Slashdot Mirror


China's Island Factory

An anonymous reader writes: The BBC has a lengthy investigative report about China's efforts to create and expand artificial islands in the South China Sea. They've been going to coral reefs and atolls, dredging the bottom for material, and dumping it on top of the reef to create new land. On at least one of the new islands, China will build an air base large enough for fighter jets to use. This highlights one of China's main reasons for constructing these islands: sovereignty and strategic control of the surrounding area. "The U.S. government does not acknowledge China's claim, and the U.S. Pacific fleet continues to sail regularly through the South China Sea. But the Chinese navy is beginning to grow more assertive. In December 2013 China sailed its brand new aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, into the South China Sea for the first time. Shadowing it, at about 30 nautical miles, came the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Cowpens. A Chinese amphibious assault ship approached and ordered it to leave the area. The commander of the Cowpens refused, saying he was sailing in 'international waters.'"

199 comments

  1. Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're rattling an awful lot.

    1. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Little late for that.

      Even Obama acknowledged this years ago when he stated that the U.S. would shift its attention from the Middle East to Asia.

    2. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Oh, that's part of it.

      I mean, do you think it's not sabre rattling to sail one of our cruisers into a contested region?

      China's sabre rattling in this region, Japan is sabre rattling in this region, we're sabre rattling in this region, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Koreas are playing along too.

    3. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Building artificial islands in contested waters is rattling the sabre a lot more than just sailing a few ships through it.

    4. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Was the water contested before the island was build?
      After the island ws build it certainly was not, so the cruiser was - as a military vessle - without reason in a foreign territory.
      Perhaps in some people minds it was still comtested ... but international laws, regarding sea coasts and sovereignty are pretty clear. Otherwise countries like the UK or the netherlands would be in trouble every few years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Was the water contested before the island was build?

      Yes.

      After the island ws build it certainly was not ... international laws, regarding sea coasts and sovereignty are pretty clear.

      International law on these issues is anything but clear, and are subject to a great deal of argument, which is why there are always contested areas.

      As for the UK, it's a natural island that has been inhabited by the same peoples for centuries (at the least - you can argue about 1066). Now that's clear.

    6. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      um you do know that the United States has Allies in that part of the world right? That means a US presence will be there, I.E. Warships and aircraft, not to mention the manpower needed to keep all that working.

    7. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Floating cities: so that's what Buckminster Fuller had in mind with the proposed airborne habitats: trying to corner the market on international air rights.

      China's also been prominently reported as a proponent of developing cities that float on dihydrogen monoxide.

      Those crafty bastards! Trying to expand the empire by loophole, rather than sword.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Informative

      US warships really shouldn't be anywhere near China

      They're not. The Spratly islands (map here) are hundreds of miles from China. They're much closer to the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Should we avoid sailing near any of those countries in case China's next claim is that those countries are all historically part of China?

    9. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > Was the water contested before the island was build?

      Big time. The airspace above it too. The warlike history of the nations in this area is scary.

      Current international laws are newcomers to this area where squabbles go back a long fucking time.

    10. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by brainboyz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Russia and China float boats in international waters off our coast all the time. China just doesn't have much in the way of a navy capable of stationing them there. Russia, in particular, is known to cruise their subs all over and rumor has it they've shadowed US military ships going in and out of ports. International waters are international and open to use by all. This is not the first and certainly won't be the last time superpowers poke at each other from international borders while saying "I'm not touching you!"

    11. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um you do know that the United States has Allies in that part of the world right? That means a US presence will be there, I.E. Warships and aircraft, not to mention the manpower needed to keep all that working.

      Hmm.. so lets hypothetically assume that Russia would ally with Cuba, would it then be OK for Russia to have missile boats patrolling off the coast of Florida in "international waters" because it certainly sounds like you think so from your way or reasoning.

    12. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Yalius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong. The 200 mile zone is an "exclusive economic zone," not territorial water. Territorial waters only extend 12 miles out. Any ship can navigate within the 200 mile zone, just can't harvest any materials or sea life. As long as the Cowpens wasn't fishing or mining, it was free and clear.

    13. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by dywolf · · Score: 2

      international waters are international waters.
      if we dont treat them as such, then they arent really international waters.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Building islands, and threatening to fire upon passing ships is a lot more than just taking a cruise in the general area.

      China seems to be wanting some war. Problem is that there is nobody that will oppose them. We have an assload of Chamberlains in office in the US and Europe, and no Churchills who understand that appeasement doesn't work.

      Hope Japan can stand by themselves...

    15. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since the islands are built within the Philippines exclusive economic zone the islands are automatically illegal under international law.

      China doesn't recognize the territorial claims in the area of the other countries and is trying to push their version of who owns the area

    16. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      International law on these issues is anything but clear, and are subject to a great deal of argument, which is why there are always contested areas.

      As for the UK, it's a natural island that has been inhabited by the same peoples for centuries (at the least - you can argue about 1066). Now that's clear.

      International law, as put in practice for centuries, is pretty clear: as long as I can beat the crap out of you I can sail wherever I want.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    17. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      I mean, do you think it's not sabre rattling

      Yes, it is saber rattling
      Like when Bush sent our P-3U Orion spycraft into Chinese airspace, then had to publicly grovel and say he was "very, very sorry that our plane killed your fighter pilot" to get the Orion back...in bushel baskets.
      There will be more of it. The right needs a good war right now, before we de-fund the endless spy system called GWOT.

    18. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Guess what. Happens quite a bit. Russian patrol boats are seen outside of Alaskan waters on a regular basis.

      Hell, we've even let Canadians dock here. We did hold the line at Greenpeace, though.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    19. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We would be alert, attentive, and have a bigger presence there. But would not demand they get the heck out of waters regarded as international by most of the world.

    20. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which is good, because the US can no longer beat the crap out of anyone. While the US still has the largest military penis in the world, they can't really afford to use it any more because the last few escapades have bankrupted them and they can no longer afford the Viagra they need to make it an effective tool to fuck anyone else. So yea, they can bomb a bunch of ISIS amaterus and call it a war. In reality, it's more like a 5 year old stomping on ants. A real war? With a major power? I think we'd find the US to be hilariously flaccid at an event like that.

    21. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize he was not making a hypothetical, but referring a historical event, which you clearly have no knowlede of and thus fell headlong into the pit of stupidity?

    22. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One big difference is that China and Japan are local to the region, whereas the US happens to be on the other side of the world.

    23. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you would be happy to see Chinese war ships sailing 13 miles out from the US coast?

      I see, only works when it is US ships in foreign waters...

    24. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US warships really shouldn't be anywhere near China

      They're not. The Spratly islands (map here) are hundreds of miles from China. They're much closer to the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Should we avoid sailing near any of those countries in case China's next claim is that those countries are all historically part of China?

      So what's the deal with the quarrelsome Japs and Diaoyu/Senkaku and Okinawa (which they invaded in the 19th century)?
      All much closer to Taiwan/China.

    25. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? The Soviet navy did all the time. And were shadowed by US warships and aircraft every inch of the way.

    26. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by imikem · · Score: 2

      Feel free to sufficiently provoke the US to test your hypothesis. I'll check the Vegas line and watch on video.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    27. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by konekoniku · · Score: 2

      In addition to Yalius' point, which is entirely accurate, international law expressly does not recognize artificial islands or structures in calculating territorial waters or EEZs. If it did, every nation would be scrambling to build oil rigs in the middle of nowhere to claim the entire ocean surface. On the other hand, if a new natural island is created through volcanic activity, that is recognized as expanding territorial waters and EEZs under international law.

    28. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by aphelion_rock · · Score: 3, Informative

      We/Google shouldn't be calling it the South China Sea.

      Vietnam call it the Eastern Sea, lets face it, more of the sea is closer to them.

      Philippines call it the West Philippine Sea

    29. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China is doing that right now, and nothing is happening. Ditto the USSR, sorry, Russia.

    30. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by cavreader · · Score: 2

      Exactly.Beating the crap out of someone has it's uses. International law is useless without someone willing to enforce it. And since the 3 most powerful countries on the planet did not join the ICC that organization is also impotent. Every international territorial boundary of note since the beginning of human civilization has been drawn in blood,and often more than once. Diplomacy only provides the time needed to re-arm for the next war.

    31. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Built islands from outcropings,etc below the water line do not count towards extending range of the territorial limits.

      Many of the South China Sea territories are in dispute or are considered to be in international waters. China refuses to acknowledge other nations claims to many of South China Sea territories.

    32. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Every place I've seen recognizes reclaimed land as "natural" for these purposes. Nobody is arguing Haneda Airport isn't Japanese land, for these purposes, nor recovered Netherlands land. Dumping soil on a reef should be debatable, as the reef may have been above water or theoretically habitable recently. Expanding such natural lands has never been seen as a problem before.

    33. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it is in terrirtorial waters and the Johnson South Reef is not within China's. In fact, the reef is claimed by several nations. China created the island and put a building on it to extending its EEZ, while angering nations such as Vietnam which claims the reef is within its EEZ.

      Haneda was built out from the main airport within the natually existing Japanese territory.

    34. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      How close it is to which country should play absolutely no part in ownership - there are enough overseas territories of countries like the US, Canada, the UK, France et al to show that.

    35. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That side of the world? Okay, first, a globe has no "sides". But should the US also just hand over the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam at the same time? I thought that most countries do try to patrol the areas where they have territories and citizensæ.

    36. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only people with no knowledge of the history of the South China Sea will use words like "much closer"

      Closer doesn't mean shit, ask UK and Argentina.

      99/100 Westerners don't know what the fuck they're talking about, people in the West just don't understand the history of the south China sea, at all.

      The entire region is really China's, China used to be a very powerful in the region, they dominated the entire region culturally and militarily, that's why Japan was using Chinese characters. Some of the islands right next to Malaysia has Chinese temples on them, that's how far China's power was reaching.

      Historian will tell you that Vietnam and Philipines's claims baseless.

      For example, when you study Vietname's claim, they claimed they 'discovered' the island in the 1800s, but at that time that part of Vietnam was part of China.

      But everybody just lie right out, for centuries those have been well known to be China's waters, nobody contested the waters until gas was discovered some decades ago.

      Some years ago China, Vietnam and Philipines agreed to stop building anything there, but then Vietnam and Philipines cheated and built bases rapidly, now China does it better and these fuckers started crying, well fuck you.

      And the US? Haha they didn't even sign the international treaties that they're quoting from?

      The facts are on China's side but the western media will never tell people the facts, so at the end whoever has the power wins, that's all there is to it.

    37. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by imikem · · Score: 1

      It's highly arguable whether any of these hot spots currently involve vital interests of the US. Penis-measuring is, as you note, a rather expensive proposition at this level. The American public generally shrugs, or at most bitches a little at the cost in dollars, but a decade plus of body bags and young men with missing limbs have reduced appetites for being the world's cops. That would change quickly in the case of a threat to a close ally, let alone US possessions.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    38. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Built islands from outcropings,etc below the water line do not count towards extending range of the territorial limits.

      Many of the South China Sea territories are in dispute or are considered to be in international waters. China refuses to acknowledge other nations claims to many of South China Sea territories.

      Good point. By that standard, the same would be true of anchored ships and hydrocarbon drilling rigs.

    39. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US warships really shouldn't be anywhere near China

      They're not. The Spratly islands (map here) are hundreds of miles from China. They're much closer to the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Should we avoid sailing near any of those countries in case China's next claim is that those countries are all historically part of China?

      They should be invaded and taken from China, so they are no longer historically part of China.

    40. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      Everyone uses / used the Chinese alphabet because they were "first past the post" in the region, not because the Chinese at one point owned it all.

      The Japanese learned it when they sent scholars to learn in China. They then proceeded to improve on it by making simpler alphabets (Kana) so that it did not take 10 years of dedicated study to learn enough to read/write a shopping list.

      The Koreans acquired the writing system through Buddhism, and they too decided to improve on it and made Hangul (IMO the most efficient and logical alphabet in the world).

      The Vietnamese also borrowed it, but managed to so badly screw the writing system up while trying to improve on it that they gave up on their version and picked up the Roman alphabet from the Portuguese instead.

    41. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      By your logic, we should simply build a lot of islands exactly 201 miles from the Chinese coast and declare them "ours", and institute 200 mile range out towards the chinese coast, then bitch when their ships launch.

    42. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This above.
      Invade Ukraine...I have no direct interest there.
      China invading Japan? Sign me up and put me on a boat, I'll go shoot someone for it.

    43. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Why should the US have a military presence and posturing half way around the world? We shouldn't. Look at all the wars and world ire it causes.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    44. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? The US has plenty of territory in the region. Japan and the Philippines are essentially vassals of the US. Guam and various Micronesian "states" are all either directly controlled by the US or they have puppet governments put in place after the US conquered them during WW2. Don't forget about South Korea. It's not really US controlled, but it is not going to abandon it's military alliance with the US anytime soon.

    45. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A US ship sailing through international waters in the middle of the South China Sea is a lot less sabre rattling than it was for China to hold military exercises 100km off the coast of Borneo last year.

    46. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Basically, the whole South China Sea is full of islands, which extend the territory of China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei to each cover the whole of the South China Sea (by the theory that any uninhabited islands within 12 miles of each countries' territory extends its territory to any other islands within 12 miles of that island.... until they hit undisputed populated areas of another country). In addition, Taiwan claims all of China, including the entire South China Sea. None of the countries recognize other countries' claims, but China is the only one actually physically asserting control over the area.

    47. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by jrumney · · Score: 1

      They don't want a war. They just want the oil that is under the South China Sea. To be able to exploit it, they first need to establish their claim to the territory. They are taking a gamble that noone is going to stop them by going to war over it, and once they have structures and maybe a temporary population on some of the islands further from their mainland, their claim to the area in between will be stronger than the other surrounding countries.

    48. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I kinda would be. I mean, they're pretty much bound to ask to come in and fuel up eventually. It's not like they have a blue-water navy. Yet.
      So really that would just be a neighbor bringing his white elephant out to play, and you just happen to sell peanuts.

    49. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Koreans acquired the writing system through Buddhism, and they too decided to improve on it and made Hangul (IMO the most efficient and logical alphabet in the world).

      Hey PrimaryConsult, you seem pretty learned in Asian languages, can you give a short explanation why you think Korean Hangul "IMO the most efficient and logical alphabet in the world"?
      Off topic, but just for curiosity.

    50. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      READ before you answer, people used Chinese text because China was powerful, the Chinese were not expansionists that's why they didn't go around stealing land like Europeans, instead they ask different kings to offer China gifts and other offerings every year, and that's what they did.

    51. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we're a giant fucking empire. Sabre rattling to preserve hegemony is historically something every giant fucking empire did.

    52. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with my logic, as your logic simply would fail anyway.

      You can not declare an "island ours" if it is outside of your territorial waters. A no brainer, isn't it?

      But you can extend your territorial waters buy building an island 1 nm away from the edge. As that island is automatically yours _AND_ it automatically extends your territorial waters by another 200nm.

      Next time please think before you post such nonsense, it does not make you look smart.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    53. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is not wrong, that is nitpicking.
      While the Cowpens might have the right to travel there, the parent claimed it was "international waters" ... that is wrong.

      As we are obviously talking about the area close to the "artificial" island, it might as well have been in the 12nm zone of that island.

      So that would have been Chinese waters and not international ones.

      Now the final question remains how artificial that island was ... certainly it s more than a platform.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    54. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, PrimaryConsult you disappoints.
      Looks like you're just another cut and paste, wannabe "expert".
      Portraying yourself as somebody with some scholarship ("IMO"...LOL), only to run away and hide when even simple questions are asked.

    55. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by spazzmo · · Score: 2

      You have to build a lot of islands if they're only extending your territory 200 nanometers.

      --
      The cheese stands alone...
    56. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by spazzmo · · Score: 1

      ... have reduced appetites for being the world's fascist bully-boy. FTFY

      --
      The cheese stands alone...
    57. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Nautic miles, not nano meters.
      Obviously we are talking about territory, not proteins.
      But nice attempt of nit picking.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    58. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by imikem · · Score: 1

      Is there a difference here, or did you just feel the need to visit thesaurus.com today?

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    59. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      They may not have vital national security interests but the Biden and Kerry families have a definite and very recent stake in Eastern Ukrainian Mining interests. So no conflicts of interest there.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    60. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

      ... Nobody is arguing Haneda Airport isn't Japanese land, for these purposes...

      Give me a break! Haneda Airport is right on the coastline! Serious lapse of continuity on your part, don't you think?

    61. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Or, I have better things to do than read slashdot 3 hours after posting?

      In any case, here is the relevant section of the wikipedia article on Hangul, which does a far better job at explaining than I can.

      Now go back under your rock, troll.

    62. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Why are you proposing to build islands at a nanometer scale?

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    63. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't look like you're very good at math either.
      You had 9 hours to respond.

      21 hours later, you you came back with a link to wikipedia.
      You done nothing to dispel the the appearance that you're a "cut and paste, wannabe expert".

      I can link you to the wikipedia article for relativity, but you might not much care and/or unable to perform tensor calculus.

      I only have layman interests in languages. I don't particularly want to read some wikipedia article on languages.

      If I said "IMO relativity is one of the most interesting theories", do you want me to send you to the above wikipedia page for a short explanation?

      Not trying to attack you personally, but you just came off looking like a wannabe (not saying you are...just looks it).

    64. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      I only have layman interests in languages. I don't particularly want to read some wikipedia article on languages.

      As do I, though I have taken a few linguistic courses as well. In any case, 'layman interests' is exactly what Wikipedia is for. I sent you to the specific section of the page which answers your question, unlike your relativity example which is the top level page of something I did not express any interest in (to you). If you don't care enough to read the Wikipedia article, being that you're an AC, I'm not sure you're worth answering anyway.

      If you must know *why* I think it is that great, The part I linked to is where it explains that the design of the letters is based on the position of the mouth when making the sound. The other reason it is that there's only a handful of "letters" but they group together to form blocks. Each block makes a complete syllable (so that it flows naturally when reading) but unlike other phonetic alphabets such as Kana, you do not need to memorize every possible block to learn to read / write, just the component letters and the positioning cues.

    65. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So you agree reclaimed land is valid. Now that we've established that, we can worry about the minutia of this case.

    66. Re:Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, if you're stating that China has a right to build islands in International waters & append them to China, then no, we don't agree. China is wrong yet again.

  2. Cowpens by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So apparently there is some poor town named Cowpens where a battle occured. At least it wasn't named after a person. That would be a terrible last name.

  3. Bald Simians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They've been going to coral reefs and atolls, dredging the bottom for material, and dumping it on top of the reef to create new land.

    Destroying fisheries in the process. But hey! They can just go into international waters and fish there - it's not like the World's fisheries are in trouble or anything.

    A Chinese amphibious assault ship approached and ordered it to leave the area. The commander of the Cowpens refused, saying he was sailing in 'international waters.'"

    Some day, we bald apes are going stop our petty squabbles.

    Nah! Who am I kidding.

    1. Re:Bald Simians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destroying fisheries in the process. But hey! They can just go into international waters and fish there - it's not like the World's fisheries are in trouble or anything.

      When China gets done claiming the world, there won't be any international waters to fish in. Won't be any other fishermen, either, just peasants.

    2. Re:Bald Simians! by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 2

      Some day, we bald apes are going stop our petty squabbles. Nah! Who am I kidding.

      It could happen....with nukes.

    3. Re:Bald Simians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those peasants are called the Proletariat comrade. We can only be strong when we have strong workers!

    4. Re:Bald Simians! by khallow · · Score: 1

      True, though it's more likely that they'll just reduce the intensity of future conflicts either through fear of their use and/or through massive reduction in the population and available technology and infrastructure for fighting.

    5. Re:Bald Simians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, though it's more likely that they'll just reduce the intensity of future conflicts either through fear of their use and/or through massive reduction in the population and available technology and infrastructure for fighting.

      The point was obviously about glassing the entire planet resulting in human extinction.

      For as long as there are more than about 50 people (tops, probably less), someone is going to shiv someone else in the back and steal their shit. Humans are opportunists.

  4. By Country by SumDog · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So here's some trivia. How many aircraft carries to most countries have (those who have them)? Take a guess. Another guess. The answer is 1. Only two nations have more than 1 and that's India and Italy.

    The United States has 11:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

    The United States is one of the most dangerous military states in the world and the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. An 11 carrier Navy fleet is not sustainable. It will require more war and wars that do not end.

    1. Re:By Country by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it weren't for the U.S. having multiple aircraft carriers, the modern-day world might be divided into two different super-powers...Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

    2. Re:By Country by blue9steel · · Score: 5, Informative

      An 11 carrier Navy fleet is not sustainable.

      Assumptions to test this hypothesis:
      1) Countries other than the US (with carriers) are making rational decisions on how many carriers to buy
      2) The total number of carriers a country can support is based on it's GDP
      3) Data from Wikipedia about Carriers and GDP is accurate

      So, based on that metric it takes $2.28 Trillion of GDP to rationally support one aircraft carrier and the US could support 7 of them.

      Problems with this logic:

      1) Not all countries have an equal need for aircraft carriers, it depends on the importance of sea lanes and force projection
      2) Most countries listed are US allies who are underspending on their military establishment since they know the US will be there to protect them
      3) China is an outlier since they have $8.3 trillion in GDP and only one carrier, if they are removed suddenly the data shows it only takes $1.4 Trillion of GDP and the US could support 11 carriers

      Conclusion:

      Given the US need for open sea lanes in order to maintain trade, a political desire for forward force projection in order to avoid conflict in the continental US and the gigantic size of the US economy it's likely that the current number of US carriers is actually appropriate.

      Following those same lines I predict China will build five more carriers amidst rising tensions in the Pacific.

    3. Re:By Country by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      how many carriers in the modern US fleet were made after 1945? Why maintain them during the cold war? Why maintain them now?

    4. Re:By Country by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Nazi germany died with the help from outside.
      If that had not happended it had died ... albeit later ... from the inside, just like 'communist' east germany did.
      Same for Japan. Totalitarian regimes don't last for ever, see: Chile, Argentinia (both regimes crafted and suported by the USA), Iraq (crafted by the USA, destroyed by it too, replaced by something even more evil) or .... or ... or Sparta.
      Yeah, american fan boys love Sparta ... however they are the guys who invented facism and had the first facistic (successful) state. All the Nazi and Italian facism is modeled after Sparta ...
      And don't fear. The american nation as we know it will cleanse itself and come back to civilization at one time as well. Might just take a few more decades.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:By Country by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      force projection and carriers are the strike arm of any real navy these days

    6. Re:By Country by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Note: China is already constructing additional carriers. However compared to something like the USN Gerry Ford they are sorta lame.

    7. Re:By Country by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Against who exactly? We have air bases just about everywhere, ICBM's , long range bombers etc.

      They're huge slow(ish) moving, crazy expensive floating cities that could be made irrelevant with a salvo of cheap, dumb missles. (aegis be damned) They're dreadnoughts waiting for their Taranto.

    8. Re:By Country by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Two reasons come to mind.

      Military/Industrial Complex and show of force in many theatres.

      And they're really friggin' hard to build on short notice

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you forgetting millions of Russian men and women who served ?

    10. Re:By Country by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your objective argument, coupled with your competent use of the scientific method to problem solve, suggests you meant to post this somewhere else.~

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    11. Re:By Country by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      err you know how close airs support only works when you have planes nearby - ah these cheap dumb missiles are torpedo boats redux that where supposed to make dreadnaughts obsolete back pre ww1.

    12. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the event of an extended war, the US is presumed to need to build aircraft carriers. The best way to maintain institutional knowledge of how to build carriers is to build them, and the minimum construction pace that retains this knowledge is about one carrier every five years. Since the non-combat lifespan of a nuclear carrier is about 50 years, this gives the US a fleet of ten to eleven carriers.

    13. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviets won WWII, the Americans dîd real-life atomic bomb tests on civilians.

    14. Re:By Country by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      We could print them, perhaps.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:By Country by Scottingham · · Score: 2

      Mod anon up!

      Also don't forget the fact that these floating cities are *nuclear*. They only need to be refueled once every 20 years. Running full speed ahead for weeks on end does not shorten this span. Its speed is limited by the other diesel ships in the carrier group though.

      There have been some recent advances in catalytic fuels research that can take sea water and create jet fuel. With the nuke onboard all spare energy that would normally be unused could go towards creating fuel. Nothing is close to 'prime time' yet, at least not publicly.

    16. Re: By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of those countrues have history of conflicts with countries withoutba shared land border? How many of those countires are in a treaty organization that obligates the others to come to their defense. Describing the us as a dangerous military state implies reckless use and focusing of our military power, when did us buzzing a foreign craft result in a needless loss of life. Afgjan war eas jusrified, iraq was questionable, syria involvement gun shy. Damn straight that WHEN china starts initiating full up military incursions they will not be so concern with civilian casualties.

    17. Re:By Country by KagatoLNX · · Score: 1

      But are they constructing additional pylons?

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
    18. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure several other nations were already fighting Nazi Germany before the US decided to get involved.

      WWII started in 1939, US entered in 1941

    19. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm interested in this because I am a China "expert". I had Top Secret clearance with a US ally and have negotiated with the Chinese government. I have already modded so am now posting anon.

      It is likely that aircraft carriers are outdated technology. They are vulnerable to sinking by many means. A possible deterrent for incoming ballistics is a "star wars" type technology that the US claims it has but won't demonstrate. So, bluff. The argument that the Chinese wouldn't spend money on carriers if they were old tech is also facile. Boys with toys and the military industrial complex (wherever it is) will max out on their weapons budget and still cry for more. They often spend it on crap to line the pockets of their mates; or spend it on a wing and a prayer that it will perform as designed.

      What we are seeing now is brinkmanship on both sides. This could end badly.

    20. Re:By Country by Darktan · · Score: 2
      The dreadnaughts effectively were made obsolete in the First World War. They were forced to stay far enough out to sea as to avoid the small, cheap, torpedo boats. By the time the Second World War rolled around, battleships couldn't safely leave port except in cloudy weather, or risk destruction by land based aircraft.

      I suspect aircraft carriers are where the battleships were in the First World War. Great for force projection against lesser navies, but have to stay far from shore to keep from being overwhelmed by small, cheap, missile boats and land based missiles and aircraft. As always, you can't know until you try.

    21. Re:By Country by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      They're huge slow(ish) moving, crazy expensive floating cities that could be made irrelevant with a salvo of cheap, dumb missles. (aegis be damned) They're dreadnoughts waiting for their Taranto.

      The reason you damn them is exactly the reason they are relevant.
      Floating cities. Carrier groups are essentially a military base on the move.
      Hospitals, ammo dumps, fuel/food resupply, helicopters and airplanes, drones, marines, logistical support, etc.

      The idea that we can adequately project force with only bombs is ludicrous and not something that can be explained in a /. post.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    22. Re:By Country by konekoniku · · Score: 1

      "1) Not all countries have an equal need for aircraft carriers, it depends on the importance of sea lanes and force projection" Correct. And to this point, it should be noted the United States has the largest EEZ in the world to protect.

    23. Re:By Country by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Following those same lines I predict China will build five more carriers amidst rising tensions in the Pacific

      I was from China, and have been keeping a very close eye on what's happening in China. Please allow me to chime in

      China is not America

      Unlike America China does not have any ambition of global control, nor any need to become the world's policeman

      China's immediate concern is the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea - open lanes to the Pacific and the Indian oceans

      China will do everything it can to ensure that it gets a free passage way in both the abovementioned seas --- and China knows America/Japan are the two entities which will throw the monkey wrench into the clockwork whenever they got the chance

      The floating military base concept is a concept started by ambitious countries which want global domination, like Japan, America, Great Britain, and since China does not share such ambition, China actually does not need aircraft carriers

      And the fact that China has devoted a lot of research into anti-aircraft carrier weapons, like their scramjet powered missiles tells us that the "Liaoning" is but an experiment

      Although China does not need any aircraft carrier it does need to understand how to operate one, and it does need its own military (Navy/Air Force) to be able to fly off/land on aircraft carriers, just in case

      And another reason for having the Liaoning is psychological --- like everything else in China, everything is scripted according to the Art of War

      China's intention on Aircraft Carriers is to force America into building more, and with more carrier groups, the massive expenditure will only bankrupt America faster

      This "aircraft carrier game" is not the first game China plays with USA

      When USA came out with its "stealth fighters" in the 1980's China had none, but China somehow gave the impression to the world that they are making their moves in that area (which include having a few photos of "made in China stealth bomber" online) and that essentially forced America to waste even more of its precious resources into obtaining even more advanced versions of stealth bombers/fighters to the tune of hundreds of billions (the hundreds of billions which could, theoretically, be used to improve the falling education system inside America, but I digress)

      China knows too well that if WW3 is going to come it will a total wipe out - that is why if you guys pay attention to what China is doing, the aircraft carrier / stealth aircraft things are nothing but a big bluff crafted to lure the enemies into wasting their own resources into things that will turn out to be totally worthless

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    24. Re:By Country by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      The problem is still the 'force projection' is so laughably asymmetrical, and those carriers are all things considered relatively easy targets. are they still a necessity?

      Column A: at war with literally any other nation state in the world. they'd just need to load up a few hundred missiles. When a few million dollars worth of ordinance can bring down a ship with a price tag of over $4B you have to question the actual value of said ship.

      Column B: dealing with something like ISIS or a less powerful military. Is even a single carrier group overkill?

      But maybe the real root of the problem is, why does the US truly need to 'project force' in a unilateral sense?

    25. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmmm, the crews of the battleships that bombarded Normandy before and after the landings would be interested to hear that, I suspect. Small, cheap torpedo boats were no match for the destroyers build specifically to 'destroy' them. For every weapon there is a counter weapon, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles are a threat to aircraft carriers, but the problem for small ships has always been target identification. For all the technology, it's still a big ocean, and an aircraft carrier is still effective from a long way away. I'd say the jury is still out.

    26. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aircraft carriers are versatile, they have many uses, but their primary use is to control the sea, not the land. While the Chinese have been reading 'The Art of War', the Americans have been reading 'The Influence of Seapower Upon History' and know that they need to control the sea, and also need to be able to defeat the enemy's fleet should it come to that. China cannot control it's sea lanes just by capturing a few islands nearby, so if the Chinese strategy is as you describe it it is bound to fail.

    27. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US allies do not underspend because they know the US will be there to protect them; they underspend because they don't have legislatures pouring money into the military like it is going out of style. Nor do they buy weapons to give to corrupt Middle Eastern politicans only to have them fall into enemy hands or build water treatment plants only to have them not used because the electricity lines are sabbotaged by the tribal clans of the area. How about those bags of missing cash to Hamid Karzai? And for some strange reason, you keep giving him more.

      The US MIC is out of control and even when some folks try to reign it in, the people on Capitol Hill keep writing the checks.

      Us Europeans have the bomb, deliverable from mobile launch sites in the air and sea. We have enough nuclear warheads to obliterate mankind. We don't the US if the shit hits the fan. Stop blaming us for overspending on the Department of War.

    28. Re:By Country by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      No - carriers played little role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, as their Navy was largely confined to ports during the bulk of WW2 through the might of the Royal Navy. Anti-submarine patrols were conducted by long range aircraft from bases in Canada, the US and Ireland rather than carriers in the Atlantic.

    29. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to revise you historic military knowledge -- ever hear of the 'Jeep Carrier' ? -- which were used to escort convoys across the Atlantic and rendered the Nazis submarines impotent/extinct (they plugged the gaps in the land based coverage to get the German subs lurking there).

    30. Re:By Country by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      this is interesting stuff...i like the take on history

      American involvement...now, I agree that totalitarian regimes eventually fall...but it is precisely **because of America** that the major totalitarian powers fell in the 20th Century

      Yes...Russia, Japan, Germany...all defeated by America

      Now...Chile, Argentina, Iraq (x2)...etc...Yes that was the same America!

      Here's the key to undestanding the contradiction: America, just like the world itself, is in constant struggle between our democracy and our oligarchy...when Oligarchy wins you get Chile and Argentina...when Democracy wins in America, it wins in the world too

      it's not "because America"...it's because Oligarchy vs Democracy...and America, due to here fine and beautiful natural resources, just happens to be at the front of the fight...but we all are too, every day of our lives!

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    31. Re:By Country by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Escort carriers were indeed used in the North Atlantic, but they most certainly did not render the u-boat threat "impotent/extinct", as they attacked convoys mostly at night. They did provide more protection, but they did not eliminate the threat.

    32. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to recall European bombing missions in Libya running out of ordinance a few days into the conflict, and borrowing US ammunition.
      I also seem to recall a hijacked airliner landing in Switzerland unopposed because the Swiss Air Force could not be bothered to respond "after business hours".

      This is why Russia's moves now scare the Europeans I know: they realize they have no defense other than "Gee, I hope Nato/the US helps us out"

    33. Re:By Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the ultimate goal would be a Submarine that can launch aircraft and has a rail gun. Pop up long enough to launch a few stealth fighters, fire some slugs, and get below the waves before an observation satellite can pick it up. should also protect this high value asset from cruise missiles and everything else short of a nuclear weapon being used as a depth charge.

    34. Re:By Country by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Unlike America China does not have any ambition of global control

      Not yet, it takes a while for rising powers to get to the point of having global ambitions. For China this time is still in the future. If and when their GDP becomes the #1 in the world then it would be time to re-discuss this issue.

    35. Re:By Country by TFloore · · Score: 1

      But maybe the real root of the problem is, why does the US truly need to 'project force' in a unilateral sense?

      Because the 1800's taught us that wars on our own soil are bad. See, for example, the British burning Washington D.C. during the War of 1812 (which actually lasted 1812-14). The reason it is called the WHITE House was a not-so-subtle "Screw You!" to the British when we rebuilt it after they burned it to the ground.

      The 1900's taught us that wars "over there" are much better. The US was the major economic and miltary superpower from 1945 to 1990 because our infrastructure wasn't destroyed by a continent-wide war 1939-1945.

      A slightly different question is "Do we need to meddle in other people's affairs?" but, as a species, humans aren't good at not poking the bee hive.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
    36. Re:By Country by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Quite nice post, but regarding Russia I must have missed the history when "america defeated it".

      Russia was "defeated" if at all by: Afghanistan, Chernobyl, the Polish uprisings and reforms, the east german uprisings and the reunion, the debacle in Yugoslavia, the other reformations in other "eastern" countries and finally by Russia itself.

      The americans had not much to do with that.

      Nevertheless and insightful post.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:By Country by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      sure let's give credit where credit is due: Gorbechov and his scalp birthmark opened Russia, then the world stood by as oligarchs filled the power vaccum

      President Reagan is a fraud & his legacy is a pox upon my fair country

      that being said, i feel that the example of the 'West' and especially America using "soft power" like economics and pop culture, proved that freedom/democracy is the only way to govern people

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    38. Re:By Country by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you know this from actual knowledge or if it is simply deduction, but a post on Slashdot that makes sense, amazing! :)

      The Anon makes it all mysterious, as I'm sure we all assume it is some US Naval Admiral posting in secret...

  5. Oh really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " sovereignty and strategic control "
    They really want those stupid island that's the property of Japan isn't it...

    1. Re: Oh really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want the entire south china sea such that if any country in it wants to pull ties from their docks they need to ask china for permission.

  6. China's nine-dashed line by Rigel47 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is pretty hilarious. All countries pull their fair share of bullshit but come on.. territorial waters that just wander southward like that, cutting between vietnam and the philippines?

    Oh well.. I expect a typhoon or two will swamp those attempts at man-man islands.

    1. Re:China's nine-dashed line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe the island will tip over. Or at least, a certain Congressman may believe so.

    2. Re:China's nine-dashed line by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They looked over at their russian neighbors and noticed that spreading bullshit around was surprisingly effective in claiming new territory for fun and profit.

    3. Re:China's nine-dashed line by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Fall into a swamp, maybe.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. Its brand new (used) aircraft carrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Liaoning is not brand new - it's a refurb of an old Soviet carrier.

    1. Re:Its brand new (used) aircraft carrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SHHHHHhhhhhhhhhshshshshshshh......

      its new to the Chinese. even if it is already outdated.

      captcha: sailed

  8. Unrecognized Sovereignty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Somehow, I doubt that the next typhoon that blows through there will recognize Chinese Sovereignty, either. There's a reason many of those are only reefs and not islands that stick up above the waves all the time.

  9. Hypocrits by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Between 1893 and 1951(?) the USA conquered and anexed Hawaii.
    Overthrowing a queen, destroying a nation and a culture.

    In 2014 China uses some bulldozers to create a new uninhabited island.

    Both to 'extend the sovereignty' and expand the territory.

    In the first case thousands if not hundred of thousands of 'natives' got harmed. In the chinese case no one gets harmed.

    But the Chinese are the evil ones ... caught, caught, why exactly? Ah yes, they are communists, evil devils!

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:Hypocrits by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why does one deed excuse the other? It's not like anyone complaining about the chinese annexation of the Spratley's was alive to condone the annexation of Hawai'i by the US.

      Both were and are bullshit. Extending national boundaries through force is something we were supposed to leave behind after WW2. Apparently, some people think that the lessons from WW2 don't apply to them.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Hypocrits by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      China's evil 'cause of the Carbon Footprint, man.

    3. Re:Hypocrits by jlockard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To an extent, not exactly the same. When the US annexed/took-over Hawaii the US didn't claim all land between the US coast and Hawaii as US waters. My "I haven't checked Google to be sure" guess is the waters within 100 miles of the US west coast and a 100 mile circle around Hawaii are the only waters declared as US waters.

      --
      --JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
    4. Re:Hypocrits by jlockard · · Score: 1

      I obviously meant "water" in that second sentence and not "land". But the Chinese are claiming all water and land in the South China Sea, plus a buffer.

      --
      --JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
    5. Re:Hypocrits by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0, Troll

      Chinese have a very small carbon footprint. I know it was meant as a joke. But as long as the typical american has 3x or 4x the 'foot print' a chinese has ... we have other concerns :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Hypocrits by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      In the first case thousands if not hundred of thousands of 'natives' got harmed. In the chinese case no one gets harmed.

      That depends on the 'one' -- I'm pretty sure the corals and the fisheries that depend upon them aren't considered "not harmed". But that's a really good way to extend your country; I'm surprised we don't see it more often.

    7. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and Hawaii would look like Samoa had that not happened...

      Now the natives got satellite TV, flat panels and big ass shiny rims...AND they get the play the victim card...win-win!

    8. Re:Hypocrits by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The Netherlands are doing it constantly ... since more than 500 years. But indeed it is surprising that e.g germany or denmark is not doing the same.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's because overthrowing a queen, destroying a nation, and monetizing a culture is how you do it right. no one gets harmed? wtf is that, noobs!

    10. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Might want to re-examine your history before you start jerking your knees around. If the US hadn't turned Hawaii into a protectorate Russia would have.

    11. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what did China do to Tibet in 1950, hmm?

      Why can't the Dali Lama return home?

      If China isn't evil, why doesn't it admit that what happened in 1950 was wrong and give Tibet its freedom and sovereignty back?

    12. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of the Chinese government, WW2 is an excuse to seize "victory" where there need not be conflict.

    13. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    14. Re:Hypocrits by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      I buy the sentiment of your title in that there is little difference in the ethics of the two methods for territorial expansion.

      Practically speaking, empire building has been accomplished historically by annexation via invasion... or the threat thereof. This has been a generally accepted method of increasing one's sovereign soil.

      The concept that a nation can float a semi-permanent habitat into international waters and call it their territorial waters, well, it's more than a little self serving and short-sighted. What happens when every other country gets on to their crafty scheme?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    15. Re:Hypocrits by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      My "I haven't checked Google to be sure" guess is the waters within 100 miles of the US west coast and a 100 mile circle around Hawaii are the only waters declared as US waters.

      The US claims territorial waters only up to 12 nautical miles from the shore, which is the maximum allowed by international law.

    16. Re:Hypocrits by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      At some point, they did, but they've since backed off of the claim. Current limits: US Maritime Limits & Boundaries

    17. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we were supposed to leave behind after WW2" and why is that!
      is it because forceful occupation is "bad/evil" or is it because western forces no longer needs to annex other lands
      in either case i present to you Israel, US, Russia, China, India blah blah

    18. Re:Hypocrits by GNious · · Score: 1

      We (Denmark) would be doing it up around Greenland ... and thats a fracking cold and inhospitable place to be building islands.

      Instead, we're planning on going to war with Canada over Hans Ø / Tartupaluk.
      (not really)

    19. Re:Hypocrits by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's something we were supposed to leave behind after WW1.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re: Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume that china will just give up the ghost if they are challenged for their over the top antics. They certainly instigate some close calls, that countries will collectively ignore or explain away. Welcome to the global economy, corporations will pressure those who can challenge them to shush and let business as usual occur. While china is trying to aquire land and influence with intimidation rather than outright war the us should backup its allies in the region and support our econic interests. Crearing an artificial island is like putting a lock on your office, it doesnt mean tou own the place.

    21. Re:Hypocrits by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Technically, WW2 and WW1 were the same war, just with a 20 year pause. At least from a European and lessons learned perspective.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    22. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what did China do to Tibet in 1950, hmm?

      Why can't the Dali Lama return home?

      If China isn't evil, why doesn't it admit that what happened in 1950 was wrong and give Tibet its freedom and sovereignty back?

      WOAH...MEGA DEJA VU...

      And what did Europeans do to America in the 1700s, hmm?

      Why can't the native tribes return home?

      If America isn't evil, why doesn't it admit that what happened in 1700s was wrong and give the Indians its freedom and sovereignty back?

      Dude, that was too easy.

    23. Re:Hypocrits by dryeo · · Score: 1

      WWI is still being fought in the middle east. After the Ottoman Empire fell, England, France and eventually the USA moved in and Germany encouraged the Arab Muslims to Jihad in response. The Jihad is still happening.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    24. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is an idea, spend a bit of time to learn both sides of the story before posting.

      Do you think the natives of tibet's want the "Lama Class" back in power?
      Don't worry about the Dali Lama, the CIA paid him well so he did alright for himself.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      Have another hit from your propaganda machine, it is working wonders for you.

    25. Re:Hypocrits by jandersen · · Score: 1

      A brief history of Tibet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

      Without having gone into much detail, it looks to me like Tibet hasn't been much of an independent nation for the last 800 years or so. They were part of the last empire of China (Qing dynasty), then left to itself from 1912 to 1950, when the modern China re-asserted its power. Until then, Tibet was a feudal society with a ruling elite and large numbers of serfs - to my mind that is the real evil in the case of Tibet and the reason why Dalai Lama can't return to power. China is not the evil party in this - they did what any civilised nation should have done.

    26. Re:Hypocrits by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

    27. Re:Hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      But there's an answer for that:
      Why should the second correct itself and not the first?

  10. Re: Might want to tighten the bolts on those saber by Redbehrend · · Score: 1

    China's ego is gonna screw them over.

  11. poor britons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    britons watching their former world empire gettin torn into pieces now even inside their own island, and now the chinese copy the technique they used to conquer the world. If it only were about those islands. The game china plays larger by far. They also invest heavily into african soil and infrastructure.

  12. If China builds an Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the Chesapeake Bay, it doesn't make the Bay a part of China.

    The Philippines are out gunned, but it is their jurisdiction.
    They could give the Chinese a building permit, or declare the area a gunnery target range.
    Their choice, not China's.

    If China gets the base built, it's really hard to sink an Island.
    But it's really hard to move it as well, making it a nice stable target.

    What is the fundamental reason the Chinese wants the place?
    Is it a distraction for domestic issues.
    Is there an economic reason they actually need the place.
    Is it just to show that they are powerful. Being a bully shows more weakness than strength.
    And will eventually lead to a serious, unnecessary shooting match.
    (See WW1, WW2, etc.)

    Really a dumb, unfortunate situation.

    1. Re:If China builds an Island by CauseBy · · Score: 2

      "If China gets the base built, it's really hard to sink an Island."

      Tell that to the Bikini Atoll!

    2. Re: If China builds an Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would make china different than any other emerging power in any period of time. A military conflict would seem inevitabel despite the lighting speed of information..oh wait, china controls the message that many of their citiizens see... natuinalism, bravado, young and invincible(referring to the emergence of their influence), resentment for being pwned in wars past....a military conflicyt would seem inevitable as tgeybfollow rhe course of all other imperialistic nations.

  13. Any reason other countries can't do the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it works for China it should work for Vietnam, Philippines, Japan... forget countries, it should even work for billionaires.

  14. Might want to tighten the bolts on those sabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course they rattle. They *were* made in China, afterall.

  15. Page sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man I scroll the page by dragging the scrollbar but all that does is apparently induce seizures....

    Scrolling the page to scan just causes a flickering lightshow of massive pictures breaking the text apart then some more random text and another huge image flying by. I can't tell what the f*ck I'm doing.

    1. Re:Page sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the hipster UX way to make webpages these days.
      Fucking atrocious

  16. Any precedent? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Is there any precedent for a country to create new land like this, and claim territory around it? If international law is good for anything, it seems like this would be a good time to cite it.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Any precedent? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      The whole region is contested. Every party from Russia down to Vietnam and the Philippines is squabbling over bits of dirt so they can claim the huge oil & gas reserves that are under the sea bed there.

      We saw an escalation a couple of months ago when China towed a drilling platform out into contested water and got into a dust up with so local coast guard ships (I can't remember who the other country was - Vietnam I think).

      Destabilisation in the middle east is sharpening the focus on finding secondary supplies of energy. ISIS has the potential to take out huge areas of oil producing land with Iraq unstable, Syria in civil war, Lebannon screwed, Libya in civil war, Egypt under military rule and most of the other countries being split on Sunni or Shiite lines there is a real risk of an energy crisis is ISIS cannot be stopped and stopped soon.

  17. Environmental concerns... Anyone? by Dr.Potato · · Score: 1

    Ok, I agree that China is not strong on environmental protection, specially if they are doing this in order to put a foot in the door of these disputed areas. But this is criminal!

    On any country with a minimal of environmental concern, this thing wouldn't even pass the planning stage.

    But being a biologist, I can't think any other way. What they are doing is a crime.

    --
    "Science is common sense with peer review"
    1. Re:Environmental concerns... Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to share with them the gift of an EPA.

    2. Re:Environmental concerns... Anyone? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Thank you. At least there is one who reacts like I do.
      Dump soil on coral reefs to make islands is evil. Especially for such a stupid reason.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  18. Any precedent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is there any precedent for a country to create new land like this, and claim territory around it?"

    Well, Dubai does that, leaving behind a huge carbon footprint..

  19. Where are the environmentalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are they not protesting the destruction of coral reefs and atolls? Oh, I forgot, the Chinese would just kill them. My bad.

    1. Re:Where are the environmentalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I thought fox 'news' viewers only showed up in the religious topics...

  20. Re: Might want to tighten the bolts on those saber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, Russia has had military boats in Cubans waters for 50 years.

  21. Re: Might want to tighten the bolts on those saber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America's ego has already screwed them over.

  22. Re: Might want to tighten the bolts on those saber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, but he was not accurate enough in his "hypothetical". If those missile ships were delivering nuclear warheads to Cuba, we " hypothetically" would have a major problem. If they were just taking a stroll and checking out the neighborhood its a different story.

    As someone mentioned earlier, the russians would regularly take cruises to say "Hi!" About 13 miles out. And we did the same to them.

  23. Re: Might want to tighten the bolts on those saber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy sure loves penis...

    metaphors

  24. US should stay out of Asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are US ships doing in the South China sea? That is obvious provocation.
    The United States should concentrate on its problems at home, like its lack of democratic government, US economic insolvency, state spying, torture, and the prosecuting its various resident war criminals (Kissinger, Bush, ....)

    1. Re:US should stay out of Asia by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Because we have close allies in the area. Nations with whom we have defence treaties, and China is trying to claim their territory.

      Here's a map of what the UN says the borders are, and what China says they are http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media...

      The Philippines and Taiwan are under our protection, and China is trying to steal their territorial waters. We do business with everyone else.

      Long story short, we have many interests in the region and can't allow China's reckless sea-grab to make a mess of it all.

    2. Re:US should stay out of Asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we have close allies in the area. Nations with whom we have defence treaties, and China is trying to claim their territory.

      Here's a map of what the UN says the borders are, and what China says they are http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media...

      The Philippines and Taiwan are under our protection, and China is trying to steal their territorial waters. We do business with everyone else.

      Long story short, we have many interests in the region and can't allow China's reckless sea-grab to make a mess of it all.

      Please mod accordingly, member sabbede is extremely insightful.
      So you're saying we should help the Argentianians kick the British off The Falklands, and the Japanese(and ourselves ironically) off Okinawa?

  25. The facts are on China's side but the western medi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People in the West just don't understand the history of the south China sea, at all.

    The entire region is really China's, China used to be a very powerful in the region, they dominated the entire region culturally and militarily, that's why Japan was using Chinese characters. Some of the islands right next to Malaysia has Chinese temples on them, that's how far China's power was reaching.

    Historian will tell you that Vietnam and Philipines's claims baseless.

    For example, when you study Vietname's claim, they claimed they 'discovered' the island in the 1800s, but at that time that part of Vietnam was part of China.

    But everybody just lie right out, for centuries those have been well known to be China's waters, nobody contested the waters until gas was discovered some decades ago.

    Some years ago China, Vietnam and Philipines agreed to stop building anything there, but then Vietnam and Philipines cheated and built bases rapidly, now China does it better and these fuckers started crying, well fuck you.

    And the US? Haha they didn't even sign the international treaties that they're quoting from?

    The facts are on China's side but the western media will never tell people the facts, so at the end whoever has the power wins, that's all there is to it.

  26. Vietname and Philipines are thieves and they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only people with no knowledge of the history of the South China Sea will use words like "much closer"

    Closer doesn't mean shit, ask UK and Argentina.

    99/100 Westerners don't know what the fuck they're talking about, people in the West just don't understand the history of the south China sea, at all.

    The entire region is really China's, China used to be a very powerful in the region, they dominated the entire region culturally and militarily, that's why Japan was using Chinese characters. Some of the islands right next to Malaysia has Chinese temples on them, that's how far China's power was reaching.

    Historian will tell you that Vietnam and Philipines's claims are baseless.

    For example, when you study Vietname's claim, they claimed they 'discovered' the island in the 1800s, but at that time that part of Vietnam was part of China.

    But everybody just lie right out, for centuries those have been well known to be China's waters, nobody contested the waters until gas was discovered some decades ago.

    Some years ago China, Vietnam and Philipines agreed to stop building anything there, but then Vietnam and Philipines cheated and built bases rapidly, now China does it better and these fuckers started crying, well fuck you.

    And the US? Haha they didn't even sign the international treaties that they're quoting from?

    The facts are on China's side but the western media will never tell people the facts, so at the end whoever has the power wins, that's all there is to it.

  27. Too much BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vietname and Philipines are thieves and they know it.

    People in the West just don't understand the history of the south China sea, at all.

    The entire region is really China's, China used to be a very powerful in the region, they dominated the entire region culturally and militarily, that's why Japan was using Chinese characters. Some of the islands right next to Malaysia has Chinese temples on them, that's how far China's power was reaching.

    Historian will tell you that Vietnam and Philipines's claims baseless.

    For example, when you study Vietname's claim, they claimed they 'discovered' the island in the 1800s, but at that time that part of Vietnam was part of China.

    But everybody just lie right out, for centuries those have been well known to be China's waters, nobody contested the waters until gas was discovered some decades ago.

    Some years ago China, Vietnam and Philipines agreed to stop building anything there, but then Vietnam and Philipines cheated and built bases rapidly, now China does it better and these fuckers started crying, well fuck you.

    And the US? Haha they didn't even sign the international treaties that they're quoting from?

    The facts are on China's side but the western media will never tell people the facts, so at the end whoever has the power wins, that's all there is to it.

    1. Re:Too much BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you repeat this over and over, with grammar errors, it makes it true?

    2. Re:Too much BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point out the mistakes then, I dare you.

  28. China's nine-dashed line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Study the history of South China Sea before posting.

    You know jack shit.

    As if the world map is supposed to tell you what belongs to who.

    The entire US was stolen for fucks sake and you wankers complain? Fuck off.

  29. If China builds an Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You morons like to talking about shit you don't know anything about don't you.

    Vietname and Philipines are thieves and they know it.

    People in the West just don't understand the history of the south China sea, at all.

    The entire region is really China's, China used to be a very powerful in the region, they dominated the entire region culturally and militarily, that's why Japan was using Chinese characters. Some of the islands right next to Malaysia has Chinese temples on them, that's how far China's power was reaching.

    Historian will tell you that Vietnam and Philipines's claims baseless.

    For example, when you study Vietname's claim, they claimed they 'discovered' the island in the 1800s, but at that time that part of Vietnam was part of China.

    But everybody just lie right out, for centuries those have been well known to be China's waters, nobody contested the waters until gas was discovered some decades ago.

    Some years ago China, Vietnam and Philipines agreed to stop building anything there, but then Vietnam and Philipines cheated and built bases rapidly, now China does it better and these fuckers started crying, well fuck you.

    And the US? Haha they didn't even sign the international treaties that they're quoting from?

    The facts are on China's side but the western media will never tell people the facts, so at the end whoever has the power wins, that's all there is to it.

  30. Just because its called the Sea of China by sabbede · · Score: 1

    doesn't mean China owns it! They have, I shit you not, claimed the entire South sea, right up to the beaches of their neighbors.

  31. Re:The facts are on China's side but the western m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, Chinese white-washing technology and production is just as good as Western white-washing technology and production. Proof above.

    How come nobody gives a shit that the CHINESE ARE DELIBERATELY DESTROYING CORAL REEFS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC?

  32. Re:The facts are on China's side but the western m by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    "China used to be very powerful in the region".
    By that logic, the Babylonians own a large portion of the Middle east.

  33. Re: Might want to tighten the bolts on those saber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wondered about that too. The sentence makes more sense without the word "penis" inserted into it. Do people with Tourette syndrome actually type up their occasional outbursts? Or does this person really like dick?

  34. Compare to US and Gulf of Mexico by Koreantoast · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Chinese love to call hypocrisy, about "Well, the US does blah blah blah..." However, look at the Gulf of Mexico, a good comparative example to the South China Sea situation. See, in the Gulf of Mexico, the United States may actually have a strong position than the Chinese, with greater amount of shoreline touching the water and greater military superiority over its neighbors. There's oil in those water, rich fisheries, and its a critical body of water for American security interests. Yet unlike the Chinese, the Americans didn't scoop up the entire region like a hollowed out grapefruit and tell its neighbors FU. Instead, they sat down, from a position of power no less, and negotiated equitable maritime boundaries, not just with friendly nations like Mexico, but with hostile states like the Cubans. However, the Chinese are different, proving quite greedy and trying to essentially annex other nations' EEZ from Malaysia and Brunei up to Korea and Japan. It's a sad state of affairs, and it only serves to unite China's neighbors against it. With actions like that, they really shouldn't question why their neighbors fear them.

    1. Re:Compare to US and Gulf of Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you KoJaps sort out your own island dispute before weighing in on South China Seas if you don't mind.

  35. the 9 dotted line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China refers to the disputed area they're claiming in the South China Sea as "the 9 dotted line".
    However, looking at it on a map, it appears it should be more rightly described as "the flaccid dong"

  36. Re: Might want to tighten the bolts on those saber by dcw3 · · Score: 2

    These were previously open international waters, so any nation coming along and claiming them needs to be challenged.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  37. Re:The facts are on China's side but the western m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is still here you dumb fuck, fuck you westerners are so fucking stupid and arrogant. Learn the history before you talk shit. Fucking armchair map experts talk about shit they don't know anything about.

    Many of the islands in the South China Sea was named by the Chinese in 1700-1800, they were part of the Chinese map.
    Read the part where no1 contested the water until the 1900s. Some of those fuckers started stealing the islands when China was too busy defending itself from the Japanese, China protested of course, but they just went there and stayed and attempted to change history.

    That's like you're in hospital and someone stole your house.

    You don't just ignore the past.

  38. Compare to US and Gulf of Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US has proven that as long as your military is strong enough you can fuck around the world, the problem seems to be that China is not #1 yet, that's why all the complaining.

    Things will change soon tho, when the petro-dollar collapses.

  39. Stop, or I will write a strongly worded letter! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Also an "amphibious assault ship" i.e. a troop ship designed to attack land, ordering a US cruiser, the largest navel ship not a aircraft carrier now that battleships are faux pas, is pretty funny. Regardless of law or rights or superpowers, that is like me trying to threaten an Abrams tank using my station wagon, or maybe more accurately my bicycle... It is no wonder they told them to take a hike.

    1. Re:Stop, or I will write a strongly worded letter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, no one was going to fire a shot so it is the heft of the ship that counts. Not to mention the amphibious ships would be a lot cheaper to build so a collision would not have been as much loss.

      Then there is the bizarre story of the Cowpens' captain (since relieved) delegating the command of the ship to someone who he was having a romantic relationship with: http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/aug/07/why-uss-cowpens-co-gombert-savage-fired/