|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 20, 2013 22:36:16 GMT -6
Yeah, that always is the rub - the geologists' projections don't always pan out. As far as altitude, hey - I'm living in Miami at the moment. If you're four meters above sea level here, you're on high ground. Six is about as good as it gets in the southern half of Florida, unless you're on top of a landfill. Nations have made a habit of squabbling over pointless chunks of rock located in convenient places; the Spratlys are no different. I don't think the PRC has a forced takeover as Plan A - they're more intent on a slow expansion of their existing assets in the area. Having the violent option in the background may help them quietly push the other competitors out.
As far as the Soviet influence on the PLAN's thinking, my mind started down that path because at random I thought back to the Victor Suvarov discussions that were started back on the old board. One of my many issues with that premise - that the USSR was planning its own invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe when Barbarossa hit them - is that to my recollection, the Soviets never picked a fight with something in their weight class when they could avoid it. Stomp on small neighboring countries like Eastern Europe and the 'Stans, sure. Pick a direct force-on-force confrontation with another major power, no. The PRC seems to have something of a similar mindset, and I wonder if some other Soviet patterns are still wound into their thinking. Organizational cultures tend to persist long after circumstances change - for example, the USMC still hasn't gotten Wake and Guadalcanal out of their thinking, some 70 years after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 21, 2013 8:03:31 GMT -6
Yeah, that always is the rub - the geologists' projections don't always pan out. As far as altitude, hey - I'm living in Miami at the moment. If you're four meters above sea level here, you're on high ground. Six is about as good as it gets in the southern half of Florida, unless you're on top of a landfill. Nations have made a habit of squabbling over pointless chunks of rock located in convenient places; the Spratlys are no different. I don't think the PRC has a forced takeover as Plan A - they're more intent on a slow expansion of their existing assets in the area. Having the violent option in the background may help them quietly push the other competitors out. As far as the Soviet influence on the PLAN's thinking, my mind started down that path because at random I thought back to the Victor Suvarov discussions that were started back on the old board. One of my many issues with that premise - that the USSR was planning its own invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe when Barbarossa hit them - is that to my recollection, the Soviets never picked a fight with something in their weight class when they could avoid it. Stomp on small neighboring countries like Eastern Europe and the 'Stans, sure. Pick a direct force-on-force confrontation with another major power, no. The PRC seems to have something of a similar mindset, and I wonder if some other Soviet patterns are still wound into their thinking. Organizational cultures tend to persist long after circumstances change - for example, the USMC still hasn't gotten Wake and Guadalcanal out of their thinking, some 70 years after the fact. One wonders why those countries can't sit down and put together a mining and exploration company, for investigating the resources of the islands. Once they have data, they can fund and proceed to plan a strategy. If there isn't enough natural resources in the form of oil and gas, then let the birds have it. Here is an abstract about the mineral resources estimate for the Spratly islands from The Geological Society:
As far as altitude, we live at 392 feet, with a ridge rising to about 600-700 between us and the ocean. Keeps the tsunami's away from us.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 21, 2013 21:22:07 GMT -6
Forget tsunamis - last weekend I drove through Miami Beach and there was saltwater coming up onto the streets through the storm drains at high tide. I've accepted the fact that I live in a future Atlantis.
As far as settling the resource dispute, remember there is the additional issue of sovereignty claims. Nations are notoriously bad about letting those go. Asian cultures in particular are known for the practice of "saving face;" giving up ground on claims to islands such as the Spratlys may not be an option they will consider, at least publicly. It's an option that should be first on the table, but I'm pessimistic that the various claimants could come to that agreement. I would think the most likely path would be for the Philippines, ROC, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia to come to an agreement on their own and then approach the PRC with US backing. For the PRC to sign on, they'd have to be convinced it was the best deal they could get. Right now their mindset seems to be that with patience and some application of muscle they can shove their neighbors out of the archipelago without doing anything that would provoke a military response.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 22, 2013 8:26:48 GMT -6
Forget tsunamis - last weekend I drove through Miami Beach and there was saler coming up onto the streets through the storm drains at high tide. I've accepted the fact that I live in a future Atlantis. ....... there is the additional issue of sovereignty claims. Nations are notoriously bad about letting those go. Asian cultures in particular are known for the practice of "saving face;" giving up ground on claims to islands such as the Spratlys may not be an option they will consider, at least publicly. It's an option that should be first on the table, but I'm pessimistic that the various claimants could come to that agreement. I would think the most likely path would be for the Philippines, ROC, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia to come to an agreement on their own and then approach the PRC with US backing. For the PRC to sign on, they'd have to be convinced it was the best deal they could get. Right now their mindset seems to be that with patience and some application of muscle they can shove their neighbors out of the archipelago without doing anything that would provoke a military response. The issue of sovereignty is centered around the strategic nature of the South China Sea and the oil that passes through it to South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Remember; the First Island Chain, that China would like to control first. Even if petroleum resources are found, the oil is very sulfurous and really has to be cracked extensively which makes it expensive. The IJN found that out when they used the oil from Borneo without cracking it and purifying it, it can ruin an engine. The crude from Malaysia is light and sweet, in fact it is some of the best. Now, what is the quality of the crude under the Spratly's. Well, until they drill, they won't know, it could be anything. This is really gamesmanship.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 22, 2013 19:05:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 23, 2013 19:49:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 23, 2013 20:11:39 GMT -6
Haven't we been here before? China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea all claiming rights to an area of the ocean, as if oceans can be really claimed. All four of these nations want energy independence and some will go to war to get it. Wonderful, now, are there petroleum deposits underneath this sea, who knows? C'mon, Man.
www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=ECS - This will at least provide some talking points
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 26, 2013 18:19:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 26, 2013 19:18:07 GMT -6
Much ado about nothing. But, boys will be boys.
You know, why haven't many of these rich nations with no petroleum reserves explore synthetic fuel production like Haber-Bosch, Fischer-Tropsch and many others. With the price of a barrel of crude, its now very cost effective to build and use synthetic fuels and biofuels. Instead of destroying the environment around their cities and building useless carriers, why not invest in such plants and become energy independent. C'mon, Man!!
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 28, 2013 20:12:23 GMT -6
I think this is less about oil than nationalism, and perhaps the nationalism is a cover for trying to remove some of the potential hostile bases in the First Island Chain. Japan is still a bogeyman for the Chinese (somewhat understandable, given the amount of bad blood incurred over several centuries), and the PRC's leadership, while an autocracy, is based on keeping 1.3 billion citizens happy enough that they don't decide to toss them out. One of the standard tricks out of the dictatorship playbook is to pick fights with countries your people hate; keep them fuming at some faceless sods over the border or across the water and hope they forget about their gripes at home. It's been SOP for the Arab nations with Israel as the archenemy, and vice versa. Heck, I occasionally get an earful of it from my father's older relatives - even though they were born in this country after my great-grandparents and grandfather came over from Serbia, bring up the wrong topic and they'll still be griping about Kosovo and things the Albanians did 700-odd years ago. Old grudges run deep.
Problem is, this can get out of hand, and I think the PRC might be experiencing that at the moment. Their state media put up a lot of flak over the lack of response to the B-52 overflight and subsequent Japanese and South Korean activity in the new ADIZ. Just because they're not a democracy doesn't mean they're immune to public pressure, especially when they've spent years chumming the populace up over the issue. There also may be internal political issues here - the PLA is a not-insignificant power player in PRC politics, and the topic of this thread is how they view control of islands like the Senkakus and the Spratlys as strategic military objectives. One gets the feeling the politicians in Beijing should read Eisenhower's remarks on the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
Granted, the PRC first objected to Japanese control of the Senkakus around 1970, right after the first oil and gas exploration reports came out. However, the issue has stayed relatively quiet until last year when Japan nationalized three of the five islands that had been in private hands (if I recall, one of the reasons was to prevent the owners from allowing development on them and provoking the PRC).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 29, 2013 8:43:19 GMT -6
I think this is less about oil than nationalism, and perhaps the nationalism is a cover for trying to remove some of the potential hostile bases in the First Island Chain. Japan is still a bogeyman for the Chinese (somewhat understandable, given the amount of bad blood incurred over several centuries), and the PRC's leadership, while an autocracy, is based on keeping 1.3 billion citizens happy enough that they don't decide to toss them out. One of the standard tricks out of the dictatorship playbook is to pick fights with countries your people hate; keep them fuming at some faceless sods over the border or across the water and hope they forget about their gripes at home. It's been SOP for the Arab nations with Israel as the archenemy, and vice versa. Heck, I occasionally get an earful of it from my father's older relatives - even though they were born in this country after my great-grandparents and grandfather came over from Serbia, bring up the wrong topic and they'll still be griping about Kosovo and things the Albanians did 700-odd years ago. Old grudges run deep. Problem is, this can get out of hand, and I think the PRC might be experiencing that at the moment. Their state media put up a lot of flak over the lack of response to the B-52 overflight and subsequent Japanese and South Korean activity in the new ADIZ. Just because they're not a democracy doesn't mean they're immune to public pressure, especially when they've spent years chumming the populace up over the issue. There also may be internal political issues here - the PLA is a not-insignificant power player in PRC politics, and the topic of this thread is how they view control of islands like the Senkakus and the Spratlys as strategic military objectives. One gets the feeling the politicians in Beijing should read Eisenhower's remarks on the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Granted, the PRC first objected to Japanese control of the Senkakus around 1970, right after the first oil and gas exploration reports came out. However, the issue has stayed relatively quiet until last year when Japan nationalized three of the five islands that had been in private hands (if I recall, one of the reasons was to prevent the owners from allowing development on them and provoking the PRC). First, an ADIZ is not new, I worked within one in the USAF. They surround the US and have since the end of WWII. They are monitored by FAA and NORAD. When you fly through ours, you have to provide a flight plan and squawk Mode C which is your IFF code and altitude. You don't, and you will get a visitor; probably an F-15 or F-16 from Spokane or Seattle, depending on where you transit the zone. The Chinese ADIZ is no bigger than the one that surrounds Alaska. We used to scramble on the Kamchatka Boys, as we used to call the Russian Bears out of the bases in Kamchatka. www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0506.html
Hope this helps to understand the Chinese. The Japanese have ADIZ's, Russia, everyone has one. So, if I seem unconcerned, I am. I have worked in them and it ain't no big deal. We used to scramble F-106s and F-102s to intercept unresponsive commercial aircraft all the time, it was great fun.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 29, 2013 22:46:02 GMT -6
I understand that ADIZs are not new; Japan has had one of its own over the Senkakus since the late 1960s I believe. However, I would assume unilaterally establishing one over territory controlled by another nation (while claiming said territory is your own) tends to be viewed unfavorably by the neighbors. Given that Korean Air Lines had one airliner forced down with damage and one destroyed for violating Soviet airspace during the Cold War, folks might be a little nervous over the matter.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 29, 2013 23:14:47 GMT -6
I understand that ADIZs are not new; Japan has had one of its own over the Senkakus since the late 1960s I believe. However, I would assume unilaterally establishing one over territory controlled by another nation (while claiming said territory is your own) tends to be viewed unfavorably by the neighbors. Given that Korean Air Lines had one airliner forced down with damage and one destroyed for violating Soviet airspace during the Cold War, folks might be a little nervous over the matter. Any nation can declare an ADIZ, enforcing it is another thing. As we have seen, US bombers and Japanese aircraft have flown through this region and never contacted Chinese authorities by radio. When the Chinese don't do anything, how does tha make them look to their own people? ADIZs are not recognized around the world, they are essentially meaningless. Could this whole issue get out of hand? Sure it could if clearer heads don't prevail. The Chinese economy is hooked on buying and selling the worlds goods, if they force this issue farther, they will lose that position which will be more devastating to their economy than anything they can imagine. Again, much ado about nothing. This is an old cold war tactic.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 9, 2013 19:17:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2013 19:37:16 GMT -6
Quite interesting, if redundant. What they are doing, is a simple old Cold War tactic to generate nationalism as the article states. The Soviets, Cubans, Chinese, North Koreans and just about any Communist nation when there is an unrest, resorts to creating an international incident. However, this is a new season, not the old. We didn't have internet then, and now information is easy to come by. It won't work this time. This is a government in decline, and they know it. When their economy finally starts to decline, as all booming economies usually do in the business cycle, the government will have to resort to strong arm tactics and that will spell their doom.
|
|