This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

South China Sea.....some indicators for what is coming

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

There will be no links. There will be no sources. Just a simple prediction. China is preparing for a war between the United States and North Korea. They do not want to see a united Korea. They do not want the American Military on their southern border, and they have warned America before. We did not heed those warnings.

China has a history of defending their culture from foreign invaders. They have always taken a defensive position for thousands of years.

Until somebody actually reviews a map of where China is building the islands in the south China Sea, you cannot begin to understand the purpose of these islands. It is obvious. These islands will house tactical nuclear weapons which will have kill zones that can take out any carrier group which breaches the same. They are neutralizing the Imperial American carrier groups. Like America not being thrilled with an island 90 miles from our mainland who was aligned with the Soviets and who allowed their missiles to be placed, China does not want carriers 12 miles off its southern shore. So they are pressing completely illegal creation of islands in territory which should be international, or Viet Nam or other nations which border the south China Sea.

I just watched a vice special on HBO and they tried to get near one of the islands and the Chinese navy and air force immediately warned the plane to change course. They took photos and showed the alignment, and it is obvious once these structures are completed they will be able to defend themselves with increasing deterrents which will involve tactical nuclear weapons. I think in the next two years after they complete the line of islands, they will announce that these islands have tactical nuclear weapons which they will use on any military breach of their territorial claims.

Now if conflict develops with North Korea our carriers will locate most likely in the sea of Japan, but in that case North and South Korea provide a buffer to China, and the distance from Japan to North Korea does not greatly improve weapon delivery times by placing our assets at risk in the Sea of Japan. They will probably locate behind Japan, but the fact is simple. The Chinese are building defensive perimeters why? Is it because we are no longer the good guys and are perceived by many in the world to be building implements of offensive war? We have put all our eggs in one basket, and the Chinese will neutralize our carrier groups in a day if we become the aggressor.

View user profile
You had no concern while Obama bent over for China, Russia, Iran... etc.

So stfu... you have no credibility... you're just a partisan hack at best.

View user profile
I still have no concern. They are defensive placements. They are protecting themselves from our imperial military which only a hundred and fifty years earlier the colonial powers invaded and carved up China. Their actions are directly proportional to our increasing military which is not the department of Defense, but the Department of Invasion. If you read about General Stillwell in China during WWII as written by barbara tuchman, you can understand that the Chinese have always looked at defense first. We simply do not have a coherent strategic response to the changing power shifts in the world. This is a thirty year problem which both parties share.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote: you have no credibility... you're just a partisan hack at best.

Considering the source: MANY MUCH OUT LOUD LAUGHINGS!

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
2seaoat wrote:I still have no concern.  They are defensive placements.  They are protecting themselves from our imperial military which only a hundred and fifty years earlier the colonial powers invaded and carved up China.  Their actions are directly proportional to our increasing military which is not the department of Defense, but the Department of Invasion.  If you read about General Stillwell in China during WWII as written by barbara tuchman, you can understand that the Chinese have always looked at defense first.  We simply do not have a coherent strategic response to the changing power shifts in the world.   This is a thirty year problem which both parties share.

Your knowledge of Chinese history is so appallingly shallow that I'm surprised you have the balls to present yourself as a man of intelligence and learning.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Your knowledge of Chinese history is so appallingly shallow that I'm surprised you have the balls to present yourself as a man of intelligence and learning.

Well help me then buddy, what did I get wrong and how can your superior knowledge guide me to your fortune cookie, or did you get this knowledge by reading?

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Your knowledge of Chinese history is so appallingly shallow that I'm surprised you have the balls to present yourself as a man of intelligence and learning.

Well help me then buddy, what did I get wrong and how can your superior knowledge guide me to your fortune cookie, or did you get this knowledge by reading?

I'm not your tutor, educate yourself.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
2seaoat wrote:I still have no concern.  They are defensive placements.  They are protecting themselves from our imperial military which only a hundred and fifty years earlier the colonial powers invaded and carved up China.  Their actions are directly proportional to our increasing military which is not the department of Defense, but the Department of Invasion.  If you read about General Stillwell in China during WWII as written by barbara tuchman, you can understand that the Chinese have always looked at defense first.  We simply do not have a coherent strategic response to the changing power shifts in the world.   This is a thirty year problem which both parties share.

Obama was so soft that he'll be held complicit. The single worst negotiator and the weakest foreign policy to ever serve as potus. He won't displace Carter... because that's racist. But.... ya.

I wouldn't let him manage anything of mine... a total pantywaist.

View user profile
Well, let me ask you when was the first time there was a discussion of tactical nuclear weapons as a means to deter a conventional war? It is historical, and by golly it does involve the Chinese. Of course you do not know. There will be nobody surprised that you will not find this on google. It would require a higher level of understanding of history. So please show me buddy that you deserve my respect.

View user profile
Obama was so soft that he'll be held complicit. The single worst negotiator and the weakest foreign policy to ever serve as potus. He won't displace Carter... because that's racist. But.... ya.

I wouldn't let him manage anything of mine... a total pantywaist.


Too funny. Like the Chinese worry about any one President. That is not how their strategy works. The idea of a President Obama being weak is hillarious. Were our generals weak when they blitzed through North Korea. The Chinese see America as an aggressor.....weakness.....you have to be kidding.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:
Obama was so soft that he'll be held complicit. The single worst negotiator and the weakest foreign policy to ever serve as potus. He won't displace Carter... because that's racist. But.... ya.

I wouldn't let him manage anything of mine... a total pantywaist.

Uh oh! Look out, little PkrBoy's hittin' the bottle and he's all pissed off about something he read on the internet.

Here we go...    fasten your safety belts and please remain seated until the ride comes to a complete stop.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
2seaoat wrote:Well, let me ask you when was  the first time there was a discussion of tactical nuclear weapons as a means to deter a conventional war? It is historical, and by golly it does involve the Chinese.   Of course you do not know.   There will be nobody surprised that you will not find this on google.  It would require a higher level of understanding of history.   So please show me buddy that you deserve my respect.

Korea, 'Nam, Cuba, take your pick. But Korea was first.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Korea, 'Nam, Cuba, take your pick. But Korea was first.


Come on buddy. Follow the context of this thread where I suggest the islands will be used as a line defended by tactical nuclear weapons. None of those nations meet the criteria. So again, is this thread a novel idea, or has somebody actually discussed the same as a delineated line to deter conventional military. I have just about given you the answer, but heck buddy, I really want you to succeed so playing in the sandbox can be elevated by respect. It is your opportunity to shine.

View user profile
Ok, a lot of time has passed, and I figure that only a person with an advanced international relations education could probably answer this without more clues, so I will help you. "asymmetric"

Heck what fun is this if I just downright give it away, but I am so looking forward to the light you will shine on the subject of Chinese history, and why my analysis of the artificial islands as a line of tactical nuclear weapons is not too far fetched.

View user profile
Ok.. OK... you may not know Chinese history or Mao's use of "asymmetric" approach to defensive warfare when fighting a superior "equipped" enemy. You see Mao believed that men in the end will defeat a superior equipped army. So now, I have all but given it away, but heck, it is not often I can learn from a Chinese scholar. When was the first delineated tactical nuclear line first proposed, where was it, and who was involved in the conflict. Gosh, an eighth grader could have gotten this when I was a kid....oh....more clues.

View user profile
Ok, I will just hand it to you. Lop Nor I thought you could do better, but at least you can google with the clues I have given you.

View user profile
Four consecutive posts! You're too easy.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Four consecutive posts! You're too easy.

I thought forum members were worried that you were lonely and nobody was your buddy, and being that you alluded to expertise in Chinese history, we could discuss the same at a level other than your usual pedestrian manner. I am willing to help you buddy......I know this Chinese stuff may be a little difficult, but we could pick something easier to ease you into your comfort zone, but gosh.....I think this thread raises some interesting concepts about the efficacy of America military policies. Oh well, I understand that lonely people can be a bit insecure, and I will be patient....even if it takes ten consecutive posts. so lets start over......

View user profile
Ok, evidently you did not know about the Sino Soviet conflict in the late sixties and how the Soviets and the Chinese had a hot conflict which had losses of life on both sides. Most of those border issues were not resolved until the nineties, but the key here for you to understand is that the Soviets facing Mao's asymmetric strategic alignment against a foe with greater technology and military power caused the Kremlin to discuss putting tactical nuclear weapons along the border to take out the numerical superiority of asymmetric dependence on man over equipment with the Chinese numerical advantages.

So it is not a long way understanding that the Chinese navy and airforce are an inferior military force than the American carrier groups, and that in order to survive and pursuant to asymmetric strategic goals, they are willing to not follow the rules of international waters and suffer the consequences of that superior force. Again, not because President Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama were weak, but because of the exact opposite. The Chinese believe America is an imperialistic nation who will eventually in their long term strategic analysis attack them. So militarizing a line of islands which can be weaponized with tactical nuclear weapons and neutralize the American advantage is completely consistent to their adoption of long held asymmetric Chinese strategies which in some cases go back thousands of years.

So now that we are having this great conversation, what will China allow in regard to North Korea in regard to a military strike by the United States?

View user profile
2seaoat wrote: ...you alluded to expertise in Chinese history

I didn't allude to my expertise in Chinese history, I alluded to YOUR lack of it.

The only thing I know about Chinese anything is Egg Foo Jung...       heh-heh.

You're just too easy to bait to be considered a worthy opponent.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
I didn't allude to my expertise in Chinese history, I alluded to YOUR lack of it.

Which by definition requires a person to understand Chinese history to evaluate the lack of the same in another. Come on Buddy. Do not be modest.......do not give me that "I do not know chit" stuff, how can I get you out of your shell if you do not show off some of that well hidden knowledge. This false modesty must stop.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:I didn't allude to my expertise in Chinese history, I alluded to YOUR lack of it.

Which by definition requires a person to understand Chinese history to evaluate the lack of the same in another.   Come on Buddy.  Do not be modest.......do not give me that "I do not know chit" stuff, how can I get you out of your shell if you do not show off some of that well hidden knowledge.  This false modesty must stop.

I know that James Jesus Angleton thought the Sino-Soviet split was a ruse and that actually there was one monolithic Communism run by Moscow. Others thought otherwise and I believe Kennan was one of them. I know he approved of Nixon's approach to China. Other than that, I'm clueless.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Americans cannot afford to be clueless as we are being hoodwinked by the Military Industrial Complex that China is creating an offensive position in the South China Sea. We fought the American Revolution with a similar asymmetric strategies when facing a superior equipped enemy. From the very first engagement at Concord, Americans cheated and shot from walls and buildings as the British retreated back to Boston. We did not follow the rules, because if we followed the rules the British who were the stronger opponent would crush us.

So understanding Chinese history and Mao's written work concerning asymmetric strategies which are well documented, the South China build up of islands must be seen as a defensive move against a well equipped stronger opponent. So when we hear people talking about Korea, without even understanding that the same asymmetric Mao philosophy of keeping a divided Korea as a defensive buffer from the more powerful aggressor the United States, we utterly cannot solve the problem. Couple this with a Russian enemy who wants to expand their footprint in Eastern Europe while the supplying of the Koreans and urging for conflict make our current one dimensional military response bad policy if it is rendered in idiotic compliance with the MIC. We need to fully support a Militarized Japan and a geopolitical new paradigm which removes us as a threat to these nations. South Korea must better protect their nation, and we must withdraw from South Korea entirely. Having American families as hostages from the get go is stupid military policy. All families should be removed from the Korea, and we should be working to negotiate a smaller American presence. The solution to this problem starts with recognizing who is the aggressor, and why the MIC is beating the drum of a military solution.

We need intelligent conversation, and not moronic sound bites coming from a certified idiot we sadly call commander in chief.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Americans cannot afford to be clueless as we are being hoodwinked by the Military Industrial Complex that China is creating an offensive position in the South China Sea.  We fought the American Revolution with a similar asymmetric strategies when facing a superior equipped enemy.  From the very first engagement at Concord, Americans cheated and shot from walls and buildings as the British retreated back to Boston.  We did not follow the rules, because if we followed the rules the British who were the stronger opponent would crush us.

And what happened after that? Bunker Hill that's what, two months later and after a largely ineffective siege of Boston by a ragtag militia. At Bunker Hill, the Patriots got there ass handed to them and one of the progenitors of the rebellion, Joseph Warren, was killed. That was pretty much the pattern for the rest of the war until the French sailed into the Chesapeake and kicked British ass eight years later.

So much for the American Revolution as an example of asymmetric warfare. If the French hadn't taken on the Brits--turning it into a much more symmetrical conflict--we would have lost.  Once again, your knowledge of history is so shallow you could skip flat rocks across it.

Have a nice day.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
The general rule before Mao in Asymmetric strategy is that the the stronger player wins more than the weaker player.  This has significantly changed since 1950 as corollaries to the theories have been quite successful in Viet Nam, Africa, Iraq, and Iran.  So yes, for the most part the American revolution using asymmetric strategy against the superior British force lost most of the battles.

However, we have to understand that the world has figured out how to weaken us.   To have us take our wealth and throw it down the rabbit hole of military expenditures which get more complex and expensive.  They are playing a long term strategy best exemplified by the Chinese.  However, to deny that there is a new alliance between Iran, Syria, African nations, North Korea, China, and Russia is to deny the reality that we cannot win this asymmetric battle with individual weaker nation states when they are playing for the long haul.

It is counter intuitive, but our salvation requires that we reduce our military threat to other nation states.   This idea that to do such represents appeasement is only partially correct.   It is not correct when dealing with the Chinese and North Koreans.   We are heading down a path of self destruction and the brilliance of Keenan and the very intellectuals that the new populism rejects may very well be our demise.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum