
China Deploys Missiles on Disputed Island in South China Sea - maibaum
http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-deploys-missiles-on-disputed-island-in-south-china-sea-1455684150
======
sharetea
It looks like the dictator/autocratic states in Asia (Russia/China) with its
economy collapsing, is resorting to territorial aggression against neighboring
countries in order to get resources and get people to look away from its
collapse. China exports fall 11.2% in January, imports down 18.8%
[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/14/china-releases-trade-data-
for...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/14/china-releases-trade-data-for-january-
yuan-denominated-and-us-dollar-imports-and-exports.html). Russia's ruble
collapses to lowest level, with "Inflation reached 12.5% in 2015 while real
wages kept dropping, leaving many people much worse off."
ever[http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/20/investing/russia-ruble-
recor...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/20/investing/russia-ruble-record-low/)

With Russia bumping against all of Europe, and China bumping against
Japan/Korea/Taiwan/Vietnam/Malaysia/Indonesia/Phillipines, this is going to be
bad for world stability.

~~~
xiaoma
There are several other border disputes, especially between China and India:

[https://www.facebook.com/notes/tarek-fatah/chinas-border-
dis...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/tarek-fatah/chinas-border-disputes-
with-18-countries-imperialism-or-expansionist-designs/10153551812290247/)

------
dantillberg
BBC has before-and-after satellite photos: [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
asia-china-35592988](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35592988)

------
est
In case anyone did't get the "disputed" part, Vietnam occupies most of South
China Sea islands especially in the 70s and 80s around Sino-Vietnam war. China
(actually Republic of China) claimed them earliest but didn't occupy.

~~~
dogma1138
It's disputed because 3 countries claim ownership of the the island as it's
within their "territorial" (with the exception of Taiwan which claims it
because it's still pretends to represent "real China") waters.

China pretty much made claim to all of the waters it's claim extends as far as
the shore lines of Malaysia.

China also extends it's claim over waters outside of the immediate territorial
waters by building artificial islands so far only within the 200 n/M of their
exclusive economic zone which it claims extends it's coastal waters even
further (this isn't exactly the case for this specific island (it's land mass
was artificially extended, and a large harbor was built) but an important
background point for the entire dispute).

So far countries have refrained from militarizing the islands too much sure
they might post a couple of sailors here and there but this is a long rang air
defense system capable of shooting down aircraft as far as 400km away, this is
basically an S-300/400
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_\(missile\))]
"copy" with a much more advanced radar and better interceptors by all counts.

~~~
varjag
S-400 long range capability is mostly theoretical, as there's no stock of the
40N6 missile capable of it. Especially doubtful in case of China, given the
secondary nature of their missile technology.

~~~
dogma1138
China builds their own interceptors so the availability of Russian stockpiles
isn't relevant, they've both deployed and conducted real world tests on
multiple interceptors beyond the initial 200 KM range that the system went
into service with including having improved interceptors that can counter
ballistic missiles and
satellites[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-
satellite_mi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-
satellite_missile_test)].

~~~
varjag
That has nothing to do with S-400. The satellite interceptor was a modified
ballistic missile.

~~~
dogma1138
By all accounts it was a modified HQ-9 interceptor which was piggybacked on a
short/medium range ballistic missile (mostly because of the high inclination
of the test satellite, which might mean it's quite likely to be potentially
capable of reaching LEO VISINT satellites which pass over the interceptor on
it's own).

Chinese source:
[http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_49e4b637010007hi.html](http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_49e4b637010007hi.html)
I don't speak Chinese but it seems to translate rather well.

~~~
varjag
Any space faring nation has technology to intercept LEO satellites. That
doesn't mean a tricked out ICBM has any use in intercepting manuvering fighter
jet.

The original HQ-9 interceptor is stated to have 200km slant range, just as the
Russian missile it was faithfully copied from.

~~~
dogma1138
The ICBM didn't hit the missile the HQ-19 interceptor did, and no not every
space capable nation can shoot down a satellite look how many decades it took
the US to being able to do achieve that.

And yes I said that the system initially was deployed with a range of about
200KM but they have made improvements since:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9#Variants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9#Variants)

Most SAM's have different profiles and interceptors that cover targets with
different capabilities this quite often limits their range, you can argue
about the exact range and operational ceiling for the interceptors in question
all day long it still doesn't change the fact that China has deployed one of
the most sophisticated SAM's currently in operation on and island that they
might not have full legal claim for which can threaten quite a big chunk of
the air traffic over the south china sea.

------
GrandTheftR
Ron Paul's take on this from few month ago

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KudfRyn3ZbA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KudfRyn3ZbA)

interesting to watch it now, where will this lead to, and what is the
strategic goal here?

~~~
tankenmate
The problem with the powers that be playing the ultra-nationalist card is that
is difficult to stop playing; like gambling or burying corporate debt it might
lead to short term gains, but sooner or later you have to pay. There are ample
examples of ultra-nationalist states that have exploded, imploded, or withered
on the vine; and none have lasted the distance with out some kind of
revolution, quiet or otherwise. Things will get worse before they get better,
this is definitely not the bottom of the barrel. You can tell the wise ones
are already cashing in their chips and are exfiltrating their wealth. Loans
that were once prime will become sub-prime once the capital has fled. These
state financed, but often personally influenced, loans that are currently sub-
prime; well...

------
awl130
china will get its way. imagine china building a military base on cuba or
hispaniola and see how well that sits with the us government, un commission be
damned. as china grows it wants to secure it's geographical sphere of
influence, and all the western powers in the world will not win this battle.
china has much more to lose and win.

protestations by the phillipines and other smaller outlying nations are again,
the same as cuba or puerto rico or haiti protesting against guantanamo bay.
the bottom line is that the dominant regional power dictates the terms and the
smaller guys follow. if i were a western power i would spend just a modicum of
effort pushing back against china but concurrently prepare to lose this
battle.

~~~
xiaoma
It's more likely that China will end up starting WWIII. They are claiming not
only international space but also that of their neighbors.

------
chvid
Russia and China are quite different and in different situations. China
benifits hugely by the drop in commodity prices and Russia does the opposite.

It is also much easier to understand the strategic goals of China:

This "dispute" will eventually amount to nothing; it is mere posturing showing
the Americans that any military action will be too costly.

In a couple of decades; Taiwan will join China in a manner similar to what
happened to Hong Kong and Macau. This will happen when the wealth of the
average mainland Chinese is compareable to that of the average Taiwanese and
China will be Taiwan's absolutely dominant trading partner.

When this happens China will for purposes have broken American control of the
South China sea.

~~~
xiaoma
This is one of the least informed posts I've ever seen on HN about cross
strait issues.

Unlike HK or Macau, Taiwan is a fully democratic state and has been for
decades. Also unlike people in HK or Macau, Taiwanese don't consider
themselves Chinese.

[http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/12/we-are-no-compatriots-
of...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/12/we-are-no-compatriots-of-yours-
taiwan-tainan-earthquake-xi-jinping-shinzo-abe-china-japan-history-relations-
aid/)

The only way China could annex the island would entering a war. That would be
extremely ill-advised considering the US committed to defending Taiwan in that
case (due to the Taiwan relations act).

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> That would be extremely ill-advised considering the US committed to
defending Taiwan.

Maybe ten years ago, I would say it would never happen.

However, fighting several wars in the middle east, the Russian annexation of
Crimea and the US not doing anything, let alone NATO not doing anything, leads
me to hesitate to say anything would be done to stop it. Maybe this changes
over the next decade, but if it were to happen soon, I have my doubts the US
would have the moral constitution to do anything to stop it.

~~~
xiaoma
It certainly doesn't help that Europe, particularly France, has spent the past
two decades selling China the weapons and tech to do the invasion.

That said, Taiwan is a country of roughly similar population and economic
clout as Australia. Standing by and ignoring an act of war on that scale would
be devastating to international stability (and US security interests).

~~~
hkmurakami
I would imagine that the precedent the US would set with not honoring is
defense agreement would have enormous repercussions for its relationship and
bargaining power with both South Korea and Japan.

That would tip the balance towards US intervention.

~~~
xiaoma
If the US and NATO in general let Taiwan fall, it would pretty much guarantee
Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand to start nuclear programs.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That's probably true. And if so, it means that it is probably _not_ in China's
interest to take Taiwan.

------
legulere
It's kind of funny that China is getting the only attention, when all
countries around are occupying the islands:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Spratly_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Spratly_Is_since_NalGeoMaps.png)

~~~
ceejayoz
China's claiming the entire sea, though, and building _new_ islands to extend
that claim.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea#/media/File:South_China_Sea_claims_2.png)

------
Pitarou
Wave if you're old enough to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis!

~~~
cafard
Pretty well, actually. The Cleveland Plain Dealer (as I recall) showed
Cleveland as within range of the missiles meant to be set up there.

In the 1980s I talked with a guy who had been a landing-craft driver for the
Army in the early 1960s. His unit was sent down the Intercoastal Waterway to
pick up an armored division in Florida. Fortunately for all, the tanks stayed
on dry ground, and landing craft went back north.

------
NiftyFifty
Nice to see that the WSJ has confirmed us to subscription service just to read
what I can get on Ruetz

------
caleb
In other news, China hacked the ocean.

