China Builds Artificial Islands In South China Sea 192
An anonymous reader writes about a Chinese building project designed to cement claims to a disputed region of the South China Sea. Sand, cement, wood, and steel are China's weapons of choice as it asserts its claim over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Brunei have sparred for decades over ownership of the 100 islands and reefs, which measure less than 1,300 acres in total but stretch across an area about the size of Iraq. In recent months, vessels belonging to the People's Republic have been spotted ferrying construction materials to build new islands in the sea. Pasi Abdulpata, a Filipino fishing contractor who in October was plying the waters near Parola Island in the northern Spratlys, says he came across "this huge Chinese ship sucking sand and rocks from one end of the ocean and blasting it to the other using a tube."
Artificial islands could help China anchor its claim to waters that host some of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The South China Sea may hold as much as 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. China has considered the Spratlys—which it calls Nansha—part of its territory since the 1940s and on occasion has used its military might to enforce its claim. In 1988 a Chinese naval attack at Johnson South Reef, in the northern portion of the archipelago, killed 64 Vietnamese border guards.
Artificial islands could help China anchor its claim to waters that host some of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The South China Sea may hold as much as 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. China has considered the Spratlys—which it calls Nansha—part of its territory since the 1940s and on occasion has used its military might to enforce its claim. In 1988 a Chinese naval attack at Johnson South Reef, in the northern portion of the archipelago, killed 64 Vietnamese border guards.
All wars ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are resource wars.
And start out rather like this.
Re:All wars ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the urdu (loaned from arabic) for "foreigner", generally "westerner?"
Okay so maybe their characterization was pretty awful but I don't see the beef with the name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All wars ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are resource wars.
Except the resources that China hopes to gain will never equal the cost, in defense spending and lost trade, of alienating her neighbors. In the modern world, all wars are dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
>> In the modern world, all wars are dumb
Unless they lop off chunks of the Ukraine. Or depopulate chunks of rival territory in Bosnia. Or expand tribal influence over oil-rich parts of Iraq. Or...
(Long story short, there are still some pretty evil dudes in "the modern world.")
This essay's also a good introduction to the role of trade in precipitating war (e.g., "lost trade" doesn't necessarily reduce chances of war):
http://www.ied.info/articles/a... [ied.info]
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about Vietnam is that it it's a small country that doesn't have a lot of allies(Laos and Thailand have had armed conflicts with Vietnam in the not so distant past, and of course the whole French/US thing). China may be betting on Vietnam basically being forced to deal with China, since China is the dominant economic force
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree.
China is vastly militarily superior to the immediate neighbors. They don't need to do any extra spending that they are not doing already.
China is such an integral manufacturer that no one substantial will be cancelling trade. They got a massive internal market as well.
So what is the downside to acquiring more territory right now? What is Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, or Brunei going to do about it? Beg the US for intervention? Considering how US relies so much on Chinese market: Good lu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the resources that China hopes to gain will never equal the cost, in defense spending and lost trade, of alienating her neighbors.
Unless of course they succeed in claiming the land (sea) and in 40-50 years it's just a footnote in a history book.
Re: (Score:2)
Are resource wars.
And start out rather like this.
You credit people with much more sense than they have. There are and have been many wars based on ideology and religion - in fact there is a religion whose stated aim is to fight all who do not convert or accept a status designed to "make them feel subdued"
Re: (Score:2)
Scientology?
Re: (Score:2)
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How about the Israeli-Arab wars? What's the resource, sand? Korean War? Last we heard, the Korean peninsula wasn't rich in anything, the North even worse off than the South. Vietnam? Yep, the U.S. lusted after their jungle. The current Syrian Civil War? The fighting appears to be over sand again. The Afghan Civil War that brought in the Taliban? No one knew what minerals were there until recently, and the Taliban had no use for them anyhow, all they need is Allah and the obliteration of human hope.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the Israeli-Arab wars?
Land and strategic position in the Middle East. If the "Arabs" had won, that would have meant territory for the countries neighboring on Israel and a stronger strategic position for the USSR in the largest oil bearing region in the world.
Last we heard, the Korean peninsula wasn't rich in anything
Except an economy currently sized over a trillion dollars.
The current Syrian Civil War?
Misuse of resources particularly agriculture. There's a lot of starving people out there.
The Afghan Civil War that brought in the Taliban?
The USSR wanted access to a warm water port and of course, those minerals that they supposedly didn't know about.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Some wars are about controlling geopolitically strategic territory... and they start out rather like this as well.
Most folks today don't remember the Cold War or Alfred Thayer Mahan's sea power theories, but you can bet the old men on the Politburo Standing Committee do.
Re:All wars ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly you're too young to remember the Cold War, a war of Ideology.
So...it was a war for human resources? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nonsense, proxy wars of the cold war in korea and viet nam were not about those
Re:All wars ... (Score:4, Informative)
They certainly were if you look at the bigger picture. The entire Cold War and the proxy wars during that period were all about power and who's ideology would reign supreme. The whole point of becoming a superpower is control of resources. Natural resources, human resources, financial resources, etc.
All wars are ultimately about resources. To the winner go the spoils.
Re: (Score:2)
you define everything as a resource. Instead we were talking about fossil fuel, oil and gas
Re: (Score:2)
oil and gas is in tapecutters post to which I replied
Re: (Score:2)
What does Poland has to do with the Cold War?! Do you mean the invasion of Poland by Germans that started the World War 2?
What does Ukraine have to do with the Cold War?
Ukraine ousted Russian-supportive leader, so Russia annexed part of Ukraine to have guaranteed control of the strategic ports in the Black Sea.
What have the West done about it: A few sanctions, but overall nothing substantial. Are they going to do anything about it?
EU: Gets 15% of their gas from Russia. They will do nothing to upset them ove
Re: (Score:2)
While London is getting the big fat money stolen by the Russian Oligarchs from their own government (and our subsidies, BTW). And the USA used the whole thing as a PR campaign to show off how macho they are... of course, nothing to loose and Obama knows his pal Vladimir won't mind a bit of bitching.
Now Ukraine has an agreement with the EU
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Cold War was a war to decide who gets to dominate the world. Which is basically just a fancy way of saying "control all of the world's resources".
Re: (Score:3)
People above appear to have forgotten this.
Perhaps because they come from the society that brought us the "war on"(TM) drugs, terrorism, obesity, aids, jesus, christmas, immigration, gays and a whole host of other things that are in no way at all wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Cold War is traditionally considered to include all the associated proxy conflicts - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and numerous civil wars in Africa and Latin America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Korean war was not a war?
Re: (Score:3)
It was a "Police action".
Maybe that's why police these days are riding around in armored vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only surmise that only people with limited understandings of history, politics, self-justification, etc... would consider major conflicts such as the Korean Police Action to not be a war. Obviously a country not officially declaring a war raises some issues with _itself_ regarding legality, funding, image, and so on, but the 1000 year view of the situation is the same -- lotsa people from conflicting sides fighting and killing each other in an armed struggle. That's a war. Perhaps some of these peo
Re: (Score:2)
The wars mentioned may or may not be wars - they certainly meet my definitions and I would call them that.
My point was that gaggling together a bunch of minor wars in different countries which started for different (vaguely related) reasons is not enough to make a war.
The "Cold War" was not a war. It was a period of hostility between super powers. That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of this mistake is rather awesome though: since my posts are about combining different wars together and treating them as a single war.
Regardless, I apologise to you the grandparent of this post.
The great grand parent of this post can kiss my as.
Re: (Score:3)
How much is the PRC paying you to write this crap?
Re: (Score:3)
Another very good reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, China does not have sufficent weapons to do that
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not - but in the event of nuclear war, Russia would immediately jump in on their side too.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt russia would do that. They know it would cause them to be targets. The problem is that mutually assured destruction is still a possibility and quite a few weapons systems design to evade first strikes still exist.
Re:Another very good reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the event of a nuclear war between US and China, Russia would fetch popcorn and watch the show. It would be an epic win on all counts - the major potential adversary with a large land border and a likelihood of future conventional conflict completely annihilated, and another major potential adversary significantly weakened and likely going isolationist for decades to come to lick its wounds. Meanwhile, Eastern Europe without US as a de facto guarantor of security would be having a real fun time dealing with Russia in such a new reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the warheads are of various yields, most would not take out entire county
Re: (Score:2)
now think about the USA raining down a thousand or two warheads on China.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that they are sufficient in power or independent targetabiliy to have that effect, but certainly they'd make for quite a bit mess. Russia would be a different story.
However, nuclear war is really not something that anybody can afford. The cost of one big conventional bomb in the middle of a US city would be astronomical. Things like skyscrapers are impressive feats of engineering, but they're certainly not designed with war in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The claims won't be processed at all. Artificial islands don't contribute to coastal waters / EEZ claims. Seriously, look it up.
From the sound of it, China is building new islands to place military outposts on in order to not violate a previous agreement that neither side would inhabit presently uninhabited islands.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is there is no alternative to oil.
None.
Nuclear may provide energy dense alternatives but you'd need to have been building plants 10 years ago. Coal is an option, but you will turn the sky grey.
Green technologies do not have the energy density needed. Simple napkin math can demonstrate this. There are no conspiracies; the world runs on oil because there are no alternatives available. A refusal to recognize the underlying thermodynamics and energy requirements in real world units, rather than fluf
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear may provide energy dense alternatives but you'd need to have been building plants 10 years ago.
And what portable energy do we use to run all that equipment to mine the uranium? Oh yeah, oil.
I doubt the demand for oil will ever go away entirely. Heck, you'll want it for plastics if nothing else. However, right now we burn it on an insane scale when nuclear is a viable alternative for much of it. As was pointed out, it will take a while to switch over even if we started today, but we're not starting at all. And that isn't even talking about global warming.
Mining equipment could be powered electrically, but if we're switched over to an economy where power consumption is 95% nuclear and 5% oil
Re: (Score:2)
the first steps should include restricting births across the planet
People voluntarily restrict their reproduction when they are wealthy. The developed world demonstrates this readily.
stop building crap houses that last less than 50 years before major repairs
And why should a house last more than 50 years? It's not that much in the way of resources to build a new house every 50 years or merely repair the old one every so often.
shutting down the social model of "work -car - suburb -career" when we already live in a world of automation.
Note this is really a US-centric viewpoint. This social model works great in the US. But if you look at what is proposed you see three things happening. First, end of th
Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
Like that guy who built his house on public property [wave3.com], these islands will just be removed if they aren't part of China. That's kind of sociopathic [wikipedia.org] of them to pull that kind of a stunt unless the dispute is resolved, cooperatively.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose removing an island, and to where?
Re: (Score:2)
How does Bikini Atoll show how to remove an island? It's still there. It may show you how to *evacuate* an island and make it uninhabitable, but that's not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of hack-together artificial islands, though, you can often just remove a few of the structural bits that are protecting the sand from erosion and then let the ocean eat it over the next few years. Less dramatic, certainly; but unless they really went no-expense-spared on building the island in the first place, they probably cheaped out by using as much 'failed isla
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of sociopathic [wikipedia.org] of them to pull that kind of a stunt unless the dispute is resolved, cooperatively.
All sufficiently large organizations tend toward sociopathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Microcosm/Macrocosm... you think the home owner didn't know? haha he was trying to annex extra land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The owner must have known because in order to build they have to survey first and the surveyor would mark the property lines. They are making the guy move or demo his house because he knew and was trying to force a redraw of the property lines, thinking it would go unnoticed. It's also possible the surveyor made a mistake but less likely. I know a lot of people like this, who would try and get more land if they thought they could get away with it. It's kind of the way things are especially with 1%ers.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
In most places in the US, if a building ends up being across a property line for a number of years unaposed, that amount of property becomes a deeded right of way. It used to change ownership and might still do so in some areas via squatters rights.
These rules came abouy from problems with surveys, incorectly recorded deed maps, and the lack of zoning over history. It could come about from something like a house or out building being built on or close to the property line. It gets added on and not recorded, sold and the new owner sees they have 20 feet to the property line on the east side of the building not realizing the previous owner already used 15 feeet up. So the new owner adds on another 15 feet and not its ten foot over. Now lets say 20 years pass and the neighboring property is passed to an heir. They cannot make you tear down the building now.
It isn't much of an issue now because zoning requires set backs and building permits and this is checked with plotting maps made from deed data. But at aone time, you could survey your property and find the survey pin was moved our something and someone's barn or house was on your property.
Drugs might have been involved (Score:3)
According to Mail Online [dailymail.co.uk]
I can picture this now. "Yeah dude, we like... totally surveyed the place. It's all good. You can start digging tomorrow."
Re: (Score:3)
Neighbors have gone to war over the location of a fence. What happens is that a building company does two things; apply for planning permission and apply for change of registered land ownership. Sometimes they do one, and the paperwork fails to complete for the other. So the builder constructs a row of terraced homes and say, "Oh, by the way, a bit of your garden is owned by the residents on the other side of the fence, but they don't mind, so there really isn't anything to worry about".
Then the ownership o
The hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Occupation (Score:2, Insightful)
The islands belong to whoever lives there and manages to chase others away. If China successfully put troops and guns on them, then the islands are theirs, end of story.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, nonsense. look at a map.
Re:Occupation - Invasion (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit.
China is in complete violation [gmanetwork.com] of international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [un.org] which China itself signed [inquirer.net] and had agreed [huffingtonpost.com] to [philstar.com] and ">ratified in 1996 [slashdot.org].
China has been building structures, hunting and mass poaching endangered species and destroying coral reefs within [inquirer.net] the maritime exclusive economic zones of The Philippines and Vietnam (200 nautical miles or 370km from the coastline of those countries) [wikipedia.org] while at the same time, forming naval blockades and harassing fishermen from Vietnam and the Philippines in their own waters [inquirer.net]. Recently a Chinese fishing vessel was caught with the poaching and mass slaughter of over 500 endangered and protected sea turtles within Philippine waters [globalnews.ca]. Pics of the slaughter [mongabay.com].
This article is a must-read on the behavior of the 800lb gorilla China and its bullying tactics: China's Pre-Imperial Overstretch [huffingtonpost.com] and follow-up article: China and the Mosquitoes [huffingtonpost.com].
Another must read is the NY Times article A Game of Shark And Minnow [nytimes.com] about the ragtag crew of Philippine marines stationed on a grounded derelict ship in the area as an outpost. That NY Times article has a very good diagram on the 200NM exclusive economic zones and China's ridiculous "nine-dash line" tongue-shaped delineation which claims the entirety of the area hundreds of miles away from their nearest legal territory, Hainan Island. The basis of China's 9-dash line claims? Fabricated bullshit. Pre-19th century maps [worldaffairsjournal.org]show this [rappler.com]. Even China's own historical maps contradict their absurd claims [scmp.com]. Bullying, intimidation, violation, invasion and annexation of territories of smaller, weaker states. It's that simple. See also: Tibet [historytoday.com].
Re: (Score:2)
China is in complete violation [gmanetwork.com] of international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [un.org] which China itself signed [inquirer.net] and had agreed [huffingtonpost.com] to [philstar.com] and ">ratified in 1996 [slashdot.org].
That's nice and all, but unless somebody actually does something about it, all those laws don't matter a hill of beans.
Russia is being embargoed half-heartedly by half the world and I'd be shocked if they ever gave up Crimea. Nobody cares enough about some artificial islands to go to war over them, and next thing you know they'll be setting up oil rigs. Unless everybody agrees to sanction China in a way that costs more than all that oil is worth, China will get what it wants. The problem is that sanction
Re:The hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
If China's economy does not keep on expanding you are looking at a potential financial crisis that would make the whole Lehman thing seem tame by comparison. The reason they are getting so bold is because to the CCP, exploiting these resources may literally be a life-or-death situation, as most dictators don't tend to just end up retired in a villa somewhere, they end up with their heads being separated from their necks.
Re:The hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to 7% support rate of US congress
Support rate is well over 50% of the people who vote. Those congresscritters don't get reelected on only 7% of the populace. I'd say it's more like a third. But of course, all the other congresscritters suck. That's the nature of the game.
Re: (Score:2)
To use a recent example, 6.6% of the voting-age populace voted for Dave Brat in Virginia's 7th district primary (only 12% of the voting age populace voted at all).
That's a primary for a private political group, not an election. Brat still has to survive the general election in order to become a congressman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that feat is rather impressive for both Japan and China. I wouldn't discount it just because you think it could be done a little faster. For example, Japan went from another primitive backwater to a world power in about 60-80 years. It took the US about 120 years from its inception to do the same and they had the advantage of trade and far more resources.
In comparison, China in 1980 w
Re: (Score:2)
> The island was kept as a non-issue until the Japan nationalised it from so called private owners.
No, the island was an issue well before then. Chinese politicians were raising the issue, and Chinese (and Taiwanese) boats were landing on the island before it was "nationalized" (essentially re-nationalized because it was owned by the Japanese government and then leased. The "nationalization" was the cancellation of the lease).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OF COURSE China has people paid to troll slashdot. in the cyber-age, I suppose that's a compliment.
Trend (Score:3)
Jeez, even islands are "Made in China"
NOT seriously disputed (Score:2)
China's claim is absurd; no one else in the world considers these islands disputed. No amount of dredging is going to change that.
"We'll build our own island!" (Score:2)
"With blackjack! And hookers!"
Further Developments: (Score:2)
After anchoring its right to the South China Sea with islands constructed from Chinese materials, China has begun investigating the use of other purely Chinese items in the rest of the world.
As such, China is announcing an air defense identification zone surrounding all zoos containing giant pandas. In particular, all aircraft entering or departing the airspace in the 5 miles surrounding the Smithsonian National Zoological Park in Washington D.C. will now have to file a flight plan with China's Ministry of
Re: (Score:2)
take over the US with 1 soviet russia aircraft car (Score:2)
China has lot's of old soviet stuff.
auto-Goodwin'd! (Score:2)
So all of South America belongs to America, right? (Score:3)
Or, perhaps, do you want to rethink your silly stance on "naming makes it so"?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to weigh in on the south china sea thing. But we have been the
"United States OF America" since we were founded.
---
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary...
---
And...
---
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfar
China isn't called China either (Score:3)
The proper name is "Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo" or People's Republic of China in English. Of course then there's also "Zhonghu Minguo" aka The Republic of China aka Taiwan.
Then there's the fact that not everyone calls it the "South China Sea". Vietnam calls it "Bien Dong" aka East Sea. In fact China calls it "Nan Hai" meaning South Sea.
My point being simply that a name doesn't imply ownership under any reasonable standard. The USA is widely just called "America" but that doesn't mean that it owns the America
Re: (Score:2)
So my plan to rename myself "Owner of all Money" isn't going to work?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking "troll" but you might be right
Re: (Score:2)
Education?
Actually, education is part of the problem here. For generations, Chinese kids have never seen the maps that we use. World maps in Chinese schools have always included most of the region as part of China, even including several countries.
So it will be really hard to convince them that the world is different from the world view that they've been brought up with.
Europe and America also use different maps (traditional Europe at the center vs America at the center), but that doesn't appear to lead to major conf
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, it's not really sarcasm. Pretending to be stupid and confused while not making a point doesn't serve any purpose other than maybe as a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now what I wrote sounds extreme.
10 years from now you will all then understand I saw the future you did not yet see, and you will call me prescient and wish those in power had done what I suggested.
^^ Proof that belief in a deity does not confer any kind of morality.
Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. (Score:4, Funny)
That's how Godzilla was born, I hope you know.