Home » Foreign Forces » China » Two U.S. Warships Conduct South China Sea Freedom Of Navigation Operation


Two U.S. Warships Conduct South China Sea Freedom Of Navigation Operation

Guided-missile destroyer USS Higgins (DDG-76), guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG-54). US Navy Photos

Over the weekend, a Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG-54) and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, USS Higgins (DDG-76) sailed in a two-ship freedom of navigation operation past islands claimed by China, according to media reports first reported by Reuters.

The FON operation in the Paracel Island chain was called a “serious infringement on China’s sovereignty,” Wu Qian, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense, said in a Sunday statement.

In response, Navy officials told USNI News on Tuesday FON operations are a routine part of their mission to ensuring all nations have freedom of navigation and lawful use of the sea.

Antietam and Higgins, “arbitrarily entered on May 27 China’s territorial waters around the Xisha Islands without permission of the Chinese government,” Wu said.

China refers to the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea as the Xisha Islands. The chain has been part of the Chinese effort to extend its regional influence by building bases that can host military equipment.

Last week, China’s island building activity was cited as a contributing reason for the U.S. Navy to cancel China’s invitation to take part in the Rim of the Pacific exercise.

U.S. Navy officials originally invited China to participate several years ago with the hopes such interaction with the U.S. would encourage China to stop building islands in the South China Sea.

Chinese controlled Woody Island in the Paracel Island chain. Google Earth Image

The following is the full statement released by the Chinese Ministry of National Defense following the U.S. Navy Freedom of Navigation Operation.

BEIJING, May 27 (ChinaMil) — China’s Ministry of National Defense has said two U.S. warships’ entry into China’s territorial waters around the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea is serious infringement on China’s sovereignty.

Wu Qian, spokesperson for the ministry, made the remarks on Sunday when asked about Chinese military’s comments on the US warships’ provocation.

According to Wu, two U.S. warships, the guided missile cruiser Antietam and the destroyer Higgins, arbitrarily entered on May 27 China’s territorial waters around the Xisha Islands without permission of the Chinese government.

Chinese military took immediate actions by dispatching naval ships and aircrafts to conduct legal identification and verification of the U.S. warships and warn them off, Wu said.

Wu said that the Xisha islands in the South China Sea are China’s inherent territory, and according to the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Chinese government promulgated the baseline of the territorial sea off the Xisha Islands in 1996.

The U.S. provocative action by sending once again warships into China’s territorial waters surrounding the Xisha Islands violated Chinese law and relevant international law, seriously infringed sovereignty of China, Wu stated.

The Chinese side is firmly opposed to such provocative and arbitrary actions by the U.S. side, which undermined strategic mutual trust between the two militaries and damaged peace, security and good order in relevant waters, Wu continued.

The Chinese military is unshakably determined to strengthen its naval and air combat readiness, raise defense level, safeguard national sovereignty and security and maintain regional peace and stability, the spokesperson said explicitly.

  • muzzleloader

    BZ! Do this often and let the chicoms bleat. It’s all they can do.

  • NavySubNuke

    Glad to see the US continuing to challenge these illegal territory grabs. The rules based international order the US and the allies established after WWII (with the backing of the US nuclear arsenal) is worth standing up for. Allowing China to simply steal this territory is unacceptable.

    • Just Bill

      Why prod and provoke China? You simplify matters down to we should continue to challenge land grabs, but guys like you think only of the military side of the board. If China calls in its debt and they own more than half, it would make the Depression of 29 look like the roaring thirties. Our nuclear arsenal will not mean squat. Do you really believe we could challenge China 30 miles from their shore?
      China has an economic bomb hanging over our heads and John Bolton has the CIC war. Quit challenging Pit Bulls as Chinese leadership have a hidden agenda and they are not timid.

      • NavySubNuke

        If you knew anything about history you would understand why it is actually important to stand up for what is right rather than simply cowering in fear and making deals for “peace in our time”.
        You should check out how US debt bonds actually work sometime though – the terms of them and how you can actually trade them. I realize it is a fun and interesting talking point to say things like “China could call in half our debt” but 1) it doesn’t actually work like that 2) they don’t actually own half our debt.
        The issue isn’t about challenging china “30” miles from shore (you should also check out a map sometime so you can see how far from shore these islands actually are – hint — it is more than 30!). The idea is to refuse to recognize their illegal actions as legitimate.
        If you actually had a working knowledge of this subject you would realize that China has just as big – if not bigger – of a debt bomb hanging over their heads. But I realize talking points and empty words are more fun than actual knowledge.
        Nice try though Wrong Bill. Keep up the good work!

        • Pacemaker4

          you should realize
          1.china has a savings rate of 48% – when the crash comes they will fair okay.
          2. China has the Largest economy (PPP)
          3. China could sell the debt at a buck price …and short the USD.
          4. Rand report 2008 stated That in a pacific operation defending Taiwan… China lost all the air battles but still won the war.

          Remember the parable about a war between Russia and China?
          First day china loses 25 million men, 2nd day China loses 30 million, 3rd day China lose 35 million men, and on the 4th day Russia surrenders.

          Thats what would happen to the USA.

          • NavySubNuke

            You should realize that
            1) That is their personal savings rate – the debt issues in China have nothing to do with that
            2) That is factually incorrect
            3) They could but all they would do is lose a pile of money by doing that
            4) Wars carried out on paper are always interesting and fun but hardly predictive
            Nice parable but again, hardly predictive. You should pay more attention to the Chinese domestic political situation sometime – there is a reason they work so hard to keep their people in the dark about what is actually happening and it isn’t because they could easily weather the loss of 80M Chinese without blinking.
            Nice try though – A for effort, D for actual ability to present factual information or a compelling narrative.

          • Pacemaker4

            look up china in the cia factbook.
            ranked numero uno.

            you can choose to believe what you want…but you clearly havent researched t as much as I have.

          • NavySubNuke

            LOL – whatever lies you have to believe to make yourself feel better are fine — just try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back for your imagined accomplishments.
            FYI The IMF ranks the US as the top economy at $20Trillion and China #2 at $14T.

          • Pacemaker4

            hehe you dont know what PPP means…lol. IMF says the same !
            Thats where China leads.
            search ‘China largest economy’ lots of articles on it

          • NavySubNuke

            There you go making incorrect assumptions again – I know what PPP means. I also know what it means to be the largest economy in the world — that is why I pointed out that you were incorrect. Type in china second largest economy and you will find all kinds of articles about that and when they are actually expected to overtake the US as the largest economy.
            Do enough historic research and you will find similar predictions about Japan in the 1980s too.
            Nice try though – keep up the good work there skippy.

          • Pacemaker4

            Bloomberg “Who Has the World’s No. 1 Economy? Not the U.S.”
            October 18, 2017.

            Seems everyone disagrees.with your pie in the sky dreaming

          • NavySubNuke

            LOL. You can keep trying – but you will still be wrong.

          • Pacemaker4

            Whatever you say little one. You didnt know what PPP meant…
            Anyway a Big Mac is way cheaper in China. They work for a living.

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            Yeah, for peanuts.

          • NavySubNuke

            You can keep repeating that lie over and over but that still won’t make China have the worlds largest economy.
            No worries though – again just be careful not to break your own arm patting yourself on the back for your imagined victories.

          • Pacemaker4

            its no victory teaching you economics/

          • NavySubNuke

            LOL – to teach me economics you would actually have to be correct but I do find your need to get the last word in hilarious.
            On the bright side the resident paid Chinese troll is supporting you so that must make you feel really good….

          • .Hugo.

            prove it a lie then, if you can? why not defy ppp first? 🙂

          • NavySubNuke

            The proof is in the IMF ranking of world economies:
            US first at ~$20T
            China second at $14T
            Certainly there are ways to manipulate and twist the numbers and get to different answers but that doesn’t change the actual size of the economies in question.

          • .Hugo.

            ranking of world economies based on gdp? sure.
            .
            but we are talking about the better representation of the data which is ppp adjusted:
            .
            based on the same imf data (2017, millions in int$):
            1. china 23,159,107
            2. e.u. 20,852,702
            3. u.s. 19,390,600
            .
            the u.s. is really behind in actual purchasing power.
            .
            this is not called manipulation or twisting, this is called reality check.
            .

          • NavySubNuke

            LOL, sure Hugo — as I said – whatever manipulated data set you need to use is fine. I know honesty isn’t valued in China — it is a good way to end up dead or in a prison camp.
            I’ll still stick to the straight GDP measurement.

          • .Hugo.

            what you said was wrong, for there was no manipulation data set, it’s valid ppp data. lol….
            .
            ppp has nothing to do with a prison camp either, it’s about real purchasing power, which the u.s. can’t match the e.u. and need not to compare with china. no wonder many americans are living on debts and the u.s. gross domestic savings rate is so low.
            .
            .

          • NavySubNuke

            Certainly Hugo – whatever your guards force you to say.
            Wouldn’t want your family to be delivered a bullet and a bill for bullet after all!

          • .Hugo.

            i was amused that every time when you lost, you would have to resort to the troll excuse.
            .
            so don’t worry, i know that’s your way of admitting failure. 🙂
            .

          • NavySubNuke

            Awww Hugo, I’m glad to hear I could bring some ammusement – however imagined it’s basis is – into your otherwise pitiful and meaningless life. Hopefully you don’t get executed today!

          • .Hugo.

            i just don’t see how pitiful and meaningless my life is when i can enjoy my time exposing your fault to a point that you can only resort to personal bashing. 😀
            .

          • NavySubNuke

            You just answered your own question – but hey at least your guards or whoever is paying you to post here give you that satisfaction!

          • .Hugo.

            you can’t even prove that i got paid by posting here, and i just don’t see any guards of your description. i have seen more guards in black suites when i visited u.s. bases in japan though. 🙂
            .

          • NavySubNuke

            ** Pats Hugo on the head ** Sure you have sweetie

          • .Hugo.

            “sure you have sweetie” is simply not a proof. 🙂
            .

          • hollygreen9

            And here I thought that I would always despise bubble heads!

          • muzzleloader

            So how about telling us your real Chinese name.

          • .Hugo.

            i think you need to try harder instead….

          • hollygreen9

            Not everybody!! Have your pacemaker checked for the battery. I think it is running low!

          • .Hugo.

            what is to be the largest but not able to spend like the largest? that’s why we have the ppp adjustment.
            .
            type in “china largest economy ppp” too then see the more realistic results.
            .
            japan has to do whatever the u.s. said, china doesn’t. 🙂
            .

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            Number one at what? Population?

          • .Hugo.

            1. it means they pack more wealth than you.
            2. how? ppp is exactly correct. how much a bigmac cost in beijing and new york?
            3. it won’t lose a pile of money when it’s the first to sell. only lending cost for u.s. firms will then sky rocketed.
            4. it’s only the cast when this rand report is against you, otherwise it’s always “according to the rand report”. 🙂
            .

          • Phaeton

            4)Not exactly.They ASSUMED that China will lose every single air battle just to show the point that Taiwan is indefensible at then-present strength levels.

          • 2togohome9

            Anyone who attacks Taiwan, with its 400K troops, Airforce, Navey will get a very bloody nose, and will have to consider if its worth it. The Taiwan Airforce can also do some serious damage to the industries of the attacker. The US Nuclear umbrella would also be an option. US enemies fail to handstand that the nuclear option is part of its and will use it if pushed in to a corner. US knows how to use Nuclear, we have experience. It did save a million lives last time, it could again.

          • Phaeton

            “with its 400K troops”
            You dumb,lying swine.It has less than 300k active personnel,of which maybe a third are actual combatants.
            “Airforce”
            Will cease to exist twenty minutes after start of the conflict.
            “Navey ”
            /facepalm
            Will cease to exist six hours after start of the conflict.
            “The Taiwan Airforce can”
            Die before taking off.A lot.And then there is the fact that China has second-best air defense on the planet.
            “The US Nuclear umbrella would also be an option”
            No,it won’t be.Otherwise RF nuclear umbrella will be.

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            We don’t share a common border with China for one, second, you do not have 85 million troops nor the means to feed and cloth them and handle the logistics of supplying those troops, especially over the ocean.

            You planning on invading with spears?

          • .Hugo.

            wrong with your troops logistics comment.
            .
            the pla is a self sufficient military, it has its own farms and food sources to feed the troops.
            .
            and depending on which “ocean”, china does have the means to transport troops (with modern weapons not spears) over it. i think you have missed the chinese merchant navy full of roll-on/roll-off vessels all operating along the coast to compliment the existing amphibious landing docks.

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            Give it a rest Comrade. Unless the PLA has invented the portable farm, it is called supply lines.

            As to your vast merchant fleet, doesn’t do much good without escort vessels does it.

            Nice try but it is pointless. It is like Taiwan. Never mind it has grown into a thriving, robust and free country, no, China has to rattle sabres over it because of some idiotic perceived slight. Maybe you can slaughter them all and disrupt the entire world economy and right that long ago wrong where the Taiwanese fled Mao because they wanted to live as a free and prosperous people instead of dying during The Great Leap Forward of that event of inspiration, The Cultural Revolution.

            Now go kill your Coy and let us be.

          • muzzleloader

            Hugo and pacemaker are both Chinese trolls, verbal sparring is all they are good at.

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            Yes, it is amusing. He reminds me of Tokyo Rose…

          • .Hugo.

            unfortunately for you, your so-called supply lines in the chinese army near critical areas were very short.
            .
            e.g. the chinese garrison in shenzhen which is assigned to defend hong kong too has farms right in the nearby county to supply its troops both in shenzhen and hong kong.
            .
            i have said depending on which ocean, so who told you there will be no escort for the chinese fleet to cross the relatively narrow taiwan strait?
            .
            how has taiwan grown in to a thriving and robust and free economy today when compared with the mainland? just which area it is leading?
            .
            china cannot rule out the option of a military intervention on taiwan when the following happens: taiwan is invaded; taiwan declares independence; taiwan suffers from massive and uncontrolled riots. it is the duty of every responsible government to uphold the integrity and security of the country.
            .
            and no, china won’t have to slaughter them, that’s why china has not attacked or invaded taiwan to risk the lives of the 21 million people living there.
            .
            taiwan did not “fled mao”, the kmt started the civil war and tried to destroy the ccp but failed.
            .
            “free and prosperous”? guess you don’t know what the “white terror” was about. and how prosperous when wages has not gone up for the past 16 plus years?
            .
            and after the human and natural disasters, china has always come out stronger, guess you don’t like that a bit, hehe….
            .

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            Yawn,

          • .Hugo.

            you can yawn more, for you have no good replies anyway…. 🙂
            .

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            Replies to what? Your bantering ?

          • .Hugo.

            it’s bantering only when you can’t refute. 🙂
            .

          • hollygreen9

            I sure hope that your pacemaker is still working!

      • Duane

        China cannot “call in its debt” China is not a bank, and most of its US paper is in treasury notes that have no recourse.

        China is trying to fake out the world with superficially aggressive military moves, but China hasn’t won a major war since the Japanese whupped them in 1,200 AD. They are paper tigers. They may have upped their military spending now that they are richer, but they are the same old gang that cannot win a war or successfully invade another nation.

        The way to deal with the Chinese is to call their bluff, allow them nothing, make them lose face at every opportunity – such as by ignoring their whining about our FONOPS, and respond by doubling our FONOPS and then hold massive naval exercises next door to their fake islands. The point is to buck up our allies to ignore the Chinese bully tactics. Eventually the Chinese people will figure out that their current leaders are just like all their leaders in history – paper tigers.

        • .Hugo.

          china has pushed your entire army from the chinese border all the way back to the 38th parallel, and that’s not too long ago.

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            Yes, because human waves to the slaughter is so compelling a use of manpower.

            That was 50 years ago.

          • .Hugo.

            and so you could not stop human waves even with your superior military. and 50 years later you still don’t dare to tough the pla again.
            .

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            First, it shows your governments utterly lack of respect for human life. Whats a few million to the razors?

            Second, the US lost about 34000 troops in Korea and China lost a estimated 400,000.

            a 10:1 ratio. Huh, isn’t that odd? Nobody wants war, excepting maybe China. Maybe you can start WW3? Yeah, that would be helpful. You could toss a few hundred million people at it. After all, what is a life for the Shining Path of Communism?

          • .Hugo.

            first, it was a volunteer army being sent to korea. the soliders have a choice not to be enlisted. it was called human waves mainly by the u.s. when they could not stop them, while the chinese side referred them as general attacks. it just that the chinese has the numerical advantage, the americans didn’t.
            .
            second, with less troops the u.s. and more firepower, the u.s. would of course suffer fewer losses.
            .
            BUT THEY WERE STILL BEING PUSHED BACK AND COULD NOT DESTROY NK, and that’s the embarrassing part. 🙂
            .

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            I am not embarrassed, are you?

          • .Hugo.

            i have no interest of your psychological status. i am only interested on a valid reply from you, in which i have not seen any at all…. 🙂
            .

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            And I have no interest in the Pontifications of a PLA troll.

          • .Hugo.

            pla troll? you still can’t prove that up to now, and you can’t provide valid replies either. as such i believe pontifications suit you more….
            .

          • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

            Logical deduction. You are predictable, punctual, you tow the party line, you live in nation that punishes dissent in a manner that is utterly inconsistent with a “individual” in a free society.

          • .Hugo.

            of course i will be predictable and punctual, when i am focused on the matter. and party line? i can say you are reading right from the u.s. state dept or the dod too.
            .

        • tiger

          Paper tigers? So I guess the Taliban must be paper deer ?

    • Pacemaker4

      hehe I think we gave them it… they were allies against japan remember?
      It was the San Francisco treaty that handed them over.

      Also, USA isnt a member of the ICJ/ICC and UNCLOS hasnt been signed either.

    • .Hugo.

      how illegal?
      .
      the u.s. has not protested when modern china announced its maritime border in 1947. it has even asked china to confirm its sovereignty and the names of the islands, and to seek china’s approval for survey and rescue operations over the islands.
      .
      the only different is that it was the roc government which has done that.
      .
      has the u.s. accused the philippines of illegal territory grab when it first invaded chinese islands in the 1960s, and escalated its aggression in the 1970s when oil and gas were discovered?
      .
      sure not, when china has become a communist country.

  • CharleyA

    I’m curious if the dispatched Chinese assets ever showed up.

    • Louis Dandrea jr

      CharleyA man they waited by sailing around the islands but got tired and went somewhere else..I dont think the Chinese wanted to engage the USS Higgins was ready had all its offensive weapons on line and its towed array connected to all the other underwater backup systems..it would have ended very badly if China used military force…FACT USS Higgins had its “FANGS” OUT..very deadly not to be messed with..total force intergration..11 levels…

      • .Hugo.

        the chinese southern fleet has intercepted both u.s. warships and they left the chinese waters. in fact the usn was intercepted every single time when it intruded the chinese waters.

  • Jolly Roger

    “International Law’… like UNCLOS and the decision by the International Tribunal? Under both the ChiCom action are totally illegal. But we need the other claimants to grow a pair and join the US in opposing this unilateral illegal territorial grab. Until they do, the ChiComs will continue to test our resolve.

    • tteng

      Woody island (and it is a ‘legitimate’ island..natural, with fresh water, capable of permanent habitation, etc) is in the Paracel, not Spratly (where PCA ruled against China in 2016).

      Technically, the USN didn’t violate UNCLOS (if they in fact went within 12NM of the island) since US never ratified it, hence the law not applicable.

      In sum, China snubbed the law, US is outside the law; UNCLOS is becoming irrelevant in SCS in the course of action by both sides.

      • TomD

        But the U.S. has acceded to all but one provision of UNCLOS (the ocean abyss mining enforcement provision), so the lack of ratification really does not matter. The U.S. is not really outside the law regarding the SCS.

        • tteng

          My point is: only ‘innocent passage’ is allowed in someone else’s territorial water. Therefore, if USN conducted FON in China’s (or anyone else’s) territorial water, it gave the following message,

          1. Directly challenged China’s hold on Paracel islands..well, in so far, I don’t recall US has raised issue with Chinese holding in the Paracel, only non-UNCLOS-compliant artificial islands in the Spratly’s. So, is this a naming faux pas (innocent passage instead of FON) or drastic escalation?

          2. If US can’t come down from calling it a naming faux pas, or denying (officially) it’s an escalation, then the only way out is: well..I didn’t signed up for UNCLOS, thus I didn’t violate anything, technically.

          Also, ‘not really outside the law’ can be interpreted as law (or compliance of) is flexible- but isn’t that what China’s is doing- pick and choice whatever part of UNCLOS it wants to comply, thus affirming this sort of act by big powers?

      • .Hugo.

        not correct.
        .
        the 4 major island chains are owned by china, and the chinese eez is delimited from the shores of all 4 of them.
        .
        china has rectified unclos upon signing to restrict military access, and prior approval must be granted by the chinese government before any foreign military vessel sails through the chinese eez. obviously the usn has violated unclos in such case, only the u.s. can say it has not signed unclos (but still wants to enjoy its rights) as an excuse.

      • .Hugo.

        not correct.
        .
        the 4 major island chains are owned by china, and the chinese eez is delimited from the shores of all 4 of them.
        .
        china has rectified unclos upon signing to restrict military access, and prior approval must be granted by the chinese government before any foreign military vessel sails through the chinese eez. obviously the usn has violated unclos in such case, only the u.s. can say it has not signed unclos (but still wants to enjoy its rights) as an excuse.
        .

    • .Hugo.

      first, the u.s. has refused to sign on unclos.
      .
      second, your so-called “international tribunal” was actually a profit making arbitration service provider hired only by the philippines. it was not even a formal u.n. court or u.n. agency.
      .
      third, as an unclos signatory china enjoys and has exercised its unclos rights to reject the philippine pca fiasco. and by unclos article 284.3, all proceedings afterwards would be invalidated when one party has rejected the arbitration.
      .
      therefore it was actually illegal for the philippines to proceed with the so-called “tribunal” and even used its bought “reward” to make any claim. no wonder the u.s. has not recognized any of its new territorial claim.
      .
      by the way, it is the u.s. testing china’s (prc) determination, when it has long recognized the same claim by the roc (taiwan) before it lost the chinese representation in the world stage.

  • Bulldogdriver

    About time for the entire RRCSG to conduct a FON patrol while its air wing conduct continuous overflight sorties over every illegal outposts for a week. Can use the opportunity to get some nice up close shots of whatever is on those islands.

    • proudrino

      That would probably be a bit too provocative for a FON exercise.

    • .Hugo.

      foreign vessels intruding chinese waters are always intercepted by usually the chinese southern fleet and demanded to leave, and they always left, i.e. can’t stay in chinese waters.
      .
      air wing was intercepted by the chinese air force and its UAVs too.
      .
      satellite images have shown clearly what is on those islands already.

    • Pacemaker4

      Radioactive Reagan carrier strike group.

  • Louis Dandrea jr

    Not correct “no continental shelf” ..but the 12 mile thing was observed anyway..man made structures get 1500 foot buffer..US will observe 12 mile limit out of respect but still is able to take detailed inventory…its all about knowing and the USN knows..However the USS Higgins has shown its FANGS quite clearly in response to China going against its word about military on man made structures,,so its an off set to say the least..

    • .Hugo.

      why is continental shelf involved when chinese sovereignty is based on historic titles and unclos is not authorized to retroact previous historic arrangement?
      .
      and china is allowed to build in its eez based on unclos, see article 60.
      .
      don’t know what the uss higgins has really shown, when at the end it still has to leave by demand of the chinese navy.

  • Louis Dandrea jr

    Not Correct its WORLD COURT..the new name is South asian international waters..

  • Louis Dandrea jr

    I think your saying they were inside 12 miles limit? Not true..Higgins was ready to destroy anything that was aggressive inside international waters.. international waters are just that international waters LIVE WITH IT>>FREE PASSAGE..

    • .Hugo.

      this is quoted from china’s ratification in 1996:
      .
      The People’s Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.
      .
      activities like fonops are also regulated in unclos. you should read article 19, especially 19.2:
      .
      Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

      (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

      (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

      (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

      (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

      (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

      (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

      (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

      (h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

      (i) any fishing activities;

      (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

      (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

      (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
      .
      see how many of these the u.s. has violated? no wonder the u.s. has refused to sign on unclos.
      .
      in unclos territorial sea is national waters and eez.
      .
      and there is no such thing called “international waters” in unclos.
      .
      maybe you should live with it instead, innocent passage (formal unclos term) is never hindered, and that doesn’t include military vessels on military missions.

  • Louis Dandrea jr

    The New South Asian international waters..thats the new name!

    • Duane

      Kinda has a ring to it … like the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”. And about as likely to succeed.

      • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

        Yeah, but it cost a lot of lives before it collapsed…

        • Bryan

          Nariyuki no matsu

  • Louis Dandrea jr

    But a towed array show in great detail every under water feature including sub pens..

    • .Hugo.

      and china has large networks of underwater listening devices in scs and guam to pick up u.s. subs too.

  • Louis Dandrea jr

    Do not have to stay but WILL pass FREELY any time in accordance with the law..yes the USN WILL GIVE YOU THE RIGHTS OF 12 miles..IF the USN breaches 12 MILE limit then yes you have a complaint..and were not talking about man made objects.. they get 1500 feet above below and to the sides..

    • FelixA9

      Even within 12 miles they don’t have a complaint. It’s not THEIR territory.

    • .Hugo.

      it’s not even passing freely when you are demanded to leave every time, and you did have to leave every time.
      .
      12nm is not given by the usn but by unclos, a convention that the u.s. has refused to sign and therefore the usn has no right whatsoever to grant anything to china.
      .
      based on unclos china is entitled to take action when the usn enters chinese eez.

  • Louis Dandrea jr

    THATS a lot of oil inside Philippine 200 mile EEZ..enough LPG alone for Chinese to cook their food for 50 Years..

    • .Hugo.

      actually not, the known large deposits are all in the northern and brunei/malaysian parts of the scs, which is never the philippine eez no matter what.

      eiaDOTgov/todayinenergy/images/2013.04.03/maplarge.png

  • tiger

    Have any commercial ships faced a issue traversing the area?

    • Graeme Rymill

      Give it time. Taiwan will do something to displease China and the next thing is their shipping will be denied passage through this area.

      • .Hugo.

        you should know that the roc on taiwan has the claim as the prc on the mainland.
        .
        you should also know that the u.s .has actually recognized more of the roc claim before the roc lost its u.n. seat to the prc.
        .
        if not because of a massive prc naval force presence in the area, vietnam would have taken the taiping island still being held by the roc by now.

    • E1 Kabong

      Yes.
      The PRC has harassed and detained fishing vessels.

    • .Hugo.

      .
      in fact the only vessels which have face issues were usually caused by the usn.

  • Bulldogdriver

    Not really. Intercepted but Chinese warship will just tail behind helplessly while USN warships do what they have to do till they are pleased and leave. There is pretty much nothing that China warships can do when a US navy DDG or CG is conducting their FON patrol. Same as for US Bombers or MPAs. China will intercept and escort but thats all they can do. Looking on in dismay and shouting over the radio to vent their helplessness

    • .Hugo.

      unfortunately u.s. warships just could not do what they wanted but to sail straight out of chinese waters as told by the chinese navy.
      .
      and ddg or cg doesn’t really matter, when less powerful chinese vessels have intercepted them before and even forced them to turn back. let’s see who will face a much higher repairing cost at the end of the day.
      .
      for looking on in dismay, i can recall immediately of how the u.s. crewmen looked when their spying drone was captured by the chinese coast guard right in front of them.
      .
      and shouting over the radio when the chinese crew has to use a second language to suite you? that’s understandable.

      • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

        Spying drone? You mean the underwater surveying vehicle that was COTS and commercially build for surveying the bottom? Yeah, keep trying PLA troll.

        Wanna talk about spying?

  • Bulldogdriver

    Thats some wishful thinking. USN SSNs has been sailing into extremely well protected soviet ports for clandestine missions since decades ago and will continue doing so at will. What else do you think all these SSNs do on their half year long Westpac patrol? I am sure there is a whole network of US listening devices detecting every Chinese SSKs and SSNs too.

    • .Hugo.

      who can confirm that?
      .
      how can you compare modern underwater surveillance technology with the one decades old?

      • Phaeton

        Basically,that creature is full of bull as far as sailing into Soviet ports,but tapping underwater datacables is a thing that’s been done.

  • Bulldogdriver

    Intercepted, sure. Warned, of course. Any impact on planned mission, nil.

    • .Hugo.

      if your planned mission was just come and go without any solid objective, then sure. also what an easy mission that was.

  • Graeme Rymill

    “you can sail thru but you can’t stay” – it isn’t about staying. The US isn’t claiming these waters as US territory. It is saying that these are international waters and anyone can sail through them.

    • .Hugo.

      whatever, the u.s. ships still couldn’t stay while the chinese ships were stationing right there.
      .
      it’s chinese eez subject to unclos rules and not “international waters” which is not an unclos concept.

      • Bulldogdriver

        Those China warships don’t stay either. They just sail out, try their best to shadow US warships before going back to port when its all over. No difference from US warships that do what they have to do there and move on to another mission.

        But I do know that when it comes to a shooting war, some B-1Bs will fly from Texas, let rip with hundreds of JASSM-ER and LRASM and wipe the whole South China Sea clean of Chinese warships and island outpost. 🙂

        • FelixA9

          They’re like a barking dog chasing a car and thinking it scared the car away.

          • .Hugo.

            but not so when this car drove in and tried to say you don’t own that road, then the owner sent the dogs to stop the car and force it to drive away. 🙂
            .

        • FelixA9

          If they even needed the bombers. Could be the combat debut of the Mk48. 😉

          • .Hugo.

            then it can be a chinese debut of the ws-400 too. 🙂
            .

        • .Hugo.

          the recent u.s. intrusion took place in the xisha islands, where the largest chinese settlement, the yongxing island, was located. the chinese navy has a base there too, so why would chinese warships has to leave?
          .
          you should know all strategic bombers are under constant watch and count, including the ones in the u.s. homeland. when they take off, china will know, when they launch missiles, china will know too.
          .
          for the jassm-er even with a max range of 1000km, to attack the nansha islands the farthest they can be launched will be over the philippines, i.e. well within chinese radar range. the missile is subsonic, let’s give it a “good speed” of 850km/hr, china will so much time to track, jam, and take them down.
          .
          lrasm is anti-ship and with a much shorter range of around 560km, i just don’t know how the launch platform can get that close to launch them. again they are subsonic, meaning big and slow targets for chinese air defense.
          .

      • TomD

        EEZs are not territorial waters. In your writings you constantly conflate the two

        • .Hugo.

          perhaps i should say “territorial waters” (not territorial sea in unclos) = 12nm of national territorial sea + 200nm of exclusive economic zone, both as defined in unclos.
          .
          by now we should all know that part v of unclos has listed out the eez rights of the host country. you should also read china’s ratification of unclos in 1996:
          .
          In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.
          .
          so i don’t see i have not conflated the 2 at all.

          • TomD

            OK, but that’s your private definition and it’s unnecessary. The UNCLOS definitions a re good enough. For clarity let’s just stick with those definitions for these discussions.

          • .Hugo.

            it’s only “unnecessary” when you can’t defy it.
            .
            you still can’t avoid the unclos definition of 12nm of national sea + 200nm of eez.
            .

          • TomD

            EEZ is 200 km, not nm, and the 12 nm of territorial waters is within the EEZ, it doesn’t extend the EEZ

          • .Hugo.

            wrong.
            .
            it’s always nautical miles in unclos.
            .
            article 3:
            Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
            .
            article 57:
            The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
            .
            .
            no one has said it’s 212nm, i have explained in the past that the limit is always 200nm.
            .

          • TomD

            Yes, sorry, you are correct on the nm. I don’t understand why, most of the world is metric. My bad assumption.

            Still, the point is the outermost 188 nm of any EEZ are NOT territorial waters and so are open to any vessels that are not engaged in economic exploitation of the EEZ.

          • .Hugo.

            a signatory state has the right to exercise its sovereign rights in its eez. that is stated in at least articles 56, 60, and the country declaration:
            .
            (chinese unclos declaration, 1996)
            .
            1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.

            2. The People’s Republic of China will effect, through consultations, the delimitation of the boundary of the maritime jurisdiction with the States with coasts opposite or adjacent to China respectively on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equitability.

            3. The People’s Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.

            4. The People’s Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.

          • TomD

            “a signatory state has the right to exercise its sovereign rights in its eez. that is stated in at least articles 56, 60…”
            Correct, but ONLY with regard to economic rights. Again, you seek to extend an EEZ to include non-economic rights, which UNCLOS does not allow.

            “…and the country declaration”
            Which in China’s case violates UNCLOS.

          • .Hugo.

            mostly with regard to economic rights and the protection of the environment, that’s why china has ratified unclos in 1996, and that’s not a unclos violation when you can find it in unclos’ country declaration section. only you want to call it a violation when it is against your argument.
            .
            1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.

      • FelixA9

        The US could do whatever it wanted, including taking those “islands” in about an hour.

        • .Hugo.

          of course the u.s. can do that, then it’s a direct attack against a sovereign country.
          .
          actually you don’t have an hour, for your staging activities to gather your troops and equipment and the traversing to the operation area are all closely monitored. meaning the minute you start moving, china will know and will be prepared to “greet” you, and it’s just next door.

  • Graeme Rymill

    The US ship are passing through international waters. Just because event A is followed by event B doesn’t mean event A caused event B. They leave the area simply because it is a ship’s right to transit through it this area. China’s protests don’t change the intended outcome.

    • .Hugo.

      there is no such definition as “international waters” in unclos, why don’t you just say the u.s. is free to go lawless as it has refused to sign on unclos instead?
      .
      and there won’t be event b without event a in this case. your ships went, chinese ships intercepted based on unlcos, your ships left. plain simple.
      .
      of course protest won’t change anything, that’s why china sent its warships to “greet” yours and make sure they left. 🙂

  • Graeme Rymill

    UNCLOS: Article 87 Freedom of the High Seas

    “The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked.
    Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by
    this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States”

    • .Hugo.

      nice quote, but it’s high seas, not international waters. in fact, there is no mention of international waters in unclos. article 86 of the same part (you should not skip it):
      .
      “The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone….This article does not entail any abridgement of the freedoms enjoyed by all States in the exclusive economic zone in accordance with article 58.”
      .
      and article 58.3 reads:
      .
      “…States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law….”
      .
      so when sailing through chinese eez, by what basis that the u.s. navy can ignore chinese maritime laws?
      .
      high seas is outside of eez too, and the u.s. is challenging china’s sovereignty inside chinese eez. so how can you apply the high seas concept?
      .
      .
      guess what the simplest answer is? “the u.s. has refused to sign on unclos but still wants to enjoy its rights. so the u.s. navy can go lawless in any ocean but the others not.” 🙂

  • proudrino

    “The Chinese side is firmly opposed to such provocative and arbitrary actions by the U.S. side, which undermined strategic mutual trust between the two militaries and damaged peace, security and good order in relevant waters, Wu continued.”

    Mutual trust between the Chinese and US militaries? Damaged peace security and good order? Neither of these statements is true under the current US administration. What we have here is a good old-fashioned FON exercise and everybody including the Chinese know it. Their territorial claims are unrecognized in the international community.

    That being said, I have to wonder just how much the US would be ceding to China had Hillary Clinton become POTUS. Guaranteed the Chinese would be far happier than they are with a real leader in charge instead of…… Hillary Clinton.

    • TomD

      Actually, given her Russian collusion charges, a Clinton 2 administration might have been more verbally bellicose regarding the SCS.

    • .Hugo.

      wrong.
      .
      the u.s. has recognized the roc claim of the same islands before the roc lost its u.n. representation.
      .
      fonops is just old-fashioned intimidation technique which only works on much smaller and weaker countries but not china. that’s why the u.s. can’t really do much with it except come and go.

  • Mr. Speaker

    Nothing new there really……. well maybe it is to people who’ve never left Kansas.
    The U.S. has been doing FON ops in the Taiwan Straits since the 50’s and ships out of Yoko and Sasebo regularly sail near the Parcels and Spratley’s anyway.

  • JJ

    So, .Hugo, just to be clear: Are you actually making the point that the USN vessels who cruise by these islands don’t stop because they are being chased away by PLAN vessels? What do you think their mission is, to drop anchor?! It’s a Freedom of Navigation exercise. Implicit in that is the concept of navigation, which means the ship is underway. Whether or not a PLAN vessel complains is irrelevant to the mission, and no doubt is expected. JJThe USN vessel will continue on its determined course regardless.

    • .Hugo.

      yes.
      .
      intruding u.s. vessels are always being monitored and tracked even before they enter chinese territorial waters.
      .
      if you really want to challenge chinese sovereignty then you should really just drop anchor. that will show how much freedom you have.
      .
      what is really irrelevant is the mission itself just won’t impact chinese sovereignty a single bit.
      .
      uss cowpens has to turn back when its “determined course” was blocked by a chinese landing craft sailing right in front of it. guess who has been more determined?

      • JJ

        I don’t know whether or not that actually occurred, but it’s interesting that you suggest the USS Cowpens should have rammed the Chinese landing craft, which no doubt violated every rule of the road by sailing into the path of another nation’s larger warship. Do you think it’s at all possible that the Cowpens changed course simply to prevent injury to your landing craft and it’s crew?

        I understand you having pride in your country, but it’s very sad to see the real effect of the PRC propaganda machine on its citizens. Open your eyes, my friend. There’s a whole different world out there that is completely different than the illusion your state-controlled media has fostered on you and your countrymen.

        Regarding your logic and your arguments: Calling a bird a cat doesn’t make it a cat. And repeating the argument ad nauseum doesn’t make it any more accurate than the first time you made it.

        • .Hugo.

          i did not suggest that. i was only saying it could not proceed with its “determined course” when intercepted by a much less powerful landing craft. well, at least for being a landing craft, it has to be solidly built as compared with the aluminium alloy cg with an expensive and fragile sonar dome in front. the landing craft was prepared to be rammed when it was tasked to stop the u.s. warship, and the entire chinese fleet was just next to it to pick up its own crew.
          .
          this is not pride driven, only feeling sickened by one sided pro-u.s. comments and thinking. your “whole different” world has china all over the place, and your so-called “allies” have all rushed to join china’s economic initiatives to achieve mutual benefits, and china can even veto your bills in the u.n. security council.
          .
          as for the bird and cat thing, i will just look at facts and what has actually happened.
          .

  • TomD

    It has to leave by virtue of its fuel capacity, and when it is gone things are exactly as they were before.

    • .Hugo.

      why is there fuel capacity issue if you have a territorial presence to support your ships like the chinese navy? since when the u.s. has owned part of the scs?

      • TomD

        It was a half joke on my part.

  • TomD

    The high seas ARE international waters, and vice versa. The terms mean the same thing. You are being unbelievably nitpicky.

    • E1 Kabong

      The PRC doesn’t teach their minions any facts before sending them out to troll.

      Just flag the troll.

      • tiger

        Not being a cheerleader, does not make him a troll.

    • .Hugo.

      where is that definition in unclos? when every scs state marks its eez accordingly, just how much area can be considered high seas in the scs?
      .
      is this why the u.s. refused to sign on unclos?
      .

  • TomD

    Well, yeah. “Come and go” was the solid objective. Want to make it less solid? Quit complaining, and it will be less solid.

    • .Hugo.

      don’t worry, come more often, the chinese navy is always there before you anyway.

      • TomD

        I’d like to see us bring the Coors and Bud

        • .Hugo.

          qingdao beer will be the return gift. 😀

  • TomD

    The USN performed FONOPS off the Crimea in the 1980’s. The Soviets were not intimidated. China recently performed FONOPS off the Aleutians and the U.S. was not intimidated. Your false charge of intimidation is proof of irrationality.

    • .Hugo.

      and who owns the crimea now?
      .
      china did not perform fonops off the alaskan coast, the chinese navy was en-route to its training area. that’s innocent passage in unclos, and as the u.s. is not an unclos signatory state there was no unclos requirement to seek approval from the u.s. when sailing through.
      .

      • TomD

        You are being obtuse again. The purpose of FONOPS is to secure innocent passage. It’s naval lingo for an operation to ensure compliance with UNCLOS. Finally there is no requirement for anyone, UNCLOS signatory or not, to ‘seek approval’ to enjoy innocent passage.

        • .Hugo.

          wrong.
          .
          no one but the u.s. has threatened innocent passage in the south china sea. using a military vessel to perform a military mission in other’s territorial waters and eez is not innocent passage at all.
          .
          the u.s. has no right to ask others for unclos compliance, as it itself is not an unclos signatory.
          .
          and wrong again. there is a part which calls country declaration in unclos, which china has made such request for foreign military vessels.
          .

  • Duane

    We need to continue and intensify FONOPS because every time we do so the PRC loses face and therefore prestige.

    Better yet, conduct a major naval and aviation exercise surrounding the Chinese installation to demonstrate how we would obliterate the island in war. That would take the wind out of the PRC’s sails!

    We also need to not over-react, as these island installations are, as a practical matter, fixed isolated positions in the middle of nothing, indefensible in war, and within the first hour of a China-US war would be turned into smoking holes in the ocean.

    These PRC installations are all about projecting a sense of Chinese power and dominance of the SCS. It’s all a psy-op campaign. So the correct approach is to kick sand in China’s face, humiliate them, and reveal them to be the pusilanimous paper tigers they are and always have been.

    To quote Christopher Walken, what we need is “more cowbell” … as in, many more FONOPS, at least one a month.

    • .Hugo.

      unfortunately the prc won’t lose face at all when every time it’s the u.s. navy which has to sail away, if not colliding with any civilian ship too….
      .
      and if you really want to conduct a major exercise right inside chinese eez, then let’s see how you can handle thousands of chinese fishing vessels spreading their fishing nets there at the same time. they will be protected by the chinese coast guard and the navy, as they are rightfully operating in the chinese territorial waters as defined in unclos.
      .
      installations in guam are also fixed, and guam’s air defense is also not significant.
      .
      don’t do fonops just once a month, do it everyday, for the chinese navy is right there every single day to “greet” your fleet.
      .

      • Bulldogdriver

        Fishing boats with nets driven by ‘patriotic fishermen’, just one of the many filthy tactics used by the Chinese to enforce their dubious claims.
        US DDGs need to get a Laser Weapon System to burn big holes in the hulls of these fishing vessels and ignite some marine diesel. Soon these boats will figure it cost them expensive repairs and down time from fishing to participate in such activities.

        • .Hugo.

          but those fishing boats with nets have stopped your spying activities off the chinese coast.
          .
          want to run the risk for your submarine’s propellers or your destroyer’s sonar dome to be entangled by one?
          .
          you can burn maybe one from the thousands of fishing boats before your own being burned. and don’t use u.s. cost standard on china.
          .
          and down time from fishing? err….. do you not know that fishing is just the part time job for these guys?
          .

  • Bulldogdriver

    Well there is no need to confirm now. The US Navy constantly ensures that it’s submarine forces paces the threats out there. Having the most advanced ASW capabilities in the world certainly will help ensure that its submarine forces has the best technology and training to defeat these ASW measures. A few decades down and your grandchildren will be reading about these daring SUBFORPAC exploits. 🙂

    • .Hugo.

      no need to confirm? very reasonable, thanks…. 🙂
      .
      i guess we don’t have to facts anyway haha…
      .
      most advanced by whose standards? when was the last time your “most advanced” asw capabilities have really sink an enemy sub in combat? will your asw capabilities sustain the duration of the war in the first place?
      .
      and from what we can see today, i don’t think my grandchildren will have to pay any big attention to the u.s. anymore.
      .

  • CharleyA

    China likes to incept and bully / harass unarmed vessels.

    • .Hugo.

      that’s the philippine coast guard….

      • CharleyA

        Right on time – 9AM in Beijing.

  • Bulldogdriver

    To go through the yard that you gleefully self-proclaimed to be your private property and pointing a middle finger at you. That’s a simple mission.

    • .Hugo.

      then that’s called trespassing, that’s why you were told and escorted to leave, and you did leave.

  • Duane

    Dude, your continuous trolling on behalf of the PRC doesn’t change anything. Your guys lost at the Hague, your guys did not even bother to defend your position because you all knew your position was indefensible … so instead your side rejected the jurisdiction of UNCLOS, and thereby assumed the position of a lawless state.

    OK, we get it … so stop playing the barracks lawyer and simply admit that the illegal Chinese island building in the SCS was never about law, but was always about naked power.

    Unfortunately for you Chinese, your forces are incapable of projecting power … you guys have gotten your butts kicked in every war since the Japanese whipped you in 1,200 AD. And more recently when Vietnam beat you guys like a drum in the late 70s, and the US and UN forces whipped you in the Korean War in the early 50s. The Chinese are paper tigers, and always have been.

    • .Hugo.

      you really think i can change anything? i am only making a factual comment which you don’t want to see and have to keep hiding in and to resort to the trolling excuse.
      .
      by the way, it’s china’s unclos right to reject the philippine fiasco. it’s 100% legal instead of lawless. 🙂
      .
      and i don’t have to go back to the 1200 a.d. when it was just 60 years ago when the china pushed you all back from the chinese border to the 38th parallel. china succeeded in protecting nk, while the u.s. has failed to destroy it, even with superior firepower. 🙂
      .
      don’t see how vietnam has beaten china too when china has recovered the entire xisha islands, stopped border intrusion from vietnam, forced vietnam to give up cambodia at the end (out of money after the 1979 war), and china has taken off while vietnam is still begging for investment , including from china. 😀

    • tiger

      So where is all this bluster when it comes to Russia vs. Japan?

  • CharleyA

    I count 22 posts / $11 so far at Fifty Cent Party wages.

  • Leroy

    Escalation is all but certain. When fired upon, and we will be, I hope we have plans to totally destroy those islands. Not just one mind you, but ALL OF THEM! One hostile act, that’s all it should take. I would advise that we adopt that future plan of action.

    • .Hugo.

      so for the chinese navy too, when fired upon and they will be.
      .
      you don’t need plans to totally destroy those islands for it it is unworthy to do so, as guam will face the same fate which is far more damaging than those remote islands.
      .
      you don’t need one hostile act either, as the u.s. is known to have lied to start wars in asia and the middle east just like how japan started the sino-japanese war in 1937.

      • Leroy

        But we are violating your territory according to you. Multiple times (FON) and it will continue. So either do something about it or stop yapping like a dog – a small, wormy, protruding-tooth Chinese Crested Dog at that!

        • .Hugo.

          you have violated but you always left when demanded, so china has done everything to maintain peace and stability, while the u.s .has tried everything to upset them.
          .
          actually thanks for pointing out.
          .

    • tiger

      Bit trigger happy? Mind ending the 16 year war on your plate already?

      • Leroy

        Trigger happy? Not the U.S., but maybe China. We’ll see.

  • Jack D Ripper

    Shelf is involved hugo mei wa,,el chi com

    • .Hugo.

      wrong, it doesn’t, for unclos cannot be applied when historic ownership is involved. 🙂
      .

  • muzzleloader

    Our “taxpayers”pay for our navy to put yours In thier place, troll.

    • .Hugo.

      and pay a much higher cost too, let’s see who can sustain.
      .
      and by having opposite comments =/= troll.

      • muzzleloader

        We can sustain just fine, Chang.

        • .Hugo.

          we should be seeing more u.s. ship launches and more and bigger fonops by now if you can really sustain.
          .

  • muzzleloader

    “China entitled to take action”, yes, and wind up at the bottom of scs.

  • Hugh

    Earlier this year 3 RAN ships were officially visiting ports in several countries bordering the SCS, and were on their way through international waters to Vietnam and were not conducting FON, but they were accosted by PLA-N ships and a “robust exchange” took place. It seems like the Chinese are stepping up their actions generally against military assets anywhere in the SCS.

    • .Hugo.

      maybe when australia has exited from unclos earlier when trying to grab the resource-rich waters of east timor, it has preferred not to observe the rights of the other unclos countries?
      .
      ran warships have sailed through the chinese eez, meaning that australia should have seek china’s approval first, that’s clearly written in unclos.
      .

  • Mnorris

    We should send out all our fleet at SCS as yearly FON exercise

    • .Hugo.

      i would say yes to it too, then we will see how much navy budget will jump sky high and drag down the u.s. economy.
      .
      what’s next? more quantitative easing? or more hostile economic actions against your so-called “allies” to skim for $$$ ?
      .

      .

  • Adrian Ah

    No real point to the US doing these sail bys.

    Either remove China from their illegal islands and illegal claims, or just admit they won by the US refusing to stop their actions – it’s been going on since all of Obama’s administration, and now Trump.

    This is an excellent opportunity to unify all of East and South East Asia- every other country wants China out. Bring everyone together against a common enemy.

    • Hugh

      Everyone won’t come together – China is buying too much influence.

  • Eric J

    Time for a New Version of Marine Detachments on Destroyers & Carriers:

    Combine 1 ANGLICO FCT with Rifle PLT

    – HQ: 1 ANGLICO FCT Firepower Control Team….4 Marines
    –1 Marine Capt JTAC
    –1 Marine GySgt JTAC
    –1 Marine NCO 0861 Fires Specialist
    –1 Marine NCO 0621 Radio Oper

    – GCE: Reinforced Rifle Platoon

  • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

    Looks like the PLA trolls have invaded this thread?

    • muzzleloader

      Yes they have.

  • SFC Steven M Barry USA RET

    How about the US stop trying to provoke war with China?

  • .Hugo.

    ah so you are the one trying to avoid my valid postings, especially when you can’t refute? i see…. 🙂
    .

    • NavySubNuke

      LOL, it is cute that you think your paid spam is actually valid postings. No worries Hugo – As an American living in a free country I know I can’t even imagine the deprivations you and your family would suffer if you didn’t keep posting this nonsense and instead starting posting actual truth.

      • .Hugo.

        prove them as paid spam with facts then.
        .
        so far i have seen none from you.
        .
        you should correct your statement a little too, it should be “WHITE american living in a MUSLIM FREE country.” free country won’t shoot or arrest black people like what we are seeing, and free country won’t arrest people by praising their god the way you don’t like.
        .
        maybe you enjoy your “free live” of students shooting people at schools too.
        .
        and i don’t suffer from anything of not posting, i enjoy my weekend so much without any posting. 🙂
        .

        • NavySubNuke

          Why? You’ll just keep lying even after I disprove this nonsense. There is nothing to be gained by wasting my time trying to contradict a paid troll.
          Nice try though spam troll.

          • .Hugo.

            “why” means empty accusation, got it, thanks.
            .
            the fact is you have never able to disprove me, and all you can do is to resort to the old troll excuse.
            .

          • NavySubNuke

            Please troll, I’ve disproved you in the past and you still kept lying — there is no point to it. Refusing to engage in a debate with someone who is either a paid troll or a political prisoner being worked as a slave is not an excuse — it is reality even if you aren’t able to admit it.
            No worries though Hugo – we’ll see how long China lasts under Dictator for Life Xi. I hope whatever comes that you survive it!

          • .Hugo.

            first you can’t prove me as a troll, then you have never able to disprove me. you were only fully of avoidance every time.
            .
            no recognized world body including the u.n. has named xi a dictator. a lift of governing term doesn’t mean presidency for life. xi is elected by the largest law making body in the world, and he has to face the same selection process every 5 years. it’s the chinese people who believe xi needs more time to implement his policies, that’s why the term limitation is lifted.
            .
            and that is needed exactly because china has to last much longer, as it has lasted for at least the past 4000 years.
            .

          • NavySubNuke

            Sure Hugo – whatever you are paid to say. I understand what conditions are like for those in China who don’t go along with the party line — there is a reason anyone with enough money in China flies somewhere like the US to have their children after all. Good luck and i hope you don’t get executed today!

          • .Hugo.

            that should be “whatever you can’t refute or prove”.
            .
            and again when you have to resort to the old troll excuses, i know you have lost the argument.
            .
            the main reasons for “anyone with enough money in china to fly somewhere like the u.s. to have their children” is to avoid the super tough education in china, and to invest their surplus funds in the overseas. the first reason means china’s tough education system produces elites (china has the most stem graduates), and the second one means your own people are too poor to invest in your own assets (chinese purchasing power surpasses the u.s.).
            .

          • NavySubNuke

            What argument hugo?
            There is no debating or arguing with a paid or coerced troll like you except in your own mind.
            Nice try though on trying to explain why anyone with money in China makes sure their kids are born somewhere else – I am sure your guards/employer were pleased at that pitiful attempt.

          • .Hugo.

            of course “there is no debate” when you can’t even have a good grasp of the topic. 🙂
            .
            and you should say average chinese (the middle class) can afford to create a viable option b, you can’t.
            .

  • Ziv Bnd

    It is unfortunate that the US didn’t team up with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam in the past to build up their own sand islands. They would be just as fake and illegal, but it would show the Chinese idiocy for just what it is. Even at this date, it probably be best to do so, even though it is several years late. The Philippines used to have an old LST permanently “docked” on one of the reefs. Something like that might be the cheapest way to establish a permanent presence.

  • Los Deplorables

    I wish cancer of the eyes upon all automaton commie zipperheads.