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