South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

[Brumby]

Doubtful there were Chinese military personnel on board the specific fishing boats you mentioned, because I Japanese officials would play the political angle to the hilt. I don't discount the notion China would station military or intelligence agents on board "fishing" boats for better coordination with the CCG and the PLAN, but it probably didn't happen with the Japanese incident of 2010. Still, if you have "multiple sources," kindly list them for future reference.

I will PM you on my reference source.

 

[Blackstone]

The Chinese fishing militia is going to have a very bad day if they try to pull off the same stunt as they did to Japanese Coast Guards in which the US Navy will consider any provocation as a threat and will shoot the fishing vessel if they try to ram a US navy ship.
PLAN will have to back off or escalate the situation in which they have no moral high ground since they are in international space. No matter what Beijing says is going to matter in those situations.

It might be Abe's wet dream for US warships to shoot at Chinese "fishing" boats, but Americans have more sense. China pretty much has the SCS sewn up, so if a USN squadron sails near China's newly created islands, they'll probably be shadowed by PLAN ships and not "fishing" boats.

 

[Blackstone]

The captain was a former PLAN personnel. There were no active PLAN personnel on board.
As for territorial waters for artificial land is 500m beyond that it is international water in which a vessel is assaulted from another vessel then the vessel fired upon has the right for self defense and the sole blame is on the vessel that made provocations first.

Former PLAN officer isn't active duty, and the distinction is important. Unless there's more to the story, then there's no "there," and it's not accurate to say PLAN officer(s) were on the "fishing" boat.

We agree on right of self-defense, but both Beijing and Washington would go to great lengths not to fire on each other. I don't know what the rules of engagement is, but I'll bet dollars to donuts it's very, very strict.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Former PLAN officer isn't active duty, and the distinction is important. Unless there's more to the story, then there's no "there," and it's not accurate to say PLAN officer(s) were on the "fishing" boat.

We agree on right of self-defense, but both Beijing and Washington would go to great lengths not to fire on each other. I don't know what the rules of engagement is, but I'll bet dollars to donuts it's very, very strict.

As always posting through emotions not reading the posting at hand. I have not mentioned there was an active PLAN personnel in fact wrote there were no active PLAN personnel in the following sentence.
As I have posted numerous time refrain from posting with your emotions.

 

[Brumby]

As for territorial waters for artificial land is 500m beyond that it is international water in which a vessel is assaulted from another vessel then the vessel fired upon has the right for self defense and the sole blame is on the vessel that made provocations first.

If China intends to play the militia card aggressively, then those on board will be ex military and not active ones because of denialbility. The optics will still be very unfavourable on the USN for taking on unarmed fishing vessels regardless of the provocation. It will simply be a media war.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

If China intends to play the militia card aggressively, then those on board will be ex military and not active ones because of denialbility. The optics will still be very unfavourable on the USN for taking on unarmed fishing vessels regardless of the provocation. It will simply be a media war.

Sure but the US Navy ships are sure not going to let Chinese fishing boats ram their ships freely like what Japanese Coast Guard let them do.
The US will fire waring shots and if the Chinese fishing vessels continue to try and ram the US Navy ship the Navy ship will have no other option other then to fire directly at the ship based on protocol. The Captain of the ship will be court marshaled if he doesn't based on negligence of maintaining safety of the ship.
I believe any officer will concur on what I had wrote above.

 

[Blackstone]

Sure but the US Navy ships are sure not going to let Chinese fishing boats ram their ships freely like what Japanese Coast Guard let them do.
The US will fire waring shots and if the Chinese fishing vessels continue to try and ram the US Navy ship the Navy ship will have no other option other then to fire directly at the ship based on protocol. The Captain of the ship will be court marshaled if he doesn't based on negligence of maintaining safety of the ship.
I believe any officer will concur on what I had wrote above.

It's doubtful Chinese fishing boats would attempt to ram US navy ships. China's current strategy seems to be chipping away at US credibility to give the impression Uncle Sam can't be counted on to provide security guarantee. In that light, it's likely US warships would be shadowed by Chinese warships, which we've just seen not too long ago. Bottom line is there's not a whole lot US could do about China's efforts to control the SCS and establish China's version of the Monroe Doctrine.

 

[joshuatree]

I think the USN will sail through the zone like any right of passage transit and claim mission accomplish. It is then up to China to decide whether to make it an issue or not just like the Chinese ships sailing through the Aleution islands. China will claim it views it as innocent passage without conceding on the issue of sovereignty. I think this scenario will prevail but it is dependent on whether China intends to make it a bigger issue.

I agree this is will most likely be the course of action but the part about dependent on whether China intends to make it a bigger issue is still dependent on what the USN will do. Sail through like PLAN in the Aleutians and it allows a window for both sides to claim their "victory" and call it a day. Something more and depending which feature (those that have natural rocks above high tide) would create more nuanced scenarios that could lead to bigger issues.

 

[Brumby]

I agree this is will most likely be the course of action but the part about dependent on whether China intends to make it a bigger issue is still dependent on what the USN will do. Sail through like PLAN in the Aleutians and it allows a window for both sides to claim their "victory" and call it a day. Something more and depending which feature (those that have natural rocks above high tide) would create more nuanced scenarios that could lead to bigger issues.

I am sure all the conceivable scenarios that we discussed and more are being considered, played out and contingently prepared. I think the US actions and what they would do as part of the transit is more predictable. I do not know how to read Chinese probable actions and is more of an unknown to me.

A transit passage by nature is benign. A lot is dependent on the Chinese side on whether to treat it as a non event or not.

 

[Blitzo]

The Chinese fishing militia is going to have a very bad day if they try to pull off the same stunt as they did to Japanese Coast Guards in which the US Navy will consider any provocation as a threat and will shoot the fishing vessel if they try to ram a US navy ship.
PLAN will have to back off or escalate the situation in which they have no moral high ground since they are in international space. No matter what Beijing says is going to matter in those situations.

I feel like this is a bit of a straw man scenario isn't it... why on earth would Chinese fishing boats seek a confrontation with the USN? The very suggestion actually made me laugh out load -- do these hypothetical fishermen of yours have a death wish?

More likely that any USN presence would be closely monitored by Chinese naval ships in the area as well, and we know the USN and Chinese Navy are not going to be stupid enough to physically butt against each other.