Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
You can claim a platform. Oil field rights are bought and sold on land. It is something that can be owned.
The distinction between "sea floor" and "land mass" is debatable. Most maps show show the borders of the Netherlands with reclaimed sea floor included. Attacking the Dutch sea floor would get a violent NATO response. Long island does not become international territory during big hurricanes. Kansas was sea floor at one time.
No, the definition isn't really debateable under UNCLOS, which is the current governing treaty. It is very clearly delineated what a shoreline is and that countries can claim en exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles from the shore baseline. Putting up an oil platform doesn't in any way move these borders, they are simply a use of previously mentioned Economic Exclusion Zone. The squabble is over something entirely different.
The definition isn't really debatable, it is clearly delineated within that treaty, read up on it before you make absurd obvious statements that somehow "prove" your case that the definition is unclear, because according to international law that part is very clear.
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
O.K. I'll try to extract/translate some legalese.
It may be clear that a state needs to officially recognize something and put it in official charts. But if the map maker is hired by the king and the king wants some funk on the map then you get an funky official recognized chart.the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State
I read that as yes, "build some crap that does not sink and then your baseline moves"....unless lighthouses or similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them...
That might as well be translated to "the lines on the map are debatable anytime the debate is worth having". Jamaica clearly does not have any reasonable claim on economic interests in the south china sea under the UNCLOS treaty. Jamaican business interests would need to get an invitation from one of the squabbling nations before pillaging mineral resources in the Spratly Islands.Where the method of straight baselines is applicable under paragraph 1, account may be taken, in determining particular baselines, of economic interests peculiar to the region concerned, the reality and the importance of which are clearly evidenced by long usage.
I spent part of my childhood living in a state called "Indiana" in the northern United States. It got the name "Indiana" because of treaties that guaranteed Indians all claims and rights to that land. I am not an Indian and have no personal affiliation with any tribes. That makes me doubt the value of putting too much weight on documents like UNCLOS.
Now for the full quote: "Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State."
The Convention provides for means of raising complaints against such "funkiness" and there is an instance which adjudicates such complaints. Plus the coastal baseline isn't really the problem here, it's not really possible to do something whacky with it and not have it be obviously whacky, you might manage to move the baseline a nautical mile or so maybe, but in the grand scheme of things that's not terribly significant.
While technically true see previous comment, you won't get away with anything crazy as there'll always be some other nation around to raise objections if you try.
Not really, it's more related to stuff like the dardanelles straits, Gulf of Finland, Kattegat/Öresund strait, which might otherwise leave a nation essentially landlocked despite a functioning harbour etc
As usual the one with the bigger stick usually wins in the end, China has a pretty big stick but Japan has a bigger one called The United States. So they'll keep squabbling even after the ISA(International Seabed Authority(the previously mentioned authority who handles complaints and such)) renders a decision, eventually it might or might not break down into WWIII.
Everything is pretty clearly delineated but of course as within any international treaty there is room for squabbling over the details :P
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
This is predictably how well putting some funk on a map" works
Whoever seriously believes the US will stop because China says "hey bro, you can't do that" please raise a hand :P
I predict the US response will be "oh really? watch me bro, meep meep", again and again and again and again :P
Last edited by Elldallan; 27-10-2015 at 18:56.
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Doesn't really look anything like a lighthouse or similar installation no. Nor the military airstrip etc that they built afterwards, it's an airstrip. An installation yes, but not similar to a lighthouse.
But a formal complaint has been raised by the Philippines, so a ruling by the ISA will eventually be forthcoming, of course that won't stop the tensions but it'll lend credence to one side and make the other "criminal"(not that that ever stopped anybody) under international law if they keep occupying it.
As long as the US is allied to these nations status quo will be maintained, the problem probably arises if the US significantly scales back it's military presence/commitment in the area, then there'll be opportunities for China to make use of that vacuum. But as long as the US keep giving China the finger things'll prolly stay the way they are.
Last edited by Elldallan; 28-10-2015 at 08:15.
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
yeah it is about hegemon status in the end ;)
I'm not so sure that the Chinese will go as far as to wait for it. You may want to see the theories of John Maersheimer. Granted he's very much a hawk and he himself admits that he's likely to be wrong. If you put the Chinese in comparison with Japanese modern history, things like Shimensu Jiken and Xi Jiping's anti-corruption campaign it becomes all the more plausible imhoOriginally Posted by Suntzu
btw I did mention Ieyasu, but I get your point ;)
It is, but that's been territorially part of the Ryukyu (unless you're a Chinese or Japanese of course and want to dispute that ;) ), and that's also the reason why the Chinese emperor had claim on that kingdom, because they discovered them in the 12th century. Wiki is actually not very detailed about this. Though in all truth I mentioned the Ryukyu, but there were several predecessors prior to the 15th century. So for simplicity sake I left out the the 1, 2 ,3 here. ;)
That's the stupidity of this whole thing as a Chinese, one cannot lay claim on it, if one does not recognise the existence of the predecessors, which like the Japanese they probably wouldn't. ;) That has everything to do with 19th century nation building strategies, which comes with things like assimilation, foundation myths destruction/fabrication and linguicide. ;)
Interestingly enough there's also a European nationstate that could lay claim on it for similar reasons as the Chinese (simply for having discovered it) but never did. Though in truth they probably learned about it from Chinese traders. This nationstate did however lay claim on the northern part of the island of Formosa (though in truth it was a bunch of pirates). And it's not the Portuguese I am talking about. ;) But heck this piece of information is so incredibly obscure, that most people in that European country don't even know about the voyages to the Pescadores.
Speaking about Northern Formosa. There's actually a peculiar thing about Northern Formosan languages. And it's that what's used in a language theory about a possible bridge between Austronesian languages and Japonic languages. Where the first is a substratum of the latter isolate. Again granted Korean link is much more plausible. However keep in mind that the Japanese were known to have traded with the Thai and they most likely learned about them via Ryukyuan traders. If the Ryukyuan knew about them, how did they? And why are the Ryukyuans in Ryukyu, before there was a Ryukyu kingdom to speak of? That doesn't really make sense, if you think the Japanese 19th century incorporation strategies of Ryukyu are true. ;)
Last edited by freemehul; 25-11-2015 at 11:20.
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
exactly how do you suppose the U.S. will protect its allies in the pacific in the future?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9kPMROh48M
https://youtu.be/IudSJE-TLxk?t=20m47s
air supremacy has thallasocratic tendencies.
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
Embarrassing for the US Air Force for sure but I fail to see the relevance. UAV's are mainly used in an infantry support role, particularly in less developed countries, it's a good alternative because they can loiter in the air for a long long time and support troops when and where needed. But against any adversary with more than WWII era tech they're going to be woefully ineffective because they're too easy to jam or to just outright shoot down. neither the F-22 nor the F-35 is unmanned, nor is the B-2 or a whole slew of other platforms.
Against China, Russia or any other nation-state adversary a conflict is going to look very much different, at least in an initial stage, after one side has achieved air superioity the conflict might devolve into something similar to what we're seeing nowadays.
I'll admit I'm not very familiar with the term, I've heard it mentioned in the context of ancient Greece and it translates roughly into 'to rule the sea'. So I'm not exactly sure what you want to imply by that statement :(
Furthermore, linking a commercial "documentary" "comparing" 70 years of fighter aircraft? what do you want to achieve here? I've seen that documentary before and it's fun watching but it's hardly a particularly deep diving documentary that strives for any sort of relevancy in anything serious.
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
they are now, but military technology advances, its like early flight in WW1 initially only had a scouting or espionage role, only now we have bombers and fighter planes
I was actually pointing to a particular part in the commercial documentary. Couldn't really find a better one where it was mentioned that then advanced soviet planes were used by non-soviet states in a war that basically ended up in a stalemate. And that's only a few years after a weakened China came out of a civil war, with its economy that much smaller than it is today.
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
Yes indeed, and that shift will most likely happen. But for those types of missions there isn't really any justifiable gain(the one you do gain is the ability for higher G-forces) in moving the cockpit from the aircraft to a separate location, that shift will happen when you can do away with the cockpit altogether and still have an aircraft that can make autonomous decisions, which is quite scary in and of itself.
You're referring to the Mig-15 then I'd presume? Which wasn't a Chinese aircraft, it was a Soviet Union(Russian) one, which at the time didn't significantly lag behind the US or anybody else. But yes, the comfort zone in capabilities between American and Chinese aircraft will no doubt shrink in the coming decade or two. Especially considering that the new F-35 is a bastard of an aircraft that doesn't really excel at anything.
There are actually several quite interesting articles that do paint a pretty bleak picture for a conflict with China near Chinese territory, at least for very specific scenarios.
http://warisboring.com/articles/stop...u-s-air-power/
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/article...air-war-china/
http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/china...ide-would-win/
The summary seems to be that any conflict resulting in a US victory would have to be drawn out where the US could take advantage in it's technological/stealth advantage, go in, shoot missiles at close to maximum range where Chinese fighters would have trouble detecting them, then retreating to refuel, rearm, and repeat. A closer fight than that would either need a massive focus from the US(2/3rds of the US fighter fleet) or would end in disaster because the F-35 can't outfight anything in a dogfight.
Lockheed-Martin of course disputes this with lots of complaints and I guess we'll see if it changes significantly when the F-35 have been in full service for a while, but for now it comes off as more than a bit of a turkey.
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
"US victory would have to be drawn out where the US could take advantage in it's technological/stealth advantage, go in, shoot missiles at close to maximum range where Chinese fighters would have trouble detecting them, then retreating to refuel, rearm, and repeat. "
let me quote the critical factor
"... then retreating to refuel, rearm, and repeat"
That itself is a fail point in any long drawn out fight especially so when the opponent actually has an airforce and anti-air missiles unlike the middle east. (that and the F35 does not have enough fuel capacity to fly directly from Okinawa and fly back)
Last edited by RedPanda; 09-12-2015 at 23:14.
A outerworld vagabond Elf traveling this world.
From the world of Thardferr, herald of the Eldar Elven Kingdoms
Elven Roles sense Age 63: Sage, Mystic, Rogue, Tactician, Cleric, Merchant, Heretic, War Hero, Warrior, Paladin, Undead, Artisan, Raider
actually you don't need have it make autonomous decisions, remote controll and camera is enough. Of course it leads to a new weakness, about jamming the signal, counter measures and potential mass scale cyberwarfare. But against 1.3 billion people you're not going to win that (now there's a scary thought). Though I do see some form of limited autonomy be developed in the near future. The real problem they have now as I understand is not so much the algorithms, like way-finding and target finding, but landing the plane. Anyhow I think its only a matter of time before the scientists figure that one out.
Strategically though, the real problem is not the numbers, its the heaven and earth, or in this case earth. Where earth means geography. China simply has the advantage of distance, i.e. it being in the region. This is why China has less aircraft carriers than the U.S., because it doesn't need it.
In any long drawn out strategic conflict, higher entropy (e.g. less mass more speed = less numbers when marching divided = greater numbers when fighting concentrated) usually wins. I think I'm actually quoting John Boyd (who helped in the development of the F16) in some form here, though I'm not sure. This is why the U.S. had such a hard time fighting soviet airplanes like migs, because these were so manouverable (though granted crap in pretty much every other aspect, especially electronics). Though somehow I wouldn't count on the Chinese having the same problem here as the Russians had. Take a look at the world wide computer manufacturing stats for instance.
Last edited by freemehul; 11-12-2015 at 22:51.
Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)