Slashdot Mirror


China Builds Artificial Islands In South China Sea

An anonymous reader writes about a Chinese building project designed to cement claims to a disputed region of the South China Sea. Sand, cement, wood, and steel are China's weapons of choice as it asserts its claim over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Brunei have sparred for decades over ownership of the 100 islands and reefs, which measure less than 1,300 acres in total but stretch across an area about the size of Iraq. In recent months, vessels belonging to the People's Republic have been spotted ferrying construction materials to build new islands in the sea. Pasi Abdulpata, a Filipino fishing contractor who in October was plying the waters near Parola Island in the northern Spratlys, says he came across "this huge Chinese ship sucking sand and rocks from one end of the ocean and blasting it to the other using a tube."

Artificial islands could help China anchor its claim to waters that host some of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The South China Sea may hold as much as 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. China has considered the Spratlys—which it calls Nansha—part of its territory since the 1940s and on occasion has used its military might to enforce its claim. In 1988 a Chinese naval attack at Johnson South Reef, in the northern portion of the archipelago, killed 64 Vietnamese border guards.

192 comments

  1. All wars ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are resource wars.

    And start out rather like this.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:All wars ... by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

      We have always been at war with East Asia.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Clearly you're too young to remember the Cold War, a war of Ideology. Not resources, because both sides had shitloads of resources. Open a history book sometime, moron. There was a time before your precious fucking Iraq War for Oil.

    3. Re:All wars ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clearly you're too young to remember the Cold War, a war of Ideology.

      So...it was a war for human resources? :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was the Punic Wars.

    5. Re:All wars ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are resource wars.

      Except the resources that China hopes to gain will never equal the cost, in defense spending and lost trade, of alienating her neighbors. In the modern world, all wars are dumb.

    6. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make love, not war! Slashdot virgins need some lovin.

    7. Re:All wars ... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? - The cold war was (and still is) all about oil and gas.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:All wars ... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nonsense, proxy wars of the cold war in korea and viet nam were not about those

    9. Re:All wars ... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Technically the Cold War is so named because it was a time of hostility, but not outright and open conflict, between 2 powers. And power and influence-which is what the US and USSR were essentially fighting over(who would become the dominant superpower)-are very much types of resources.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:All wars ... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> In the modern world, all wars are dumb

      Unless they lop off chunks of the Ukraine. Or depopulate chunks of rival territory in Bosnia. Or expand tribal influence over oil-rich parts of Iraq. Or...
      (Long story short, there are still some pretty evil dudes in "the modern world.")

      This essay's also a good introduction to the role of trade in precipitating war (e.g., "lost trade" doesn't necessarily reduce chances of war):
      http://www.ied.info/articles/a...

    11. Re:All wars ... by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Re "Are resource wars."
      China has learned from history and will not allow its own well funded emerging brands, own exporters and needed imports to be contained, slowed and encircled like the Soviet Union was.
      China has to ensure its own flagged ships can move freely to bring value added Chinese branded finished goods to any market globally without any interference.
      China can see it is been rapidly encircled by regional tame puppet governments and dictated one sided treaties again.
      China has to be able to diplomatically and politically show land use and possession that it will not be reduced China to the role of foreign branded factories and limited shared export earnings.
      China is been confronted, contained in Africa, South America and Asia over raw materials. A lot of effort went into trade and aid resulting in real progress and infrastructure as a gift from China. Other nations linked basic food aid to post colonial political lectures.
      The EU seems more open to lucrative high technology transfers that China is working to expand.
      China still has a few years to build on the image and branding of its own quality, price competitive brands globally. Until then it is more dependant on whim of outside forces. China also has to contain foreign backed NGO's, environmental groups, separatist and well funded faith based groups trying to distract and alter its plans for growth.
      A huge diaspora is able to bring any technology back as it is been developed in any advanced country, for almost free.
      China just has to build its own brands in time - low cost, disruptive on price, good quality and stop renting tech with every product sold (foreign set expensive codecs, standards).
      China is in a global race to get its own products to a waiting global market. ie AC this has an ongoing effort since the 1960's over many generations and via different nations for trade, energy and jobs. Other nations opt to spend their gold on weapons, ever more distant wars or deceptive political charity.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why we need to get the fuck off this rock. The Universe is a very large place with a very quantity of resources--all getting further away. In the end, it won't be pretty anyhow, but in the intervening time, we might as well do our thing. The resources of Earth will only sustain us for so long. The only real question left is: do we die here or expand outward, eventually to form disconnected colonies?

      As Dijkstra explained:

      A very useful measure is —called after its inventor— the "Buxton Index". John N. Buxton discovered that the most important one-dimensional scale along which persons are or institutions to be compared, can be placed is the length of the period of time in the future for which a person or institution plans. This period, measured in years, gives the Buxton Index.

      The great significance of the Buxton Index is not its depth, but its objectivity. The point is that when people with drastically different Buxton Indices have to cooperate while unaware of the concept of the Buxton Index, they tend to make moral accusations against each other. The man with the shorter Buxton Index accuses the other of neglect of duty, the man with the larger one accuses the other of shortsightedness. The notion of the Buxton Index takes the moral flavour away and enables people to discuss such differences among themselves dispassionately. There is nothing wrong with having different Buxton Indices! It takes many people to make a world. There is clearly no moral value attached to either a long or a short Buxton Index. It is a useful concept for dispassionate discussion.

      Go ahead and make your space nutter comments now. ;)

    13. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it? I vaguely recall that round two started not three months ago in a place you in the US haven't heard of called Ukraine. It totally tastes like Poland.

    14. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of metric tons of conspiracy and ZOG, all concentrated in one post, my friend.

    15. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think its nuts the way star trek has this race called Ferengi. you know what that means? do you know what that means?? the producers were too chickenshit to just be honest with us and call them Space Jews

      Is that because of the ears?

      Sorry, I dont see the connection....

    16. Re: All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they were cultural aware enough to realize how fucking stupid that would be, you white trash loser.

    17. Re:All wars ... by VibratoryDavid · · Score: 3

      We are now at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia

    18. Re:All wars ... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      There is a reason bullies tend to pick on weak loners, it's because they are unable to defend themselves and unable to get enough support from friends to overpower the bully.

      The thing about Vietnam is that it it's a small country that doesn't have a lot of allies(Laos and Thailand have had armed conflicts with Vietnam in the not so distant past, and of course the whole French/US thing). China may be betting on Vietnam basically being forced to deal with China, since China is the dominant economic force in the area.

    19. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnam had a border war with China after the US Vietnam War was over. Won it apparently.
      There is a reason why the communists in China (yes it IS the same people still ruling that country) are accelerating their military spending.

    20. Re: All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China and Vietnam have a history going back nearly a thousand years. And it looks very much today like it always has--close economic and cultural tires with simmering geopolitical conflict. 20th century history adds nothing unique to the equation.

    21. Re:All wars ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      Orwell was a sucker. The way it actually works is like this: we are always at war on terrorism*.

      * For the up-to-date list of groups designated as terrorists, and states designated as sponsors of terrorism, see United States State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (as amended by special registries A* and B**).

      ** Classified.

      *** Top secret.

    22. Re:All wars ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The Cold War was a war to decide who gets to dominate the world. Which is basically just a fancy way of saying "control all of the world's resources".

    23. Re: All wars ... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Actually it does because Vietnam is even more isolated, thus it will have a very hard time forming regional alliances against China, esp. if China bribes Thailand and Laos with either cheap oil or jobs on the rigs.

    24. Re:All wars ... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 2

      Also the cold war was not really a war...right guys?...because hostile diplomatic relations is not actually a war?

      People above appear to have forgotten this.

      Perhaps because they come from the society that brought us the "war on"(TM) drugs, terrorism, obesity, aids, jesus, christmas, immigration, gays and a whole host of other things that are in no way at all wars.

    25. Re:All wars ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Cold War is traditionally considered to include all the associated proxy conflicts - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and numerous civil wars in Africa and Latin America.

    26. Re:All wars ... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      And as such was not a war...

    27. Re:All wars ... by Lotana · · Score: 1

      What does Poland has to do with the Cold War?! Do you mean the invasion of Poland by Germans that started the World War 2?

      What does Ukraine have to do with the Cold War?

      Ukraine ousted Russian-supportive leader, so Russia annexed part of Ukraine to have guaranteed control of the strategic ports in the Black Sea.

      What have the West done about it: A few sanctions, but overall nothing substantial. Are they going to do anything about it?

      EU: Gets 15% of their gas from Russia. They will do nothing to upset them over this land change. Come back if Russia annexes Kiev.

      US: They don't give a shit about Ukraine! You honestly think US will start anything over a useless backwater like Crimean peninsula? Come back when/if Russia annexes Kiev.

      Also Cold War was about ideology. There is no ideology involved in the current conflict.

    28. Re:All wars ... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Are resource wars.

      And start out rather like this.

      You credit people with much more sense than they have. There are and have been many wars based on ideology and religion - in fact there is a religion whose stated aim is to fight all who do not convert or accept a status designed to "make them feel subdued"

    29. Re:All wars ... by Lotana · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      China is vastly militarily superior to the immediate neighbors. They don't need to do any extra spending that they are not doing already.

      China is such an integral manufacturer that no one substantial will be cancelling trade. They got a massive internal market as well.

      So what is the downside to acquiring more territory right now? What is Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, or Brunei going to do about it? Beg the US for intervention? Considering how US relies so much on Chinese market: Good luck with that. What other superpower going to help them?

    30. Re:All wars ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Korean war was not a war?

    31. Re:All wars ... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Really? How about the Israeli-Arab wars? What's the resource, sand? Korean War? Last we heard, the Korean peninsula wasn't rich in anything, the North even worse off than the South. Vietnam? Yep, the U.S. lusted after their jungle. The current Syrian Civil War? The fighting appears to be over sand again. The Afghan Civil War that brought in the Taliban? No one knew what minerals were there until recently, and the Taliban had no use for them anyhow, all they need is Allah and the obliteration of human hope.

    32. Re:All wars ... by gtall · · Score: 2

      How much is the PRC paying you to write this crap?

    33. Re:All wars ... by stephendavion · · Score: 1

      Eurasia and that too selected countries ... not all

    34. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only hope that Space Mining does solve these silly wars over resources.

      I know it won't, but I can only hope.

      "We promise this will solve humanities problems, we totally won't funnel the resources down to you. Yes sir, at a low low price of only half as much as it costs you from Earth! Money-back guarantee, you can count on us!"

      Oh well, at least I will get to be a space pirate if that happens. Then get blown up and crash land on the moon. I'll die as I lived, exploding after masturbating.

    35. Re:All wars ... by pla · · Score: 1

      in fact there is a religion whose stated aim is to fight all who do not convert or accept a status designed to "make them feel subdued"

      Scientology?

    36. Re:All wars ... by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      Wow. You might want to slow down on the Kool-Aid. China is making a sea grab. Do they have a moral or legal right to control of that part of the ocean? It doesn't matter, they don't care and aren't interested in the debate because nobody is going to stop them. China is using the fact that the US has spent most of it's political capital over the last decade and even if it hadn't it would be in no position for any kind of trade war and neither is the rest of the world. They are going to gradually ramp up their presence until there is nothing that can be done short of embargo or actual military conflict, which aren't going to happen. I do give them credit for creating an artificial island. That is a bit of genius. They are able to stake a claim and nobody else can claim prior possession of the land.

    37. Re:All wars ... by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      They certainly were if you look at the bigger picture. The entire Cold War and the proxy wars during that period were all about power and who's ideology would reign supreme. The whole point of becoming a superpower is control of resources. Natural resources, human resources, financial resources, etc.

      All wars are ultimately about resources. To the winner go the spoils.

    38. Re:All wars ... by imikem · · Score: 2

      It was a "Police action".

      Maybe that's why police these days are riding around in armored vehicles.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    39. Re:All wars ... by Chrisq · · Score: 1
      Qur'an 9:29

      Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    40. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the resources that China hopes to gain will never equal the cost

      Never say never. Future developments can change that. Every country is executing its own plans to shape those developments in their favor

      In the modern world, all wars are dumb.

      Only certain kinds of war. Wars using guns and bombs are generally frowned upon. People switch to battling each other with words, economics, politics, etc.

      And that's what China is doing, just like most everybody else. They aren't as refined at it by Western standards, but they're not spectacularly failing either. At the very least they're delaying other parties from getting those resources.

    41. Re:All wars ... by Alorelith · · Score: 2

      I can only surmise that only people with limited understandings of history, politics, self-justification, etc... would consider major conflicts such as the Korean Police Action to not be a war. Obviously a country not officially declaring a war raises some issues with _itself_ regarding legality, funding, image, and so on, but the 1000 year view of the situation is the same -- lotsa people from conflicting sides fighting and killing each other in an armed struggle. That's a war. Perhaps some of these people should go visit a "police" zone and get all intimate with the differences that they are obviously going to notice between a police action and a war/battle.

      Is it still considered war if a country declares war on someone else, yet neither side ever come to battle?

    42. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "learly you're too young to remember the Cold War, a war of Ideology. Not resources, because both sides had shitloads of resources. Open a history book sometime, moron. There was a time before your precious fucking Iraq War for Oil."

      A war of two ideologies which differ on how and why to create and distribute resources, dumbshit.

      Not enough people are stupid enough to throw away their lives for ideology - wars have to be based on perceived material benefit/loss before they are fought. That is a Good Thing.

      Yes, the Iraq war was a waste of time, energy and life, but at least it was about something material and real - oil - and not some imaginary bullshit that only exists in some fruitcakes fucking minds.

    43. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that it was a war of ideology, then you are some fucking neo-con nazi type.
      It was about POWER and having too much of it. The war would have gone hot directly, except that both sides KNEW that they would be annihilated. As such, the war was one by proxy and it absolutely was about resources.
      Greek civil war, Korea, Berlin blockade, Vietnam and Indo China, Chile, Afghanistan (against the Russians) the various wars by Arab states against Israel, Angola, Nicaragua, Cuba....

      All of these were about resources/locations. It had very little to do with ideology.

    44. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what everybody was saying on the eve of the WW1 and WW2, and while it is true; those type of decisions are rarely made using rational thought.

    45. Re:All wars ... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      So it's about pride. And Asians are extremely prideful.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    46. Re:All wars ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      China has pretty much always been militarily superior to their immediate neighbors. At the same time, they have a LONG history of losing those those same neighbors.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    47. Re:All wars ... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Except the resources that China hopes to gain will never equal the cost, in defense spending and lost trade, of alienating her neighbors.

      Unless of course they succeed in claiming the land (sea) and in 40-50 years it's just a footnote in a history book.

    48. Re:All wars ... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you define everything as a resource. Instead we were talking about fossil fuel, oil and gas

    49. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall where ColdWetDog (the OP) said ANYTHING about limiting his statement to only "fossil fuel, oil and gas". Now shut the fuck up and stop trying to put words in peoples' mouths.

    50. Re: All wars ... by bjwest · · Score: 1

      The fact you think the commenter is white is more racist than the original comment.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    51. Re:All wars ... by hey! · · Score: 1

      No. Some wars are about controlling geopolitically strategic territory... and they start out rather like this as well.

      Most folks today don't remember the Cold War or Alfred Thayer Mahan's sea power theories, but you can bet the old men on the Politburo Standing Committee do.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    52. Re:All wars ... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      oil and gas is in tapecutters post to which I replied

    53. Re:All wars ... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Your inability to assume anything else is due to intellectual deficiencies and bias rather than logical means.

      The wars mentioned may or may not be wars - they certainly meet my definitions and I would call them that.

        My point was that gaggling together a bunch of minor wars in different countries which started for different (vaguely related) reasons is not enough to make a war.

      The "Cold War" was not a war. It was a period of hostility between super powers. That is all.

    54. Re:All wars ... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      PS: Now realise in my morning haze I combined your post and the very different one above into one mega post and replied to that as if it was a single post.

      The irony of this mistake is rather awesome though: since my posts are about combining different wars together and treating them as a single war.

      Regardless, I apologise to you the grandparent of this post.

      The great grand parent of this post can kiss my as. ;)

    55. Re:All wars ... by khallow · · Score: 1

      How about the Israeli-Arab wars?

      Land and strategic position in the Middle East. If the "Arabs" had won, that would have meant territory for the countries neighboring on Israel and a stronger strategic position for the USSR in the largest oil bearing region in the world.

      Last we heard, the Korean peninsula wasn't rich in anything

      Except an economy currently sized over a trillion dollars.

      The current Syrian Civil War?

      Misuse of resources particularly agriculture. There's a lot of starving people out there.

      The Afghan Civil War that brought in the Taliban?

      The USSR wanted access to a warm water port and of course, those minerals that they supposedly didn't know about.

    56. Re:All wars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's what many people were saying in 1914.

    57. Re: All wars ... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Why are you so mean with people loosing white thrash? Maybe he has some condition that makes him loose this thrash. Bad AC, go apologize right now!

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    58. Re:All wars ... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Nor really, it was a war between Human Resources and the Marketing. The whole thing begun the day the guys from IT started stealing the Friday beer reserved for HR blaming Marketing for it. That's why it's called the "Cold War". Also because in an act of vengeance one of the HR managers sabotaged the airco.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    59. Re:All wars ... by Optali · · Score: 1
      Well, actually... ehem.. the West has done what it had to do: Don't give a shit about Ukraine. The last thing the EU needs right now is a steady stream of poor Ukrainians.

      While London is getting the big fat money stolen by the Russian Oligarchs from their own government (and our subsidies, BTW). And the USA used the whole thing as a PR campaign to show off how macho they are... of course, nothing to loose and Obama knows his pal Vladimir won't mind a bit of bitching.

      Now Ukraine has an agreement with the EU, the Russians are happy, our great Fuhrer Angela is happy and the Righteous, Honest and Smart Mr Cameron is happy.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    60. Re:All wars ... by NulDevice · · Score: 1

      It's the urdu (loaned from arabic) for "foreigner", generally "westerner?"

      Okay so maybe their characterization was pretty awful but I don't see the beef with the name.

      --

      ----
      "I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."

    61. Re:All wars ... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ... all wars are dumb.

      True, but who is going to start a war with China over this? Those can match China in power are not too keen, all things considered. Might may not be right, but it definitely is might.

    62. Re:All wars ... by Alorelith · · Score: 1

      No problem, as I realized upon re-reading that I had misunderstood the point of your post. I find it somewhat ironic in this era that many of us have no qualms about loosening the term "war" to mean any kind of struggle against something intangible, whereas those same people sometimes have no issue at all NOT applying the term "war" to mean actual large scale combat. Every time I see these kinds of shenanigans, I'm reminded of the opening part of Dorothy Sayer's essay _The Lost Tools of Learning_ where she describes the lack of definition in many of the debates people have. That is the problem here.

  2. Another very good reason... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...why we really need to get weaned off of fossil fuels. Otherwise it's like the next day's heroin fix, only with oil.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think one Minuteman missile would solve this conundrum. Boom.

    2. Re:Another very good reason... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      yes cuz every american city would melt, concurrently with every chinese city.

    3. Re:Another very good reason... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Not unless they sent them Fed Ex. :p

    4. Re:Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it will be interesting to see how the claims will be processed when they go underwater due to climate change.

      My guess is it will be like the pacific islands that are going underwater. Someone is going to use the UN to give those guys compensation for loss of homeland. China will probably make the same claim thru the UN for their construction on the spratlys, and use their permanent seat as leverage to get political deals on stuff that will REALLY matters.

      Meanwhile GOP stick their head in the sand, denying existence of climate change. Dumbasses should've tried to claim the spratlys while they had office and done the same.

    5. Re:Another very good reason... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, China does not have sufficent weapons to do that

    6. Re:Another very good reason... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      also apparently the minutemen soldiers spend the day jerking off or something like that.

    7. Re:Another very good reason... by crioca · · Score: 2

      Uh, are you sure about that? Because the number of nuclear weapons held by China isn't known.

    8. Re:Another very good reason... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Maybe not - but in the event of nuclear war, Russia would immediately jump in on their side too.

    9. Re:Another very good reason... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I doubt russia would do that. They know it would cause them to be targets. The problem is that mutually assured destruction is still a possibility and quite a few weapons systems design to evade first strikes still exist.

    10. Re: Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1440 times a day!

    11. Re:Another very good reason... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the event of a nuclear war between US and China, Russia would fetch popcorn and watch the show. It would be an epic win on all counts - the major potential adversary with a large land border and a likelihood of future conventional conflict completely annihilated, and another major potential adversary significantly weakened and likely going isolationist for decades to come to lick its wounds. Meanwhile, Eastern Europe without US as a de facto guarantor of security would be having a real fun time dealing with Russia in such a new reality.

    12. Re:Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly... a gigantic percentage of all violence in the world appears to be over this stupid oil shit.
      Crimea, the Ukrainian-Russian pipeline, middle-east pipelines, the China sea, Antartica. They are all prepping to go to war over all of these areas just to get at oil. If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't all be fighting over these areas. I mean how fucking stupid is that? Oil is hard to get? oh, let's use something easier to get... instead of getting ourselves killed over it like a bunch of stupid animals fighting over a carcass. Evolve damn you!

    13. Re:Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had read that they have ~200 warheads. Imagine losing the 200 most populated counties in the United States. I would imagine that this would kill over 50% of the US population and make life difficult for the survivors, as well as reduce the nation's capabilities and economy below those of the the remaining nations. NATO obligations also come into play.

    14. Re:Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The end to fossil fuels is coming with the rise of cheap solar and electric vehicles which should be cheaper than their fossil fuel counterparts in a couple of years.

    15. Re:Another very good reason... by Rei · · Score: 1

      The claims won't be processed at all. Artificial islands don't contribute to coastal waters / EEZ claims. Seriously, look it up.

      From the sound of it, China is building new islands to place military outposts on in order to not violate a previous agreement that neither side would inhabit presently uninhabited islands.

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    16. Re:Another very good reason... by xtal · · Score: 1

      The problem is there is no alternative to oil.

      None.

      Nuclear may provide energy dense alternatives but you'd need to have been building plants 10 years ago. Coal is an option, but you will turn the sky grey.

      Green technologies do not have the energy density needed. Simple napkin math can demonstrate this. There are no conspiracies; the world runs on oil because there are no alternatives available. A refusal to recognize the underlying thermodynamics and energy requirements in real world units, rather than fluffy unicorns and windmills, holds back adult discussions of what needs to happen and when.

      The only technology available is nuclear. Manhattan-project style efforts to crack fusion technologies, or more usefully, the battery problem, would go a long way to help. We're not just there yet.

      --
      ..don't panic
    17. Re:Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couple of years my ass, come back after the government removes the tax breaks and subsidies.

    18. Re:Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I agree, the first steps should include restricting births across the planet, stop building crap houses that last less than 50 years before major repairs, shutting down the social model of "work -car - suburb -career" when we already live in a world of automation. We must reduce consumption and make better living arrangements for everyone.

    19. Re:Another very good reason... by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      No, they would freak out because where do you think the survivors in that massive neighboring country are going to go? Also, what nation would want their immediate neighbor to be covered in nuclear fallout that may just blow your way...

    20. Re:Another very good reason... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the warheads are of various yields, most would not take out entire county

    21. Re:Another very good reason... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      now think about the USA raining down a thousand or two warheads on China.

    22. Re:Another very good reason... by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      Nuclear may provide energy dense alternatives but you'd need to have been building plants 10 years ago.

      And what portable energy do we use to run all that equipment to mine the uranium? Oh yeah, oil.

      Coal is an option, but you will turn the sky grey.

      And what portable energy do we use to run all that equipment to mine the coal? Oh yeah, oil.

      Green technologies do not have the energy density needed. Simple napkin math can demonstrate this. There are no conspiracies; the world runs on oil because there are no alternatives available. A refusal to recognize the underlying thermodynamics and energy requirements in real world units, rather than fluffy unicorns and windmills, holds back adult discussions of what needs to happen and when.

      The only technology available is nuclear. Manhattan-project style efforts to crack fusion technologies, or more usefully, the battery problem, would go a long way to help. We're not just there yet.

      Yup, solar, wind, wave power, etc... all rely on oil, whether it be to run the power lines, mining/smelting the raw materials (copper, steel, aluminum, silicon, rare earths, etc), or whatnot, we could not build *any* of them without oil as it stands today.

    23. Re:Another very good reason... by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      The end to fossil fuels is coming with the rise of cheap solar and electric vehicles which should be cheaper than their fossil fuel counterparts in a couple of years.

      7 gallons of oil in every tire. Plastic (oil) dashboard, electrical insulation, etc. Rare earth minerals and well, heck, all the metal in the vehicle mined by gas powered machines, transported by gas powered machines to smelters, and then by gas powered machines to the manufacturing plant.

      Tell me again about those "cheap solar/electric vehicles" again?

    24. Re:Another very good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is because of the stupid oil shit that you have a job and a place to live. There are alternatives to oil, they are just more expensive. Until all the oil is gone, it is the best solution. Simple as that.

    25. Re:Another very good reason... by khallow · · Score: 1
      Or we could not do that and have a better world instead.

      the first steps should include restricting births across the planet

      People voluntarily restrict their reproduction when they are wealthy. The developed world demonstrates this readily.

      stop building crap houses that last less than 50 years before major repairs

      And why should a house last more than 50 years? It's not that much in the way of resources to build a new house every 50 years or merely repair the old one every so often.

      shutting down the social model of "work -car - suburb -career" when we already live in a world of automation.

      Note this is really a US-centric viewpoint. This social model works great in the US. But if you look at what is proposed you see three things happening. First, end of the ability to provide for oneself ("work" and "career"). Second, end of mobility ("car"). There are important roles (such as running daily errands) where nothing beats a car - not a bike, mass transit, etc. Third, end of personal housing ("suburb") means moving everyone into dense housing. That usually ends up being a mess (just look at any city for example). That's going to result in "better living arrangements"? No way.

      So somehow it's better for people to be imprisoned in some shithole, completely dependent on a wowtech (which they will have no control over) for their very survival, rather than living their own lives in freedom?

      We must reduce consumption and make better living arrangements for everyone.

      Cosumption is not a dirty word. It is half of what we do when we make the world a better place or a worse place. Certain things have to be consumed in order for other things to happen. And we already are making better living arrangements for everyone on the planet through the current approach even if only a portion of the world embraces the particular US approach you are criticizing.

    26. Re:Another very good reason... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that they are sufficient in power or independent targetabiliy to have that effect, but certainly they'd make for quite a bit mess. Russia would be a different story.

      However, nuclear war is really not something that anybody can afford. The cost of one big conventional bomb in the middle of a US city would be astronomical. Things like skyscrapers are impressive feats of engineering, but they're certainly not designed with war in mind.

    27. Re:Another very good reason... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Nuclear may provide energy dense alternatives but you'd need to have been building plants 10 years ago.

      And what portable energy do we use to run all that equipment to mine the uranium? Oh yeah, oil.

      I doubt the demand for oil will ever go away entirely. Heck, you'll want it for plastics if nothing else. However, right now we burn it on an insane scale when nuclear is a viable alternative for much of it. As was pointed out, it will take a while to switch over even if we started today, but we're not starting at all. And that isn't even talking about global warming.

      Mining equipment could be powered electrically, but if we're switched over to an economy where power consumption is 95% nuclear and 5% oil that makes a HUGE change on the global demand for oil and the need to fight wars over it. Heck, if you start getting down to that low an oil consumption you open the door for synthetic oil or other power sources (and synthetic "fossil fuels" can even be carbon-neutral). We won't be at the point where jets are going to run on batteries anytime soon, but anything that you can do to cut the demand for oil helps.

      Probably the simplest solution is to just pay for the military using a tax on oil. Price increases would reduce demand, and then those who feel bad about wars in the Middle East can just stop buying gas and know that their tax dollars aren't going towards bombing civilians. It is nothing more than eliminating an externalized cost.

  3. Eastasia builds Floating Fortress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    much better headline

    1. Re:Eastasia builds Floating Fortress by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      actually you're right that's extraordinarily apt. +1.

  4. Not really by mfh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like that guy who built his house on public property, these islands will just be removed if they aren't part of China. That's kind of sociopathic of them to pull that kind of a stunt unless the dispute is resolved, cooperatively.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... the difference being that some guy in a house != China. China kinda can give the finger to everyone on this and no one can do jack shit.

    2. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell is an accidental construction of a MacHome over a property line analogous to a deliberate act by China to gain territory? Are you on drugs or something?

    3. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like that guy who built his house on public property, these islands will just be removed if they aren't part of China. That's kind of sociopathic of them to pull that kind of a stunt unless the dispute is resolved, cooperatively.

      Except dude who owned that house didn't have a huge army, or nuclear weapons or all those other good things that make international relations so much fun.

    4. Re:Not really by mfh · · Score: 1

      Microcosm/Macrocosm... you think the home owner didn't know? haha he was trying to annex extra land.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    5. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have to be insane to believe you could "annex" property by building a home on it.

    6. Re:Not really by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      A two million dollar home is a hell of a thing to gamble in an effort to win a small bit of public land. Yes, I think the homeowner didn't know.

    7. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. 2 million dollars for land surrounded by public use zoned land is remarkably valuable. Imagine being able to own a house in the middle of Central Park. You'd have real estate agents fighting just to talk to you.

    8. Re:Not really by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In most places in the US, if a building ends up being across a property line for a number of years unaposed, that amount of property becomes a deeded right of way. It used to change ownership and might still do so in some areas via squatters rights.

      These rules came abouy from problems with surveys, incorectly recorded deed maps, and the lack of zoning over history. It could come about from something like a house or out building being built on or close to the property line. It gets added on and not recorded, sold and the new owner sees they have 20 feet to the property line on the east side of the building not realizing the previous owner already used 15 feeet up. So the new owner adds on another 15 feet and not its ten foot over. Now lets say 20 years pass and the neighboring property is passed to an heir. They cannot make you tear down the building now.

      It isn't much of an issue now because zoning requires set backs and building permits and this is checked with plotting maps made from deed data. But at aone time, you could survey your property and find the survey pin was moved our something and someone's barn or house was on your property.

    9. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you acquire those rights after living in a place for many years. It means tons of legal costs to sort out, and a hard time selling the place for a long time. Only a fool would do this deliberately. And a fool couldn't pull this off deliberately because nobody else involved would go along knowingly since they might be liable.

      And it would be even more foolish to do this in 2009 and try to sell in 2011, as happened here.

    10. Re:Not really by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      How do you propose removing an island, and to where?

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    11. Re: Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Adverse possession is rather easy to show, presuming you meet the standard. You then bring an action to quiet title. There's not much to dispute; either the judge agrees with you or he doesn't. In any event it's not the kind of thing that can be dragged out for very long.

    12. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For details of how such things are done, see "Bikini Atoll.'

    13. Re:Not really by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      How does Bikini Atoll show how to remove an island? It's still there. It may show you how to *evacuate* an island and make it uninhabitable, but that's not the same thing.

    14. Re:Not really by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      At least one of the smaller islands was removed; but it's pretty inefficient (see also "Project Plowshare, quiet abandonment of").

      In the case of hack-together artificial islands, though, you can often just remove a few of the structural bits that are protecting the sand from erosion and then let the ocean eat it over the next few years. Less dramatic, certainly; but unless they really went no-expense-spared on building the island in the first place, they probably cheaped out by using as much 'failed island' as they could dredge up nearby, tacked together with just enough sea wall to keep it from returning to its native habitat.

    15. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that was an excessive in poor planning and attracting negative press?
      You are thinking of the incident where the yield was seriously underestimated, helping to facilitate the test ban treaty right?

      Why do so many ppl post "nuke em" type comments? Was that a winning strategy in the past? The US prepared to commit vast resources for another "cold war"?

      Who will fund it?

      Perhaps "diplomacy" would work?

    16. Re:Not really by mfh · · Score: 1

      The owner must have known because in order to build they have to survey first and the surveyor would mark the property lines. They are making the guy move or demo his house because he knew and was trying to force a redraw of the property lines, thinking it would go unnoticed. It's also possible the surveyor made a mistake but less likely. I know a lot of people like this, who would try and get more land if they thought they could get away with it. It's kind of the way things are especially with 1%ers.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    17. Re:Not really by mikael · · Score: 2

      Neighbors have gone to war over the location of a fence. What happens is that a building company does two things; apply for planning permission and apply for change of registered land ownership. Sometimes they do one, and the paperwork fails to complete for the other. So the builder constructs a row of terraced homes and say, "Oh, by the way, a bit of your garden is owned by the residents on the other side of the fence, but they don't mind, so there really isn't anything to worry about".

      Then the ownership of the other property changes, the new owner sees a way of increasing their market value of their property as well as gain new resources, and the bulldozers move in, leading to court action and bankruptcy.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    18. Re:Not really by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      That's kind of sociopathic of them to pull that kind of a stunt unless the dispute is resolved, cooperatively.

      All sufficiently large organizations tend toward sociopathy.

  5. Sellng widgets win wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing how much more powerful China is now after freeing up their economy in the 90s.

    1. Re:Sellng widgets win wars by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Well, people like me invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in China, first with Hong Kong and then further inland.

      The only problem is they failed to leapfrog development and are stuck in the Coal and Cement Age - a dirty grimy age of pollution and despair.

      They have the (stolen) tech. They just need to use it.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  6. Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you miss the part about equality means nuking everybody equally? You deserve to be nuked for missing the joke.

  7. Re:NUKE them NOW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would they need to take over the US politically? They've already taken over economically when absolutely everything is Made In China.

  8. take over the US with 1 soviet russia aircraft car by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    China has lot's of old soviet stuff.

  9. The hypocrisy by Rick+in+China · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China in this instance, is so ridiculously hypocritical - their entire argument about the Senkaku(Diaoyu) islands is that Japan has only controlled them in modern times, and China has laid claim (based on little evidence, and they're uninhabited) since ancient times. Yet, here, they're claiming these islands from all these other countries, and have only laid claim since 1940 -- a claim that seemingly hasn't been supported except by China themselves. Which way they want it? All ways. China has a big 'face' problem so can't look weak to it's oppressed masses for fear of social unrest, and like Russia, thinks the whole world around it belongs to them. Really tired of this bullshit.

    1. Re:The hypocrisy by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well the problem will persist basically as long as the Chinese Communist Party does.... The CCP is deeply unpopular in pretty much every arena save for how it is handling the economy, if the economy starts to go south you may see Tienamen-like events erupting all over the country. In order to combat this the CCP has to keep the economy humming along and large #s of migrants from the countryside employed. They have done a decent job thus far, but there are some major cracks in the Chinese economy on the horizon. Long story short they copied the Japanese model, right down to the bad loans.

      If China's economy does not keep on expanding you are looking at a potential financial crisis that would make the whole Lehman thing seem tame by comparison. The reason they are getting so bold is because to the CCP, exploiting these resources may literally be a life-or-death situation, as most dictators don't tend to just end up retired in a villa somewhere, they end up with their heads being separated from their necks.

    2. Re:The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. and have only laid claim since 1940 -- a claim that seemingly hasn't been supported except by China themselves.

      You may wish to at least have a check in Wikipedia next time before ranting. China assert its claims since the ancient times. The claim is also asserted by the Republic of China before it recedes to Taiwan. The article's mention of "1940's" probably refers to the claim of present PRC government, which of course could not make any claims beforehand as it only came into existence at that time.

    3. Re:The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Mind your own business.

    4. Re: The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read up the history the Daiyou belonged to China was taken by the Japanese prior WW2 when China was very weak. There was an international treaty that dictate that all these terrorities captured by the Japanese prior the WW2 be returned. Daiyou was one, and the Islands of the South China Sea as well, were to be returned. The problem with Daiyou was the USA was adminsitrating it after they went into Japan, and the problem was single handed created by the USA. Or intentionally planted by the USA, if it is abided by the international treaty, there is no issue. China will not accept the USA to hand over the island to Japan. It is not the USA property and do what they like. And all these just the China containment strategy and China knows it full well. The stand of China now is avoid confrontation but if it is forced to, they would not run away from a war however costly it can be. The island was kept as a non-issue until the Japan nationalised it from so called private owners. All the stupid treat to fool a 3 year old. Pirvate owners, you cam as many as you like from China also but it is nationalised, you force the China to respond. USA is just scare to see if the East Asia walk yoo close to become like the EU.

    5. Re: The hypocrisy by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      > The island was kept as a non-issue until the Japan nationalised it from so called private owners.

      No, the island was an issue well before then. Chinese politicians were raising the issue, and Chinese (and Taiwanese) boats were landing on the island before it was "nationalized" (essentially re-nationalized because it was owned by the Japanese government and then leased. The "nationalization" was the cancellation of the lease).

    6. Re: The hypocrisy by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      He's foolish, not worth replying to misinformed anonymous cowards :D More important keys to refute his silly points are: Japan controlled the islands since the 19th century, and the post-ww2 treaty to determine which islands were part of the 'hand back' was fully endorsed by both ROC and PRC without any disagreement about the Senkaku islands - and up until 1970s PRC maintained that Senkaku did belong to Japan according to their own maps. Unfortunately, in the 70s, when potential for large oil reserves near the islands was discovered, they began to cry foul and demand that the islands belonged to them since 'ancient times'. It's all bullshit, just like their bullshit creation of fake islands in the middle of the southeastern archipelagos to try to lay claim to bunches of islands neighbouring other countries. They just draw huge lines on maps and say "OURS" like children, just like Russia is trying to do with their borders and, more importantly, the North Pole.

    7. Re:The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, China is being hypocritical, but since Japan and USA are also condemning them for this, this makes them also guilty of being hypocrites, since that's how they are claiming the Diaoyu to be Japanese... So at the end... a circle jerk for everyone...

    8. Re:The hypocrisy by markhahn · · Score: 1

      OF COURSE China has people paid to troll slashdot. in the cyber-age, I suppose that's a compliment.

    9. Re:The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OF COURSE China has people paid to troll slashdot. in the cyber-age, I suppose that's a compliment.

      No, it's an insult to America. China is being MORE CAPITALIST than the West. Paying for shills used to be what real American companies like MS do!

      They stole all the factory middle class jobs, and now they're stealing the shill jobs too.

    10. Re:The hypocrisy by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You raise some good points and you may be right, but I wondering if this is actually a sign that the CCP is losing control over the PLA (People's Liberation Army). For years to keep the military at their beck and call, the CCP has been working the propaganda machine into overdrive. My experience is that the average Chinese person, at least those in the big cities and not rural people, doesn't really trust the government or believe everything they say, but the propaganda works really well for those who join the PLA. I feel that China's military is pretty unprofessional and looking to start trouble and this is because they've been indoctrinated to believe that everybody is against good old China because of jealousy and if China doesn't fight tooth and nail for everything, they'll wind up with nothing. Throw in a few references to treaties they don't like that were signed in the 1800s (none of which are in force today, by the way) to bolster the claim that they've always been the victim and you have a military that acts like a rabid dog. Also, it doesn't help that the constitution of China pledges the PLA to defend the CCP, not China itself. So the CCP is at once both the state and more important than the state at the same time. It may be that all these years of indoctrination are bearing their inevitable ugly fruit now and they have to keep them busy building islands so they don't try to force an invasion of Taiwan, something that would possibly result in the US and Japan attacking China over.

    11. Re:The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CCP is unpopular? Maybe. Compared to 7% support rate of US congress, CCP still has a long way to go south, not to mention the great job they have done in term of economy, which is unheard of in human history.

      If CCP government did break down, which is gonna replace it? A biggest democratic nation like India? Give me a fucking break! So called democracy is a delusion. It's just a dog and pony show of the money and power classes. Most important thing is the transparency, so that people will see clear how those son of bitches steal from them, and common belief that those power and money classes are all thieves. Chinese people know a lot better than the rest of the world on that matter.

    12. Re:The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true that. and I fail how to see creating an artificial island magically gives them possession of the area...

    13. Re: The hypocrisy by SweeMengLing · · Score: 1

      Which part of history you are reading on PRC recognising Daiyou belonged to Japan. Show the reference !!! We have people first shouting there was no international treaty when they do not want it to exist. When cannot be denied, the latest move is to renounced it as illegal which basically set the world back to the state of unfinished WW2.

    14. Re:The hypocrisy by khallow · · Score: 1

      Compared to 7% support rate of US congress

      Support rate is well over 50% of the people who vote. Those congresscritters don't get reelected on only 7% of the populace. I'd say it's more like a third. But of course, all the other congresscritters suck. That's the nature of the game.

    15. Re: The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see... brand new account, obvious Chinese shill... seriously, go fuck yourself.

    16. Re:The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC.

      I've heard it been said that the PLA recruits members of one home town and sends them off to an entirely different region of the mainland. That's because in the event of civil war, there will be no local ties to the community of people you are ordered to oppress. Pretty fucking methodical at protecting the CCP if you ask me.

    17. Re:The hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those congresscritters don't get reelected on only 7% of the populace.

      Because of gerrymandering and winner-take-all, effectively they do.

      To use a recent example, 6.6% of the voting-age populace voted for Dave Brat in Virginia's 7th district primary (only 12% of the voting age populace voted at all).

    18. Re:The hypocrisy by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Nice astroturfing, you get paid by the CCP to post this bullshit? You really think China is transparent? HAHAHAHHAHA, what a fucking tool. Guess what, you are being fucked over by the CCP. Also, this economic progress is not "unheard of in human history", you are copying the Japanese model, right down to the bad loans. It's just on a bigger scale, and frankly you are doing it slower than Japan did it, which is saying something. Probably due to all the corruption by the CCP.

    19. Re:The hypocrisy by khallow · · Score: 1

      To use a recent example, 6.6% of the voting-age populace voted for Dave Brat in Virginia's 7th district primary (only 12% of the voting age populace voted at all).

      That's a primary for a private political group, not an election. Brat still has to survive the general election in order to become a congressman.

    20. Re:The hypocrisy by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's just on a bigger scale, and frankly you are doing it slower than Japan did it, which is saying something.

      Actually, that feat is rather impressive for both Japan and China. I wouldn't discount it just because you think it could be done a little faster. For example, Japan went from another primitive backwater to a world power in about 60-80 years. It took the US about 120 years from its inception to do the same and they had the advantage of trade and far more resources.

      In comparison, China in 1980 was about where it was in 1950 except with more poor people. It got to where it is now inside of 35 years.

    21. Re:The hypocrisy by Rick+in+China · · Score: 2

      That's actually 100% correct. Ground military is specifically assigned on rotations far away from their home province. I have a little brother-in-law in the military, and I can tell you that the military is tightly under the government's control -- you see, Xi has been consolidating..not losing control of, many military/police/investigative (see, gestapo) forces under his thumb, and whereas in the past there was significant volatility between the PLA and the party (like DXP times) currently that's not the case at all. It may change, but there are no obvious signs to me or anyone I know of that being the case - it'll more likely be a party&PLA vs. migrant worker/peasant class clash, which is why China invests so heavily in a ground force to begin with.

  10. South CHINA sea by MildlyTangy · · Score: 0

    Isnt it kinda obvious that the islands in the South China Sea belong to (south) China?

    I mean, thats why its called the South China Sea, and not the Philippines Malaysia Vietnam Taiwan Brunei Sea.

    Or am I missing something here....

    1. Re:South CHINA sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you must agree then that everything in the Sea of Japan belongs to Japan...

    2. Re:South CHINA sea by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

      omg...come on guys, seriously now. This lack of a functioning sarcasm detector is disturbing to find on a geek news website.

      Has it not occured to you, after reading that poast, that it was obvious sarcasm? ( do you not also see it in this poast? do I need to spell it out?)

      Or do you really, truly, think that somebody intelligent enough to write a coherent sentence on a computer is so *stupid* to take the name South China Sea so literally?

      Come on Slashdot, dont get lazy, we need to up our game here...this is getting embarrassing.

    3. Re:South CHINA sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or am I missing something here....

      Education?

    4. Re:South CHINA sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would also hold up as a citation of a former president of the USA. Too many people wouldn't find the way around the globe to make sarcasm the obvious choice.

    5. Re:South CHINA sea by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      I was thinking "troll" but you might be right

    6. Re:South CHINA sea by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      The thing is, it's not really sarcasm. Pretending to be stupid and confused while not making a point doesn't serve any purpose other than maybe as a troll.

    7. Re:South CHINA sea by Rashdot · · Score: 2

      Education?

      Actually, education is part of the problem here. For generations, Chinese kids have never seen the maps that we use. World maps in Chinese schools have always included most of the region as part of China, even including several countries.

      So it will be really hard to convince them that the world is different from the world view that they've been brought up with.

      Europe and America also use different maps (traditional Europe at the center vs America at the center), but that doesn't appear to lead to major conflicts.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
  11. So all of South America belongs to America, right? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Or, perhaps, do you want to rethink your silly stance on "naming makes it so"?

  12. Trend by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Jeez, even islands are "Made in China"

    1. Re:Trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you are the only person on Sloshdat with a sense of humour.

    2. Re:Trend by stephendavion · · Score: 1

      and you know how the " Made in China " things works ... LMAO

  13. Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    Uh, you are not helping

  14. Re:So all of South America belongs to America, rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. "Terra Australis", or Southern Land, clearly means that the whole southern hemisphere belongs to Australia.

    Jeez.

  15. Floating Atolls by Baldrson · · Score: 0

    Floating atoll remediation of civilization's environmental footprint would, in addition to permanently rewilding agricultural lands and containing all urban population effluent (including CO2, CH4, N2O and CFC emissions) for 10 billion people at higher than US standard of living, sequester on the order of a teratonne of CO2 from the oceans and atmosphere.

    The Seasteading Institute is being left behind by AT Design Office under contract to the Chinese construction firm CCCC, as they proceed with the pilot project to build a 10 square km floating city. What the Seasteading Institute has going for them is their association with Breakout Labs via Peter Thiel, as it supports fluid dynamics research for of the Atmospheric Vortex Engine. Although the AVE would be advantageous even with advanced nuclear technology, any radical reduction (less than 1 cent/kWh) in electric cost -- with or without the AVE -- will suffice to enable the rest of the floating atoll remediation. This is one of a few things that Marshall Savage didn't have the technical chops to address -- the other major things being photobioreactor technology and the notion of atolls unifying beachfront real estate demand with wave break for fragile (hence economic) PBRs.

    At this point, it appears to be an entirely feasible economic proposition given the requisite lowering of cost for pollution free electric generation.

    If the AVE experiments currently underway attest its economy, the Seasteading Institute can take the floating atoll proposal, package it up the way Mashall Savage should have, and present it to the Chinese. They'll bite.

  16. China is a bully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And eventually, someone will strike back....

    Pushing your weight around with threats of military actions when you're the one in the wrong will only get you so far. Not only with this but also with the Senkaku islands. This isn't the first time they just went ahead and started doing something, not caring about how the dispute isn't settled yet.

  17. Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat a nuke, living scum.

  18. Occupation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The islands belong to whoever lives there and manages to chase others away. If China successfully put troops and guns on them, then the islands are theirs, end of story.

    1. Re:Occupation by markhahn · · Score: 1

      oh, nonsense. look at a map.

    2. Re: Occupation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Land belongs to whoever can chase away who previously lived there?*Looks at his US map on the wall.*

      Wow you're absolutely right, carry on! :)

  19. Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's how Godzilla was born, I hope you know.

  20. Re:So all of South America belongs to America, rig by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Not to weigh in on the south china sea thing. But we have been the
    "United States OF America" since we were founded.

    ---

    The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary...

    ---
    And...
    ---
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    The united states military forces are formally named "U.S. Blah Blah". (Etc.)
    --

    The continent of america was named around 1507. Long before the united states existed. It was not named by a united states citizen.

    "American" has become an acceptable slang term for united states citizen in many countries but is also not used in many countries.

    Sort of like the "under god" portion of the pledge of allegiance, use of the term "American" was added later.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  21. Drugs might have been involved by istartedi · · Score: 2

    According to Mail Online

    It was built by Robert C Lamoureux and his company Four Twenty Corp in 2011

    I can picture this now. "Yeah dude, we like... totally surveyed the place. It's all good. You can start digging tomorrow."

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  22. Free Tibet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese Communist Party needs to get its troops the hell out of occupied Tibet.

    GreekGeek :-)

  23. South CHINA sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the entire Gulf of Mexico belong to Mexico?

  24. Re:So all of South America belongs to America, rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and to add to the confusion there is also the United Mexican States right next door, better known maybe as Mexico, though that isn't really the full name.

  25. Smart? Depends on Surf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop assuming it is about an oil/gas grab.

    As China has no decent surf beach, this is their chance to make one. Better than Honolulu - remains to be seen.

    In any case making an island on the exact claimable border will have more respect at international law down the track
    Eventually a revenue sharing agreement like Timor/Australia has to happen, split n ways will be the solution.
    If China has the 'island' and the capital/dollars, their share will be higher, if the cut is measured by distance.
    China is just coy about revealing Vietnam gave away its sea rights in the Vietnam war in exchange for arms.

    Now that floating tankers/ plants are reality, it seems fair that best dressed/first in should be the solution, less y% - so countries get free money while upsetting the Saudi model. The is enough localized corruption going on, that China, though giving away money is offensive, should get it back via trade surplus.

    Lastly, US subs cannot sink an 'island' with a few torpedos. A Master stroke for China.

  26. NOT seriously disputed by markhahn · · Score: 1

    China's claim is absurd; no one else in the world considers these islands disputed. No amount of dredging is going to change that.

  27. Re:take over the US with 1 soviet russia aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has lots of old soviet stuff.

    FTFY

  28. "We'll build our own island!" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    "With blackjack! And hookers!"

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  29. Re:So all of South America belongs to America, rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to weigh in on the south china sea thing. But we have been the
    "United States OF America" since we were founded.

    I have my own theory about the naming of "United States of America": the US of that time wanted to eventually take over the whole continent of America, so the name "United States of America" made complete sense at that point.
    For one reason or another, they stopped at the border with the current Mexico, after taking over Texas and California.
    I know this sounds overly ambitious now, but it was a different world back then.

  30. Further Developments: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    After anchoring its right to the South China Sea with islands constructed from Chinese materials, China has begun investigating the use of other purely Chinese items in the rest of the world.

    As such, China is announcing an air defense identification zone surrounding all zoos containing giant pandas. In particular, all aircraft entering or departing the airspace in the 5 miles surrounding the Smithsonian National Zoological Park in Washington D.C. will now have to file a flight plan with China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Chinese Civil Aviation Administration, and maintain regular two way radio contact. In case of aircraft not following these guidelines, China reserves the right to take Emergency Defensive Measures.

  31. Re:So all of South America belongs to America, rig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unites States is hardly unique within the Unites States of America:
    United Mexican States
    United States of Belgium (1790)
    Republic of the United States of Brazil (1889-1968)
    United States of Columbia (1863-1886)
    United States of Indonesia (1949-1950)
    United States of the Ionian Islands (1815-1864)
    United States of Saurashtra (1948-1956)
    United States of Stellaland (1882-1883)
    United State of Travencore and Cochin (1949-1950)

    Source: Wikipedia

  32. Re:So all of South America belongs to America, rig by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    Not to weigh in on the south china sea thing. But we have been the "United States OF America" since we were founded.

    I have my own theory about the naming of "United States of America": the US of that time wanted to eventually take over the whole continent of America, so the name "United States of America" made complete sense at that point. For one reason or another, they stopped at the border with the current Mexico, after taking over Texas and California. I know this sounds overly ambitious now, but it was a different world back then.

    Please read up on Manifest Destiny before making such a claim. This idea of expansionism didn't really take off until the 19th century.

  33. Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Right now what I wrote sounds extreme.

    10 years from now you will all then understand I saw the future you did not yet see, and you will call me prescient and wish those in power had done what I suggested.

    ^^ Proof that belief in a deity does not confer any kind of morality.

  34. auto-Goodwin'd! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    You know who else was critical of others' grammar mistakes?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  35. Re:Occupation - Invasion by object404 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bullshit.

    China is in complete violation of international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which China itself signed and had agreed to and ">ratified in 1996.

    China has been building structures, hunting and mass poaching endangered species and destroying coral reefs within the maritime exclusive economic zones of The Philippines and Vietnam (200 nautical miles or 370km from the coastline of those countries) while at the same time, forming naval blockades and harassing fishermen from Vietnam and the Philippines in their own waters. Recently a Chinese fishing vessel was caught with the poaching and mass slaughter of over 500 endangered and protected sea turtles within Philippine waters. Pics of the slaughter.

    This article is a must-read on the behavior of the 800lb gorilla China and its bullying tactics: China's Pre-Imperial Overstretch and follow-up article: China and the Mosquitoes.

    Another must read is the NY Times article A Game of Shark And Minnow about the ragtag crew of Philippine marines stationed on a grounded derelict ship in the area as an outpost. That NY Times article has a very good diagram on the 200NM exclusive economic zones and China's ridiculous "nine-dash line" tongue-shaped delineation which claims the entirety of the area hundreds of miles away from their nearest legal territory, Hainan Island. The basis of China's 9-dash line claims? Fabricated bullshit. Pre-19th century maps show this. Even China's own historical maps contradict their absurd claims. Bullying, intimidation, violation, invasion and annexation of territories of smaller, weaker states. It's that simple. See also: Tibet.

  36. China isn't called China either by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    The proper name is "Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo" or People's Republic of China in English. Of course then there's also "Zhonghu Minguo" aka The Republic of China aka Taiwan.

    Then there's the fact that not everyone calls it the "South China Sea". Vietnam calls it "Bien Dong" aka East Sea. In fact China calls it "Nan Hai" meaning South Sea.

    My point being simply that a name doesn't imply ownership under any reasonable standard. The USA is widely just called "America" but that doesn't mean that it owns the Americas. The PRC is widely called China but that doesn't mean it owns the South China Sea.

    1. Re:China isn't called China either by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      So my plan to rename myself "Owner of all Money" isn't going to work?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  37. Be a shame if we were to crash into this by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    You know, the strap on this thermonuclear bomb looks like it might break soon.

    Just saying.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  38. Re:Occupation - Invasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously object404, you and the likes of Richard Gere are the hypocrite and bullshiter (at least Richard Gere has finally decided to STFU and not come across as a douchebag).

    The Chinese can always come back with return Guam, Hawaii, Falkland, Gibraltar, Diego, Garcia, Okinawa/Diaoyou...and clear out completely from North America and Australia (most of these were independent countries until they were overran by the powers of the day), then they'll consider Tibet, Spratley, Diaoyou...

    Might doesn't make it Right, but you and Richard Gere (Rick in China?) seem pretty selective in your outrage.

  39. Global warming impact? by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    Do you think they think they can build 'em up faster than rising oceans can swamp them? And how hard is pouring tons of sand on coral on the coral? Where is the outrage!

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  40. Re:Occupation - Invasion by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    China is in complete violation of international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which China itself signed and had agreed to and ">ratified in 1996.

    That's nice and all, but unless somebody actually does something about it, all those laws don't matter a hill of beans.

    Russia is being embargoed half-heartedly by half the world and I'd be shocked if they ever gave up Crimea. Nobody cares enough about some artificial islands to go to war over them, and next thing you know they'll be setting up oil rigs. Unless everybody agrees to sanction China in a way that costs more than all that oil is worth, China will get what it wants. The problem is that sanctions cut both ways, and politicians get far more money if they keep trade going than if they shut it down.

  41. Just more islands to dispute by kazekirifx · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Build more islands, so they have more useless pieces of land to fight over with neighboring countries. That'll solve the problem.