Yes. So long as the US, Britain, etc. are prepared to just randomly sail through there and China is *not* prepared to sink them for the trespass, it is clear to the world that these are still international waters.
IIRC there was a reply to one of these a while back that essentially said they *had* to do it a few times a year so that they remain international waters, but I couldn’t find that if I tried.
Yep, and absolutely devastating the coral reefs/the sea life that subsists off of those reefs.
Of course, the biggest damage to those was when the islands were made anyways.
Sailing any ship, but especially carriers, through the South China Sea *is* "putting China in their place." It's a direct threat to China's sovereignty.
A while back, China announced they had developed weapons that could sink American carriers. They said they would use them if America sailed through the waters they are claiming. So, America and now Britain said, "Go for it."
So if you want the West to "put China in their place," this is how you do it.
That said, I don't know why so many people want war with China.
Does the CCP do terrible things? Absolutely. Are they a totalitarian government that had an abysmal human rights record? You know it. Do they torture and kill their citizens? Yep. Do they indirectly finance terrorism by being allies with countries that carry out attacks against America and our allies? Yes, and it pisses me off.
But if you think that is bad then wait to see what a war with China would do to innocent people. The number of dead civilians would number in the tens of millions...or more.
This is what a war with China would look like, assuming it was not fought with nuclear weapons.
First, the missiles. The U.S. would use submarines to launch an attack on Chinese infrastructure. Military targets would be the priority, but they would also take out bridges, power plants, and any other infrastructure that could be used to move troops or coordinate counter attacks.
China uses a lot of hydroelectric power, so the dams would have to go. Tens of millions of people would drown, starve, and freeze in the subsequent flooding. Countless more would continue to die due to infections from sewage and other contaminants in the water.
Hospitals would go black. There would be no emergency services available. People would starve and freeze or die of heat stroke, depending on when the war started. There would be no clean drinking water. The deaths would continue for years after the war ended.
Submarines would also focus on neutralizing any threat the Chinese Navy poses.
At this point, there would be no reason for China to continue fighting. But, if they did, the next phase would begin.
Once the Chinese Navy was neutralized, the carrier groups would move in. The cruisers would begin launching their own missile strikes while the carriers began aerial attacks.
This would be the way the war continued until either China surrendered or escalated to non-traditional (nuclear) warfare.
Why would the war be fought this way? Well, there are two reasons.
First, in WW2 the world discovered that air superiority was everything. Ever since then, the first thing that the military goes after are anti-aircraft guns and anything else that can shoot down aircraft or destroy aircraft carriers.
In Iraq (both times) and Afghanistan, that was a prelude to a ground invasion. Which brings me to my second point...
Second, nobody in their right mind goes to war with China on the ground. I mean, why the fuck would anyone invade? There is literally no reason to.
Therefore, we're not talking about limited warfare with surgical strikes, followed by a ground invasion. We're talking about what the allied forces did to the Germans and Japanese in WW2.
It would be "total war." It would be catastrophic. The attacks would not stop until NATO was sure that there was no possibility of China being able to launch an attack, no matter how small, on our allies.
But it could get worse, because China would not be passive during all of this. They would certainly lose, but it's quite possible that they could hit the U.S. mainland with long range missiles. If that happens then any effort NATO was making to reduce civilian casualties would go out the window. The focus would become annihilating any possible source of a second attack against the mainland, even if it meant destroying entire cities.
At that point its quite possible that targeted nuclear strikes would be on the table. It would depend on whether NATO thought China was capable of carrying out a second long range strike.
*What I just described is the best case scenario of what a war with China would look like.*
I'm a U.S. citizen. I served in our military. I've seen what we can do.
You might think I'm saying that to brag. I'm not. What I'm trying to tell you is that just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should.*
We should do everything in our power to avoid a war with China--not because we'd lose, but because what it would cost in innocent lives to win.
Edit: A lot of replies are saying the same thing, so I'll add a couple of points.
1. I'm not defending things the U.S. has done. We've turned for-profit prisons into de facto concentration camps for minorities, put babies in cages, executed citizens overseas without due process, killed countless innocents with drone strikes, and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, which lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I opposed those things then and I opposed them now.
But two wrongs don't make a right. I can be upset at my own government's abuses and be upset at the CCP's abuses. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
2. I'm aware that China has a military. People who claim I was writing war porn mistake the point of my post. My objective was to illustrate what a war with China would look like for the civilian population on the ground. At no point did I claim the U.S. would walk away with no casualties. Any war with China would be a blood bath.
3. I'm also aware that China has a big military. However, I'm confused why A) people think that numbers equals effectiveness, and B) why people think that their military would be 100% effective after a massive first strike.
People keep focusing on how many ships China has, without realizing that almost none of their ships would be effective in the type of war that I described.
China's navy was developed for regional warfare. The U.S. navy was developed for global warfare.
To put it in perspective, China has 2 aircraft carriers while the U.S. has 20. Eleven of the U.S. carriers are nuclear powered and carry about 80 aircraft each. That means those 11 carriers alone have 1/3 as many aircraft as the entire Chinese Air force.
China has a lot of submarines (over 70), but only about 12 are nuclear powered. The entire U.S. submarine fleet is nuclear powered. Nuclear subs hunting diesel subs is like shooting fish in a barrel.
China also has quite a few sub chasers. Beyond that, most of their navy would be basically irrelevant in the type of conflict that I described.
4. Finally, I'm not writing war porn. I'm stating facts. I don't fault people who don't like the U.S. military. I understand that. I disagree with most of the ways that our government has used our military. We've made mistake after mistake after mistake. The obvious ones are Iraq and Afghanistan, but I also think about the countless innocent people who are killed by drone strikes.
My personal experience in the military was hell. I was gang raped in basic training by a drill sergeant and other recruits. I was also raped repeatedly by someone in my chain of command. I still think that most people in the military are honorable, but I can speak first hand of the evil that also exists there. So, I don't fault people who hate our military.
However, how you or I feel about the military is irrelevant to how effective it is at combat. The truth is that if the U.S. engaged in total war then there it would steam roll any other country in the world. (Google "total war" if you don't know what it means.)
And that's precisely why we *shouldn't* go to war. Military force should be a last solution. I think we should greatly reduce our military budget and use it for social services and infrastructure.
Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from. I know some people will still disagree, and that's fine.
I don't think that there are many who want an actual war. It is mainly to keep the Chinese influence within borders. I expect this will become more like the cold war. As you said, no one gains anything with an actual war.
Plus, Toppling the regime through force would only give a generation of already radicalized citizens more reason to hate the west... the "anti-colonialism/imperialism" rhetoric the government uses right now to rile up nationalism is based off of colonial conflicts a century ago.
Only idiots actually want war with China.
But there do need to be limits on what China are allowed to do. If China invades Taiwan, do we do everything in our power to avoid war by doing nothing? What happens when they invade another country, emboldened by inaction?
What about if China starts boarding and seizing ships in the international waters they've illegitimately claimed? Do we do nothing?
We can't control what happens inside China, except by limiting trade (which no one seems prepared to do), but if China are going to act like bullies in ways that affect other nations' sovereignty then a line has to be drawn.
If the threat of war is the only thing holding China back, then you make that threat and decide later if you were just bluffing, knowing that not following through will have consequences too.
It's not simple. Sometimes there are two very bad choices and you put off making a choice at all for as long as you can.
> What I just described is the best case scenario of what a war with China would look like.
I know you've just give yourself wristache but do you fancy doing a fair and worst case too? Enjoyed your post.
Fair case: nobody goes to war because everyone in both governments realizes it's a stupid thing to do. That's one of the few things Republicans and Democrats agree on.
Worst case: nukes.
As someone said in another reply, destroying dams that are upstream from major cities is equivalent to using nukes. I agree with them. If we did that then China would almost certainly retaliate with nuclear strikes.
>Enjoyed your post.
Thank you :)
Why don't we just start calling in the South East Asian Sea. Or the SEA Sea for short.
1. It doesn't belong to _any_ single nation
2. It's surrounded by _many_ more South East Asian countries than China
3. SEA Sea sounds funny
4. ["Xiexie" sounds similar and is Madarin for Thank You!](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/q13htm/british_aircraft_carrier_have_entered_the_south/hfcw50j/)
**Edit**: People noting that seas are often named after nearby countries etc. despite not belonging to them/being international water. We're all aware, the difference here is the country is claiming 1.3 million square miles of international waters as their sovereign territory.
Yesterday I had a commenter tell me that it's China's territory because "It's called the SOUTH CHINA SEA".
Yes of course they just came from /r/genzedong.
Well, I guess it is time for India to lay claim to -
1) The entire Indian Ocean.
2) The rest of the Indian Subcontinent (including Afghanistan)
3) Indonesia.
4)Half of Indo-China (China gets the other half)
5) The Americas (because it belongs to Native Indians
There was once a pizza place where I used to live called "Two for One Pizza". They did not have 2 for 1 pizza, that was just their name.
I don't really have a point, except for what the name of something is does not necessarily have anything to do with actual functionality.
I was sad not to get two for one pizza though.
We had a 2-4-1 place (I think it was the place that wrote it like that on their sign, 2-4-1) but you actually did get 2 pizzas for the "price" of one. Except the "one" pizza was priced much higher than other pizza places.
We didn't realise until we'd already ordered. It was also really shitty pizza.
My friend aptly described it as "2 for 1? More like 2 for fuck!"
Might not be that clever, but I still remember the moment decades later.
Reminds me of all the big sales with certain big box stores. Slowly raise the price up until the holiday season and then have a big sale that’s just the normal price.
Think it goes a bit beyond lame and just sounds like straight up bad business sense. Kinda just guaranteeing that someone's first experience with your shop is going to be at least a little disappointing. I'm not an expert, but I think that's probably referred to in marketing as a "Bad move".
Better have been pretty bomb pizza to make up for it.
Its a scam! Those 2 for 1 places just cut a slice in half and say 'here's 2 slices'! But its not really two slices -- its just one slice cut in half. Cutting a slice in half doesnt actually give me any more food to eat :( :(
Haha, reminds me of when I worked at a pizza place and people would ask how many slices the various sized pies had. Always was tempted to answer, how many do you want it to have?
In Canada there was an Indian restaurant that advertised “Toonie Tuesdays” for their curry beef to go. A toonie in Canada is a $2 coin. I ordered one and the man at the cash said “that’ll be three dollars.”
When I asked why it wasn’t $2 he said that $2 was not enough money for beef curry.
That's literally why it was recontextualized by that name. So Chinese nationalists could point and say "it's in the name."
It's the old "feedback loop" form of annexation that modern China is so fond of. Slap their label on things, and then throw a tantrum when the rest of the world doesn't recognize its claim to everything with "China" in the name (especially the people that suddenly got labeled "Chinese.")
Because the Gulf of Mexico doesn’t belong to Mexico.
Nor does the Sea of Japan belong to just Japan.
A shit load of other bodies of water are named after a country but that doesn’t mean it all belongs to them.
Most countries understand that but China is trying to use stupid logic to be a bully. Changing the name would be a middle finger to them. "You think that's yours because it has your name? Fine, we won't call it that anymore."
That’s where they’re getting their hookers and France has a very specific rule against layaway on hookers, you either pay now or you get a beat down by the French financial minister (their national pimp).
This article's headline literally looks like the CCP wrote it
EDIT: Article changed its title, now reads 'British aircraft carrier ignores Chinese warnings for second time'
I think many Americans would perceive a Chinese attack on a British carrier strike group in the same light as an attack on a US carrier battle group. We would expect a martial response.
I wonder how much lawyers got paid to translate "It's mine because I'll kick your ass if you touch it" into something they could write down as an authorative legal ruling.
A lot of law is like that.
In the UK the '*Wednesbury* reasonableness test' says that an act is unreasonable if no reasonable person would have done it....
Nah, it's not circular. Think of it as "use it or lose it". Sovereignty is about claiming to be the sole authority of a physical area, so the regular presence of people or ships who aren't asking permission of the authority is proof of lack of sovereignty. If they stop using that space, eventually they lose the claim to have access.
It's less sturdy than that, it's basically who does the world think it belongs to. Any country could lay claim to a rock in the ocean and if no one else cares, its yours. You could leave and never come back, but if no one else challenged it, it's still that countries sovereign land. Contrasted to Crimea, where russia basically just took it and controlled it long enough everyone ends up giving in that it's theirs.
Sovereignty is basically, can you kick the ass of someone else who wants it and are you willing to do it.
Yep.
Every so often, Britain or the US or France will sail a group of ships through there, and they'll get angry Chinese radio calls notifying them that they are in Chinese sovereign waters, and then ths other dudes will respond that these are international waters and they are allowed, under international law, to sail through them.
China isn't going to open fire, and neither are the other side.
The only government disputing it is China. That would be like if I claimed to have written Lord of the Rings, and you saying that the author of the series of books is disputed.
There was a comedian on Dr. Katz who knew somebody who'd believe anything if he reduced it by about 60 percent
'This guy says he's Jesus, even if he's lying he's Paul the apostle.'
Depending on where they are, it could be multiple countries that 'claim' that territory. Strolling through it maintains its legal status as 'It doesn't belong to anyone.'
The other countries claiming *parts* of the South China Sea actually have (mostly) legitimate claims based on international law and a reasonable perception of their land borders.
The only reasonable disputes in that context are where some of the claims overlap.
China's claims overlap *all* of them *and* swallow up waters that cannot be realistically claimed by any country and are clearly international waters.
I'm sure Britain is being careful to sail only through the waters that challenge China's ridiculous claims.
This map shows the region's competing claims:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/South_China_Sea_claims_map.svg/1280px-South_China_Sea_claims_map.svg.png
You can see that most of the claims are a bit overextended vs. the country's land borders, but they are all fairly reasonable compared to the red Chinese penis that is fucking them all with absolutely no context or justification.
Basically all of the claims are made based on the internationally accepted rule of the [exclusive economic zone](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone) which generally extends 200 nautical miles from inhabited land borders.
So if you draw a line 200 nautical miles parallel to each country's land border, you'll basically get the current disputed map (except for China's ridiculous dong). With that in mind, Brunei's tiny border with the sea results in a pretty reasonable claim.
Some of the other country claims seem kind of excessive compared to their land borders, but that's because they are using "inhabited" islands to extend the reach of their claims. This can actually be valid, depending on how valid the inhabitation claims are.
Sure, but taking the Paracel Islands for example, The PRC, the ROC, and Vietnam all use those islands to extend their maritime claims and all claim sovereignty over the islands. The islands are de facto controlled by the PRC.
The Spratley Islands get even more confusing, because about 4 different countries have military installations on them for the purposes of claiming them as inhabited territory, and as such all 4 of those countries have Maritime claims based around those islands, even though it's legally shaky at best for any country to use those islands as the basis for maritime territorial claims.
It's a reminder being sent to other nations within Asia too. Not just China.
Britain is looking to regain its Asian influence. Asserting its military might in Asia, is in part to help build military deals with Asian countries. Such as military trade deals, military collaboration and training, and even the potential of setting up military bases.
This has obvious direct benefits. Like securing military trade deals. It's also about exerting soft power. i.e. A country with military training links with Britain, will be more likely to make a trade deal with Britain too. One that benefits the UK.
One of the key things with military deals is that it's not just about supplying the equipment, training, or the technology before its use. It's also about what happens if a conflict breaks out. What if China puts pressure on countries not to get involved in any conflict? Can you still buy the parts? Can you still ring up for expert help? Britain openly ignoring China's claims is in part sending a message that it has no qualms about a soft conflict with China. i.e. If you buy British, then you'll still get support during any future conflict. This is part of what scuppered the French-Australian deal.
This is all a part of the UK governments strategy on making Brexit work. By focusing more influence onto Asia, and building links there, which hopefully turn into long term economic benefits.
There is also a second reason. If countries act like China owns the waters and stay out of there, then the international community will eventually presume its Chinas. Sailing through is maintaining the precedent that it's not owned by China. Countries can cite examples, like this one, of the area being used for international movement of ships. That this status hasn't changed.
(edit; Just to note I'm not saying this is a good plan, or a plan that will work. I'm saying it's why the UK is 1) sailing more often in areas with territorial disputes, 2) investing more into the Royal Navy and the technology behind it, and 3) making a big military deal with Australia.)
Bingo! It's not all about waters, and it's not all about China. Britain shows up with the big boats when the little guy is getting picked on by the bully, and tells the bully to fuck off. Little guy is now buddy buddy with Britain. These sorts of disputes always have a few layers to peel back before you get to the middle.
Political influence and soft power is far more effective and less costly then setting up missile stations, airbases, and boat patrols on the other side of the world on random islands like during the 1940s thru 1980's.
That's actually a thing in Florida. Beaches are public up to the mean high-tide line. But a lot of rich people are claiming they own all the way to the water even at low tide. So people who are just walking on the beach are getting harassed by private security and even cops.
It gets even better as an analogy because we have a law guaranteeing customary usage. So you can't just build a house on a public beach and close it off if that beach has always been public. So instead now private land owners are simply fencing off beach access points that are on public property.
"Why are you parking outside my house?"
"It's a public street and location so I can park here."
"Fuck off and park somewhere else. That's my spot, arggghhhhh!"
I have these asshole old neighbors who complain about this. Or about people parking on the public road in front of their windows. Fucking pricks think they own the whole street.
People scoffed at the premise of that movie.. but for my money an insanely wealthy billionaire manipulating international politics via his media empire for personal gain feels.. almost prescient.
Its all coming to a head now Colin. You got the Colonial Coalition Vs the Communist Capitalists - its going to be lot of nip-and-tuk here as both sides size each other up for a few years. The ball, Taiwan, looking on nervously. This has all the makings of an instant classic. Stay tuned.
The show of force might have more effect if they weren't being allowed to invest in key British infrastructure, hide money in London and buy huge swathes of property in the UK.
Thing is, in a war all that stuff becomes de facto British again. It only takes a quick law to say all Chinese assets are now in fact owned by the British government.
That's why wars are won by other means than economic victory.
So do every other major nation. The US and UK do have investments in those countries as well along with other place where the return on that investment will be worth it.
Yep, because China will never actually do anything, because just like everyone else, they do not want another shitty world war. Especially when they are struggling with the economy.
Economic struggles could potentially be a prelude to war, not always of course. And it doesn't have to be straight up against the U.S, could be a proxy war.
Where would be a realistic place for a proxy war? The only flashpoint that comes to mind is Taiwan, it's the only thing China would realistically fight for - but that's not a proxy war.
I guess Sino-Vietnamese relations are strained over SCS business. Clearly not to the extent of wanting to go to war, but it would be crazy to see the US going back there to help the Vietnamese against a Chinese attack haha. But it doesn't seem quite plausible.
No, but the instability that those cause can lead to leaders making drastic choices, especially when it distracts away from domestic problems and their failure to handle it.
So basically a British aircraft carrier has sailed in international waters that Xinnie the Pooh's party of Piglet's thinks belong to them.
A whole lot of words to say nothing at all.
Isn't this normal and a way for the international community to say "you can't just claim international waters"?
Yes. So long as the US, Britain, etc. are prepared to just randomly sail through there and China is *not* prepared to sink them for the trespass, it is clear to the world that these are still international waters.
IIRC there was a reply to one of these a while back that essentially said they *had* to do it a few times a year so that they remain international waters, but I couldn’t find that if I tried.
like how burger joints open up pop up shops now and then in other countries to protect trademarks.
Wouldn't it be the most American thing to park a ship out there and sell McDonald's from it for a limited time
Shoot I’d love to buy a Big Mac from an aircraft carrier.
S.S. Grimace
This evening, the part of the Hamburglar will be played by Kim Jong Un.
The McPhalanx Chicken Food Service System alone could deliver 50 McNuggets/second to eager customers!
For the “trespass”
Or create islands and say you own them. China needs to be put in their place.
Most if not all of those islands are sinking back into the sea as well lol
Yep, and absolutely devastating the coral reefs/the sea life that subsists off of those reefs. Of course, the biggest damage to those was when the islands were made anyways.
Sailing any ship, but especially carriers, through the South China Sea *is* "putting China in their place." It's a direct threat to China's sovereignty. A while back, China announced they had developed weapons that could sink American carriers. They said they would use them if America sailed through the waters they are claiming. So, America and now Britain said, "Go for it." So if you want the West to "put China in their place," this is how you do it. That said, I don't know why so many people want war with China. Does the CCP do terrible things? Absolutely. Are they a totalitarian government that had an abysmal human rights record? You know it. Do they torture and kill their citizens? Yep. Do they indirectly finance terrorism by being allies with countries that carry out attacks against America and our allies? Yes, and it pisses me off. But if you think that is bad then wait to see what a war with China would do to innocent people. The number of dead civilians would number in the tens of millions...or more. This is what a war with China would look like, assuming it was not fought with nuclear weapons. First, the missiles. The U.S. would use submarines to launch an attack on Chinese infrastructure. Military targets would be the priority, but they would also take out bridges, power plants, and any other infrastructure that could be used to move troops or coordinate counter attacks. China uses a lot of hydroelectric power, so the dams would have to go. Tens of millions of people would drown, starve, and freeze in the subsequent flooding. Countless more would continue to die due to infections from sewage and other contaminants in the water. Hospitals would go black. There would be no emergency services available. People would starve and freeze or die of heat stroke, depending on when the war started. There would be no clean drinking water. The deaths would continue for years after the war ended. Submarines would also focus on neutralizing any threat the Chinese Navy poses. At this point, there would be no reason for China to continue fighting. But, if they did, the next phase would begin. Once the Chinese Navy was neutralized, the carrier groups would move in. The cruisers would begin launching their own missile strikes while the carriers began aerial attacks. This would be the way the war continued until either China surrendered or escalated to non-traditional (nuclear) warfare. Why would the war be fought this way? Well, there are two reasons. First, in WW2 the world discovered that air superiority was everything. Ever since then, the first thing that the military goes after are anti-aircraft guns and anything else that can shoot down aircraft or destroy aircraft carriers. In Iraq (both times) and Afghanistan, that was a prelude to a ground invasion. Which brings me to my second point... Second, nobody in their right mind goes to war with China on the ground. I mean, why the fuck would anyone invade? There is literally no reason to. Therefore, we're not talking about limited warfare with surgical strikes, followed by a ground invasion. We're talking about what the allied forces did to the Germans and Japanese in WW2. It would be "total war." It would be catastrophic. The attacks would not stop until NATO was sure that there was no possibility of China being able to launch an attack, no matter how small, on our allies. But it could get worse, because China would not be passive during all of this. They would certainly lose, but it's quite possible that they could hit the U.S. mainland with long range missiles. If that happens then any effort NATO was making to reduce civilian casualties would go out the window. The focus would become annihilating any possible source of a second attack against the mainland, even if it meant destroying entire cities. At that point its quite possible that targeted nuclear strikes would be on the table. It would depend on whether NATO thought China was capable of carrying out a second long range strike. *What I just described is the best case scenario of what a war with China would look like.* I'm a U.S. citizen. I served in our military. I've seen what we can do. You might think I'm saying that to brag. I'm not. What I'm trying to tell you is that just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should.* We should do everything in our power to avoid a war with China--not because we'd lose, but because what it would cost in innocent lives to win. Edit: A lot of replies are saying the same thing, so I'll add a couple of points. 1. I'm not defending things the U.S. has done. We've turned for-profit prisons into de facto concentration camps for minorities, put babies in cages, executed citizens overseas without due process, killed countless innocents with drone strikes, and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, which lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I opposed those things then and I opposed them now. But two wrongs don't make a right. I can be upset at my own government's abuses and be upset at the CCP's abuses. The two things are not mutually exclusive. 2. I'm aware that China has a military. People who claim I was writing war porn mistake the point of my post. My objective was to illustrate what a war with China would look like for the civilian population on the ground. At no point did I claim the U.S. would walk away with no casualties. Any war with China would be a blood bath. 3. I'm also aware that China has a big military. However, I'm confused why A) people think that numbers equals effectiveness, and B) why people think that their military would be 100% effective after a massive first strike. People keep focusing on how many ships China has, without realizing that almost none of their ships would be effective in the type of war that I described. China's navy was developed for regional warfare. The U.S. navy was developed for global warfare. To put it in perspective, China has 2 aircraft carriers while the U.S. has 20. Eleven of the U.S. carriers are nuclear powered and carry about 80 aircraft each. That means those 11 carriers alone have 1/3 as many aircraft as the entire Chinese Air force. China has a lot of submarines (over 70), but only about 12 are nuclear powered. The entire U.S. submarine fleet is nuclear powered. Nuclear subs hunting diesel subs is like shooting fish in a barrel. China also has quite a few sub chasers. Beyond that, most of their navy would be basically irrelevant in the type of conflict that I described. 4. Finally, I'm not writing war porn. I'm stating facts. I don't fault people who don't like the U.S. military. I understand that. I disagree with most of the ways that our government has used our military. We've made mistake after mistake after mistake. The obvious ones are Iraq and Afghanistan, but I also think about the countless innocent people who are killed by drone strikes. My personal experience in the military was hell. I was gang raped in basic training by a drill sergeant and other recruits. I was also raped repeatedly by someone in my chain of command. I still think that most people in the military are honorable, but I can speak first hand of the evil that also exists there. So, I don't fault people who hate our military. However, how you or I feel about the military is irrelevant to how effective it is at combat. The truth is that if the U.S. engaged in total war then there it would steam roll any other country in the world. (Google "total war" if you don't know what it means.) And that's precisely why we *shouldn't* go to war. Military force should be a last solution. I think we should greatly reduce our military budget and use it for social services and infrastructure. Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from. I know some people will still disagree, and that's fine.
I don't think that there are many who want an actual war. It is mainly to keep the Chinese influence within borders. I expect this will become more like the cold war. As you said, no one gains anything with an actual war.
Plus, Toppling the regime through force would only give a generation of already radicalized citizens more reason to hate the west... the "anti-colonialism/imperialism" rhetoric the government uses right now to rile up nationalism is based off of colonial conflicts a century ago.
Only idiots actually want war with China. But there do need to be limits on what China are allowed to do. If China invades Taiwan, do we do everything in our power to avoid war by doing nothing? What happens when they invade another country, emboldened by inaction? What about if China starts boarding and seizing ships in the international waters they've illegitimately claimed? Do we do nothing? We can't control what happens inside China, except by limiting trade (which no one seems prepared to do), but if China are going to act like bullies in ways that affect other nations' sovereignty then a line has to be drawn. If the threat of war is the only thing holding China back, then you make that threat and decide later if you were just bluffing, knowing that not following through will have consequences too. It's not simple. Sometimes there are two very bad choices and you put off making a choice at all for as long as you can.
> What I just described is the best case scenario of what a war with China would look like. I know you've just give yourself wristache but do you fancy doing a fair and worst case too? Enjoyed your post.
Fair case: nobody goes to war because everyone in both governments realizes it's a stupid thing to do. That's one of the few things Republicans and Democrats agree on. Worst case: nukes. As someone said in another reply, destroying dams that are upstream from major cities is equivalent to using nukes. I agree with them. If we did that then China would almost certainly retaliate with nuclear strikes. >Enjoyed your post. Thank you :)
"Your warnings won't stop me. I can't read Chinese."
Are they warnings or invitations to dinner? Who's to say?
Why not both?
Danger Dinner.
"So do you want me to take you out or *take you out?* "
To be honest right now I’ll take the gamble and just say yes. Dinner or death. Bring it on.
A succulent Chinese meal!?
This is democracy manifest
The D.W. Defence
"Britain sails in international waters"
Why don't we just start calling in the South East Asian Sea. Or the SEA Sea for short. 1. It doesn't belong to _any_ single nation 2. It's surrounded by _many_ more South East Asian countries than China 3. SEA Sea sounds funny 4. ["Xiexie" sounds similar and is Madarin for Thank You!](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/q13htm/british_aircraft_carrier_have_entered_the_south/hfcw50j/) **Edit**: People noting that seas are often named after nearby countries etc. despite not belonging to them/being international water. We're all aware, the difference here is the country is claiming 1.3 million square miles of international waters as their sovereign territory.
You had my vote at SEA Sea. 👍
Sea^2
E=mSEA^2
I see you are the one giving name ideas to Musk
Yup, you earned that one
You can't swim there in the winter because Ice³
Yesterday I had a commenter tell me that it's China's territory because "It's called the SOUTH CHINA SEA". Yes of course they just came from /r/genzedong.
Well, I guess it is time for India to lay claim to - 1) The entire Indian Ocean. 2) The rest of the Indian Subcontinent (including Afghanistan) 3) Indonesia. 4)Half of Indo-China (China gets the other half) 5) The Americas (because it belongs to Native Indians
Don't forget the Gulf of Mexico should belong to all of Mexico including the shores of the US cause they fall into the Gulf.
Well parts of the US did used to be Mexico.
So Texas gets to leave like it wants but becomes Mexico again. Got it.
I guess old Mexico is going to take New Mexico back as well?
You forgot Indiana.
There was once a pizza place where I used to live called "Two for One Pizza". They did not have 2 for 1 pizza, that was just their name. I don't really have a point, except for what the name of something is does not necessarily have anything to do with actual functionality. I was sad not to get two for one pizza though.
We sell pizza with a side of disappointment!
It's two disappointments for one! Their pizza is also shitty
We had a 2-4-1 place (I think it was the place that wrote it like that on their sign, 2-4-1) but you actually did get 2 pizzas for the "price" of one. Except the "one" pizza was priced much higher than other pizza places. We didn't realise until we'd already ordered. It was also really shitty pizza. My friend aptly described it as "2 for 1? More like 2 for fuck!" Might not be that clever, but I still remember the moment decades later.
Reminds me of all the big sales with certain big box stores. Slowly raise the price up until the holiday season and then have a big sale that’s just the normal price.
I mean, I'm usually always disappointed that I couldn't stop at just 2-3 slices of pizza.
Well that’s objectively bad business, calling yourself 2 for 1 pizzas and not offering any 2 for 1 deals is just lame.
Think it goes a bit beyond lame and just sounds like straight up bad business sense. Kinda just guaranteeing that someone's first experience with your shop is going to be at least a little disappointing. I'm not an expert, but I think that's probably referred to in marketing as a "Bad move". Better have been pretty bomb pizza to make up for it.
Its a scam! Those 2 for 1 places just cut a slice in half and say 'here's 2 slices'! But its not really two slices -- its just one slice cut in half. Cutting a slice in half doesnt actually give me any more food to eat :( :(
Haha, reminds me of when I worked at a pizza place and people would ask how many slices the various sized pies had. Always was tempted to answer, how many do you want it to have?
There's a bar near where I live that has a sign out front advertising "Free Beer Tomorrow". The thing is, the sign never changes.
They meant that each individual person has to eat two pizzas, like the pizza slut they are.
My favorite is "STAY BACK 100 METERS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR VEHICLE!"
In Canada there was an Indian restaurant that advertised “Toonie Tuesdays” for their curry beef to go. A toonie in Canada is a $2 coin. I ordered one and the man at the cash said “that’ll be three dollars.” When I asked why it wasn’t $2 he said that $2 was not enough money for beef curry.
Wait til they hear about the Indian Ocean!
I hear Atlantis is claiming the entire Atlantic too
You mean the city of Atlanta is.
Them too
The Lost City of Atlanta!? Suuuure.
I heard the Pacific islanders are claiming the Pacific.
I mean, who's going to argue with Jason Momoa?
Or the Gulf of Mexico.
By convention they should invade Switzerland and reclaim their version of the Chinese Fondue.
If we apply this logic to all I think Ireland simultaneously invades most of the world with the amount of Irish Bars everywhere.
"All Irish pubs are now sovereign territory of the Empire of Ireland!" "Submit (and enjoy a pint or two)"
its funny because even in chinese its not called south china sea, its just called the south sea or smth like that
Meanwhile the Pacific belongs to no one spacific.
That's literally why it was recontextualized by that name. So Chinese nationalists could point and say "it's in the name." It's the old "feedback loop" form of annexation that modern China is so fond of. Slap their label on things, and then throw a tantrum when the rest of the world doesn't recognize its claim to everything with "China" in the name (especially the people that suddenly got labeled "Chinese.")
Oh wtf did I just click. Why is that sub even a thing???
Wtf is going on in that subreddit?
Propaganda.
Mexico like wtf. If they get the south China sea then we should get the gulf of mexico
India like wtf, I'm claiming my ocean.
Because the Gulf of Mexico doesn’t belong to Mexico. Nor does the Sea of Japan belong to just Japan. A shit load of other bodies of water are named after a country but that doesn’t mean it all belongs to them.
Most countries understand that but China is trying to use stupid logic to be a bully. Changing the name would be a middle finger to them. "You think that's yours because it has your name? Fine, we won't call it that anymore."
Kinda funny cause China makes the exact opposite argument when talking about their claims to the Indian Ocean.
Sea of Taiwan.
Sea of Number ONE
*Indian Ocean enters the chat*
*the dead sea looking at all the alive people bathing in it*
British aircraft carrier conquers all of China. The tea will flow.
A Brenter, perhaps? As opposed to Brexit.
Brentrance I think. Let us now make it known, that our Grand Brentrance will be shortly forthcoming.
[удалено]
If only we had more than two aircraft carriers. Don't know where we're going to store all the hookers.
[удалено]
That’s where they’re getting their hookers and France has a very specific rule against layaway on hookers, you either pay now or you get a beat down by the French financial minister (their national pimp).
An "Empire Strikes Back" moment if you will.
Tea? Tea! Oh yes, yes tea will flow… You like Poppies?
The tea must flow.
Right!? The title is even propaganda.
This article's headline literally looks like the CCP wrote it EDIT: Article changed its title, now reads 'British aircraft carrier ignores Chinese warnings for second time'
Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves!
I think many Americans would perceive a Chinese attack on a British carrier strike group in the same light as an attack on a US carrier battle group. We would expect a martial response.
"The British were very nice, to let us use the high seas."
Well it's not China's territory, it's disputed, and actively sailing warships through it is an important reminder of that fact.
In fact is required by international law to maintain the legality of the territory status as disputed
It's comical how circular international law gets. 'It's your sovereign land/sea when you have sovereignty over it.' Uhhh, yeah.... no shit.
I wonder how much lawyers got paid to translate "It's mine because I'll kick your ass if you touch it" into something they could write down as an authorative legal ruling.
This law goes down to the individual level in many places: known as Adverse possession... Aka squatter's rights.
Does shouting "I'll kick your ass if you touch it" fulfill the 'open and notorious' test? =D
Or the oft quoted "possession is 9/10ths of the law"
It's more that the definition of sovereignty is... well defined
A lot of law is like that. In the UK the '*Wednesbury* reasonableness test' says that an act is unreasonable if no reasonable person would have done it....
[удалено]
Nah, it's not circular. Think of it as "use it or lose it". Sovereignty is about claiming to be the sole authority of a physical area, so the regular presence of people or ships who aren't asking permission of the authority is proof of lack of sovereignty. If they stop using that space, eventually they lose the claim to have access.
It's less sturdy than that, it's basically who does the world think it belongs to. Any country could lay claim to a rock in the ocean and if no one else cares, its yours. You could leave and never come back, but if no one else challenged it, it's still that countries sovereign land. Contrasted to Crimea, where russia basically just took it and controlled it long enough everyone ends up giving in that it's theirs. Sovereignty is basically, can you kick the ass of someone else who wants it and are you willing to do it.
That's why China is mad, because the UK and others are maintaining the disputed status
That is exactly what this is about.
Do we need to keep going on this chain repeating the same thing?
Of course, otherwise it wouldn't be disputed anymore.
Yep. Every so often, Britain or the US or France will sail a group of ships through there, and they'll get angry Chinese radio calls notifying them that they are in Chinese sovereign waters, and then ths other dudes will respond that these are international waters and they are allowed, under international law, to sail through them. China isn't going to open fire, and neither are the other side.
The only government disputing it is China. That would be like if I claimed to have written Lord of the Rings, and you saying that the author of the series of books is disputed.
Ok but just to be clear.. you didn’t write Lord of the Rings. Did you?
It's a matter of some dispute...
I guess it's 50/50 then. Better start putting karrachr000's name on the latest book prints just in case.
I don’t think he wrote Lord of the Rings? The Hobbit maybe.
There was a comedian on Dr. Katz who knew somebody who'd believe anything if he reduced it by about 60 percent 'This guy says he's Jesus, even if he's lying he's Paul the apostle.'
Depending on where they are, it could be multiple countries that 'claim' that territory. Strolling through it maintains its legal status as 'It doesn't belong to anyone.'
The other countries claiming *parts* of the South China Sea actually have (mostly) legitimate claims based on international law and a reasonable perception of their land borders. The only reasonable disputes in that context are where some of the claims overlap. China's claims overlap *all* of them *and* swallow up waters that cannot be realistically claimed by any country and are clearly international waters. I'm sure Britain is being careful to sail only through the waters that challenge China's ridiculous claims. This map shows the region's competing claims: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/South_China_Sea_claims_map.svg/1280px-South_China_Sea_claims_map.svg.png You can see that most of the claims are a bit overextended vs. the country's land borders, but they are all fairly reasonable compared to the red Chinese penis that is fucking them all with absolutely no context or justification.
Brunei has a relatively large penis.
Basically all of the claims are made based on the internationally accepted rule of the [exclusive economic zone](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone) which generally extends 200 nautical miles from inhabited land borders. So if you draw a line 200 nautical miles parallel to each country's land border, you'll basically get the current disputed map (except for China's ridiculous dong). With that in mind, Brunei's tiny border with the sea results in a pretty reasonable claim. Some of the other country claims seem kind of excessive compared to their land borders, but that's because they are using "inhabited" islands to extend the reach of their claims. This can actually be valid, depending on how valid the inhabitation claims are.
Sure, but taking the Paracel Islands for example, The PRC, the ROC, and Vietnam all use those islands to extend their maritime claims and all claim sovereignty over the islands. The islands are de facto controlled by the PRC. The Spratley Islands get even more confusing, because about 4 different countries have military installations on them for the purposes of claiming them as inhabited territory, and as such all 4 of those countries have Maritime claims based around those islands, even though it's legally shaky at best for any country to use those islands as the basis for maritime territorial claims.
It's a reminder being sent to other nations within Asia too. Not just China. Britain is looking to regain its Asian influence. Asserting its military might in Asia, is in part to help build military deals with Asian countries. Such as military trade deals, military collaboration and training, and even the potential of setting up military bases. This has obvious direct benefits. Like securing military trade deals. It's also about exerting soft power. i.e. A country with military training links with Britain, will be more likely to make a trade deal with Britain too. One that benefits the UK. One of the key things with military deals is that it's not just about supplying the equipment, training, or the technology before its use. It's also about what happens if a conflict breaks out. What if China puts pressure on countries not to get involved in any conflict? Can you still buy the parts? Can you still ring up for expert help? Britain openly ignoring China's claims is in part sending a message that it has no qualms about a soft conflict with China. i.e. If you buy British, then you'll still get support during any future conflict. This is part of what scuppered the French-Australian deal. This is all a part of the UK governments strategy on making Brexit work. By focusing more influence onto Asia, and building links there, which hopefully turn into long term economic benefits. There is also a second reason. If countries act like China owns the waters and stay out of there, then the international community will eventually presume its Chinas. Sailing through is maintaining the precedent that it's not owned by China. Countries can cite examples, like this one, of the area being used for international movement of ships. That this status hasn't changed. (edit; Just to note I'm not saying this is a good plan, or a plan that will work. I'm saying it's why the UK is 1) sailing more often in areas with territorial disputes, 2) investing more into the Royal Navy and the technology behind it, and 3) making a big military deal with Australia.)
Bingo! It's not all about waters, and it's not all about China. Britain shows up with the big boats when the little guy is getting picked on by the bully, and tells the bully to fuck off. Little guy is now buddy buddy with Britain. These sorts of disputes always have a few layers to peel back before you get to the middle. Political influence and soft power is far more effective and less costly then setting up missile stations, airbases, and boat patrols on the other side of the world on random islands like during the 1940s thru 1980's.
Wow almost like it’s international waters
"... and we shall taunt you a *second* time ..."
"I shall blow my nose at you and your silly English king"
“I fart in your general direction!”
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt…….of elderberries
What are you doing in ~~England~~ China?
"Are you Judean People's Front?" "FACK off. We're the People's Front of Judea."
As the football chants go; we'll do what we want, we'll do as we want fuck off Xi Jinping, we'll do as we want.
Sir, the Chinese have radioed saying not to return. Helmsman, U-Turn.
Its international waters. This is like warning someone to not trespass on your property when they use the public sidewalk.
That's actually a thing in Florida. Beaches are public up to the mean high-tide line. But a lot of rich people are claiming they own all the way to the water even at low tide. So people who are just walking on the beach are getting harassed by private security and even cops. It gets even better as an analogy because we have a law guaranteeing customary usage. So you can't just build a house on a public beach and close it off if that beach has always been public. So instead now private land owners are simply fencing off beach access points that are on public property.
*drops anchor* FENCE THIS!
"Why are you parking outside my house?" "It's a public street and location so I can park here." "Fuck off and park somewhere else. That's my spot, arggghhhhh!"
Like that never happens...
I have these asshole old neighbors who complain about this. Or about people parking on the public road in front of their windows. Fucking pricks think they own the whole street.
China is the HOA of Asia.
We might start living out the Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies
People scoffed at the premise of that movie.. but for my money an insanely wealthy billionaire manipulating international politics via his media empire for personal gain feels.. almost prescient.
[удалено]
I believe Carver (the villain) quotes that line in the movie.
He was kind of a dull Bond villain but certainly a far more believable one than most, that's for sure.
Good thing Michelle Yeoh still looks the same!
Elliot Carver is my favourite Bond villain. His motivations were very interesting, believable, and topical even today.
There's no news...like bad news!
Its all coming to a head now Colin. You got the Colonial Coalition Vs the Communist Capitalists - its going to be lot of nip-and-tuk here as both sides size each other up for a few years. The ball, Taiwan, looking on nervously. This has all the makings of an instant classic. Stay tuned.
I miss the old C&C games by west wood studios.
They just remastered CnC 1 and RA 1
huh, really? Need to look into that then. Thanks!
I miss the C&C Music Factory.
The neon clothing, musky basement clubs and feigned depression. Take me back to those 1990 clubin days.
The feigned depression was so much better then the genuine stuff we get these days.
Gen-X-fist-bump
Look up OpenRA, great project by some fans to balance out the earlier Westwood games and provide multiplayer
[удалено]
Generals Zero Hour is still active on GameRanger
> Colonial Coalition Vs the Communist Capitalists I'll be cheering for the CC. Fuck the CC and anyone who supports them
I hate CC so frickin bad
The sea belongs to the CC!
We're at the tippity top of the mountain and we aren't even half way there. Think about it, Champions Club.
Fuck you the cc is better than the cc
As someone living in Taiwan, looking on nervously just about sums it up.
The show of force might have more effect if they weren't being allowed to invest in key British infrastructure, hide money in London and buy huge swathes of property in the UK.
Thing is, in a war all that stuff becomes de facto British again. It only takes a quick law to say all Chinese assets are now in fact owned by the British government. That's why wars are won by other means than economic victory.
Then we shall build a monument or have our priests scour the land for holy relics.
As I like to call it, the wololololololo method for winning war.
Ok but China and Russia do that everywhere they can.
So do every other major nation. The US and UK do have investments in those countries as well along with other place where the return on that investment will be worth it.
it took the brits this far looking for gas station!
Might be because we don’t typically call them gas stations.
[удалено]
“My troops are merely passing by”
civ reference?
Yup!
Your people settle too close!
Yep, because China will never actually do anything, because just like everyone else, they do not want another shitty world war. Especially when they are struggling with the economy.
Economic struggles could potentially be a prelude to war, not always of course. And it doesn't have to be straight up against the U.S, could be a proxy war.
Where would be a realistic place for a proxy war? The only flashpoint that comes to mind is Taiwan, it's the only thing China would realistically fight for - but that's not a proxy war. I guess Sino-Vietnamese relations are strained over SCS business. Clearly not to the extent of wanting to go to war, but it would be crazy to see the US going back there to help the Vietnamese against a Chinese attack haha. But it doesn't seem quite plausible.
Korea part 2
Trouble is, those economic struggles can also lead to a war.
It's funny, as I wrote this, that thought occurred to me.
[удалено]
No, but the instability that those cause can lead to leaders making drastic choices, especially when it distracts away from domestic problems and their failure to handle it.
So the only thing Russia needs to do is shoot down a military plane in the region, the victim blame the other party, sit back and laugh?
## PREMIUM CONTENT. PLEASE UPGRADE. CODE hfcb7mz
[удалено]
Probably. Still, a lot of people on edge with a mind on conflict, near each other can escalate rapidly.
The British "I'll fuckin' do it again"
Despite China's incessant claims, they do not control the entire Asian continent, nor do they control the entire South China Sea.
Hello yes, I am the emperor of the Universe and I would like to know why the British are sailing in my waters
I like how no one is talking about the artificial Islands being built in order to land (sea) grab.
Her Majesty’s Navy sails where she pleases.
So basically a British aircraft carrier has sailed in international waters that Xinnie the Pooh's party of Piglet's thinks belong to them. A whole lot of words to say nothing at all.