Author: wuzheyuamily

[US] China hits back at US in row over South China Sea   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2015-10-15 23:16:52 |Display all floors
What if USA drop 4 JDAM bombs accidentally on another Chinese embassy, like they did in Belgrade?
Let the dice fly high

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 2

Post time 2015-10-16 12:05:08 |Display all floors
2 weeks ago President Xi and Obama had a frank discussion in Washington to ensure that each nation needs to know how to respect each sovereignity. The talks were constructive and Xi went back to Beijing looking at harvesting a good relationship with 2 largest nations on earth to work respectfully hands-in-hands.
Now the US turns its back on its commitment and trying to drive a wedge between the relationship largely using South China Sea as the drama venue of challenges.
China now face a decision how the govt will react to such provocative acts spewing out from the US defence. Once again, the frank discussion in the US showed that US is very adamant that they show no respect to the Chinese, and will never give in to their demand.
If the Chinese continue to allow the US to prey on its weaknesses through mere talks and warning, or would do what the Russian did in Syria - fire a missile at any provocative acts of US forces that go within the 12 nautical miles and show them the Chinese is damn serious with our sovereignity. You need to drive a axe and send a fear warning to the creator of war aggressor in South China Sea so as to send cold shiver down the spine of the rest of Philippines, Vietnam etc..... If you do continue to allow US to move its arm closer to humiliating the Chinese, in no time, the Chinese will gain no respect from anyone except only good at delivering lip services.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2015-10-16 16:24:34 |Display all floors
cestmoi Post time: 2015-10-15 23:16
What if USA drop 4 JDAM bombs accidentally on another Chinese embassy, like they did in Belgrade? :f ...

The US, at the time, were using outdated maps. So I guess you better update your maps correctly.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2015-10-16 16:32:04 |Display all floors
China's Military Might: First, the Good News
Jun 4, 2015 9:46 AM EDT
By  Thomas J. Christensen   

Every week seems to bring new cause for concern about China's rising military power and assertiveness. Some scholars and pundits worry that the Chinese government is aiming to block U.S. forces from operating in East Asia altogether -- and even plans to replace the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower.

While China’s buildup indeed creates security challenges for the U.S. and its Asian allies, the consequences are more subtle and complicated than some alarms would suggest. Despite its quickly increasing defense budgets in the last 20 years, China still lacks the ability to project combat power in a sustained way far from its shores, and the U.S. maintains full-spectrum military superiority, even in East Asia. Chinese forces lag far behind their U.S. counterparts in quality of equipment, experience and training.

Unfortunately for the U.S., the good news ends there. China doesn't need to be a peer competitor to pose serious problems in East Asia, a region of great importance to America and the rest of the world. I'll explain why in a second article tomorrow.

Meanwhile, however, let's put the arsenals and fighting abilities in context. China’s large military establishment was traditionally a land army for homeland defense against the Communist Party's foreign and domestic foes and was supplemented by a small number of stationary liquid-fueled missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. In the 1990s China began developing the ability to project military power abroad with its navy, air force and conventionally tipped ballistic missiles. Some of these highly accurate solid-fueled missiles can apparently even strike moving targets at sea.

China is also modernizing its nuclear arsenal by employing mobile land-based missiles, as well as submarine-launched nuclear missiles. But other than the conventionally tipped missiles, which the U.S. has chosen not to develop because it has other methods of delivering the ordnance, no Chinese capabilities come close to surpassing those of the U.S. Internal Chinese military writings readily recognize the wide gaps between China and unnamed, superior high-tech enemies and call for designing tactics and strategies that might allow “the weak to prevail over the strong.”

The ability to wage cyberwar is often cited as a potential Chinese trump card. China has developed a large cadre of government-sponsored hackers and cyberwarriors. But just because it has significant assets in cyberspace that should concern us doesn't mean China is somehow in the lead. The U.S. government rarely refers to its own cyber-offensive abilities, which are highly classified. But in 2013, Keith Alexander, the general who was then in charge of Cyber Command, said they are “the best in the world,” and there has been little reason to doubt the veracity of his claim.

Another much-heralded advance by the Chinese was the deployment of its first aircraft carrier, a vintage Cold War-era warship they bought from Ukraine. Since then, the government has announced plans for two more carriers it will build itself. This development is significant, particularly for China’s weaker neighbors, but it is hardly a game changer in the Chinese-American balance of power.

The U.S. has 11 nuclear-powered carriers, with massive and fully trained battle groups to accompany and protect them. It also has decades of experience from World War II and the Cold War in tracking and targeting enemy carriers. Many military analysts worry more about the vulnerability of U.S. carriers to attack by Chinese missiles and torpedoes than they do about the offensive threat posed to American forces by aircraft taking off from Chinese carriers. A U.S. defense expert who generally frets greatly about trends in China’s defense modernization once half-joked to me, “When I dream happy dreams, they are full of new carriers: Chinese carriers.”

In addition to having more advanced weapons systems, the U.S. has a huge advantage in training and war-fighting experience. China has not been in a major international conflict since 1979, when Deng Xiaoping ordered the ill-fated ground invasion of Vietnam. By contrast, the American military has been in harm’s way somewhere in the world almost constantly since the first Gulf War began in January 1991.

One of the biggest advantages the U.S. has compared with China is its network of allies -- some 60 countries, which (including the U.S.) account for some 80 percent of global military spending. China has a formal alliance only with North Korea and a strong security partnership with one other Asian country, Pakistan. It has defense cooperation and an arms trade relationship with Russia, but mutual mistrust between the two historical rivals makes it hard to label this an alliance.

So after laying out the evidence showing continued American superiority, why am I still concerned about the bad news? Measures of the overall balance of power between two countries are most relevant when considering wars of survival, such as World War I and World War II. But most international security politics involves coercive diplomacy and limited military engagements short of full-scale war. In such struggles, geography, politics, psychology and perceptions can play an even more important role than the military balances of power. In tomorrow's excerpt, I'll describe what that means.

(This is the first of two articles excerpted from "The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power," to be published June 8 by W.W. Norton.)

To contact the author on this story:
  Thomas Christensen  at tchriste@princeton.edu

To contact the editor on this story:
  Katy Roberts  at kroberts29@bloomberg.net

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2015-10-17 06:52:09 |Display all floors

Boston101 has a bridge to sell...

This post was edited by cestmoi at 2015-10-17 06:59
Boston101 Post time: 2015-10-16 16:24
The US, at the time, were using outdated maps. So I guess you better update your maps correctly. : ...

Sounds like you are trying to sell the proverbial bridge in Brooklyn, typical.
Let the dice fly high

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2015-10-17 08:39:09 |Display all floors
cestmoi Post time: 2015-10-17 06:52
Sounds like you are trying to sell the proverbial bridge in Brooklyn, typical.

I full understand the anger the Chinese have for the incident but by no means was it intentional. Otherwise, the two countries would have had a serious military clash.

Clinton was President at the time and apologized. The US  paid $4.5 million to the families of the three Chinese nationals who were killed and to the 27 injured in the bombing. The US also paid $28 million in compensation for damage to the Chinese Embassy facility, and China agreed to pay $2.87 million in compensation for damage inflicted to the US Embassy and other diplomatic facilities in China.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2015-10-17 13:16:51 |Display all floors
Trying to intimidate China with psychological propaganda will not work.  Any challenge to China's sovereignty will be met with an appropriate response.  Articles like the above reveal a hidden anxiety about the unknown, and the unknowable response of China, spectrum of which is hoped to be fished out from the responses elicited.  Unfortunately, nobody knows how China will respond.  Frankly, China probably doesn't really care how to respond given the hundreds of ways that it could, all with approximately equal effect.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.