Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China's Island-Building In Pictures

Posted by Soulskill on from the still-waiting-on-the-instructables-guide dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The South China Sea is just small enough to have high strategic value for military operations and just large enough to make territorial claims difficult. For over a year now, the world has been aware that China is using its vast resources to try and change that. Instead of fighting for claims on existing islands or arguing about how far their sovereignty should extend, they simply decided to build new islands. "The islands are too small to support large military units but will enable sustained Chinese air and sea patrols of the area. The United States has reported spotting Chinese mobile artillery vehicles in the region, and the islands could allow China to exercise more control over fishing in the region." The NY Times has a fascinating piece showing clear satellite imagery of the new islands, illustrating how a fleet a dredgers have dumped enormous amounts of sand on top of existing reefs. "Several reefs have been destroyed outright to serve as a foundation for new islands, and the process also causes extensive damage to the surrounding marine ecosystem." We can also see clear evidence of airstrips, cement plants, and other structures as the islands become capable of supporting them.

25 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Intervention? by xenotransplant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who cares why china is building islands and increasing instability in an already unstable area? Let's give them another Olympics!!!!

  2. Seems like a piece is missing by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The NYT article didn't really explain this bit: "The Chinese were relative latecomers to island building in the Spratly archipelago" So this tactic isn't new or unique to China.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Seems like a piece is missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Although several other countries - including Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines - have undertaken some land reclamation activities, Gomez says they have reclaimed less than 100 acres of land, combined, over the last several decades." Source

    2. Re:Seems like a piece is missing by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      Also missing is the motivation - possible oil and gas reserves under the South China Sea. China wants to strengthen their territorial claim and then say the entire area is theirs.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Seems like a piece is missing by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Here's a map of the Spratly islands. You can how they are positioned relative to countries around them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Seems like a piece is missing by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      This is what's absurd. China's claim if you look at the dashed line is obviously exaggerated and that part of the ocean is obviously not Chinese. It's nowhere close to China and the dotted lines are well within the normal territorial waters of other countries. It's like some general took a crayon and with a shaky hand drew it out and said "this remote and distant ocean is now ours". Columbus style in other words.

      Next up, they'll claim that Vietnam and the Phillipines are Chinese territories, and have always been Chinese territories.

    5. Re:Seems like a piece is missing by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      The amount of land isn't as important as the location. The land gives the country an exclusive economic zone which extends 200 nm out from the land. When claims by neighboring land conflicts, if the countries can't come to a mutual agreement the line is usually drawn equidistant from the nearest land . That's whay the line for the territorial waters between the U.S. and Mexico angles slightly north of the U.S.-Mexico border (the nearby Coronado Islands just offshore belong to Mexico), before angling sharply south (San Clemente Island further offshore belongs to the U.S.).

      Countries cannot restrict passage through the exclusive economic zone, but they can regulate economic activity that occurs there - mainly fishing and mining (oil drilling). So islands in the right location are a big deal. The Japanese spent millions setting up a breakwater around a couple rocks because they were Japanese land and gave them exclusive fishing rights to over a hundred thousand square miles of ocean. The rocks were in danger of collapsing into the sea from wave erosion.

      To qualify as land, it has to remain above sea level at high tide. Dumping sand atop underwater corals to create islands isn't generally recognized as legitimate land despite China's claims to the contrary, and would establish a very bad precedent if it were allowed. If that's the way China wants to play, the U.S. could in theory build a new island just off of mainland China and take away a huge swath of ocean territory from China. That's a can of worms you don't want to open. That's why the U.S. has been very clear in stressing that it doesn't recognize this as a legitimate "island," to the point of flying navy aircraft right over it.

  3. Touch it with a 12 mile pole. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You get the 12 mile military and 200 mile fishing limits for your land per international law. However, this must be land above the water. You cannot find land under the surface, dump tons of dirt on it, and claim those rights, per same law.

    This doesn't mean you can't create the islands, but you can't do the 12 mile/200 mile thing. China thinks it can.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Touch it with a 12 mile pole. by Defenestrar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You get the 12 mile military and 200 mile fishing limits for your land per international law. However, this must be land above the water. You cannot find land under the surface, dump tons of dirt on it, and claim those rights, per same law.

      This doesn't mean you can't create the islands, but you can't do the 12 mile/200 mile thing. China [a nuclear power with a massive army and permanent UN veto] ... can.

      FTFY

    2. Re:Touch it with a 12 mile pole. by firewrought · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why do they need any international law? Might makes right.

      Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a big rock...

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
  4. Re:This is just an attempt by the Republicans... by Dave+Emami · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, let's see...

    That's from one quick search (obviously not needed for the Chernobyl item). And beyond those, the contrast in the level of pollution between democratic, capitalist West Germany and authoritarian, Marxist East Germany at the time of unification is well-documented, the subject of many studies and articles. It's about as close to a lab comparison as you could ask for.

    Are there, and have there been, environmental problems in the free world? Certainly. But the idea that they're worse than in undemocratic countries is ludicrous, especially since the Marxist countries had their problems even with the benefit of hindsight, since most of them industrialized long after the free world had.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  5. How durable are these islands? by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do they erode fairly quickly, requiring continuous replenishment of their fill or can they build them with good long-term stability?

    1. Re:How durable are these islands? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      I'm sure that sometime over the next century or so, China could dump another few feet of soil on them. If they can afford to build them, they can surely afford to maintain them.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:How durable are these islands? by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You mean, will they survive a direct hit by a serious typhoon?

      A very good question. I'm guessing that the answer is no, but if they ring the whole thing with ten feet of concrete above high tide tied into the coral reefs underneath, maybe.

      From the scale of the photos, though, one good sized tropical storm that hit it just right would erase it. I'm sitting here looking out over the Beaufort Inlet in NC at the gap left by Hurricane Sandy where it washed maybe half a mile of Shackleford Banks out into the bay. This was all sand that had been stable for, well, "forever", tied down with trees and grass. Sandy sat offshore and hit it with a week long northeaster. The inlet still hasn't stabilized -- the sand is all over everywhere, reefs shifting constantly, dredging required to keep the Morehead City port open.

      Sandy was a wussy little hurricane -- only category 1. Well, it was actually spatially really big (part of the problem) and slow moving (another part). If they get a storm surge that gets over the top of whatever is holding all that sand in, life on the "island" could get very interesting in the sense of the Chinese curse.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    3. Re:How durable are these islands? by readin · · Score: 2

      IANACE* If they build a runway on the reef I assume they would put something more durable under the pavement than sand. Wouldn't they need to at least run some steel posts into the reef below? A category 5 direct hit hurricane would probably take out most buildings, but if you know the hurricane is coming you can evacuate the planes, ships and people before it arrives. The really expensive stuff (the runway) would survive. The buildings could be replaced quickly (it's a military base not a luxury hotel so spartan accommodations would be fine).

      *I am not a civil engineer.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  6. Smashing idea by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Calling these things 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' shows just what a daft idea this is, militarily.

    In a no-holds-barred fight, they have a HUGE bullseye painted on them, and will be easy to take out. The general idea of naval power is to project power, and being able to hide this capability in plain sight in a huge ocean is what makes a movable aircraft carrier a better idea. You wouldn't use one of these to fight an actual war.

    Fixed fortifications are monuments to human stupidity. I could see this being like the Maginot Line or the Atlantic Wall.t

    The only reason why they would do this, is so that they can call it sovereign territory, and to game international border rules to their own benefit.

    1. Re:Smashing idea by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      "what a daft idea this is, militarily."

      Which is fine, since the military value of anything built on the island, and the island itself, is irrelevant.

      The only value is to make an increasingly plausible territorial claim over the surrounding ocean, which includes everything on, in, and under the water: The fishing, the drilling, the shipping.

    2. Re:Smashing idea by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a no-holds-barred fight, they have a HUGE bullseye painted on them, and will be easy to take out.

      Easy being a relative term.

      Keep in mind that in World War II, the Japanese had lots of bases on little tiny islands. And it took hundreds of thousands of Marines to take them away.

      The only reason this was done was because carrier aircraft of the era didn't pack anywhere the same punch as land based aircraft. Land based aircraft didn't have the range to hit Japan from areas under US control and return to base. In-flight refueling was still very experimental. Island hopping is no longer necessary. These rocks are small enough to completely obliterate in an afternoon by air anyway. Anybody left is not going to be in a position to threaten high-flying aircraft or ships.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    3. Re:Smashing idea by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep in mind that in World War II, the Japanese had lots of bases on little tiny islands. And it took hundreds of thousands of Marines to take them away. The US then took advantage of these islands to support attacks on other islands and, eventually, the Japanese mainland.

      Taking them as part of the "island-hopping" strategy (which was a good way to advance to the Japanese home islands) was expensive, although not "hundreds of thousands". Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest of those battles, was fought by 70,000 US troops, which is still a large number, of course. Neutralizing them was much simpler. The kingpin of the Japanese bases guarding the Central Pacific was an island called Truk. You've never heard of the great battle of Truk, because there wasn't one. We blockaded it, staged a massive bombing raid to destroy the aircraft and warships stationed there, and rendered it completely irrelevant. No attempt was made to take the heavily fortified island itself (which would have been a much tougher task than taking the islands we did take), because it wasn't necessary. Truk never fell; it was still under Japanese control when the Japanese surrendered. But without supplies and replacements for the destroyed planes and ships, it could no longer affect the course of the war.

  7. Sinking island by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    The funny point is that once you kill coral by dumping tons of sand on it, the island will not raise anymore with oceans. They are going to need a lot of sand to keep the island afloat.

    1. Re:Sinking island by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Informative

      The sad point is that by killing the coral reef they are destroying the ocean's ecosystem. Forget about the military implications, this is something that the international community needs to stand up and punish China for.
      Even though coral reefs cover less than one percent of the ocean floor, they support an estimated 25 percent of all marine life, with more than 4,000 species of fish alone. In fact, coral reefs are some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world with thousands of species relying on reefs for survival. They also serve as important sources of food, income, protection, and new medicines for mankind.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  8. Re:Chinese economy on the verge of collapse? by willworkforbeer · · Score: 2

    If I were prone to dark speculation, I would think about the ChiCom leaders with an overabundance of men in the population (resulting from preferential male births).

    They have 50 million more men than women. That's a frustrated powder keg that must dealt with; one way to reduce that population is a land war.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  9. Re:Chinese economy on the verge of collapse? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    China, and the chinese, have a massive superiority complex laid over a very deep inferiority complex stemming from the 1800s all the way to the 1940s.

    Until that gets resolved, they are more dangerous than average. They have a chip on their shoulder and have something to "prove" combined with a sense of manifest destiny.

    Their military spending is much less BUT their labor costs are much less so their spending is much higher than it looks like given the raw numbers. Effectively its 3 to 4 times as large.

    Hopefully they transition to a truly confident nation and resolve their issues. Then there is still "average" danger. Any group of people can go apeshit on other groups of people when they think they are more powerful. It's happened over and over.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  10. Re:This is just an attempt by the Republicans... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    Is the west often bad? Yes. Were the communist nations consistently worse? Also yes.

    Destruction of the environment is not a "democracy" thing. It's a human thing; "we need this now, we'll worry about consequences later". And it's worse when those responsible can hide it--which in turn is easier under a repressive government.

  11. Re: This is just an attempt by the Republicans... by FirstOne · · Score: 2

    I see a number of errors in your claim. Fukushima has the potential to be 25 to 30x radio-nucleotide release greater than Chernobyl.

    1st item, the single Chernobyl reactor(Unit 4) while somewhat higher power output core, was ~1/2 of combined power rating of the melted Fukushima cores(unit's 1,2,3)

    2nd) Chernobyl unit 4 was newly constructed, and it's core burntime was still in it's infancy.. (~2yrs), It may or may not have undergone it's first refueling swap-out (~1/3 of the core). Meanwhile Fukushima involved 30+ year old reactors(Unit's 1,2, and 3), with 3 fully mature cores, upwards of 5 years of burn-time per core near the start of the next refueling cycle (I.E. ~Worse case for radio-nucleotides) .

    3rd, Fukushima is far from over. all indications point to a melt through below the plant, into an subterranean river flow, which will end up carrying the contents of those melted cores into the pacific ocean.

    3rd) Iodine-131 is still being detected onsite. I.E. fission is still occurring, thus Fukushima is still of moving target. Note: At relatively low neutron flux levels indicate that the fission yield of I-131 will be maximized(~6x greater)

    4th) Unlike fallout on land, where isotope mobility is somewhat limited, the Pacific ocean is far more efficient in respect towards bio-concentration of radio isotopes up the food chain.

    Be prepared to write off the food chain for Northern Pacific ocean for the next hundred years or so. It's being subjected to equivalent fallout of ALL Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons ever detonated (worldwide 1945-1980) by just this one incident.