Two US Carrier Groups in the South China Sea as China performs naval drills in the area

rudemarine

Well-known member
Talks about Retirement of the Nimitz makes this seem more like a sacrifice, especially if she is sent in first, before the more powerful Reagan and her battle group. The US had 6 carrier groups for Iraq. We would want 8 to fight China with the others in ready to relieve the ones on station then rotate quickly. If China's nuclear weapons could be taken out in the first round of strikes by our Classified strike bombers or missiles.

Sinking a US carrier brings with it the battle group commander, the Admirals release of tactical nukes at his disposal to protect the remaining ships from further attack. Don't doubt for a second they are not there under his command and will be able to use them as needed to defend the ships.

The US Aircraft Carrier has 4 thousand plus Americans on board with billions of dollars in one ship let alone another billion in aircraft and equipment! No amount of tea in China will stop us from turning the entire country into flames should they dare sink one.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
We’ve recently seen 5 or 6 retired generals even past members of the joint chiefs break military protocol and openly speak out against a sitting American president. Yes it is protocol established after the McCarther / Truman dust up. Brass are held to a higher standard on their way out because of their influence.
Remember the purge of Staff officers during Obama’s term. Over 300 left or were forced out. It is safe to assume the leadership of the military is just as politicized as the leadership in the FBI.
I question if some of these commanders would follow a legitimate/lawful authority right now.
 

rudemarine

Well-known member
We’ve recently seen 5 or 6 retired generals even past members of the joint chiefs break military protocol and openly speak out against a sitting American president. Yes it is protocol established after the McCarther / Truman dust up. Brass are held to a higher standard on their way out because of their influence.
Remember the purge of Staff officers during Obama’s term. Over 300 left or were forced out. It is safe to assume the leadership of the military is just as politicized as the leadership in the FBI.
I question if some of these commanders would follow a legitimate/lawful authority right now.
They will be quickly removed by their second or third in command if they didn't and when it comes to defying orders to defend our capital ships, especially orders given by our President. In the case of the Admiral defying Obama's traitorous stand down orders over Benghazi. I think the one who took his place is probably the most hated commander in the Navy as Obama gave him an unlawful order, as he was an admitted non American born and fake US president per his own live video speech in Kenya right after Trump took office where he said "I'm the first Kenyan to ever be US President" it's on YouTube. Trump has a ton of support in the military, way way more than probably any of us can fathom. He is setting America on the right path and people see the true evil in this country as they try desperately to hang on to control. God willing they will be arrested and never get it back.
 

Shmooglavoue

Active member
Seems subtle messaging is a lost art in China


No D Mail is not my favorite source but they do copy the tweet by Global Times in the body of article
Global Times is not exactly a reliable source either, as they are a Chinese State run media outlet. Though at least you can assume they more or less convey the opinion of the CCP.
 

Drumboy44

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
The United States champions a free and open Indo-Pacific. Today we are strengthening U.S. policy in a vital, contentious part of that region — the South China Sea. We are making clear: Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them.

In the South China Sea, we seek to preserve peace and stability, uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce, and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes. We share these deep and abiding interests with our many allies and partners who have long endorsed a rules-based international order.

These shared interests have come under unprecedented threat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Beijing uses intimidation to undermine the sovereign rights of Southeast Asian coastal states in the South China Sea, bully them out of offshore resources, assert unilateral dominion, and replace international law with “might makes right.” Beijing’s approach has been clear for years. In 2010, then-PRC Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told his ASEAN counterparts that “China is a big country and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.” The PRC’s predatory world view has no place in the 21st century.

The PRC has no legal grounds to unilaterally impose its will on the region. Beijing has offered no coherent legal basis for its “Nine-Dashed Line” claim in the South China Sea since formally announcing it in 2009. In a unanimous decision on July 12, 2016, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention – to which the PRC is a state party – rejected the PRC’s maritime claims as having no basis in international law. The Tribunal sided squarely with the Philippines, which brought the arbitration case, on almost all claims.

As the United States has previously stated, and as specifically provided in the Convention, the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on both parties.

Today we are aligning the U.S. position on the PRC’s maritime claims in the SCS with the Tribunal’s decision.

Specifically: The PRC cannot lawfully assert a maritime claim – including any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims derived from Scarborough Reef and the Spratly Islands – vis-a-vis the Philippines in areas that the Tribunal found to be in the Philippines’ EEZ or on its continental shelf. Beijing’s harassment of Philippine fisheries and offshore energy development within those areas is unlawful, as are any unilateral PRC actions to exploit those resources. In line with the Tribunal’s legally binding decision, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, both of which fall fully under the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction, nor does Beijing have any territorial or maritime claims generated from these features.As Beijing has failed to put forth a lawful, coherent maritime claim in the South China Sea, the United States rejects any PRC claim to waters beyond a 12-nautical mile territorial sea derived from islands it claims in the Spratly Islands (without prejudice to other states’ sovereignty claims over such islands).

As such, the United States rejects any PRC maritime claim in the waters surrounding Vanguard Bank (off Vietnam), Luconia Shoals (off Malaysia), waters in Brunei’s EEZ, and Natuna Besar (off Indonesia). Any PRC action to harass other states’ fishing or hydrocarbon development in these waters – or to carry out such activities unilaterally – is unlawful.The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the “southernmost territory of China.” International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it.

The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire. America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law. We stand with the international community in defense of freedom of the seas and respect for sovereignty and reject any push to impose “might makes right” in the South China Sea or the wider region.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/#.XwzovpuzS_M.twitter
 
Last edited:

Drumboy44

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
Reaction from China:

On July 13, 2020, the US Department of State issued a statement that disregards the efforts of China and ASEAN countries for peace and stability in the South China Sea, deliberately distorts the facts and international law including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), exaggerates the situation in the region and attempts to sow discord between China and other littoral countries. The accusation is completely unjustified. The Chinese side is firmly opposed to it.

China’s position on the South China Sea issue has been consistent and clear-cut. While firmly safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China has been committed to resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation with countries directly involved, managing differences through rules and mechanisms, and achieving win-win results through mutually beneficial cooperation.

The situation of the South China Sea has remained peaceful and stable and is still improving. China and other littoral countries have maintained dialogue and communication through consultation mechanisms on maritime affairs, and worked to promote cooperation over the South China Sea. Within the framework of fully and effectively implementing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, China and ASEAN countries are advancing the consultation on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea and are making visible progress.

The United States is not a country directly involved in the disputes. However, it has kept interfering in the issue. Under the pretext of preserving stability, it is flexing muscles, stirring up tension and inciting confrontation in the region. Under the pretext of endorsing rules, it is using UNCLOS to attack China while refusing to ratify the Convention itself. Under the pretext of upholding freedom of navigation and overflight, it is recklessly infringing on other countries’ territorial sea and airspace and throwing its weight around in every sea of the world. We advise the US side to earnestly honor its commitment of not taking sides on the issue of territorial sovereignty, respect regional countries’ efforts for a peaceful and stable South China Sea and stop its attempts to disrupt and sabotage regional peace and stability.

 

Obreid

Power Poster
Pretty clear positions from both sides.
Now all that needs to happen is for one of these countries fishing vessels or platforms to send out a distress call and wham.
Launch the Super Hornets.
Do we want to create a poll to see which nations ask for assistance first?
Philippines
Malaysia
or
Vietnam
My moneys on Vietnam
There is unimaginable amounts of diplo pressure raging across the whole region.
Ask for assistance/
think correctly, don’t involve outsiders
 

Obreid

Power Poster
And brace yourselves tomorrow the news outlets will be screaming “he’s” declared war and pelosi will have an emergency war powers resolution binding any action
 
W

WeAreCrewTen

Guest
we need to begin starving PRC. move our manufacturing back to the good ol' USA. PRC would not be causing trouble if they could not afford to. thanks to our screwed up trade protocol, they can.
 

Shmooglavoue

Active member
we need to begin starving PRC. move our manufacturing back to the good ol' USA. PRC would not be causing trouble if they could not afford to. thanks to our screwed up trade protocol, they can.
At the very least, move manufacturing out of China and into other nations with more compatible governments, such as India. But ideally, some manufacturing should be moved locally.
 

joaqweri

Well-known member
does anybody see how a war breaking out between the US and China in the SCS could actually escalate to ww3? I don't see how it could go beyond a regional east asian war, only way i see how is if russia intervenes on the side of the chinese which is damn near impossible.
 
Top