"China Pondering Declaring An ADIZ Over The South China Sea " Topic

"A Chinese state institution warned this week that Beijing is ready to set up an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the contested South China Sea, giving it the authority to screen foreign aircraft. But analysts say any enforcement would anger other countries without deterring traffic.

That measure would follow a series of steps to control the movement of foreign ships in the same sea, underlining China's intent to hold its vast maritime claims after a world court tribunal ruled in July that it lacked a legal argument.

China calls 95 percent of the sea its own and its militarization of tiny islets since 2010 has angered officials from Jakarta to Washington. Beijing reportedly toyed with the idea of an ADIZ in July after the court verdict…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Is it really an ADIZ if everyone ignores it?

It would be when you hear the fist shoot… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I question the wisdom of this move considering that the new prez-elect has :

1. Used anti-China rhetoric effectively in his presidential campaign, calling for a 40 percent tariff on Chinese goods;

2. Recently appointed two ex-generals to high advisory and cabinet positions, and;

3. Had a friendly little chit-chat yesterday over the phone with Tsai Ing-wen, the pro-independent president of Taiwan, as if he's talking to the head-of-state of an internationally recognized nation.

Much is questioned about military usefulness of these new islands.

These 2 pictures reveal interesting facts about the islands' military usefulness and survivability.

1. Combat range of Chinese Flanker derivatives operating from Mischief Reef

2. The actual size of some of these islands

Clearly not as easily destroyed as some have implied.

These things have ample room for defensive measures and can clearly host large warships and lots of fighter planes.

They're also capable of housing their big, long-range bombers as well, since large hangars are being built for those also.

Given all the missiles (SAM and SSMs), radars, and other weapons (AA guns, and hardened aircraft shelters for their fighters and bombers) they're installing on them (which they previously denied they'd ever do), they will be a major threat to any vessels and/or aircraft transiting through the region.

Supposedly too, they're installing sophisticated radars and other sensors, which, even if they can't track our stealth aircraft to the degree needed to attack them successfully, they can at least determine what region(s) they are present, and operating in, which might then permit them to be engaged by Chinese aircraft.

Reasonably balanced debate from 2013 on China's SCS strategy…really their strategic situation overall: ( youtu.be/we-WWt_z7Yc )

And I've posted this article below before: ( link ) 80% of SCS shipping goes to or comes from China. Duterte is pushing the Philippines into China's orbit. South Korea and Japan can both route around the SCS by going south around Indonesia if necessary. Pretty much only Vietnam's shipping is at risk. I'm accelerating the frequency of my trips to Vietnam. Great place, great people….still don't see the incentive for the US to engage in a pissing contest with the Chinese over this, other than pure hubris on our part.

Rerouting shipping increases cost to business and thus bad for economy.

And just bypassing the SCS cedes the whole sea to the PRC. It justifies the Chinese claim. Not a good look and it just makes China's claims stronger in other areas like Senkakus

The Chinese are essentially making their own Guams and Diego Garcias.

Yep.

Japan should put troops, radar, and missile batteries on the Senkakus if they want to keep them, since otherwise China may beat them to the punch.

China's set the precedent, so they need to learn to deal with a bed of their own making.

As soon as the Chinese declare an ADIZ, the US will fly a flight of B52s through it.

Just like the last time they tried this crap.

I saw a news story about 10 days ago that showed 43 of these islands. Does anyone know if that is correct?