xul

Chinese next move is just what I have predicted. http://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2016/01/06/4850188.html I could predict these and you couldn't because I'm smarter than you....lol.....because I can read Chinese but you can't. So you can only get information from CNN's writer's....what do they call their writings? http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/asia/china-south-china-sea-test-flights/ And if you aren't familiar with with military stuff so you can not see what's wrong with the CNN's nonsense, I can give you some hints: 0. You can't see any information (which is what China is really doing, for propaganda purpose or not.) in the link I posted above from CNN. 1. The intimidating and strutting war ship around the islands isn't Chinese but an USS LCS 2. The round island with a long runway is Thitu Island which is occupied by Philippines.... I think the CNN's footage is more fit for Chinese propaganda to justify what China is doing than for US

I think The Martian should be classified as a comedy drama with Sci-Fi elements rather than a Sci-Fi movie, so there is no need of a big screen. It looks like....taking off 90% of the stunning space visual effects from Gravity, then adding some humor in. If anybody likes the humor elements in the movie, he will find the movie is entertaining. If someone wants the great visual effects of a Scott Sci-Fi film, I think he will need to wait the director's next project Prometheus 2.

When it is of a territorial sovereignty dispute, you can hardly see no factors of national pride involved. I think the pride is partially because human being (and most animals or even insects in earth?)values its historical rights. "How can a man die better, than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers and temples of his gods?" And most of those dispute territories, each party usually has its own evidence to support its claims. This is why most of such kind of disputes can not be settled by peaceful resorts like a court. I think most Israelis don't accept the UN defined border because they believe Israel has historical rights on what Israel claims, and so do Palestinian. This is why neither UN nor US (or Canada....) can settle the dispute too. I think this is the strategy of China. Most people just think the artificial islands is a projection of military power, not realize that they are also the projection of economical power, which other parties don't have. In short, China can use these islands to make $$$ and get its investment back, meanwhile other parties spend millions of $ to fortify the islands which they occupied in the past but gain nothing, so eventually they will realize that these islands are their burden not gain and have to make their bargain reasonable. In the Cold War, both the Soviet and the US used to splash $$$ to buy allies and friends. The result we all know--the Soviet collapsed and the US is deeply in debt. But what the US did in the past has formed some kind of precedent. Now every country in the world thinks it should be paid for being the ally of US, not to contribute to the US. But the economy of the US can no longer support such level of spends. This is the real problem of any US strategy against China.

War Movie Loving Dudes Come in and Discuss How to Win an Unwinnable War In film Avatar, the colonel's strategy of winning the war against natives, is totally incorrect according to Hollywood writer/director James Cameron's political correctness book. But war academically , do you think the colonel's strategy is the best way, if not the only way, to win the unwinnable war? The key point of the colonel's strategy is: To defeat enemy by defeating enemy's spirit, and to defeat enemy's spirit by destroying the temples of their gods. In another film Oblivion, this time human is the native and the alien "Tet" is the invader. The alien lost the war against human, because it counts on its advanced technology too much and fails to understand human spirit (After all, Tet is just a robot). [Video]Oblivion Ending Scene: How can man die better than facing fearful odds for the ashes of his fathers and temples of his gods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHKtN9jPK1w

Nobody wants to join an unwinnable war, and the war is unwinnable because its leader doesn't have any viable plan.

If any American knew Obama's scheme, he or she might not blame him too much for reacting too late and too weak . First, since US can not stop China, the better way is to stop China when China is going to stop----anyway, as any engineering project in the world, China can not build these things forever. Secondly, the US needs something real for fearmongering among the neighbours of China so the US can rally them to join Obama's Return to the Asia Rebalance plot. Though, it seems like Obama is the smarter one but......there is a plot hole that he didn't foresee: Obama(pointing the Chinese artificial islands): give me some $$$, I'll protect you from these thing... Filipino, Vietnamese...: give me some $$$, I will let you protect me....

Maybe Celine Dion is better The hollywood film makers invested in Jurassic World $150 million, and they grossed $228 million from Chiina, The worldwide total is 1.6 billion. In 2015, US military spending is $598 billion, but how many $ the US could get back from such huge investment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_World China has declared that it may use the artificial islands mostly for civil purpose. I guess it is not merely dodgy diplomatic words. You will see a lot of fishing boats harbouring these islands instead of many warships and war planes(though minimal military present will be there) . China will get some of its investment back, along with propagandistic gain. Anyway, if you know the aeroplanes can fly there within 2 hours from mainland of China when they are needed, why will your deploy them right now like the US and make you a warmonger like the US?

I think Americans should elect Canadian Liberal Party to create and collect some protection taxes from those American allies... before let them enjoy such level of welfare .

To the other parties of the region, they are the same thing. If you bought a Volkswagen, you would not care who, the old CEO or the new CEO, was in charge in the company. You only care when the company will fix your engine problem.

Friendship can not be established by merely giving up your interests to your neighbours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War China, the ROC, did has given up too much to Japanese aggression at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War, trying to avert a general war, but only got contempt from Japanese and made it more aggressive. Philippines isn't a such innocent peace lover as you thinks. When It was on the high ground, Philippines used to use military guns against Chinese (and other parties) fisher men in the disputed water before China began to build these artificial islands and project naval force over the there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Guang_Da_Xing_No._28_incident China and Vietnam did has settled their land border dispute after the Sino-Vietnamese War. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/china.vietnam/

I think you has embarrassed yourself by making such baseless rant against my reasonable argument, China did engaged Republic of Vietnam, which was an US ally I suppose, and it seems China hasn't be gone back a bit since then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands

You are very kind but also very.... naive trying to figure out a solution. Have you ever read novel The Hunger Games? In the story, the majority of the tributes don't hate each other at all, but they still fight to death trying to kill each other. Can you find a solution for all of them? Do you think the Israelis who live in the settlements in the West Bank, are some kind of Jewish pioneers, like Captain James T. Kirk in Star Trek film----"Settlement, Israel's final frontier... ", if they have better place to go? And so do the Palestinians there. Just imagine, if you were the wealthiest citizen of The Capitol, very kind and meant to help the tributes. If you funded Katniss Everdeen; you would have killed other 23; If you funded them all, 23 of them would still end up dead. That's the game .

Have you ever seen Canadian grandpas and grandmas driving 1970-aged cars on roads? Obviously these cars can not pass present emission tests but the laws simply don't require them to do the test. Why? Because these cars had already been on roads before the emission laws was taken effect. So these grandpas and grandmas have their rights to keep their cars. China claimed the islands far before the year when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea took effect, so UNCLOS can not re-define the ownership of these islands. For example: If there is an island between country A and country B. The island is within the EEZ of country B, but before the UNCLOS took effect, it was already the territory of country A. According to the rules of UNCLOS , the maritime boundary shoud be between the island and the shore of country B. Because the island also has it own EEZ and it is country A's EEZ. In this case, country B's EEZ can not re-define which country the island belongs. If you check the map, you will find Tsushima Island is just between Korea and Japan and within the range of 200 nautical miles from Korean shore. But Korean can not claim Tsushima based on this. On the contrary, Japan can use Tsushima to push its EEZ boundary further to Korean side.

So, even civilized countries like Canada and US, also need to calculate their chance of winning a military showdown to decide whether or not to count on UN or ICJ

The so-called transits of US nuclear subs via NW Passage serves as the same purpose as USS Lassen's task. http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/NWP_Transits_Underwater.php It seems like U.S. has determined to make sure that each year they make at least once transit. On this debate, arguing who is correct according "international law" is totally fruitless, because U.S. has its own version of international law. Maybe China's way is more effetive on this issue----just move in bulldozers and build some dams and water gates, then see how Uncle Sam's 21st Century most advanced war technology to deal with these post stone-aged mansonry

I have said many times that you can not accuse China stealing or invading the islands without proving that other parties have already own it first, especially they have already done the same thing that China is doing now. . I think your and other China-accusers just didn't realize that your posts have ironically justified the stands of China----if people deem that China is always wrong just because China is China and entirely ignore the evidence in favour of China, why China should trust and count on them giving China justice? The debate between China and U.S. is another story. The difference is that China thinks that those American spy ships and aerocrafts don't suit for freedom navigation term but U.S. thinks they do. China never protest any American warship or aeroplane simply transits via South China Sea. USS Lassen didn't merely transit via South China Sea. Before its departure, CNN-kinds had already announced its task's purpose -- provocating and challenging China. So its action can't be considered as a simple transit.

I think there are too many China and U.S. Let's discuss something more universal: I think Canadian should understand, "international law" isn't like the domestic laws which we are familiar. Firstly, there isn't a neutral law enforcement to enforce the so-called international laws. Maybe someone thinks the U.S. is the enforcement but it isn't. Let's see what U.S has done to the world. Wherever U.S. intervened, we see wars, refugees, chaos and the rise of ISIS. If the U.S. was the police, it would be the most lousy police ever. Secondly, there isn't a fair or neutral judge to bring justice according so-called international law. If Saddam Hussein bought his case(hiding nuclear weapon, accused by U.S.) to some international law court like Filipino did to China, do you really think the court dared to give him justice or even just accept his case? We all have seen on TV or newspaper that the so-called UN investigators or something just use vague words in their reports though they found nothing to support what U.S alleged, because they or their country feared U.S. retaliation. Thirdly, an UN warranted action may be political correct for most Canadian but exactly it is not always correct. Have you ever watched a Sci-Fi movie? If not, go to Best Buy to get some to stretch your mind a bit further: Let's assume there is a mischievous Alien kid, Darth Vader, who stole his father's starship Death Star and come to earth to annihilate human being for fan. At this point, I guess some of our war-loving American friends will stand up: Don't worry Canadian, we Americans, the guardian of the galaxy , having the most advanced war technology, will take on this alien for you. But since Darth Vader is an alien with far more advanced war technology than the most advanced war technology of human in his hands, you can imagine that when he just presses the smallest button on the console before him, the Pentagon has become Peng-Ta----Gone So, we have to face choice. Vader offers human being to let UN select a country for him to destroy. At this point, I guess again that some Canadian will shout, "China, the most selfish...etc nation in the world, should be destroyed." That's OK. But since China has veto power in UN and it is selfish, that means it rather let others die for itself than die for others , the proposal is invalid. So UN votes and chooses Canada instead. Then Vader tells Canadian, "You can choose to obey UN's decision and sacrifice youself to save those who vote you to die, or defy the UN decision so I'll will kill them all but save you." So which is your choice?

Before our American friends turn this thread into an U.S. war technology ad, let me write a script of an American horse opera --In a remote small village called Lawless-- --Uncle Sam(would-be sheriff of the village)-- Who reported the trespass? --Filipino-- Me, sir. --Uncle Sam points his gun to a Chinese who is digging on lawn--- Stop! Hangs up! --The Chinese ignores him-- --Uncle Sam jumps 3 feet off the ground-- Stop! Stop! --The Chinese is still digging-- --Filipino-- Sir,... --Uncle Sam-- Don't worry. Look at this gun, American latest technology, most advanced. If I pulled the trigger, he would disappear like smoke. --Uncle Sam hammers the hood of his car making it dented-- Stop! Stop! Stop!!!!!! The Chinese is still digging. --Uncle Sam to the Filipino-- Don't fear him. I'll walk directly passing him. You will see he can't stop me. --Filipino-- Be careful sir! Make sure your gun isn't a water gun....

I read from some Chinese military fans websites, that each year Chinese fishing boats fish out a lot of USN spying sonar devices from the seabed of Chinese EEZ， which US warships and subs accidentally dropped into sea when they used their version of freedom of navigation across Chinese EEZ.

I said: not with the rate which a surface ship has You can browse internet on a ship or on an aeroplane, but in a sub, no way.

There are rabbits eating flowers in my backyard everyday. Such activity doesn't make them my boss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkfnZVwXcLw

That's ture, but the technology for detecting subs is also more advanced than ww2. The disadvantage of a sub, nuclear or not, is that its communication resorts are limited. When a sub submerged into water, all radio communication resorts are blocked except long wave radio transmitter. But the transmitting rate of long wave radio is very low, a sub only can receive a few words per minutes. A towed array sonar does give a sub the resort to detect other subs and ship from very long distance, but it so do for surface warships if the array sonar is equipped. Not like radar, a sonar system isn't always reliable. It depends on the condition of the sea and the terrain of the seabed.

If you trully believe what you said here, why just call Obama and advise him to use these subs?

Right now, if the "South China Sea" your referred only means Spratly Islands area, what you said may be correct, because without the runways on the artificial islands and aircraft carries, Chinese land-based fighter jets even need aerial refuelling to reach the area. As for "into the near future", it depends on how near the future is. But there is no way that China and U.S will go into a war. Vladimir Putin is crushing Georgia, Ukraine, and now Syria by rusty Soviet-aged war machines. But why Bush the Second, Obama the First, and their successor, Bush the Third or Clinton the Second...didn't, don't and will not use U.S. more advanced conventional military forces against Putin's worn-off old war toys? I think when you read the question you has already known the answer. China has been working on these artificial islands for a year. But where were, are and will be the subs of COMSUBPAC? I knew the answer before I asked the question-------submerged, submerge and will submerge beneath the water . And I knew why: 2nd reason: they are submarines; 1st reason: ..... USS Lassen acted by the same way which China has been doing: "I'm here so what can you do against me?"------ This is how the great powers or super powers play games. A modern war isn't engaged by the ancient way. I mean soldiers vs soldiers; generals vs generals, subs vs ships...subs will not survive without the cover from surface fleet, the Battle of Atlantic has proved it. And surface fleet can not survive if it is within the range of land-based aircraft and anti-ship missiles. F-22 and F-35 will not survive if the runways are destroyed by cruise and ballistic missiles....etc. After the Cold War, many people are under the impression that the U.S. military is invincible because the U.S military has triumphed Saddam Hussein , Taliban and ISIS...lol....even for these, the job hasn't done yet. But the fact is that the U.S has never win a war against a superpower or great power like the Korean War or the Vietnam War.

In 1818, if British militory power was as weak as Philippine, I wager I would need an U.S. visa to immigrate Canada. That's true. I guess China will eventually accept American version of freedom of navigation. Not today, but when China has build more and bigger warships so its political leaders's sight can go beyond Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.