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.'"

22 of 199 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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!"

    4. 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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.
    7. 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

  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.

  4. 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 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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

  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 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 !
  14. 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.