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.'"
They're rattling an awful lot.
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.
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.
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.
Liaoning is not brand new - it's a refurb of an old Soviet carrier.
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.
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.
China's ego is gonna screw them over.
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.
how many carriers in the modern US fleet were made after 1945? Why maintain them during the cold war? Why maintain them now?
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.
China's evil 'cause of the Carbon Footprint, man.
Nazi germany died with the help from outside. ... albeit later ... from the inside, just like 'communist' east germany did. .... or ... or 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 ...
If that had not happended it had died
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
Yeah, american fan boys love 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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
force projection and carriers are the strike arm of any real navy these days
"If China gets the base built, it's really hard to sink an Island."
Tell that to the Bikini Atoll!
Note: China is already constructing additional carriers. However compared to something like the USN Gerry Ford they are sorta lame.
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.
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
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
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.
At some point, they did, but they've since backed off of the claim. Current limits: US Maritime Limits & Boundaries
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
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.
Of course they rattle. They *were* made in China, afterall.
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)
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.
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"?
We could print them, perhaps.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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"
It's something we were supposed to leave behind after WW1.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
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
But are they constructing additional pylons?
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
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.
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.
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.
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!
"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.
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 !
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"China used to be very powerful in the region".
By that logic, the Babylonians own a large portion of the Middle east.
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.
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
These were previously open international waters, so any nation coming along and claiming them needs to be challenged.
Just another day in Paradise
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?
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.
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
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.
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...