China's SCS Strategy Thread

Wrought

Captain
Registered Member
It should be a surveying platform

Just so, a scientific survey. Presumably, further experiments will gradually normalize their presence at the shoal.

The research mission – which began on May 20 – involved deploying a floating platform for environmental monitoring and sampling, the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ South China Sea Institute of Oceanology said in a statement on Wednesday.

The research institute said its expedition had covered the entire shoal with the aim of collecting data on the geological evolution and physiological responses of coral reefs to environmental changes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Kalum Pupeter

Junior Member
Registered Member

US military plans permanent war-ready weapons stockpile in Australia​

US Navy documents show advanced planning for a large stockpile, with US$30 million allocated to build warehouses and offices in Victoria​

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is planning a permanent war-ready weapons stockpile for its Marine Corps on Australia’s southeast coast beyond the range of most Chinese missiles, according to tender documents and officials. The development of the stockpile, a first for the Marine Corps in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, came as the US was keen to leverage the continent’s strategic location in the South Pacific to counter China’s rapid military build-up, analysts said. The US Marine Corps began global pre-positioning of military supplies during the Cold War – using floating stores on ships and caves in Norway where weapons, ammunition and vehicles to sustain thousands of troops are kept.

The first land stockpile in the Asia-Pacific is expected to open this year in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, close to potential flashpoints in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Documents published by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
this month show advanced planning for an even larger Australian stockpile, with US$30 million allocated to build warehouses and offices in southeastern Victoria state for “critical forward provisioning”.

The Australian stockpile, expected to reach full capacity by 2028, will be kept in Melbourne before being moved to US warehouses to be constructed next year at an Australian military base at Bandiana in rural Victoria, tender documents show. Australia does not permit foreign military bases on its soil, a sensitive issue in a country that has a security alliance with the US and is hosting an increasing variety of American forces on rotation at defence bases.

The US Navy is engaging a global defence contractor to employ around 110 engineers, mechanics, material and safety specialists to manage the Australian stockpile, which includes “crew-served weapons”, the documents show. “Marine Corps activities in Australia support integrated global sustainment by maintaining ready-for-issue equipment and supplies for operations and exercises across the Indo-Pacific,” the US Marine Corps Forces Pacific said. It declined to comment on contract details or force planning assumptions but said Marines equipment was kept at “high readiness”.

Contracting arrangements and the operation of the facility would be made in close coordination with Australia’s Department of Defence. “These activities improve responsiveness, strengthen interoperability with allies and partners, and support a range of missions across the Indo-Pacific,” the Marines said, using an alternative description for the Asia-Pacific region.

US Army trucks were left at the Bandiana base in 2023 after an Australian war game involving US troops, held every two years. The Marines stockpile at Bandiana, approved last July, is separate. “Marine Corps and Army equipment programmes are designed to support their respective service requirements and are managed under separate authorities and processes,” the Marines said.

Australia’s Department of Defence did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has asked Congress for US$500 million next year to improve pre-positioning of equipment and fuel across the Asia-Pacific to deter China.
Around 2,000 US Marines conduct exercises for six months of the year on the opposite coast of Australia in the northern city of Darwin.

A report from the Lowy Institute think tank this week warned that China had the capability to strike northern Australia with ballistic missiles deployed from its South China Sea outposts. Its director of international security, Sam Roggeveen, said that was likely a “relevant consideration” in placing a stockpile in Australia’s southeast.

“Once these facilities are operational, they would be obvious targets for China,” he said. The growth of US forces and equipment in Australia was “a major change to Australian policy that ties Australia much more closely to America’s strategic objectives in the region”, Roggeveen said. Australian National University professor of international security John Blaxland said the country’s location was being seen with “a growing sense of significance” given concerns over the vulnerability of the US military base on Guam. “With competition for influence in the Indo-Pacific having reached the highest level in over a generation, it is not surprising that the US Marines might look to Australia to enable such storage,” he said.

“Barring a massive increase in Australian defence expenditure, for which there is little political appetite, facilitating greater US investment in Australian real estate is widely considered to be the most prudent approach to take.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article was written by mainstream presstitute Agence France-Presse, so it naturally exhibits a strong pro-U.S. empire and anti-PRC bias. For example, U.S. military deployments and coercive measures are routinely described as 'deterrence' or 'defensive,' whereas similar actions by the PRC would likely be characterized as 'aggressive,' 'expansionist,' or 'threatening.' U.S. alliances are framed as 'security partnerships,' while similar Chinese moves would be portrayed as 'power projection.' U.S. naval patrols are described as 'freedom of navigation operations,' whereas Chinese naval patrols are labeled 'provocations.' U.S. sanctions are presented as 'rules-based measures,' while Chinese responses are called 'economic coercion.' Such double standards in language are evident in mainstream reporting on a daily basis.

The SCMP are not free of blame. They routinely copy and paste entire articles from Western mainstream media, yet you will never see them doing the same with PRC mainstream media. That's a glaring double standard. They claim to value diversity of perspectives, but in practice they overwhelmingly amplify Western narratives while dismissing or ignoring alternative viewpoints. Double standards.
 

tokenanalyst

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article was written by mainstream presstitute Agence France-Presse, so it naturally exhibits a strong pro-U.S. empire and anti-PRC bias. For example, U.S. military deployments and coercive measures are routinely described as 'deterrence' or 'defensive,' whereas similar actions by the PRC would likely be characterized as 'aggressive,' 'expansionist,' or 'threatening.' U.S. alliances are framed as 'security partnerships,' while similar Chinese moves would be portrayed as 'power projection.' U.S. naval patrols are described as 'freedom of navigation operations,' whereas Chinese naval patrols are labeled 'provocations.' U.S. sanctions are presented as 'rules-based measures,' while Chinese responses are called 'economic coercion.' Such double standards in language are evident in mainstream reporting on a daily basis.

The SCMP are not free of blame. They routinely copy and paste entire articles from Western mainstream media, yet you will never see them doing the same with PRC mainstream media. That's a glaring double standard. They claim to value diversity of perspectives, but in practice they overwhelmingly amplify Western narratives while dismissing or ignoring alternative viewpoints. Double standards.
Is all good except when missiles, drones and others start landing more and more as AD deplete, then come the begging for a ceasefire. The idea of fighting a "permanent" protracted war against a military power entrenched in its own large territory from boats and far off bases is simple no sustainable and these countries populations are probably going to rebel to idea of their countries to be used as ammunition sponges for the US, specially when there is no real strategic gains.
 
Top