tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7299383850043479005..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: War With China - Part 2ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48721896439611341122020-10-27T09:33:19.930-07:002020-10-27T09:33:19.930-07:00The talk about tariffs and etc. The article seems ...The talk about tariffs and etc. The article seems like it was written yesterday.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28398837875458018122020-06-18T09:46:15.411-07:002020-06-18T09:46:15.411-07:00Now that it is 2020...lets look at this subject ag...Now that it is 2020...lets look at this subject again. Biden, Trump and so on. Mr. Bacon? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09830239469169050533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11517963409137127342013-05-15T23:45:40.245-07:002013-05-15T23:45:40.245-07:00Siberia is colonized by Chinese since early 1990s....Siberia is colonized by Chinese since early 1990s. I do remember a National Geografic issue 20 years ago covering it with details. It fills a pattern described in articles on this blog.<br />"Russia will defend its Far East against the expansion of the neighboring countries - said on Thursday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The Kremlin is concerned that because of the continual influx of Chinese into the area Russia will lose them under control" - writes Polish Press Agency according to Reuters on 10th Aug 2012.<br />Wojtek - scale modelerhttp://attacksquadron.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76330984525054511072013-05-15T12:18:09.603-07:002013-05-15T12:18:09.603-07:00Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.
Do yo...Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.<br /><br />Do you see evidence of China encroaching on Siberia already? Perhaps via illegal immigration into that sparsely populated region?JInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39737618031279172792013-05-15T08:23:10.729-07:002013-05-15T08:23:10.729-07:00China is a country that grown up enourmously fast....China is a country that grown up enourmously fast. They need a lot of raw materials and oil to sustain their economy grow.<br />China tried to set a good relationship with countries with natural resources in Africa and South America. There are countries like Sudan and Lybia, but there is a civil war. China can not intervene with a “peace operation” as US can do. They have no Carriers and no global military transport abilities.<br />It looks that they are step by step pushed out of that countries and their resources. War against terror and its follow-up, like revolts in Arab countries in Africa restricted Chinese access to natural resources, but not restricted US comparably. US has got an even better access to that countries and their resources. So you can see, that accidentally or not US has some way to influence China grow and perspectives.<br />It is a reason I think China will be pushed to see for resources on Siberia and to possible attack on Russia. Yes Russia is a relatively strong militarized country, but Sun Tzu said that "strenght of weak is a booty of strong". Wojtek - scale modelerhttp://attacksquadron.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89923758891111474932013-05-15T08:13:20.229-07:002013-05-15T08:13:20.229-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adalbertushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13213060517317634487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49403274803332766082013-05-15T05:02:05.405-07:002013-05-15T05:02:05.405-07:00Wojtek, I'm not sure I understand your point b...Wojtek, I'm not sure I understand your point but I think you may have something interesting to say. Would you try again but expand on what you're saying? Explain what you mean in more detail. Thanks!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84608426691261424092013-05-15T04:59:31.992-07:002013-05-15T04:59:31.992-07:00JI, that's an interesting thought. I'm no...JI, that's an interesting thought. I'm not sure I agree that the US would have had the focus or courage to confront China, even with the additional time. However, your point is an excellent one, that the war on terrorism has been a distraction as regards dealing with China.<br /><br />A very good comment!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7299439380343057542013-05-15T04:06:14.786-07:002013-05-15T04:06:14.786-07:00Other way, is it not true, that wars in Iraq, Lybi...Other way, is it not true, that wars in Iraq, Lybia etc made Chinese natural resources aquisition much more harder. Is it not a kind of accidental or premeditated pressure on industrial grow of China?<br />Wojtek - scale modelerhttp://attacksquadron.pl/?lang=ennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38712579719790217542013-05-13T13:56:38.777-07:002013-05-13T13:56:38.777-07:00Just want to toss into the discussion that, had th...Just want to toss into the discussion that, had there not been the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11/2001, the US probably would have been highly focused on China via the diplomatic/military system for the past 11 years rather than on Middle East terrorists. Meaning that China has had a nice 11 years in which to expand its regional influence via the mechanisms you describe without a peep from the US. Now that this period is over, I think we'll start to see the US challenging, or at least questioning and examining, China much more than in the recent past.JInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8405920520152662652013-05-13T12:29:02.201-07:002013-05-13T12:29:02.201-07:00You cannot compare budgets, or military expenditur...You cannot compare budgets, or military expenditures between a capitalist economy and a socialist, or communist economy.<br /><br />Dollar to yuan comparisons are meaningless. The principal costs for the U.S. military is manpower; the Chinese do not spend anything like what the U.S. does to recruit, train, provide health care for, and sadly for death benefits for its forces because the structure of their economy is different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3735458044779167412013-05-12T17:56:15.840-07:002013-05-12T17:56:15.840-07:00Your comment is excellent and your English is fine...Your comment is excellent and your English is fine. I should thank you for pointing out that China undoubtedly has desires to the landward side (Siberia, India, and the rest of Asia) as well as out in the South and East China Seas. The scope of my blog is naval matters so I tend to neglect some of the non-naval issues and I shouldn't since they affect the naval situation and vice versa. <br /><br />Thank you for stopping by and contributing a very good comment!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69241645170048651202013-05-12T16:18:21.138-07:002013-05-12T16:18:21.138-07:00Thank you for very interesting analysis. I was alw...Thank you for very interesting analysis. I was always sure, that China (being a continental power) would start expansion for natural resources in the Siberia and Central Asia. War against US Navy would be started only to secure continental expansion by defeating US Navy in Pearl Harbour type scenario. Just buying a time to finish with weakest enemy. Who would then try to invade China?. <br />Your text epened my mind to other possible expansion directions. I hope my English is good enought to understand my point.Wojtekhttp://attacksquadron.plnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74293129796407633762013-05-12T10:01:51.645-07:002013-05-12T10:01:51.645-07:00Well said, especially your point concerning the co...Well said, especially your point concerning the comparison of military spending. At some point, China's aspirations will have to be dealt with. We're currently seeing the first, tentative steps in that direction with the "pivot" towards Asia (of course, we mean China but our government won't say that publicly) and the release of information about Chinese military hacking of US computer networks. It's been going on for some time but, previously, the US government refrained from publicly accusing China for fear of upsetting them. Something has changed, however slightly, in our government's attitude towards China and, therefore, we're seeing the first steps, as I mentioned.<br /><br />You also make a good observation about blog comments. People often jump on details while passing over the main theme. This happens in all the blogs I've read, not just this one. That's OK, too. It forces posters to verify their facts and think through their conclusions which makes for better posts.<br /><br />A good comment! Thanks.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40864894895759285092013-05-12T09:39:55.139-07:002013-05-12T09:39:55.139-07:00At the outset let me say that I agree with you. Ho...At the outset let me say that I agree with you. However, the US has, for some reason, a great deal of difficulty in expanding the definition of war beyond armed hostilities, even though such concepts as economic warfare and cyber warfare are acknowledged. Further, military tactics such as infiltration are acknowledged but strategic infiltration seems to be ignored.<br /><br />Reviewing the replies to your thesis, I note that individual points of your argument are attacked but not the overall thesis. There also seems to be a tendency to impute Aristotillian based logic to the Chinese rather than considering that nation's philosophical roots in the analysis.<br /><br />Some observations:<br />Comparing US and Chinese in terms of dolars is apples and oranges. In order for there to be a valid comparison, it would be necessary to change US military and DOD civilian pay scales to the pay of the Chinese miliary establishment, just for a starter.<br />The entire world has agreed to definitions of territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Even nations less than 200 miles apart, except China. For China to claim the Spratly Islands, which are 672 miles from the clearly Chinese island of Hainan, defies Western logic. Now Chinese "scholars" are talking of a Chinese ownership of Okinawa.<br />The Chinese military speaks of absolute control of waters out to the "first island chain", meaning Japan Southward through the Philippines and domination out to the "second island chain" which would be Palau, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. I would not be surprised if the Chinese soon claimed ownership of waters out to the high water marks of the first island chain.<br />The Chinese are developing amphibious ships while the US is debating the need for amphibious ships.<br />Chinese " thousand grains of sand" espionage utilizing any Chinese person in a foreign nation, with family still in China, as an espionage resource.<br /><br />As you say, individual pixels of tension may be looked at as innocuous but taken together they make for an entirely different picture. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57452279996048073422013-05-12T06:14:36.781-07:002013-05-12T06:14:36.781-07:00WJ, well stated!WJ, well stated!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76609964413218517012013-05-11T22:32:57.308-07:002013-05-11T22:32:57.308-07:00I think the broader point is that China isn't ...I think the broader point is that China isn't targeting the US per se. But, even if China doesn't have any overt or historical problems with the US, China has the mind set that it is going to act in it's own interest regardless. Being a one-party system (albeit with many factions) gives it the ability to keep a focus in its actions that isn't possible with a western-style government. If the US (and more specifically the 7th fleet) is an obstacle to those aims, than the first order of business is to figure out a way to neutralize that threat.<br />As far as electronic espionage and business theft is concerned, I think the US is just one of many so targeted. Now, having said all that, does the fact that we are just one of many so targeted make a difference? No. It is important that the Chinese are held accountable for their actions. Whether they like it or not, they are acting in a multi-national arena. The fact that they are a growing power doesn't mitigate the fact that they are not acting in a power vacuum. I think they will find that their actions are just going to end up alienating and frightening a lot of their neighbors (it already is of course) and combined, they will be a formidible adversary, especially with the US providing a power center. Where you and I agree, I think, is in the notion that this is an issue that we as a nation need to start addressing now. Yes, there are distractions but I think we can agree that this issue isn't going to go away and we will eventually have to deal with China one way or another.William Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17549048449159256534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42468427022804299532013-05-11T12:13:26.464-07:002013-05-11T12:13:26.464-07:00"As I stated, we should apply the same tariff..."As I stated, we should apply the same tariffs and import/export policies that China does and watch the jobs come flooding back to the US."<br />It doesnt work though.<br />Bush "saved" 20,000 jobs in US steel, at the cost of 200,000 jobs in the wider economy.<br /><br />Look at it like this.<br />Is a Brazillian Soy Farmer going to buy a European Tractor built with cheap chinese steel, or more expensive American Tractor built with expensive American Steel.<br /><br />Chinas economic system causes it far more damage than it causes the US, and the cure is worse than the disease.<br /><br />"Finally, you're a blogger, too, so you know that we're limited by writing space on a post. People want sound bites, not doctoral dissertations."<br />Yeah, I have a 15,000 word epic floating around somewhere :'(TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35259093044412744192013-05-11T10:34:10.219-07:002013-05-11T10:34:10.219-07:00TrT, you're right, of course, that the monetar...TrT, you're right, of course, that the monetary issue is vastly more complex than I described. Hey, cut me some slack! I'm writing within the confines of a several paragraph post of which a couple sentences are devoted to the economic system. In point of fact, there are many more aspects to the economics that go well beyond what you've described. China holds our "debt" in many forms aside from simple monetary exchange. China holds US stocks and bonds which cover both industrial and government debt. In addition, China is engaged in a policy of buying ownership in US companies, another form of debt ownership, which makes it difficult for those companies to act in either their own best interest or the best interests of the country. China also maintains artificially low labor rates which encourages US companies to build in China or farm out production to China. This is yet another form of debt ownership which again makes it difficult for companies and the US government to act in their own best interest. <br /><br />As I stated, we should apply the same tariffs and import/export policies that China does and watch the jobs come flooding back to the US.<br /><br />Remember, China will gladly subject themselves to great pain if the end result is greater gain. The mere fact that they are an economic parter and would be hurt by jepordizing that relationship wouldn't stop them for a moment if they could come out ahead in the end.<br /><br />Finally, you're a blogger, too, so you know that we're limited by writing space on a post. People want sound bites, not doctoral dissertations. It's a constant battle to balance detailed information against overly long writings that no one will read. It's often (almost always) necessary to simplify to fit within space limits. As authors we make constant judgements about what to simplify and how much. Oh well, such is blogging life!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34081575956211016782013-05-11T10:10:15.126-07:002013-05-11T10:10:15.126-07:00The economic angle is a lot more complex than you ...The economic angle is a lot more complex than you state.<br />China buys US bonds out of necessity, not choice, or goodwill.<br /><br />Trade is a fairly complex process.<br />Normally (and very very very simply), Walmart would swap dollars for iPods with FoxConn. FoxConn would swap dollars for Yuan with the Chinese Central Bank. The Chinese Central Bank would swap dollars for Yuan with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve would swap dollars for Yuan with Hummer Inc. Hummer Inc would swap Hummers for Yuan with Chinese Yuppies.<br /><br />Now, China sells more iPods than it buys Hummers, so the CCB has more dollars than it can exchange for Yuan<br />Ideally, this would be handled by a change in the exchange rate, which would shift to balance the trade flows so that they were equal. But this is against Chinese policy, because it would cut exports and increase imports.<br /><br />So, the CCB simply holds on to the excess dollars.<br />And rather than hold lots of paper (cotton?) in bank vaults, it invests the excess dollars in "safe" bonds, like government debt.<br /><br />There are a few problems with this strategy.<br /><br />The CCB can hold an infinite supply of dollars. The problem is, any dollars it keeps instead of swapping with the Fed for Yuan, it must print Yuan to give to (in this example, foxconn). Printing money, causes inflation, and thats generally bad.<br /><br />Exit Strategy, and the utter lack thereof.<br />China is buying dollars, at an artificially high price, to maintain the high price.<br />If it stops buying dollars, the artificially high price returns to the right price.<br />If that "right price" is 10% lower, China suffers an exchange rate loss of $300bn (20 super carriers?) 20% lower, a loss of $600bn.<br />If China stops buy dollars AND starts selling them, they fall to an artificially low price. 60c on the dollar and Chinas exchange losses are greater than UK GDP.<br />Whoops, I lost 1.2trillion dollars....<br /><br /><br />The idea that The US Government picks up the phone and asks China if it can borrow X to do Y is *very* wide of the mark.<br /><br />Japan was in a similar situation in the 80's. Convinced it was "winning", Japanese politicians were debating a law preventing the JCB lending the US any more money, and shortly after, it entered a deflationary crash its not recovered from 22 years on.<br />Abe has a decent shot at breaking out in my view.<br /><br />The rest is right of course, but the money angle is well beyond Chinas control now.<br />TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23938682527486765782013-05-11T03:28:14.274-07:002013-05-11T03:28:14.274-07:00WJ, I'm slightly confused about which are your...WJ, I'm slightly confused about which are your friends thoughts and which are yours - maybe, essentially the same? No matter. <br /><br />If you ask ten different people why we went into Iraq, you'll likely get ten different answers about our true motivation - weapons of mass destruction, imperialism, oil interests, political maneuvering, anti-terrorism, spread democracy, liberate oppressed people, etc. The point is that no one person has the "correct" answer, if there is such a thing. With respect to your friend, his version of history is his opinion and interpretation and suffers from the same biases and agendas as anyone else. His views, as relayed by you, do not match Chinese history books or, as best I can determine, Chinese indoctrination or even historical reality.<br /><br />That said, my main premise is that China is currently at war with us. Even if you believe that I've slightly misinterpreted Chinese history, do you have an alternate explanation for the ongoing pattern of behavior that I've documented and that, on the face of it, constitutes a long-view war?<br /><br />Also, bear in mind that I'm hardly alone in this view. I've read the writings of US politicians, military leaders, and analysts. While few come right out and say we're at war, many state and document that China is engaged in a pattern of aggression, territorialism, cyberwarfare, militarism, etc. As I pointed out in the post, whether you choose to call it war or not, the end result is the same. How does your friend explain these actions if, as he seems to suggest, China wants nothing more than to be our friends? These are not the actions of a friendly country!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-65783158445937329222013-05-10T22:35:27.412-07:002013-05-10T22:35:27.412-07:00Ran your article past a college friend of mine tha...Ran your article past a college friend of mine that is now a political scientist living in Hong Kong. Interesting response.<br />I thought you might find it insightful at least as regarding the average Chinese citizen.<br /><br />..I think this guys view is somewhat alarmist. While I appreciate and understand much of his recent military analysis, I think he is way off on historical context, and very one sided. <br /><br />When we had gone to war in Vietnam, we had gone to war with a traditional rival of China, and as such there was sufficient indifference to this war from the Chinese that Nixon was able to negotiate with Mao for normalization of relations while the war was still going on. China tried to invade Vietnam in '79 and the Vietnamese handed their ass to the Chinese.<br /><br />The Korean war, again, is completely misunderstood by this blogger. While China was involved in the conflict, the purpose of using Chinese "volunteers" in the conflict was an excuse for Mao to get rid of the standing KMT armies that had defected to the Communist side before '49 (or in many cases were simply left behind for lack of transportation). Mao did not trust the ex-KMT rank and file so he "volunteered" their services to the conflict for them to demonstrate their "loyalty" but in fact it was meant to be a way to get rid of forces that he felt did not meet the communist trust standard. This is why they used "human wave" tactics - Mao wanted his own forces dead. This is also in large part why the war went on as long as it did... for the Chinese POWs did not want to go back to China because most of them were ex-KMT, but Mao's government insisted they be repatriated... and so they negotiated this for a good 18-24 months after the rough lines of the DMZ were solidified by '52.<br /><br />The US, historically, is viewed very favorably in China. Not only did we support Mao and the KMT in fighting the Japanese, but we set up China's first international university (the Harvard of China - Beijing University) was a gift to the Chinese paid for reparations paid to the US from the Boxer rebellion - we were the only foreign power to return the reparations to China. Then during the treaty-port period, the US was the only major power never to have a treaty port because of the US's long standing anti-colonial policy. Again the US is viewed favorably about this.<br /><br />Finally, my relative, Sun Yat Sen, is commonly viewed amongst the communists now as the true father of modern China, that Mao is recognized as the founder of the party, but viewed with many qualifications... whilst Sun Yat Sen today is viewed openly as their George Washington. They all know he was an American, grew up in Hawaii, and financed his revolution primarily from funds raised in Hawaii and California from overseas Chinese. They know their greatest political hero has deep roots in the US, and much of his political philosophy was driven by American political ideology. His core philosophy, the three people's principles, follows closely the "of the people" concepts defined by Lincoln. Every person with basic education in China knows this.<br /><br />The real problem is people like this in the US. They talk about what they know, but in fact they only know one thing. If any of our politicians had any modicum of understanding of the US historical relationship with China, we would never go to war. The problem is the idiots in Washington don't know shit, and that is reflected in this guys historical analysis.<br /><br />Ok, see he tends to be , ah, not subtle in his opinions. But I just wanted to throw it in to the mix. I have to respect his opinion both because of who he is ( he is an American with family ties to China ) and the fact he lives in China with his finger on the pulse of the people. I don't agree with everything he says, or more accurately, as I heard a senior military leader once say, "I don't have the luxury of gauging their intentions, only their abilities."<br />William Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17549048449159256534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47348440008566058352013-05-10T21:53:00.811-07:002013-05-10T21:53:00.811-07:00Many of your points are very valid. It is a long s...Many of your points are very valid. It is a long standing strategic tradition in Chinese history and military theory to wage conflict by any means at hand.<br /><br />The Chinese do want their place back in the sun and that means the predominate place, restoration of the 'Middle Kingdom' concept.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10093222385452052073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68442869132719866872013-05-10T19:16:40.223-07:002013-05-10T19:16:40.223-07:00First of all, I'll let it go this time, but do...First of all, I'll let it go this time, but don't ever even hint that I am "anti-American" again. I was in service before you knew the difference between a sheet and a halyard, assuming you do now. Just don't. If you can't stick with issues without getting personal you don't belong here.<br /><br />Of course there are "military incidents" when the US sends it warplanes and warships into China's sphere of influence. Remember, the US has militarily occupied China on several occasions, and they remmeber those.<br /><br />China will "close the SCS"<br />Why would china close the SCS? Most of its sea traffic comes through there.<br /><br />China is building an amphibious force. So what? The US has a mighty amphibious force.<br /><br />"You ask why the US taxpayer should protect Chinese oil shipments? I don't know." -- Well, if you don't know, then why do you support the US Navy patrolling in the South China Sea? The US has no sea traffic there.<br /><br />You're concerned with Chinedse emigration as a threat, for some strange reason. Singapore, the home base of Freedom and three LCS's to come, is 3/4 Chinese. Are you concerned about that? The Freedom crew isn't. <br />Freedom on facebook:<br />A hidden treasure and a fun adventure! Chinatown in Singapore<br />https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/525376_10151550495972453_669954686_n.jpg<br /><br />etc.Don Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00444968656600936525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64495173467424095662013-05-10T17:56:47.298-07:002013-05-10T17:56:47.298-07:00Don, I hesitate to even begin a discussion with yo...Don, I hesitate to even begin a discussion with you because you clearly have either a pro-Chinese or anti-American bias so extreme that you're not thinking and writing logically. Nonetheless, I'll take a shot at it.<br /><br />The Chinese are engaged in a massive military buildup as documented in numerous sources. That they aren't spending as much as the US don't change the fact they are increasing the military buildup.<br /><br />You ask why the US taxpayer should protect Chinese oil shipments? I don't know. I never said they should. Am I missing your point?<br /><br />Chinese have been primary commercial movers - I have no idea what you're saying or what point you're trying to make. Want to try again?<br /><br />As far as acts of war, I defined what I meant by acts of war, all my examples met my definition, and, yes, there are thousands more examples by my definition. You can disagree with my definition. I have no problem with that but my statement stands within the parameters I laid out. Your implication that the US has committed acts of war makes for an interesting notion and, within a certain context, may even be valid. However, the contention is irrelevant as regards the post.<br /><br />Your example of a carrier group being illegal under the Korean armistice is both irrelevant to the post and completely unsubstantiated in the excerpt you cite. The excerpt calls for a cessation of hostilities and acts of armed force IN KOREA. A carrier group does not constitute an act of hostility or an act of armed force and it certainly does not do so IN KOREA or Korean territorial waters. Your bias is leading you to make unsubstantiated claims.<br /><br />Finally, would I want a Chinese carrier group in the Caribbean? Again, that's irrelevant to the post, however, as long as they're obeying the various laws of the sea I have no problem with that. They're fully entitled to sail anywhere in international waters.<br /><br />If you choose to reply and continue the discussion, please do so with logic and objectivity.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com