PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

The media and government on either side to a certain extent is going to use any and all events to their own advantage by playing the victim/hero card and cast boogeyman/bully narrative on ther other.

This is what politicians and government do best. My fear is not some planned deliberate engagement but rather with the increased in military assets and all relatively close to each misunderstandings may happen or worst case unintended actions which brings forth real potential for actual conflict especially when emotions are high and people anxious.
I mean what if some soldier, airman, sailor etc having a bad day, at his post for 12 hrs straight or not paying attention decides to fire up the fire control radar? Or a half asleep rookie radar tech whose wife just left him mistaking a flock of seagulls as incoming bogeys etc? These things can happen especially when the opportunities for such events increases.

I think both sides need to ratchet down the rhetorics while it is still very manageable at this point in time.
China will not stop land reclamation and the US will not be subjected to pressure and interference in their freedom of navigation even if it's 1" away from 12 miles. Thems the facts.

At the end of the day this is all political posturing and only politicians can get this resolved amicably. This is certainly not about national security nor do I believe it is even about SLOCs. THe USN has been patrolling the area for decades w/o being a threat to any nation and I seriously doubt China's island bases have those intentions either.

You strip all the fluff away and it comes down to good old national pride and ego but oftentimes those are the very things which causes the greatest conflicts.

yep, you have to read the comments on mainstream sites like Yahoo. anything with geopolitical pretension like the Diplomat wouldn't reflect the mainstream sentiment.

Bltizo said:

I see China's goal regarding its island reclamation as multipronged but with a common goal. China seeks to increase its civilian and military presence in SCS, it seeks the ability to project limited airpower from particular islands, it seeks to give its civilian population (including fishermen) the ability to maintain longer duration presence... and I believe the end goal for all this is the ability to maintain a long term air and naval power there during peacetime as an overwatch to primarily protect China's own SLOC in the area.
Closing SLOC and limiting civilian FON will only occur during wartime, and tbh the USN would probably do that to Chinese shipping in event of war as well and I see the PRC goal as seeking to prevent that.
Of course, a larger Chinese air and naval presence in SCS will also complicate US surveillance near China's southern coast and Hainan as Chinese jets and surface combatants are more able to track and intercept USN or associated vessels at longer distances.

Click to expand...

The strategic value of the SCS to China in military terms is well noted and I think understood . There is an article in the International Law Review Volume 84 that actually presents China's case and should be read and understood because in my view the case offers broad and depth unlike from some commentaries that I have seen. It is titled "China and the Law of the Sea". There is an interesting point made which offers an insight on China's approach in the SCS and I quote " Although China claims three million square kilometers of blue territory under the 1982 LOS Convention, the ratio of land to ocean space is smaller than those of its maritime neighbours." In other words, in terms of national interest, China had a bad deal coming forth from UNCLOS.

Brumby said:

The strategic value of the SCS to China in military terms is well noted and I think understood . There is an article in the International Law Review Volume 84 that actually presents China's case and should be read and understood because in my view the case offers broad and depth unlike from some commentaries that I have seen. It is titled "China and the Law of the Sea". There is an interesting point made which offers an insight on China's approach in the SCS and I quote " Although China claims three million square kilometers of blue territory under the 1982 LOS Convention, the ratio of land to ocean space is smaller than those of its maritime neighbours." In other words, in terms of national interest, China had a bad deal coming forth from UNCLOS.

Click to expand...

Well I think even if other maritime neighbours had a smaller land/ocean space ratio, china would still be seeking means to project greater military power into SCS, as well as enforcing what it sees as historical territorial claims.

kwaigonegin said:

You strip all the fluff away and it comes down to good old national pride and ego but oftentimes those are the very things which causes the greatest conflicts.

Click to expand...

hear, hear. You'll often read about how the SCS dispute is about natural resources like oil or natural gas. But if one actually look at a map of oil/gas field in SCS, you'll see they are mostly in coastal areas, no where near the Spratly islands. Fishing right is probably the biggest economic assets in that area now, and it matters to many ordinary fishermen whose livelihood depend on it. But that's not worth the billions spent there to defend the claims either. The military importance of Spratly Islands is overplayed as well. Even the largest islands are really tiny, with no possible of hardening against any real military attack. A couple of cluster bombs will destroy everything on any of these islands.
In the end, it is all about national pride.

Bltizo said:

Well I think even if other maritime neighbours had a smaller land/ocean space ratio, china would still be seeking means to project greater military power into SCS, as well as enforcing what it sees as historical territorial claims.

Click to expand...

The problem is in the approach. You project military depth once you have acquired legitimacy in your claims and in establishment and not project depth in spite of questionable legitimacy in your claims because of necessity. A question of means and ends and law and order.

Brumby said:

The problem is in the approach. You project military depth once you have acquired legitimacy in your claims and in establishment and not project depth in spite of questionable legitimacy in your claims because of necessity. A question of means and ends and law and order.

Click to expand...

I think you perceive China as seeking to deploy more military assets in the SCS to bolster its claims? I'm not sure if that's the right way of seeing it -- oh I'm sure if China deploys ships and aircraft to SCS on a permanent basis they'll be useful as a deterrent and show of force for its sovereignty claims, but I also think China is now interested in deploying more ships and aircraft to SCS regardless of the disputed nature of the region.

That is to say, if in an alternate universe China had managed to hold all the territory it claimed, it would still have reason to deploy more military assets to the area to defend and overwatch its SLOCs regardless, independent of defending its territorial holdings.

In the universe we are in now, deployment of greater military assets to the area should be seen as having complementary but also independent motivations vis a vis the territorial dispute.

@Brumby I'll reply here

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-117#post-343621

Now back to some pictures of the islands. These were taken early this month. In the last 3 weeks, there would have been further developments. Enjoy!
By the way, the dates at the bottom of the pics are in the format CCYY-MM-DD.

Chigua (Johnson South) Island. It's fast becoming a little village. That white building is estimated to have 9 floors.


Dongmen (Hughes) Island. Also has a massive new building adjacent to the original outpost.


Huayang (Cuateron) Island.


Nanxun (Gaven) Island.


View of Yongshu (Fiery Cross) Island. In this picture, the airstrip is almost complete.


Zhubi (Subi) Island. There could be another airstrip on this island.