This is all very much moot anyway - it's unlikely any significant war between any superpowers would take place with conventional military methods - its most likely to be 'nukes all the way'.
Nah, a nuclear exchange will be the final act, apart from anything such a senseless waste of life would bring the majority back to their senses.
This is all very much moot anyway - it's unlikely any significant war between any superpowers would take place with conventional military methods - its most likely to be 'nukes all the way'.
Nah, a nuclear exchange will be the final act, apart from anything such a senseless waste of life would bring the majority back to their senses.
We own the oceans until someone builds a navy that's bigger, meaner, and smarter than ours.
And state that the aforementioned statement is not true (outside of US held territorial waters), that the US Navy 'owns the Oceans) (agreeing that have we discounted (MAD) (Mutually Assured Destruction) via Nukes.
And that the USN does not 'own' (dominate) any (or all) body's of water that has sufficient means of defense (such as the militarized zones of the spratley islands).
should anyone blow up a carrier group with a nuclear weapon, or even an old-fashioned atomic bomb, that someone would be tracked, their home country targeted,...
You mean like when Bin Laden (from Saudi Arabia) 'did' the twin towers and so the US invaded Iraq?
That, ah, may have had something to do with the Bush family's close links with the Saudi royal family (remember "Uncle Bandi"? Or the one plane allowed to fly over the US that day?), and/or with the pronouncements of the Chicago NeoCon school of thought, propounded by Leo Strauss, who taught many members of the Bush administration, including his SecDef and VP (Strauss believed that if one Middle Eastern nation could be made into a "Western-style democracy", the rest would fall into line like dominoes, and he favored starting with Iraq because it was the most secular - utterly ignoring the fact that Iraq was ethnically more Persian than Arabic, and realistically more Asian than Middle Eastern, and how well the last version of "domino theory" had worked out in Southeast Asia).
Also, it should be noted that the weapons used that sad day were civilian aircraft, not nuclear weapons - that would probably have actually provoked even Bush to start pasting first the Afghan mountains, then (when the CIA finally got their thumbs out of their asses and started developing HUMINT) bin Laden's home in Pakistan.
Re: the territory claimed by China - take a look at the state of their navy, consisting mostly of Soviet surplus craft. Have they done anything to try to enforce those silly claims? Because the US would be extraordinarily foolish to push matters to a state of all-out war over someone scribbling on a map, laying unfounded claim to land they can't even touch realistically. Now, the threats to Japanese and Taiwanese sovereignty are more serious matters, deserving of the responses we've been giving...
Re: the territory claimed by China - take a look at the state of their navy, consisting mostly of Soviet surplus craft. Have they done anything to try to enforce those silly claims?
That's the trouble; it's not that they just drawn a line on the map and said 'this is ours'. They have heavily militarized existing islands, in addition to creating/enlarging other islands that fall within international waters or territory held by other sovereign nations:
The above example is just one of the island's they have created, there are alot more, and they are still in the process of creating more of them.
China's navy is actively patrolling illegally claimed international waters and threatening anything that comes close with a lethal response (even civilians):
China's navy may not be the best in the world, but if it succeeds in militarizing dozens of islands in those illegally claimed waters (which it appears they already have) it's navy does not have to be the best in order to retain control and project influence towards other sovereign nations.
It appears they are not doing it in order to cause conflict; rather they want to claim the resources in those area's for itself (basicly they are acting like a big bully in the school yard who wants somebody elses ice cream).
Also I would not discount China's military resources too quickly; they are now building their own tech rather than relying on Russia - its still not as good as US tech, but its catching up:
I'm glad everyone is staying civil and I have enjoyed reading the various viewpoints here.
I would just like to point out that we should not be very concerned about China's military, the Soviets used to scare us but when they fell we found out most of their miltary power was generated by smoke and mirrors and had a conflict occurred we would have crushed them in mere weeks.
So don't believe everything you read, the Chinese are still underdeveloped and will not leapfrog centuries of naval innovation in less than a decade.
Chinese are still underdeveloped and will not leapfrog centuries of naval innovation in less than a decade.
I dunno about that
The label "Made In China" used to be a joke.
And now most of the tech we use is made in China. I would not be so quick to dismiss them - they have enormous buying power; that does not instantly translate into military power - but plenty of money can buy plenty of industrial/military espionage.
I have no doubt that China has stolen 99.9% of it's 'tech' via industrial espionage - I can only hope it does not do so well with military espionage.
I would also appreciate it if you had any response on the spratley island issue and the links I posted. China is clearly no longer a '3rd world country' - it is actively encroaching and militarizing territory that both Europe (Britain, France, Germany) and the USA have very strong alliances trade/defense pacts with.
They are are not just 'flexing' their muscles; they have pretty much 'bitchslapped' UK/France/Germany/USA with the Spatley island debacle.
.
Soviets miltary power was generated by smoke and mirrors and had a conflict occurred we would have crushed them in mere weeks.
I think here you are very wrong. It is well documented that the Soviet Russia had just as many 'Nuke's as the USA during the cold war. If a conflict had occurred, Russia would have not been 'crushed' the whole world would have been 'crushed' (including the USA).
.
Soviets miltary power was generated by smoke and mirrors and had a conflict occurred we would have crushed them in mere weeks.
I think here you are very wrong. It is well documented that the Soviet Russia had just as many 'Nuke's as the USA during the cold war. If a conflict had occurred, Russia would have not been 'crushed' the whole world would have been 'crushed' (including the USA).
I don't think he was talking about a nuclear confrontation. Everybody knows that one's MADness.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
.
Soviets miltary power was generated by smoke and mirrors and had a conflict occurred we would have crushed them in mere weeks.
I think here you are very wrong. It is well documented that the Soviet Russia had just as many 'Nuke's as the USA during the cold war. If a conflict had occurred, Russia would have not been 'crushed' the whole world would have been 'crushed' (including the USA).
I don't think he was talking about a nuclear confrontation. Everybody knows that one's MADness.
That's the whole point though. If Russia had any even a 'smidgen' of an idea that the USA and its allies was about to send it's whole Navy over to claim the USSR, Un-unified Germany and the 'Eastern Bloc'. It would not have waited to be overwhelmed by superior forces and/or technology. It would have said "GTFO or we launch our Nukes."
Refer to the the Cuban missile crises for reference. (This was roles reversed: USA said GTFO or we launch Nukes)
I'm just saying there's no point in speculating on the outcome of any such confrontation unless you remove nukes.
But we can't do that mate. Not at all.
Not unless you are happy for us to completely revise all military and strategic history.
Rome took over the world because it had superior technology, economy and political system - there was nothing to counteract it but 'numbers'(The Germanic 'horde' although superior in numbers fell to Rome's technology and strategic maneuvers). Neither side had a 'dooms day/mutually assured destruction weapon if one side invaded the other.
Britain took over the world because it had a superior naval force, economy and technology (and then resources from conquered lands), again; neither side had a doom's day or mutually assured destruction weapon.
America took over the world because it had a superior economy, technology, political system, and its inherent resources (albeit first conquered and claimed by the Brits, French, Spanish and Dutch. And up until recently neither side had a doom's day or mutually assured destruction weapon.
So this is where it gets important. Up until now: neither side had a doom's day or mutually assured destruction weapon.
It does not matter how TRIBBLE or good conventional warfare, political system, or even technological systems are; once one country has an ICBM - everything else goes out of the window, because conventional warfare does not count at all. (Not all all).
There will never (ever) be a ground, sea or air based war between the USA or the USSR (Federation of Russia). Because both have ICBM's.
Therein lies my point. The OP stated that the USA could have 'walked over' Russia in the cold war (with conventional military resources). My above points prove they could not have indeed done this, without all out Nuclear war.
Getting back to the main point; China has Nukes. There is no way the USA would start a war via conventional means; because it would mean nuclear war if China had an inkling it would lose.
Wars are not fought by 'show of force' any more. It's pretty much 'all or nothing' (ignoring small scale conflicts with lesser developed countries).
Right back to your original statement: No, we cant ignore the 'mutually assured destruction' scenario when considering other world powers, especially those that have Nukes, such as Russia and China.
This is one of the reasons I feel ICBMs should be made a thing of the past but the only way to do that is to make something better, which at this point means space based weapons. A reasonable space based weapons platform isn't an existential threat to any nation and in the near infinite universe we exist in, it's almost a forgone conclusion that there is someone out there with a similar level of capability as us and chances are someone out there with that capability is as or more warlike than we are so building space based weapons platforms isn't a bad idea in terms of global defence capability or defences for spacefaring vessels if/when we get round to building them.
That said, in terms of MAD, I suppose ICBMs have their place as a deterrent from war on a global scale for a short time, ultimately though due to political and military doctrine, if Russia doesn't see a turn around in it's political influence and military capabilities, America will start WW3 so getting rid of ICBMs before that point is reached would be beneficial to our survival as a species (I'll leave the debate on whether or not we deserve to survive for another thread).
Your points are correct my statements ignored the aspect of nuclear warfare for the purposes of the discussion.
Countermeasures to nuclear weapons are also quite advanced today so that changes things. If we can stop all or most of your nukes then it becomes less of an issue. The point is any nuclear exchange would mean the end of our race so I tend to avoid discussing that scenario because it is highly unlikely.
Yes the Chinese are getting better but without becoming a Democracy they will never overtake our ability to innovatate since that is the main strength of Capitalism. Stealing our tech won't make them more advanced it will at best get them closer then now, but we will always have a leg up and that is assuming they could even pull it off.
Actually, the nuclear exchange scenario is, as equinox said, the most likely one - but it is definitely one whose outcome does not need to be discussed, so why bother?
A non-MAD scenario, on the other hand, is more worthy of discussion despite its near-impossibility.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
I said "oceans." As in the Atlantic/Pacific/Indian/Arctic Oceans. The South China Sea is not an ocean, nor is it really that strategically important to anyone except for China.
If we (and I say "we" as a former employee of the USN) could be bothered, a couple of CVBGs screened by a dozen or so SSNs could mop up those silly "militarized" artificial Chinese islands, their scrapyard navy, whatever air forces they could actually mobilize, and all of their southern mainland naval bases for good measure, without too much trouble. But we can't be bothered, because we'd rather not be the ones to start WWIII.
But when the shooting actually starts, then you'll see who really owns what.
The Super Hornet might not be all the interceptor that the Tomcat was, but what it is is the best all-rounder that was probably ever built. The Tomcat was built to do one job, and it did it brilliantly. The Super Hornet, on the other hand, was built to be a jack-of-all-trades, and it's proven itself to be a master at most.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Still a better Fleet Defender than a Super Hornet.
have to admit the F-14 super tom was the best at its role , as a fleet interceptor and air superiority fighter, super hornet is a multi role that doesnt do 1 job very well a jack of all trades and master of none.
I said "oceans." As in the Atlantic/Pacific/Indian/Arctic Oceans. The South China Sea is not an ocean, nor is it really that strategically important to anyone except for China.
But when the shooting actually starts, then you'll see who really owns what.
Your reliance on upon semantics and ignorance of the size and strategic/economic value of the South China Sea (which despite its generic name in fact covers huge amounts of territory belonging to other sovereign nations), in addition do your pointless jingoistic 'posturing' indicates you have neither read the supporting evidence amply provided on these pages regarding the USA's strategic and economic interests (and its allies) in this area, nor it seems do you have the intellectual capacity to have an intelligent discussion on the matter without ridiculous sabre rattling and chest beating.
Therefore I shall now withdraw from my interaction with yourself regarding this topic, and wish you well in the future.
Equinox, your equally "jingoistic" insistence on the opposite proposition is at least as problematic. As an example, take a look at that chart of waters the Chinese are claiming. Are you seriously going to try to tell me that US naval groups don't routinely sail right through that as if the claim were as silly as I had been saying? (After all. such territorial claims, if the Chinese "fleet" could back them up, would effectively cut off Diego Garcia from Pacific fleet access.)
The point still stands - the US fleet can sail with impunity wherever their orders tell them to. What someone says about that is immaterial, just as it was immaterial when Libya, under Gaddhafi, attempted to lay claim to almost the entire Mediterranean basin. You can draw lines all over a map - but what's important is whether you can do anything about it when someone crosses those lines.
Equinox, your equally "jingoistic" insistence on the opposite proposition is at least as problematic. As an example, take a look at that chart of waters the Chinese are claiming. Are you seriously going to try to tell me that US naval groups don't routinely sail right through that as if the claim were as silly as I had been saying? (After all. such territorial claims, if the Chinese "fleet" could back them up, would effectively cut off Diego Garcia from Pacific fleet access.)
The point still stands - the US fleet can sail with impunity wherever their orders tell them to. What someone says about that is immaterial, just as it was immaterial when Libya, under Gaddhafi, attempted to lay claim to almost the entire Mediterranean basin. You can draw lines all over a map - but what's important is whether you can do anything about it when someone crosses those lines.
I think you have completely misread me and my posts Jonsills. My position is not 'opposite' at all, and I am not saying that the USA could not sail anywhere it liked whenever it liked, nor am I suggesting that China's claim to the area is correct (infact I have stated the complete opposite of this).
And no, as I have referenced for you the US does not routinely sail through these waters - it has made some show of force by sailing close to these waters but has not purposefully sailed into what china 'claims' it owns (again reference prior)
You have oversimplified my argument and (unintentionally) put words in my mouth. Please read through my past posts and the supporting references I have posted prior to this.
I said "oceans." As in the Atlantic/Pacific/Indian/Arctic Oceans. The South China Sea is not an ocean, nor is it really that strategically important to anyone except for China.
But when the shooting actually starts, then you'll see who really owns what.
Your reliance on upon semantics and ignorance of the size and strategic/economic value of the South China Sea (which despite its generic name in fact covers huge amounts of territory belonging to other sovereign nations), in addition do your pointless jingoistic 'posturing' indicates you have neither read the supporting evidence amply provided on these pages regarding the USA's strategic and economic interests (and its allies) in this area, nor it seems do you have the intellectual capacity to have an intelligent discussion on the matter without ridiculous sabre rattling and chest beating.
Therefore I shall now withdraw from my interaction with yourself regarding this topic, and wish you well in the future.
Toodle pip!
I'm not the one using relative terms like they're absolutes and getting my news from the New York Times. But I'm happy not to waste any more of my time on you.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
I said "oceans." As in the Atlantic/Pacific/Indian/Arctic Oceans. The South China Sea is not an ocean, nor is it really that strategically important to anyone except for China.
But when the shooting actually starts, then you'll see who really owns what.
Your reliance on upon semantics and ignorance of the size and strategic/economic value of the South China Sea (which despite its generic name in fact covers huge amounts of territory belonging to other sovereign nations), in addition do your pointless jingoistic 'posturing' indicates you have neither read the supporting evidence amply provided on these pages regarding the USA's strategic and economic interests (and its allies) in this area, nor it seems do you have the intellectual capacity to have an intelligent discussion on the matter without ridiculous sabre rattling and chest beating.
Therefore I shall now withdraw from my interaction with yourself regarding this topic, and wish you well in the future.
Toodle pip!
I'm not the one using relative terms like they're absolutes and getting my news from the New York Times. But I'm happy not to waste any more of my time on you.
You infact were the first person to use such terms; but let us ignore that (as it seems you have done anyway). And it is also clear that I provided a number of sources besides the New York Times (an inclusive attitude you see; engenders understanding - thus my provision of a WIDE variety of sources - your focus upon the New York Times says more about you, than is does about me).
I'm happy to provide you with more direct sources such as studies undertaken by NATO but I have a feeling that from your original posts: "We rule the oceans" "When the bullets start to fly, we will see who owns what" and other such diatribe that you are not interested in such a discussion.
Your rebuttals thus far have been crude and misinformed - therefore I am happy to concur with your agreement that we have nothing further to say to each other.
Comments
Nah, a nuclear exchange will be the final act, apart from anything such a senseless waste of life would bring the majority back to their senses.
Agreed.
So in closing I refute this statement:
And state that the aforementioned statement is not true (outside of US held territorial waters), that the US Navy 'owns the Oceans) (agreeing that have we discounted (MAD) (Mutually Assured Destruction) via Nukes.
And that the USN does not 'own' (dominate) any (or all) body's of water that has sufficient means of defense (such as the militarized zones of the spratley islands).
Also, it should be noted that the weapons used that sad day were civilian aircraft, not nuclear weapons - that would probably have actually provoked even Bush to start pasting first the Afghan mountains, then (when the CIA finally got their thumbs out of their asses and started developing HUMINT) bin Laden's home in Pakistan.
Re: the territory claimed by China - take a look at the state of their navy, consisting mostly of Soviet surplus craft. Have they done anything to try to enforce those silly claims? Because the US would be extraordinarily foolish to push matters to a state of all-out war over someone scribbling on a map, laying unfounded claim to land they can't even touch realistically. Now, the threats to Japanese and Taiwanese sovereignty are more serious matters, deserving of the responses we've been giving...
That's the trouble; it's not that they just drawn a line on the map and said 'this is ours'. They have heavily militarized existing islands, in addition to creating/enlarging other islands that fall within international waters or territory held by other sovereign nations:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html
The above example is just one of the island's they have created, there are alot more, and they are still in the process of creating more of them.
China's navy is actively patrolling illegally claimed international waters and threatening anything that comes close with a lethal response (even civilians):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35031313
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-1446c419-fc55-4a07-9527-a6199f5dc0e2
China's navy may not be the best in the world, but if it succeeds in militarizing dozens of islands in those illegally claimed waters (which it appears they already have) it's navy does not have to be the best in order to retain control and project influence towards other sovereign nations.
It appears they are not doing it in order to cause conflict; rather they want to claim the resources in those area's for itself (basicly they are acting like a big bully in the school yard who wants somebody elses ice cream).
Also I would not discount China's military resources too quickly; they are now building their own tech rather than relying on Russia - its still not as good as US tech, but its catching up:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-chinese-navy-will-be-bigger-than-americas-by-2020-2014-12?IR=T
They are even dabbling with stealth ships:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/05/china-launches-a-new-high-tech-spy-ship.html
I would just like to point out that we should not be very concerned about China's military, the Soviets used to scare us but when they fell we found out most of their miltary power was generated by smoke and mirrors and had a conflict occurred we would have crushed them in mere weeks.
So don't believe everything you read, the Chinese are still underdeveloped and will not leapfrog centuries of naval innovation in less than a decade.
I dunno about that
The label "Made In China" used to be a joke.
And now most of the tech we use is made in China. I would not be so quick to dismiss them - they have enormous buying power; that does not instantly translate into military power - but plenty of money can buy plenty of industrial/military espionage.
I have no doubt that China has stolen 99.9% of it's 'tech' via industrial espionage - I can only hope it does not do so well with military espionage.
I would also appreciate it if you had any response on the spratley island issue and the links I posted. China is clearly no longer a '3rd world country' - it is actively encroaching and militarizing territory that both Europe (Britain, France, Germany) and the USA have very strong alliances trade/defense pacts with.
They are are not just 'flexing' their muscles; they have pretty much 'bitchslapped' UK/France/Germany/USA with the Spatley island debacle.
I think here you are very wrong. It is well documented that the Soviet Russia had just as many 'Nuke's as the USA during the cold war. If a conflict had occurred, Russia would have not been 'crushed' the whole world would have been 'crushed' (including the USA).
I don't think he was talking about a nuclear confrontation. Everybody knows that one's MADness.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
That's the whole point though. If Russia had any even a 'smidgen' of an idea that the USA and its allies was about to send it's whole Navy over to claim the USSR, Un-unified Germany and the 'Eastern Bloc'. It would not have waited to be overwhelmed by superior forces and/or technology. It would have said "GTFO or we launch our Nukes."
Refer to the the Cuban missile crises for reference. (This was roles reversed: USA said GTFO or we launch Nukes)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
But we can't do that mate. Not at all.
Not unless you are happy for us to completely revise all military and strategic history.
Rome took over the world because it had superior technology, economy and political system - there was nothing to counteract it but 'numbers'(The Germanic 'horde' although superior in numbers fell to Rome's technology and strategic maneuvers). Neither side had a 'dooms day/mutually assured destruction weapon if one side invaded the other.
Britain took over the world because it had a superior naval force, economy and technology (and then resources from conquered lands), again; neither side had a doom's day or mutually assured destruction weapon.
America took over the world because it had a superior economy, technology, political system, and its inherent resources (albeit first conquered and claimed by the Brits, French, Spanish and Dutch. And up until recently neither side had a doom's day or mutually assured destruction weapon.
So this is where it gets important. Up until now: neither side had a doom's day or mutually assured destruction weapon.
It does not matter how TRIBBLE or good conventional warfare, political system, or even technological systems are; once one country has an ICBM - everything else goes out of the window, because conventional warfare does not count at all. (Not all all).
There will never (ever) be a ground, sea or air based war between the USA or the USSR (Federation of Russia). Because both have ICBM's.
Therein lies my point. The OP stated that the USA could have 'walked over' Russia in the cold war (with conventional military resources). My above points prove they could not have indeed done this, without all out Nuclear war.
Getting back to the main point; China has Nukes. There is no way the USA would start a war via conventional means; because it would mean nuclear war if China had an inkling it would lose.
Wars are not fought by 'show of force' any more. It's pretty much 'all or nothing' (ignoring small scale conflicts with lesser developed countries).
Right back to your original statement: No, we cant ignore the 'mutually assured destruction' scenario when considering other world powers, especially those that have Nukes, such as Russia and China.
That said, in terms of MAD, I suppose ICBMs have their place as a deterrent from war on a global scale for a short time, ultimately though due to political and military doctrine, if Russia doesn't see a turn around in it's political influence and military capabilities, America will start WW3 so getting rid of ICBMs before that point is reached would be beneficial to our survival as a species (I'll leave the debate on whether or not we deserve to survive for another thread).
Countermeasures to nuclear weapons are also quite advanced today so that changes things. If we can stop all or most of your nukes then it becomes less of an issue. The point is any nuclear exchange would mean the end of our race so I tend to avoid discussing that scenario because it is highly unlikely.
Yes the Chinese are getting better but without becoming a Democracy they will never overtake our ability to innovatate since that is the main strength of Capitalism. Stealing our tech won't make them more advanced it will at best get them closer then now, but we will always have a leg up and that is assuming they could even pull it off.
A non-MAD scenario, on the other hand, is more worthy of discussion despite its near-impossibility.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Still a better Fleet Defender than a Super Hornet.
I said "oceans." As in the Atlantic/Pacific/Indian/Arctic Oceans. The South China Sea is not an ocean, nor is it really that strategically important to anyone except for China.
If we (and I say "we" as a former employee of the USN) could be bothered, a couple of CVBGs screened by a dozen or so SSNs could mop up those silly "militarized" artificial Chinese islands, their scrapyard navy, whatever air forces they could actually mobilize, and all of their southern mainland naval bases for good measure, without too much trouble. But we can't be bothered, because we'd rather not be the ones to start WWIII.
But when the shooting actually starts, then you'll see who really owns what.
@warmaker001b -
The Super Hornet might not be all the interceptor that the Tomcat was, but what it is is the best all-rounder that was probably ever built. The Tomcat was built to do one job, and it did it brilliantly. The Super Hornet, on the other hand, was built to be a jack-of-all-trades, and it's proven itself to be a master at most.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
have to admit the F-14 super tom was the best at its role , as a fleet interceptor and air superiority fighter, super hornet is a multi role that doesnt do 1 job very well a jack of all trades and master of none.
Won't really matter by then, though, will it?
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Your reliance on upon semantics and ignorance of the size and strategic/economic value of the South China Sea (which despite its generic name in fact covers huge amounts of territory belonging to other sovereign nations), in addition do your pointless jingoistic 'posturing' indicates you have neither read the supporting evidence amply provided on these pages regarding the USA's strategic and economic interests (and its allies) in this area, nor it seems do you have the intellectual capacity to have an intelligent discussion on the matter without ridiculous sabre rattling and chest beating.
Therefore I shall now withdraw from my interaction with yourself regarding this topic, and wish you well in the future.
Toodle pip!
The point still stands - the US fleet can sail with impunity wherever their orders tell them to. What someone says about that is immaterial, just as it was immaterial when Libya, under Gaddhafi, attempted to lay claim to almost the entire Mediterranean basin. You can draw lines all over a map - but what's important is whether you can do anything about it when someone crosses those lines.
I think you have completely misread me and my posts Jonsills. My position is not 'opposite' at all, and I am not saying that the USA could not sail anywhere it liked whenever it liked, nor am I suggesting that China's claim to the area is correct (infact I have stated the complete opposite of this).
And no, as I have referenced for you the US does not routinely sail through these waters - it has made some show of force by sailing close to these waters but has not purposefully sailed into what china 'claims' it owns (again reference prior)
You have oversimplified my argument and (unintentionally) put words in my mouth. Please read through my past posts and the supporting references I have posted prior to this.
I'm not the one using relative terms like they're absolutes and getting my news from the New York Times. But I'm happy not to waste any more of my time on you.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
You infact were the first person to use such terms; but let us ignore that (as it seems you have done anyway). And it is also clear that I provided a number of sources besides the New York Times (an inclusive attitude you see; engenders understanding - thus my provision of a WIDE variety of sources - your focus upon the New York Times says more about you, than is does about me).
I'm happy to provide you with more direct sources such as studies undertaken by NATO but I have a feeling that from your original posts: "We rule the oceans" "When the bullets start to fly, we will see who owns what" and other such diatribe that you are not interested in such a discussion.
Your rebuttals thus far have been crude and misinformed - therefore I am happy to concur with your agreement that we have nothing further to say to each other.
Cheerio.
No matter what references you give or argument you provide. Some people will just decide to 'skip them'.