Posted on May 13, 2015
Should we go head to head with China in the South China Sea?
3.72K
16
14
2
2
0
It seems like we are being challenged on all fronts now.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/philippines-seeks-more-us-help-to-stop-chinese-land-reclamation-in-south-china/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/philippines-seeks-more-us-help-to-stop-chinese-land-reclamation-in-south-china/
Posted in these groups: 
South China Sea
China
South China Sea China
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
3
3
0
- It does not "seem" like we are being challenged on all fronts. We are being challenged on all fronts. Russia has now invaded two of its neighbors in the last six years; China is pushing their neighbors from Japan to the Phillipines, Indonesia, to Vietnam; ISIS and Radical Islam are attacking on every level of war and on most continents (Asia, Africa, Europe, North America); Iran has fired upon and seized a private cargo ship. The list goes on.
- The reason for the above is that our friends do not have confidence that we have their backs and our enemies know that we either will not respond or will only respond with words to their challenge.
- The proper response is not complicated. It is basic "school yard bully" response tactics.
- With all above written, the proper response to China in the South China Sea is NOT to skip strategic escalation procedures and use only a military response. The proper response is to use our doctrine (shape, deter, defeat), leverage the whole of government (DIME), and help our friends in the region to help themselves.
- The reason for the above is that our friends do not have confidence that we have their backs and our enemies know that we either will not respond or will only respond with words to their challenge.
- The proper response is not complicated. It is basic "school yard bully" response tactics.
- With all above written, the proper response to China in the South China Sea is NOT to skip strategic escalation procedures and use only a military response. The proper response is to use our doctrine (shape, deter, defeat), leverage the whole of government (DIME), and help our friends in the region to help themselves.
(3)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Well written, harsh but a valid position. I worry that with the cut back in the carrier force we are not going to be able to police the whole world. The 15 carrier force was based on a two front response with a third “holding” action. Now as you point out we are fully engaged on at least two fronts (Yemen/AG/ISIS) with two more brewing (China/Russia) that unless we show a strong response will only strengthen the resolve of those adversaries. Yet we gapped one carrier in the building cycle resulting in only 9 active, you need three to maintain one deployed, remove the forward deployed carrier and you see we are already stretched thin. You can say that a carrier does not make a force but our Navy’s ability to project power overseas is based on the CBG model. So short of building the fleet back to Regan’s 600 ship Navy we are going to have to pick our fights. Good news is in the case of the South China Sea Japan and The Philippines are building up their own Navy’s.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
The DIME/PMESII approach to foreign policy seemed to have been thrown out by the State department and executive branch over 15 years ago. We've been reactionary, and not in a good way, ever since. We have the power, for a little while longer, to re-balance the equation through judicious use of economic influence, provide corporate America would be willing to cooperate in the name of American interests and national security.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Maybe if we hadn't burned through $6 trillion in resources and an entire generation of patriots in the Middle East we might be in a better position to confront these very real challenges...
Still, If we were to boycott Chinese products in American stores (which will never happen because we are all lazy, greedy corporate pawns), we would directly shut down nearly $400 billion of their GDP. This would have a cumulative effect on both American and Chinese economies through national reinvestment giving America a net gain close to $2 trillion GDP relative to China.
The essence is, we've been financing this threat to American dominance through our trade deficit with China. The squandering of America's resources hasn't exactly helped either.
Still, If we were to boycott Chinese products in American stores (which will never happen because we are all lazy, greedy corporate pawns), we would directly shut down nearly $400 billion of their GDP. This would have a cumulative effect on both American and Chinese economies through national reinvestment giving America a net gain close to $2 trillion GDP relative to China.
The essence is, we've been financing this threat to American dominance through our trade deficit with China. The squandering of America's resources hasn't exactly helped either.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
The Chinese will stop sea routes for billions of dollars of goods for several countries.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
MAJ Ken Landgren fortunately I don't think they will bite the hand that feeds them. If they shut down shipping in the South China Sea they will at least be as impacted as anyone else. I would say worse than everyone else but it would suck for all.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google