MANILA: China to Philippines: Quit Scarborough Shoal

Cev wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, a reasonable opinion, but irrelevant.
This article mentions Russia's dependence on China for its economic growth. It makes no mention of Russia's stance on the SCS issue. If you backread, Russia has already verbally supported the Philippines' stance in the issue.
Also not mentioned here is China's dependence on Russia's oil. 70% of China's consumption comes from Russian pipelines.
If this article tells us anything, it is that a prolonged SCS dispute will be favorable for Russia. China will buy more Russian boats, and Russia can keep on selling large volumes of oil to China.
This being so, the fact that the Philippines is the rightful owner of Scarborough Shoal still stands.

stop with the "Philippines is the rightful owner of Scarborough Shoal" you dont have to say it over and over...

I am not some low IQ retard who forgets what you have posted 2 hours later

im well aware of your position when it comes to the Shoal...

btw

yes it is in the best interest of the Russians to support the Filipinos... as they dont want the Chinese to get alternate oil supplies...

but then the Russians will no doubt support the Chinese in a war...
on the simple fact they cant lose a powerful ally and client in China...

and most importunately if the war were to escalate, they cant assume missiles (be it conventional or nuclear) launched at China will only be landing on Chinese soil

problem with you Filipinos is you underestimate the Chinese pension for war when it comes to its border disputes...

as you bang your war drums... and get your Sandata ready... to go against a cruise missile...

bottom line... the USA knows most of that oil...in the Shoal would be destined for China one way or another...

they will not risk a war... for the Philippines... you have nothing to offer except for young starving women

This Week at War: An Arms Race America Can’t Win

The United States has no chance in ship-for-ship showdown with China. Luckily, it shouldn't have to have one.

BY ROBERT HADDICK | JUNE 8, 2012

In a speech delivered on June 2 to the Shangri-La Security Dialogue conference in Singapore, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta attempted to convince his audience that America's "rebalancing" strategy to the Asia-Pacific region -- previous called a "pivot" -- is serious and will be backed by expanded military power. Panetta announced that by 2020, 60 percent of the U.S. Navy will be positioned in the Pacific. He also openly discussed the controversial Air-Sea Battle concept, while denying that the reinforcements and new plans are a challenge to China. He also promised to step up the presence of U.S. military forces in the region, both through new basing arrangements and by an expanded list of training exercises with partner military forces.

Panetta likely hoped his remarks would bolster the credibility of the administration's strategy. On closer examination, there is less to Panetta's Pacific naval buildup than meets the eye. The U.S. Navy's intelligence office, by contrast, expects China's naval expansion this decade to be more substantial, especially when it comes to its submarine force. The reinforcements that Panetta discussed and new ideas like the Air-Sea Battle concept are necessary but insufficient responses to the worsening military trends in the region. The United States should not expect to win an arms race in the Western Pacific. Instead, it will have to find other more enduring advantages if it hopes to craft a sustainable strategy for the region.

Panetta's promise to base 60 percent of the U.S. fleet in the Pacific was not news -- Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced this intention in a speech back in March. Panetta's assertion that there is currently a "50/50 percent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic" is also not quite right. According to the department's website, of the Navy's 186 major conventional warships (aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, amphibious ships, and attack and cruise missile submarines), 101, or 54 percent, current have home ports on the Pacific Ocean. The Navy's latest 30-year shipbuilding plan forecasts 181 of these major combat ships in the fleet in 2020. A 60 percent allocation implies 109 major combatants in the Pacific in 2020, an increase of eight such ships from today.

On the other hand, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) forecasts that China's navy will own 106 major warships in 2020, up from 86 in 2009. Seventy-two of these are expected to be attack submarines, compared to 29 for the United States in the Pacific in 2020, under the 60 percent allocation assumption. For the two decades beyond 2020, the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding plan projects no increase in the number of major warships. China's long-range shipbuilding plans are unknown; however, its defense budget has increased at an 11.8 percent compound annual rate, after inflation, between 2000 and 2012, with no indications of any changes to that trend.

Of course, counting ships does not tell the whole story. Even more critical are the missions assigned to these ships and the conditions under which they will fight. In a hypothetical conflict between the United States and China for control of the South and East China Seas, the continental power would enjoy substantial structural advantages over U.S. forces.

China, for instance, would be able to use its land-based air power, located at many dispersed and hardened bases, against naval targets. The ONI forecasts China's inventory of maritime strike aircraft rising from 145 in 2009 to 348 by 2020.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06 ...

For all Russia and China's alliedness, the $1 trillion Siberian gas contract threatens to "disappear like vapor," acc. to Asia Times Online:

Getting back to the shoal, Peter Lee, also of Asia Times, says:

"What's the standoff between China and the Philippines over an atoll in the South China Sea all about? Is it a matter of seafood and sovereignty ... or gas fields and gambling?

This unproductive sound and fury - with the unnerving possibility that a regional conflict might break out over a coral atoll filled with giant clams - would seem to strengthen the case that bilateral negotiation of these contentious issues is a dead end, and a multilateral dogpile under the aegis of ASEAN and the United Nations is needed."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NE19Ad03.h...

Many Filipinos perceive China today as a giant nation that disregards the rights of its poorer neighbors

China are simply modern age Pirates masquerading as a nation out to take the natural resources of a poorer nation

China should be kick out of the United Nation.

China's claim is bogus.

Conclusion from discussions remains unchanged: THE PHILIPPINES IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF SCARBOROUGH SHOAL.

U BEGGARS WITH BIGMOUTHS wrote:

<quoted text>
stop with the "Philippines is the rightful owner of Scarborough Shoal" you dont have to say it over and over...
I am not some low IQ retard who forgets what you have posted 2 hours later
im well aware of your position when it comes to the Shoal...
btw
yes it is in the best interest of the Russians to support the Filipinos... as they dont want the Chinese to get alternate oil supplies...
but then the Russians will no doubt support the Chinese in a war...
on the simple fact they cant lose a powerful ally and client in China...
and most importunately if the war were to escalate, they cant assume missiles (be it conventional or nuclear) launched at China will only be landing on Chinese soil
problem with you Filipinos is you underestimate the Chinese pension for war when it comes to its border disputes...
as you bang your war drums... and get your Sandata ready... to go against a cruise missile...
bottom line... the USA knows most of that oil...in the Shoal would be destined for China one way or another...
they will not risk a war... for the Philippines... you have nothing to offer except for young starving women

Contradictory to what is happening right now. If your opinion is the reality of the current situation, the US would not be openly and blatantly offering full support and assistance to the Philippines.

They would not even declare that they will send 60% of their fleet to the Asia Pacific.

Even Russia did not give any such statements of a defensive alliance with China. The news article or opinion you posted a while back only says that Russia will gain from the sale of ships to China.

I respect your opinion but your opinion is baseless and without grounds. They only come from your personal sentiments.

Read the news, the US supports the Philippines. Russia supports the Philippines.

I cannot fathom why you Chinese cannot accept such a simple and obvious fact. All I can think of is you people are still in denial of the truth.

china pretending to know other countries' history when it has erased its own lol!

U BEGGARS WITH BIGMOUTHS wrote:

This Week at War: An Arms Race America Can’t Win
The United States has no chance in ship-for-ship showdown with China. Luckily, it shouldn't have to have one.
BY ROBERT HADDICK | JUNE 8, 2012
In a speech delivered on June 2 to the Shangri-La Security Dialogue conference in Singapore, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta attempted to convince his audience that America's "rebalancing" strategy to the Asia-Pacific region -- previous called a "pivot" -- is serious and will be backed by expanded military power. Panetta announced that by 2020, 60 percent of the U.S. Navy will be positioned in the Pacific. He also openly discussed the controversial Air-Sea Battle concept, while denying that the reinforcements and new plans are a challenge to China. He also promised to step up the presence of U.S. military forces in the region, both through new basing arrangements and by an expanded list of training exercises with partner military forces.
Panetta likely hoped his remarks would bolster the credibility of the administration's strategy. On closer examination, there is less to Panetta's Pacific naval buildup than meets the eye. The U.S. Navy's intelligence office, by contrast, expects China's naval expansion this decade to be more substantial, especially when it comes to its submarine force. The reinforcements that Panetta discussed and new ideas like the Air-Sea Battle concept are necessary but insufficient responses to the worsening military trends in the region. The United States should not expect to win an arms race in the Western Pacific. Instead, it will have to find other more enduring advantages if it hopes to craft a sustainable strategy for the region.

Lol. You do understand you simply posted a person's opinion? One that does not even properly explain the situation before making a decision?

Nevertheless, I find you post moving further and further away from the main topic at hand.

Tell me, how does this help in justifying China's claim over Scarborough Shoal?

It doesn't right?

So, fact is, based on all the evidences presented here in this forum: THE PHILIPPINES IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF SCARBOROUGH SHOAL.

U BEGGARS WITH BIGMOUTHS wrote:

<quoted text>
stop with the "Philippines is the rightful owner of Scarborough Shoal" you dont have to say it over and over...
I am not some low IQ retard who forgets what you have posted 2 hours later

We'll say it over and over again "Conclusion from discussions remains unchanged: THE PHILIPPINES IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF SCARBOROUGH
SHOAL " until YOU(Chinese) stop claiming our territory.

China is a shameless land grabber.

“La Relación del suceso de la venida del tirano chino del gobernador Guido de Lavezares 1575 Épica española en Asia en el siglo XVI" - states it well - as well as a recognition by a Ming Dynasty emisary of the Philippines then known as Las Islas Filipinas; as 'Beyond China's realm' and they also exchanged maps and bounderies, which showed China had no claims south of islands of the Formosa (taiwan channel) hence - end of arguement!

You should see Philippine A corrupted Democracy (a US puppet) didn't bring prosperity to its people as 90% Underemployed/underemployed and US corporations plundered it raw re resources... and this year USA gonna retake/reuse Filipino Luzon 'Military base.

Seer wrote:

<quoted text>
We'll say it over and over again "Conclusion from discussions remains unchanged: THE PHILIPPINES IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF SCARBOROUGH
SHOAL " until YOU(Chinese) stop claiming our territory.
China is a shameless land grabber.
“La Relación del suceso de la venida del tirano chino del gobernador Guido de Lavezares 1575 Épica española en Asia en el siglo XVI" - states it well - as well as a recognition by a Ming Dynasty emisary of the Philippines then known as Las Islas Filipinas; as 'Beyond China's realm' and they also exchanged maps and bounderies, which showed China had no claims south of islands of the Formosa (taiwan channel) hence - end of arguement!

Seer, i find your post very interesting. Can you elaborate and post a link if any with regards to this diplomatic exchange between Spain and China? I believe this is a very important piece of evidence that should not just be buried in the suceeding posts.

This can be a powerful evidence to reinforce the already strong Philippine evidences of ownership of Scarborough Shoal.

I love the silence of a DEFEATED China. :)

Cev wrote:

I love the silence of a DEFEATED China.:)

Maybe they ran out of insults.

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe they ran out of insults.

I think they are just not smart enough to have a conversation with us.

I noticed the chinese posters keep avoiding to answer the more technical questions on the issue and tries to change the topic.

Seer wrote:

Many Filipinos perceive China today as a giant nation that disregards the rights of its poorer neighbors
China are simply modern age Pirates masquerading as a nation out to take the natural resources of a poorer nation
China should be kick out of the United Nation.
China's claim is bogus.
Conclusion from discussions remains unchanged: THE PHILIPPINES IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF SCARBOROUGH SHOAL.

Please shut up... the USA who you want to come save your INDIOS a$$$... is currently killing people...

in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and other countries like the Philippines...

simply because they are of another religion... and dont think like you...

Filipino trash trying to pretend they know about the world...

when you havent even taken a plane trip within your own country...

let alone outside of it...

Cev wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol. You do understand you simply posted a person's opinion? One that does not even properly explain the situation before making a decision?
Nevertheless, I find you post moving further and further away from the main topic at hand.
Tell me, how does this help in justifying China's claim over Scarborough Shoal?
It doesn't right?
So, fact is, based on all the evidences presented here in this forum: THE PHILIPPINES IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF SCARBOROUGH SHOAL.

problem with your low IQ Filipino mind.. is you keep thinking there is a clear cut solution too this dispute...

want to argue it over and over....

when both sides are entrenched in their resolve...

almost if I were to keep shouting "Aetas are the true owners of the Philippines"

that would change anything...

you Filipinos are jaded by you bias...

how can you ask such a stupid question?

there is only 3 options... everything to continue as the Status Quo

China and Philippines work out a compromise, or they go to war...

it doesnt resolve the issue... your spoiled little mind wants to see..

so yes this may be a opinion piece, but it is by an expert...


where as you are just a nobody online... giving us his opinion

thinking it holds the weight of the world with it..

at least I know my opinion does not mean much...

but then... even a nobody like you...

should know China should have a advantage...fighting from land bases vs your ships fighting on the water.....

.
.

Dong Feng 21D, Chinese Missile, Could Shift Pacific Power Balance

ERIC TALMADGE 08/ 5/10 05:43 PM ET AP

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON — Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.

China may soon put an end to that.

U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China – an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/dong...

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

By MATTHEW HICKLEY

Last updated at 00:13 10 November 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

Scroll down for more ...
Kitty Hawk

Battle stations: The Kitty Hawk carries 4,500 personnel

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".

The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.

Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.

"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-49280...

how China destroyed that satellite, and just how capable its satellite-killer really is.

The interception was almost head on at a combined speed of almost 18,000 miles per hour. The pieces of debris wound up with the greatest speeds—much higher than the original satellite.

This means that China accomplished the most sophisticated of space maneuvers: a hit-to-kill interception, the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet.

This is equivalent to what the US is trying to develop in its national missile defense system and is much more sophisticated than the ASAT the Soviet Union was working in the 1980s: little more than a space mine that slowly snuck up on its target and detonated near by.

We also know that the ASAT was highly maneuverable. Yes, the target satellite’s orbit was known well ahead of the interception. However, that does not mean that the satellite’s position was known well enough that the ASAT did not need to steer itself to hit the target. In fact, it is very likely that the interceptor needed to maneuver at high speeds, perhaps as much as six times the acceleration of gravity, to hit its target.

The orbital speed of the target satellite, which is determined by its altitude, also provides us with significant insight into the interceptor’s capability. The closing speed of the interception, which is a combination of the target satellite’s orbital speed and the speed of the interceptor, determines how much time is available to make final adjustments. For instance, just one second before the collision on January 11th, the interceptor and target were five miles apart. During that one second, the interceptor had to make any final adjustments to its trajectory to hit a target smaller than six feet across. Any decrease in the closing speed makes the attack that much easier. Since orbital speeds decrease with increasing altitudes, the Chinese interceptor would find it considerably easier to hit a target in higher orbit.

Finally, the interceptor needed to track its target, so that it could determine where it should move to place itself in front of the obsolete weather satellite; we have a good sense of how that was done, too. The most likely method it employed to track the oncoming satellite was an on-board telescope using visible light. Locking onto a target this way

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/01/insid...

And again, in the face of Chinese defeat in the rightful ownership of Scarborough Shoal, we see their citizens rise and call for aggression just to get what they want.

Sad.

Thieves, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, chinese, these criminals will do anything to get what they want despite using illegal means.

How will society, the international society, deal with such criminals then?

What happens to rich criminals like Bo Xilai (from China) or Gloria Arroyo (from the Philippines)?

What will happen to China?

Cev wrote:

And again, in the face of Chinese defeat in the rightful ownership of Scarborough Shoal, we see their citizens rise and call for aggression just to get what they want.
Sad.
Thieves, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, chinese, these criminals will do anything to get what they want despite using illegal means.
How will society, the international society, deal with such criminals then?
What happens to rich criminals like Bo Xilai (from China) or Gloria Arroyo (from the Philippines)?
What will happen to China?

what ever... Indio wannabee...

Philippines isnt any less corrupt than China...

bigmouth talker

when you Chinese Filipino and are part of the elite class

who keeps the average Filipino INDIOS down

rubbing shoulders with the corrupt politicians sons and daughters

LOL

time to get your personal maid... to clean the shiet stains off your underwear....;

so you can pretend your shiet doesnt stink too

sad thing is these INDIOS apes know im right...

the Philippines is far from perfect or the powerhouse you want to project it to be...

but then you have that Filipino stick together mentality...

so they wont challenge your view...

and in the end they suffer as the elite class continues to keep the INDIO apes down