSNs, SSGNs, SSBNs, and carrier groups all over the western Pacific
Could the USN effectively blockade that big stretch from Taiwan to the Philippines? How would they do that?

>>31187769
12 detached SSNs, 1-2 Ohio SSGNs, 2 SAGs/6-8 detached Burkes and Ticos, 3 CSGs plus land based USAF and naval patrol craft. Possibly a little help from the Japanese navy if they can ever unfuck their constitution.

In short, less naval assets than were required in Desert Storm.

File: 1445735582962.jpg (166KB, 600x644px)

166KB, 600x644px

>>31186014

What do you mean? US and allied pressure is exactly why China can't just state the entirety of the SCS is now theirs. Those aren't "just patrols," those USN vessels tread through what China considers their stated sovereign territory. The fact that a US ship can sail right through "their" territory without resistance means it may not be so sovereign. It means it is international water. There is nothing for China to do about it to prove otherwise unless they want to start a war. This dance will go on for some time until either some Chinese commander gets trigger happy or the PRC decides it is time to escalate when the odds are more in their favor. Say, 20-40 years from now.

Without those ships going through the disputed territory challenging the ownership then China is left to build islands all over and tell all the SCS nations to go fuck themselves. The US is making allies and showing it will stick up for them. When those ships stop then the rest of the region is fucked.

>>31189224
Can't argue.

Any chance some non-chinese player will attempt to very subtly provoke a Chinese ship into firing first? As stated, the balance is against them now, but 20-40 could see that reversed.

Does anyone think that strategically, it makes more sense to put this to rest sooner, rather than later?

>>31190344

The Chinese are not using their navy for this reason.

All hostile manoeuvres are carried out by either their "fishing boat" militia, or their coast guard, which is more powerful than most navies (they have recently commisioned two 12000 tonne vessels, bigger than most warships).

Anyone responding with force to their "civilian" fishing boats, or coast guard's actions will then give just cause to the PLAN to intervene without immediately triggering an international response.

>>31181413
Oh no what will we do without our plastic children's toys and American flags.
Almost nothing essential is imported from China. Vietnam and Japan export far more important materials to us.

>>31184376
I would go with Vietnam in this scenario. China is functionally invading now through immigration.

>>31181413
>Maritime blockade of China
>Their entire export based industry grinds to a halt
>western countries have to buy slightly more expensive shitty toys for their kids

>>31191082
>>Their entire export based industry grinds to a halt
That's basically why the government is pushing hard to shift to a more inwards focused economy.

They can't succeed completely but in a few years, they might have done enough to prevent complete collapse in the face of a blockade.


>western countries have to buy slightly more expensive shitty toys for their kids
It would create jobs locally I guess. Prices would rise though, there would be inflation.

Hard to say how the economic effects would play out.

File: China.jpg (271KB, 1920x1000px)

271KB, 1920x1000px

>>31183255
>Add a little flavoring of a knowledge of naval warefare and stratagey and some economics knowledge too and you learn the following
>>Yes, the chinese are shitting themselves about these routes being closed.
>>Hence their assertiveness in the region
>>Going for the cheap, close to shoreline, naval strats
>>Hence the U.S. trying to gear up to combat naval mine warfare (which is way more fucking powerful than you might think) etc
>>China either wants to CONTROL this area, or PREVENT ANYONE ELSE FROM BEING ABLE TO CONTROL IT IN A WAR SITUATION


The problem with this theory is geography. China is seeking to control an area that does not meat your description. The sea lanes of communication have vastly better choke points in other areas - away from China. The issue simply comes down to - who are those countries that China is trading with and can you block the trade there.

For the US, blocking that trade is trivial. No need to worry about the South China Sea for that.

The only thing that controlling the South China Sea does is allow you to control the smaller countries in the area. Which is what China wishes to do.

>>31183255
>The best thing for world peace and america would be for america to just ALLOW china to get on with its shit insofar as it does not actually invade any of its smaller neighbors.
>- She may be satisfied with this
>- America opposing it will just put their backs up

Further, this is an incredibly silly thing to say in general.

In specific. What has China's 'backs up' is that they have a timeline issue. Their changing demographics means that they must grab power in the area while they can, it may not be so easy in the future.

The 'may be satisfied' comment hardly deseves acknowledgement.

>>31191115
>Hard to say how the economic effects would play out.

Especially if we consider a shock effect. It isn't just stupid plastic toys that they make after all. Setting up those factories would be an expensive endeavor and take a good deal of time. Investment capital would be an issue as well.

I'm not sure if inflation would be a major factor in general, but we would likely face shortages of goods (some of them key goods) that might not be expected.

File: 1453636974669.jpg (600KB, 1024x768px)

600KB, 1024x768px

>>31190344

What >>31190654 said is a big part of it, but you've also got to remember these are developing nations all with a developing relationship with the US. The US doesn't want to go to war with China, or rather, considers it not worth the consequences. A nation aggressively provoking China could very well have US support removed entirely.

The US may very well escalate in deterrent methods though. I can see a military exercise in the SCS as an eventual possibility. I can also see the US maybe even running exercises dangerously close to or on disputed territory.

If you are willing to read literature put out by RAND, then check out:

>http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf

Shows how a war with China would like go today and also how would go 20 years from today.