Tuesday, January 24, 2017

US warning to China - but who will blink first

Via Malaysia-Today (extracts):

Rex Tillerson on right, a former ExxonMobil CEO prior to his appointment as the new US Secretary of State under President Donald Trump 

(Astro Awani) – The new US administration of President Donald Trump vowed on Monday that the United States would prevent China from taking over territory in international waters in the South China Sea, something Chinese state media has warned would require Washington to “wage war.”

The comments at a briefing from White House spokesman Sean Spicer signalled a sharp departure from years of cautious US handling of China’s assertive pursuit of territory claims in Asia, just days after Trump took office on Friday.

“The US is going to make sure that we protect our interests there,” Spicer said when asked if Trump agreed with comments by his Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, on Jan. 11 that China should not be allowed access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.

“It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” he said.

Tillerson’s remarks at his Senate confirmation hearing prompted Chinese state media to say the United States would need to “wage war” to bar China’s access to the islands where it has built military-length air strips and installed weapons systems.

Tillerson, who was expected to be confirmed as secretary of State on Monday, was asked at the hearing whether he supported a more aggressive posture towards China and said: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

Trump and Tillerson think they are reenacting the Cuban missile crisis, a 13-day deadly standoff between the USA and USSR from 16 to 28 October 1962 which ended with the USSR blinking first. Thereafter President John Kennedy became an American hero.

Tillerson might have believed he could use the US Navy far superior fleets, the most powerful naval force in history with eleven air carrier strike forces ,to blockade or quarantine Chinese forces from entering or exiting the man-made islands in the South China Sea.

Methinks Donald Trump (and perhaps even Tillerson) aspires to that Kennedy-ic heroic status by confronting China and hoping China will back down.

But China is not the USSR. I predict that when push comes to shove, Trump and Tillerson will be embarrassed into backing down.

For years since the end of the Qing Dynasty, China was the weak man of Asia, suffering invasions and occupations by many nations such as Japan, Britain, France, Germany, etc, and utter wretched countless humiliations for a proud race who believed (rightly or wrongly) themselves as culturally far superior to the rest of the world.

That ethno-centric view has been the foolish pride of Chinese (in China) for millenniums, explaining why they call their country as the 'Middle Kingdom', meaning everyone else surrounds it as a mere vassal or barbaric and uncivilised state.

We should remember that after the communist reigned supreme in China, it fought an extremely ferocious war with Americans in 1950 to 1953 who had then enjoyed operating from 
safe bases in Japan, Guam, and the Philippines and who had the direct support of numerous countries under the aegis of the UN.

China stepped into the Korean fray when the US-UN forces pushed the North Koreans as far north as the Yalu River, the border between China and North Korea.

Much earlier China had through the good office of India warned the USA not to cross the 38th parallel but General MacArthur ignored that, even pushing ahead with the aim of crossing the Yalu River (Chinese border) to destroy Chinese military depots which had been supplying North Korean troops.

That was when China poured divisions of poorly armed troops but who moved with surprising lightning swiftness through the rugged mountains of North Korea to push the US-UN troops back. The Yanks were caught by surprised by the speed of the Chinese advance who were poorly equipped but which had humongous mass or numbers (one of the US military principle of war).

The notoriety of the Chinese mass wave assault was then borned. Approximately half a million Chinese perished in the Korean War. 

I opine that if the Americans attempt to blockade the Chinese from entering or exiting the South China Sea islands, they will be in for a shock. The Chinese had fought a war with the USA in 1951 and perhaps believe they can win again.

Though the Americans have far superior naval and air assets, the Chinese have two deadly weapons which they have been developing for decades, namely, the carrier-killer nuclear tactical missiles DF-21D (900 miles) and DF-26 (2500 miles). They can fire these from ships or land.

A Chinese DF-21D ASBM costs only $5 to $10.5 million. China can afford to build hundreds of them. 

Chinese foolish pride will persuade them to use it against approach or interfering US Navy carrier strike forces, regardless of the consequences unto the total destruction of China itself.

If the Yanks escalate the confrontation by resorting to their Triad, namely the submarine, air force and land operated nuclear ballistic missiles (approximately 7,000 warheads) they can destroy China completely, that is, if they are prepared to do that.

The Chinese have (I am not exactly sure) a fraction of what the Yanks have, about 250 nuclear warheads which, while not about to destroy the USA completely as the Yanks will destroy China, will cause a lot of serious harm to the USA. WE are talking nuclear warheads.

longer range DF-26 ASBM 

California state by itself is the world's 6th biggest economy. Imagine if 30 to 50 of those Chinese nuclear warheads, delivered by missiles with MIRV (multi independently-targeted reentry vehicles) nuclear warheads were to blast California into nothingness, how will that affect the USA? What about the rest of the USA like aircraft producing Seattle and the wheat belt of America?

Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD, if the USA is prepared to go all the way. I believe the Chinese is.

But who will blink first?


  1. Well,it is an open secret that Donald Trump had small hands.For a man his size,to have such tiny hands speaks louder than thunder.This man has no backbones.He dodged the draft a few times with letters from his father's doctor.All because of a sore foot.This man is a coward.

    Donald Trump is not a commander in chief.He is a Groper in Chief.To have to face the president of China and look him in the eyes,will sent shivers down Donald Trump's spine.Not that Donald's balls will shrink to pea beans size,but he will leave behind a puddle of water too.

  2. Donald Trump will forever be subservience to Vladimir Putin for helping put him in office.BBJ's and BBJ's from Donald Trump to Master Putin.With love from Donald Trump.

  3. Just recently,Gloria Allred filed papers on behalf of four ladies alleging being groped by Donald J. Trump.

    Donald Trump together with his buddy Epstein were accused of raping underage girls in the early nineties.Only Epstein went to prison.Trump managed to get off the hook by his connections to politicians and prosecutors.It wouldn't surprise me if pictures of Trump screwing underage girls surface in the near future.Not only will he be chase out of office,but Melania Trump will send him to the vet to be neutered.

  4. There is no need for an armed conflict in the region.
    However, the United States can and should squeeze China with non-violent means over its attempts to impose its phallus-shaped claims over the entire South China Sea. China seems to think just because it is called the South China Sea, it belongs to China.

    China runs the largest trade surplus of any country in world history with the USA. $366 billion in 2015.

    In a very real sense, the Americans have been paying China cold cash for China to build a huge modern military which now threatens the whole region.

    The US can and should use leverage and rules to reduce that trade surplus.

    1. easier said than done. usa cant refuse china relatively cheap goods, it help american to continue their lavish lifestyle n enough cash to preserve their military hegemony.

      china assertiveness in south sea have much to do with usa interference. they would willing to compromise if usa dun get involved.

      as a msian, i dun agree with china claim, however i guess china will not give any concessions if usa/japan have a role in all this dispute, thats a dilemma for a small country like us.

      i dun believe ameican have the guts to go for a war with china, via proxy, maybe.

  5. Everyone's looking at the politikus' (real & pseudo) point of views, with nationalistic silo components.

    What about the views of those that closely linked to this piece of tracherous water for thousand of years, prior to the emphasis on possible undersea oil/minerals finds & US military engagement.

    Many fishermen from Hainan, the surrounding islands & the South-west coast of China have been plying this tracherous watery territory for generations.

    All they have r some ancient navigational maps built from the tolls of the previous life threatening ventures of their forefathers. The oldest map can be traced back 2 thousand+ years back to Han dynasty!

    There r many dangerous shallow underwater coral reef ridges, laying within the South China Sea, cause ship wrecks but also become rich fish spawning sites.

    These maps save lives & help to navigate this fishing ground safely for bountiful catch.

    No other fishing folks from the other surrounding countries have any earlier records of fishing in this South China Sea.

    Thus, the historical claim of China is indisputable, even though the arbitration tribunal (not court) in Hague decided that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources, hence there was "no legal basis for China to claim historic rights".

    Mind u that conclusion was based on the narrowly defined UNCLOS articles.

    When China was weak & the oil/mineral lode wasn't the issue, nobody cares about this piece of back-water.

    Even USofA wasn't very keen, thus her complying recognization of the Nine-Dash Line in the late 40s proposed by the ROC government (based in main land China).

    When the oil/mineral & militaristic confinement become issues in the late 60s, everyone starts to want a piece of cake. Especially with the provocation of USofA.

    Suddenly, these Chinese fishermen faced problems in cari makan. They couldn't go where they used to fish freely due to the naval obstructions of the multiple claimed countries.

    The Chinese government can do nothing then as she was weak, in all resources, then.

    Until now. She flexes her new found military might to extend protection to these fishermen. She also wants to reclaim the lost historical heritage for her claim of sovereignty among the surrounding islands.

    Now, everyone wants to play 'fair' based on UNCLOS definitions since military actions can no longer be play play.


  6. Cont

    From the prospective of these fishermen, it's their irrevocable tradtional right to fish in South China Sea.

    The Chinese government is helping them to re-establish their livelihood free from the interference of the other country's navys.

    So when u talk cockaroo, have u thought about these poor & innocent fishermen?

    Does international politics have right to deplect them their traditional livelihood?

    Wasn't the Johnny comes lately fishermen of other surrounding countries were tolerated to fish by the Chinese navy until their governments play tough?

    Don't just claim over yr head lah.

    Talk, like the new Pinoy president. Suddenly the Pinoy fishermen can catch fish in the disputed water!

    Personally, I would like to limit the fishery catch to sustain the fast deflecting fish stock by modern fishing methods.

    WRT oil/mineral exploration - don't do it!

    Purely bcoz of the shallow coral reef ridges, there r billion tons of methane hydrate frozen under these underwater shelves. Any unfortunate release of this highly green house gas to the atmosphere WOULD cause untold environmental damages.

    Finally, NO one needs to blink. This geo-political issue can be easily led to unecessary sufferance that all r ill-afford to face. All it takes is a mad man & there is a likely candidate sitting in that White House now!


    1. only china got poor fishermen n island kah? msia phip vietnam dun have? i still cannot understand how a continent that is 1800km away has more claim than one that is less than 200km.

    2. 'only china got poor fishermen n island kah?'????

      The righteous answer is WHO has the first right of claim. Quick, go & pick a copy of Guano Islands Act for reference. Ironic, this act is from USofA, though it's seldom used.

      If u stillbdon't understand that, then DONT u dare raise a note about our orang ASLI right!

      Distance matter???

      '..cannot understand how a continent that is 1800km away has more claim than one that is less than 200km.'

      Is the Sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands between UK & Argentina clear to u?

      Then ask USofA & UK about Diego Garcia. How they conspired to turn it into largest US military territory lah without ANY historical (native) justifications.

      BTW, how far r Falkland Islands & Diego Garcia from the respective claimants?

      Ignorant fool, playing to the words of UNCLOS articles.

      Ignorance such THAT yr modern political-correctness sense overwhelming the voiceless traditions!

      Closer at home, ask yrself lah why Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh is NOW under the jurisdiction of the RedDot.

      Is Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh closer to bolihland or RedDot?

      Blind to political-correctness to the dot.....What a bloody waste of brain cells!

    3. joker, r u telling me the malay have more right than me bec they r here in msia earlier?

      wrt pedra branca, u r fine with the court ruled but not in the south sea case?

      distance not matter? falklands n diego is clearly geopolitical, can u cite cases that is not from imperialist n bully like usa n uk?

    4. One more thingy about yr poor fishermen from msia phip vietnam.

      Perhaps u shouldn't write anything w/o proper research. Also do improve on yr poor sense of impulsive response & reading!

      Re-read this:

      'No other fishing folks from the other surrounding countries have any earlier records of fishing in this South China Sea.'

      'Weren't the Johnny comes lately fishermen of other surrounding countries tolerated to fish by the Chinese navy until their governments play tough?'

      No, (yes records prove that), that NO other fishermen from the other surrounding countries in the past have ANY sensible PAST historical fishing ventures/records in this block of South China Sea.

      They were poor & ill-equiped to sail that far into this tracherous ship-wrecking fishing ground. They were/r just coastal fishermen.

      The more recent modern fishing troops from these countries (msia phip vietnam) r multinational setups, of course, have no problem in plying this territory using modern navigational equipment.

      But they r also bringing with them destructive modern fishing methods that rapidly deplecting the fish stocks.

      It causes poor harvesting to the small & poor Chinese fishermen who still cari makanan there!

      For some smaller fishing fleets, from msia & viet, that venture recently there in search of bountiful catch, the Chinese navy has not actually stopped them to fish in the area until the Pinoy incident under president Aquino playing to the tune of USofA to play tough.

    5. What a confused mind!!!!

      Where did I say that the malay have more right than u bec they r here in msia earlier?

      1st, the Melayu r not here first. The orang Asal r! Unless u r buying the f**ked-up story of org Asal r Melayu!

      2nd, sovereignty/territory claim is difference from segregation or discrimination on grounds of race, which is where yr poorly understanding of Melayu having more right than u.

      Pedra branca case was determined by ICJ (International Court of Justice) while the South China Sea dispute was arbitrated by a tribunal. That tribunal has no legal binding/enforcement jurisdiction unlike ICJ.

      BTW, know why Pinoy brought the case to a tribunal rather than ICJ?
      Do some more googling lah!

      Then again please tell mana I mentioned my agreement with Pedra branca case judgement.

      Finally, u mentioned geopolitical!

      Ain't all the huhaa about the South China Sea related to geopolitic?

      The fishermen r all pawns, especially those from msia, viet & Phip!!!!!

  7. 'distance not matter? falklands n diego is clearly geopolitical, can u cite cases that is not from imperialist n bully like usa n uk?'

    Do u know that originally the Nine Dashed Lines demarcation was known as Eleven Dashed Lines?

    It was changed, with some islets around Bay of Tokin given to North Vietnam by Premier Zhou Enlai to Ho Chi Ming in the 60s.

    Is this geo-political or Communist abang-adikism?

    Or yr imperialist n bully approach?

    How about Premier Zhou's &/or China's benevolent 中庸之道 in solving difficult geo-political issues?

    How about 理上往来 to the dot???

    U SHOULD keep yr blind-sided political-correctness to yr closet!!