What's up with the US Navy getting within 12 miles of the man-made Chinese islands?

I really, really, really try not to get into any issues on GRM, especially political, but this is actually scaring me.

Yesterday the USA sent the Arelaigh Burke class destroyer USS Lassen solo within the claimed 12 mile territorial waters of a man-made Chinese island at Subi Reef in the South China Sea.

All of the mainstream news reports that. None of them report that China immediately responded with an equally capable ship, a type 052C guided missile destroyer called the Lanzhou, and that it was backed up by a patrol destroyer. The Chinese spent 5 hours shadowing the Lassen and declaring for it's immediate departure.

Why is that information only on the military blogs and Chinese reports? We basically got served and the NYT, CBS, etc don't even report it.

What's really going on?

China: "you can't"

US Navy: "Watch me"

Longer version It's international waters and an artificial man-made object doesn't change national borders under international maritime law.

Posturing, thats whats going on. Foreign policy shenanigans get complicated and potentially messy.

Just because they make a new island, doesn't mean they can take that part for themselves.

From http://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-summons-us-ambassador-subi-reef-islands-south-china-sea/

"Make no mistake, the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as we do around the world, and the South China Sea is not and will not be an exception," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said earlier this month.

Man made islands are not internationally recognized as sovereign soil, just as an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico isn't part of the US territories.

Yeah China's in the wrong here. The US Navy ship sailed close to one of the islands to remind China that these are international waters...and China threw a hissy fit. China wants control of those little islands for strategic reasons and for the natural resources there.

foxtrapper wrote: China: "you can't" US Navy: "Watch me" Longer version It's international waters and an artificial man-made object doesn't change national borders under international maritime law.

Even longer version is that China is pissed about the other trade agreements that US is signing with the rest of the world. Effectively the other guys at scale can beat out China, so no 7% GDP increase year to year. Without that the Chinese people are going to look long and hard at their government and they have a metric ton of unmarried men with no prospects. These guys may want to have a word with the people in power as they have no options.

Javelin wrote: None of them report that China immediately responded with an equally capable ship, a type 052C guided missile destroyer called the Lanzhou, and that it was backed up by a patrol destroyer. The Chinese spent 5 hours shadowing the Lassen and declaring for it's immediate departure. Why is that information only on the military blogs and Chinese reports? We basically got served and the NYT, CBS, etc don't even report it.

This story from the New York Times website includes the Chinese destroyer and patrol ship. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/10/27/world/asia/27reuters-southchinasea-usa.html

Another theory is China is trying to set the stage to take control of access to the South China Sea. If they were to get this man-made island recognized and get their border legally changed, with just a few more they would be able to claim to own the entire southern entryway into that sea.

As well as all the resources under the sea (oil, gas, etc). The Navy is just reminding them that everyone gets to drive around international waters as much as they like. Nobody is going to start shooting at one another over it though, that would end beyond badly.

Eh, maybe. I wouldn't be surprised to see a warning shot fired at some point by China. This situation isn't going to be quickly or easily resolved. China isn't about to just throw up their hands and give up.

In reply to KyAllroad:

Funny you should mention that it would 'end beyond badly', because I thought that the island looked kind of like Bikini Atoll.

Subi Reef:

Bikini Atoll:

We were having a d*#k measuring contest. I'm gonna guess ours is bigger.

What sea is this? South "what" Sea?

The ChiComs said that if the US ship stopped, they would lock weapon systems on it. I ain't a navy sailor (ex merchant sailor,) but I think that's "a bad thing."

Meanwhile, they have so much money from those iPhones and stuff, what are you going to do with it? Buy more Treasuries? Screw that. Let's build an island chain, claim it and the oil underneath as ours. What could go wrong?

Dr. Hess wrote: The ChiComs said that if the US ship stopped, they would lock weapon systems on it. I ain't a navy sailor (ex merchant sailor,) but I think that's "a bad thing."

Yea, but it's not that uncommon a thing either. We have a habit of doing the same. Saber rattling and posturing for the most part, with the hint of the fist behind the glove.

In reply to foxtrapper:

Everything in the immediate area was probably targeted by the Larsen or by a shadowing attack sub....

we are backing up our friends in Vietnam and the other countries that border the South China Sea. Trust me, they are -very- worried about what China is doing out there

RossD wrote: Subi Reef:

Wow that's change a fair bit in the last year. If you check google it is still very much a reef, but it looks like China has built an actual island.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/south-china-sea-satellite-images-show-pace-of-chinas-subi-reef-reclamation/

In reply to Dr. Hess:

I'm not a sailor either (but I tried to become one in 1971), but ships intending on combat don't stop. Why would you threaten a stopped ship? Its a dead duck.

spitfirebill wrote: In reply to Dr. Hess: I'm not a sailor either (but I tried to become one in 1971), but ships intending on combat don't stop. Why would you threaten a stopped ship? Its a dead duck.

It's kind of genius actually. You (China) know full well the ship isn't going to stop for the reasons you mention, so your threat is "You'd better not stop or I gonna do something", knowing full well you'll never have to back up the threat. Then you go on your state-run media and crow about how you scared the other guy into backing down.

This makes me wish we still had battleships in the fleet. Then you can pretty much drop anchor, dare the other guy to shoot, and reply with Volkswagen-sized shells if he does.

The point is, we DID back down...

In what way?

Navy officials had said the sail-past was necessary to assert the U.S. position that China's man-made islands cannot be considered sovereign territory with the right to surrounding territorial waters.

They sailed past. Made their point. Where is the "back down?"

Javelin wrote: The point is, we DID back down...

No. We didn't. Backing down would be changing what we were trying to do based on China's demands. We went ahead and did exactly what we planned to exactly the way we planned to do it, and China claimed they chased us off. We didn't back down any more than a person who keeps walking past a house when a dog barks at them.