South China/West Philippine Sea

[airport-noo]

You're assuming there is no oil in the area so what happens if they do find oil? Will the Chinese agree to split the oil with us? There was a similar proposal before but it was turned down.

 

They've already done the oil exploration almost a decade ago. Between 2005 and 2008, Arroyo entered into a joint exploration agreement with China and Vietnam within disputed areas that are 80% inside our EEZ. Since China decided to spend $1 billion to build an oil rig, it sounds to me like they found something. Loida Lewis was already protesting the oil rig in 2011 (see youtube).

[airport-noo]

The joint exploration agreement ended in 2008. A year later China submits the 9-dash line to the UN claiming sovereignty over it. The line is even closer to Palawan than the Spratlys.

[gamehunter]

Compare this...

 

When US and PH stepped up their military cooperation (Balikatan)...

'Leftists' (Bayad muna, Gabriela, LFS, other Joma sison groups.) took to the streets like rabid dogs burning American flags and Obama effigies.

 

When China bullies our navy and fishermen and build structures on our shoals in the West pH sea...

They are f**** silent.

 

Of course they won't bite the hand that feeds them.

[tk421]

To be fair, actually a few days before Obama arrived, they did stage a protest in front of the China embassy. But compared to their rabid attack on anything US, their China protest was just a mediocre effort. Just so they can say "hey, we protested, too".

[maxiev]

To be fair, actually a few days before Obama arrived, they did stage a protest in front of the China embassy. But compared to their rabid attack on anything US, their China protest was just a mediocre effort. Just so they can say "hey, we protested, too".

Yeah the level of protest against the Chinese comes nothing close to the sometimes violent protests against the Americans. If they were sincere, they'd resort to what the Vietnamese did against Chinese owned companies in Vietnam.

[tk421]

That was a very unfortunate incident, since the riot in Vietnam actually damaged Taiwanese companies rather than Chinese ones.

[hit05]

They've already done the oil exploration almost a decade ago. Between 2005 and 2008, Arroyo entered into a joint exploration agreement with China and Vietnam within disputed areas that are 80% inside our EEZ. Since China decided to spend $1 billion to build an oil rig, it sounds to me like they found something. Loida Lewis was already protesting the oil rig in 2011 (see youtube).

 

Considering Chinese Government funds are heavily invested without return on equity, the desperate bureaucrats who created the poor decision need to buy more time by setting up this oil rig before they finally get the axe. Oil rigs are not really permanent structures since they can be towed in and out of service. We got a couple of them and they are like vehicles that need regular maintenance and scheduled service repairs interval.

 

The original claimant has drilled for oil already and found none. Marcos in his hey days had a very profitable oil interests too with PNOC and Petron, and this prospect cannot escape his web of influence had the potential been clear and promising. Perhaps if we assume that Marcos is a shrewd investor and leader, then let us trust his decision not to waste time in this area. Let us give it a few more weeks or even a couple of months of Chinese due diligence then we can finally rest this case.

[red60]

They've already done the oil exploration almost a decade ago. Between 2005 and 2008, Arroyo entered into a joint exploration agreement with China and Vietnam within disputed areas that are 80% inside our EEZ. Since China decided to spend $1 billion to build an oil rig, it sounds to me like they found something. Loida Lewis was already protesting the oil rig in 2011 (see youtube).

 

Kung ganon pala then we should have not agreed to the joint exploration.. Tsk.. Are you pertaining to the same oil rig with the one Vietnam is protesting?

[airport-noo]

Kung ganon pala then we should have not agreed to the joint exploration.. Tsk.. Are you pertaining to the same oil rig with the one Vietnam is protesting?

 

Can't be sure if it's the same one, but being a $1 billion oil rig it reminded me of Loida Lewis' interview. With the joint military exercises going on nearby it's not practical to attempt it in our territory right now.

You're right about the joint oil exploration. Many diplomats were surprised that we allowed them to explore our EEZ. Arroyo was very friendly to China. She signed 65 bilateral agreements with them. Not surprising given the NBM-ZTE deal.

[scam]

Compare this...

 

When US and PH stepped up their military cooperation (Balikatan)...

'Leftists' (Bayad muna, Gabriela, LFS, other Joma sison groups.) took to the streets like rabid dogs burning American flags and Obama effigies.

 

When China bullies our navy and fishermen and build structures on our shoals in the West pH sea...

They are f**** silent.

 

Of course they won't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

Let the WAR begin! We start with this groups on the left then we throw ABNOY to invade China.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

That was a very unfortunate incident, since the riot in Vietnam actually damaged Taiwanese companies rather than Chinese ones.

I know. That was unfortunate indeed.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

WHO IS AFRAID OF CHINA?

 

Not Vietnam, a smaller country than ours, without allies. Like us, Vietnam faces the bullying of China, too, as she has overlapping territorial claims with China in the Paracels. Without fanfare, Vietnam is developing its armed forces based on submarines and small boats. In contrast, we are developing our defense capability based on surface ships, fighter planes and radar.

 

I could see the logic in Vietnam's force development. Submarines could be deployed undetected in ambush positions across the vast expanse of the sea, thereby sowing apprehension to the adversary. It is similar to a Vietcong platoon hiding in the jungle, waiting in ambush for the American patrol to come by, then open fire, k*ll and withdraw.

 

In the case of small boats, the are cheap to produce in numbers. The could swarm the enemy, fire their missiles or torpedoes, then withdraw to their sanctuary. Surely, they are vulnerable but one of the many may get through to its target.

 

Both cases cited above are variations of guerrilla warfare or what is now called by the highfaluting term as asymmetric warfare. From all indications, Vietnam does not intend to contest China in a conventional war.

 

From all indications, the Philippines is preparing the Navy and the Air Force for conventional war. The weapons being procured like warplanes and radars (costly tools of war) point to that. But we may multiply these weapons by ten and we will not even dent the balance of power with China, that according to one intelligence analyst. In our effort to build a "credible defense", I think we should be more practical rather than being carried away in pursuit of a macho image.

 

China has grown into a giant economic and technological power. With all that power on her hands, it is only a matter of time that such economic and technological power is translated into military power to rival those of the United States. Therefore, our few warships and warplanes and all conventional weapons that we can ever afford to acquire will not have a significant deterrent effect on China.

 

The truth of the matter is that China's growing naval power will be a formidable defensive and offensive force. Pitted against our Navy in the high seas, a sea battle would be lopsidedly in their favor. Even in the sanctuary of their bases, our forces are not safe because we have no control of the air and the sea.

 

But China's overly aggressive behavior in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea to us) has now transformed the problem from a mere territorial dispute into one of strategic dimension that the US Congress and State Department have taken cognizance of. I believe the other great powers in the Asia Pacific region like Korea, Australia & Japan have taken notice to the creeping strategy of China which impinges upon their national concerns, too.

 

In the light of these developments, it is now time for us to shift gears and develop our own independent defense system. We are for eternity in Asia with China as our neighbor. We have allies but they have their own interests to pursue and protect. They will come and go as their national interest shall dictate.

 

Since time immemorial, asymmetric warfare is the weapon of the weak against the strong and let us not belittle ourselves for the weak can win and the strong can fumble. The real world is replete of examples where the weak won over the strong. The Bible tells us how shepherd David killed the warrior Goliath with a sling shot. In recent history, there was Vietnam winning against the United States. Today, Al Qaeda is fighting the United States without a navy, air force or a standing army. One thing we must remember is that the sophistication of the strong is its own vulnerability.

 

At this point, it would be a wise policy to let our allies who have interests in the area and who are capable of standing up to China's growing naval capability do so. We can contribute to their efforts with a credible capability for asymmetric warfare. As an ally, we may provide basing facilities for their forces but we should keep our antiquated Navy and Air Force out of the way; use them for internal security as our internal security is shot through and through.

 

As we shore up our external defense, we must remember that the foundation of a strong external defense is stable internal security. With so many groups fighting the government, China can subvert us through any one of these groups. It stands to reason, therefore, that the government should invest first to solving the age old problems on poverty, ignorance, injustice and lawlessness in all its forms. Those done, we can face China with confidence.

 

ANTONIO EDUARTE SOTELO

Lt Gen AFP (Ret)

ntnsotelo@yahoo.com

 

[maxiev]

WHO IS AFRAID OF CHINA?

 

Not Vietnam, a smaller country than ours, without allies. Like us, Vietnam faces the bullying of China, too, as she has overlapping territorial claims with China in the Paracels. Without fanfare, Vietnam is developing its armed forces based on submarines and small boats. In contrast, we are developing our defense capability based on surface ships, fighter planes and radar.

 

I could see the logic in Vietnam's force development. Submarines could be deployed undetected in ambush positions across the vast expanse of the sea, thereby sowing apprehension to the adversary. It is similar to a Vietcong platoon hiding in the jungle, waiting in ambush for the American patrol to come by, then open fire, k*ll and withdraw.

 

In the case of small boats, the are cheap to produce in numbers. The could swarm the enemy, fire their missiles or torpedoes, then withdraw to their sanctuary. Surely, they are vulnerable but one of the many may get through to its target.

 

Both cases cited above are variations of guerrilla warfare or what is now called by the highfaluting term as asymmetric warfare. From all indications, Vietnam does not intend to contest China in a conventional war.

 

From all indications, the Philippines is preparing the Navy and the Air Force for conventional war. The weapons being procured like warplanes and radars (costly tools of war) point to that. But we may multiply these weapons by ten and we will not even dent the balance of power with China, that according to one intelligence analyst. In our effort to build a "credible defense", I think we should be more practical rather than being carried away in pursuit of a macho image.

 

China has grown into a giant economic and technological power. With all that power on her hands, it is only a matter of time that such economic and technological power is translated into military power to rival those of the United States. Therefore, our few warships and warplanes and all conventional weapons that we can ever afford to acquire will not have a significant deterrent effect on China.

 

The truth of the matter is that China's growing naval power will be a formidable defensive and offensive force. Pitted against our Navy in the high seas, a sea battle would be lopsidedly in their favor. Even in the sanctuary of their bases, our forces are not safe because we have no control of the air and the sea.

 

But China's overly aggressive behavior in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea to us) has now transformed the problem from a mere territorial dispute into one of strategic dimension that the US Congress and State Department have taken cognizance of. I believe the other great powers in the Asia Pacific region like Korea, Australia & Japan have taken notice to the creeping strategy of China which impinges upon their national concerns, too.

 

In the light of these developments, it is now time for us to shift gears and develop our own independent defense system. We are for eternity in Asia with China as our neighbor. We have allies but they have their own interests to pursue and protect. They will come and go as their national interest shall dictate.

 

Since time immemorial, asymmetric warfare is the weapon of the weak against the strong and let us not belittle ourselves for the weak can win and the strong can fumble. The real world is replete of examples where the weak won over the strong. The Bible tells us how shepherd David killed the warrior Goliath with a sling shot. In recent history, there was Vietnam winning against the United States. Today, Al Qaeda is fighting the United States without a navy, air force or a standing army. One thing we must remember is that the sophistication of the strong is its own vulnerability.

 

At this point, it would be a wise policy to let our allies who have interests in the area and who are capable of standing up to China's growing naval capability do so. We can contribute to their efforts with a credible capability for asymmetric warfare. As an ally, we may provide basing facilities for their forces but we should keep our antiquated Navy and Air Force out of the way; use them for internal security as our internal security is shot through and through.

 

As we shore up our external defense, we must remember that the foundation of a strong external defense is stable internal security. With so many groups fighting the government, China can subvert us through any one of these groups. It stands to reason, therefore, that the government should invest first to solving the age old problems on poverty, ignorance, injustice and lawlessness in all its forms. Those done, we can face China with confidence.

 

ANTONIO EDUARTE SOTELO

Lt Gen AFP (Ret)

ntnsotelo@yahoo.com

Very interesting article. Is this the same Sotelo who landed his choppers in Camp Crame which effectively turned the tide of the People Power revolt against President Marcos?

[heatseeker0714]

Very interesting article. Is this the same Sotelo who landed his choppers in Camp Crame which effectively turned the tide of the People Power revolt against President Marcos?

 

yup...

[heatseeker0714]

Kung ganon pala then we should have not agreed to the joint exploration.. Tsk.. Are you pertaining to the same oil rig with the one Vietnam is protesting?

 

yung joint Seismic Marine Survey GMA entered into with the chinks dun sa gawing Reed Bank yon... yung sa Paracel Islands sa Vietnam lang talaga yon, wala tayong claim don...

[airport-noo]

yung joint Seismic Marine Survey GMA entered into with the chinks dun sa gawing Reed Bank yon... yung sa Paracel Islands sa Vietnam lang talaga yon, wala tayong claim don...

That's right, we don't have a claim on Paracel. But the $1 billion oil rig was already being talked about 3 years ago. Pinoys thought it was intended for our territory because China was very aggressive against us at that time.

[maxiev]

Very interesting article. Is this the same Sotelo who landed his choppers in Camp Crame which effectively turned the tide of the People Power revolt against President Marcos?

 

yup...

Was just wondering what your take is regarding this article of retired Major General Sotelo.

Edited May 19, 2014 by maxiev

[camiar]

 

The original claimant has drilled for oil already and found none. Marcos in his hey days had a very profitable oil interests too with PNOC and Petron, and this prospect cannot escape his web of influence had the potential been clear and promising. Perhaps if we assume that Marcos is a shrewd investor and leader, then let us trust his decision not to waste time in this area. Let us give it a few more weeks or even a couple of months of Chinese due diligence then we can finally rest this case.

 

During Marcos's time, they didn't waste time drilling in West Philippine Sea areas because it's too deep. The cost of technology to drill at such depths was too expensive at that time. That is why Malampaya was built only recently when the new drilling methods and higher drilling accuracy became available for affordable deep sea oil drilling.

[heatseeker0714]

Was just wondering what your take is regarding this article of retired Major General Sotelo.

 

Naku, dinemote mo naman yung tao Sir... He's a Lt. Gen (3 Stars), not a Maj. Gen (2stars)

 

I basically agree with his position except for the Submarine part. There's minimal chance of a shooting war ever happening between us coz of our MDT. Kahit ano pa man nakalagay jan na "Metropolitan area" or "Pacific Area" ang keyword don is "Public Vessel and Aircraft", sisipa at sisipa yung MDT natin.

 

We have one of the longest coastlines in the world, if i'm not mistaken, the 4th longest overall and the Submarine is primarily an Offensive weapon who loses much of its effectiveness on the surface. Hindi naman araw-araw mag gyera tayo, eh paano kung peace time??? na ang kailangan eh mga aircraft and surface vessels needed to patrol our coastline??? diba?

 

For a cash strapped state like ours, we can use asymetric warfare like the good general is espousing by using a different but cheaper kind of tool other than Submarines... Mines and torpedoes...

 

With a limited budget, we have to be forward looking and practical with our resources, be it manpower, money or materiel... How do you enforce our EEZ and fisheries law by using a sub??? can a sub chase illegal fishing boats without damaging itself???

 

Saka ang point naman dito is not to go toe to toe with China on a 1:1 ratio, our economy can simply not afford it, ang goal dito is to make the world aware of China's bullying and to make them bleed and hold the line till the Americans arrive, because I firmly believe that no matter how tired the American PUBLIC is with regard to "Foreign Adventures", NCA cannot pussyfoot and leave us out to die by Chinese hands because if they let that happen and the world sees them hesitate, it's Sayonara America in Asia for the forseeable future. No Asian government would take their words of reassurance anymore.

[heatseeker0714]

Was just wondering what your take is regarding this article of retired Major General Sotelo.

 

Naku, dinemote mo naman yung tao Sir... He's a Lt. Gen (3 Stars), not a Maj. Gen (2stars)

 

I basically agree with his position except for the Submarine part. There's minimal chance of a shooting war ever happening between us coz of our MDT. Kahit ano pa man nakalagay jan na "Metropolitan area" or "Pacific Area" ang keyword don is "Public Vessel and Aircraft", sisipa at sisipa yung MDT natin.

 

We have one of the longest coastlines in the world, if i'm not mistaken, the 4th longest overall and the Submarine is primarily an Offensive weapon who loses much of its effectiveness on the surface. Hindi naman araw-araw mag gyera tayo, eh paano kung peace time??? na ang kailangan eh mga aircraft and surface vessels needed to patrol our coastline??? diba?

 

For a cash strapped state like ours, we can use asymetric warfare like the good general is espousing by using a different but cheaper kind of tool other than Submarines... Mines and torpedoes...

 

With a limited budget, we have to be forward looking and practical with our resources, be it manpower, money or materiel... How do you enforce our EEZ and fisheries law by using a sub??? can a sub chase illegal fishing boats without damaging itself???

 

Saka ang point naman dito is not to go toe to toe with China on a 1:1 ratio, our economy can simply not afford it, ang goal dito is to make the world aware of China's bullying and to make them bleed and hold the line till the Americans arrive, because I firmly believe that no matter how tired the American PUBLIC is with regard to "Foreign Adventures", NCA cannot pussyfoot and leave us out to die by Chinese hands because if they let that happen and the world sees them hesitate, it's Sayonara America in Asia for the forseeable future. No Asian government would take their words of reassurance anymore.

[hit05]

During Marcos's time, they didn't waste time drilling in West Philippine Sea areas because it's too deep. The cost of technology to drill at such depths was too expensive at that time. That is why Malampaya was built only recently when the new drilling methods and higher drilling accuracy became available for affordable deep sea oil drilling.

 

Only time will tell. China is not really a veteran in this kind of technology.

 

Spratly's area had been drilled deep already for exploration and there is no promise of oil. What you are saying is the cost of production cannot justify operations at the Malampaya but they already know its potential so when the costings changed, or maybe when the oil prices escalated, they proceeded to exploit the deposit for PROFIT.

 

If it is not profitable, then that will just be a waste of time.

[heatseeker0714]

Meron man oil jan or wala, the ultimate objective is CONTROL of the area...

 

Bonus na lang kung meron oil or whatnot sa ilalim nang seabed, what matters is ACTUAL CONTROL...

 

Ang laking pera nyan, transit fees and everything, plus they can choke their longtime enemy, the most industrialized, raw materials gobbling nation in this part of the world, na sobrang kina-iingitan ng mga Chicoms... Japan.

[Bugatti Veyron]

Beijing's dangerous arrogance in the South China Sea

 

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 18 May, 2014, 3:35am

Philip Bowring says Beijing's superiority complex and selective reading of Southeast Asian history have become the toxic brew fuelling tensions in the South China Sea

Philip Bowring

 

• http://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/486x302/public/2014/05/18/at_sea_vietnam_china_dispute_lin13_42956791.jpg?itok=LTMI4BMa

A Chinese coast guard vessel near China's oil drilling rig in disputed waters of South China Sea.

 

 

 

China's current behaviour vis-à-vis its South China Sea neighbours is aggressive, arrogant and smacks of Han chauvinism and ethnocentrism. Far from being an expression of national pride, it is giving patriotism a bad name. Patriotic Hongkongers should recognise it for what it is: a dangerous ploy.

 

Not only has Beijing bared expansionist teeth to Vietnam and the Philippines, it has now succeeded in shifting Indonesia from a position of trying to act as a moderator between China and the other South China Sea states to opponent. Twice in recent months, Indonesia has accused China of claiming part of its Natuna island archipelago. So much for a "peaceful rise" when you rile neighbours with populations of more than 400 million, who you assume to be weak.

 

All China's sea claims are wrapped up in that nine-dash line which extends more than 1,000 nautical miles from the coasts of Guangdong and Hainan to close to Borneo, the island shared by Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, and includes almost all the sea between Vietnam and the Philippines. This claim encompasses more than 90 per cent of the sea, even though China (including Taiwan) has only about 20 per cent of the coastline.

 

All this on the basis of claims to history that conveniently ignore the very existence of other peoples and their histories of seafaring and trading going back 2,000 years, and pre-dating China's ventures in the south sea and beyond. Indonesians got to Africa and colonised Madagascar more than 500 years before Zheng He. In turn, the peoples of Southeast Asia absorbed more from India and the Islamic world than China.

 

In the case of the current issue with Vietnam, brought about by China's movement of a drillship into waters due east of Danang, China has a small case, in that it does now own the Paracel Islands, which are closer to the drill location than to Vietnam. But the islands themselves have long been in dispute between the two, a matter settled for now by China's unprovoked invasion of them in 1974.

 

But as they have never had permanent settlement, they make a very weak case for enjoying a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone compared with Vietnam. History also tells us that this coast was the heart of the Cham mercantile state, which for 1,000 years was the leading player in regional trade.

 

There should surely anyway be a case for compromise between China and Vietnam. Malaysia and Thailand managed one over a gas-rich area between them in the Gulf of Thailand. Other regional states - Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia - have put island ownership issues to the International Court of Justice and accepted the result. But China remains unwilling either to compromise or submit to arbitration. Meanwhile, joint development is impossible because China makes it conditional on acceptance of its sovereignty.

 

In the case of shoals off the Philippines, China's case rests on a mix of invented history and the fact that it filed claims first, a poor basis given that it had no continuous presence there and the Philippines initially inherited a treaty between two Western colonial powers. These shoals and other features claimed by China are so obviously within the Philippine exclusive economic zone and in waters long sailed by the peoples of that country that there should be no argument.

 

Scarborough Shoal is about 200km from Luzon, 650km from China. The claim to Half Moon Shoal is even more outrageous. That is the reef where the Philippines arrested Chinese fishermen allegedly with a catch of giant turtles, a protected species. Knee-jerk protests have erupted from Beijing. The reef is 110km from Palawan, nearly 1,500km from China.

 

The fact that the absurd claims go back to the Kuomintang era is neither here nor there. Nor is the fact that previous states may have occasionally paid tribute to Beijing. For these trading states, tribute was a tax, the cost of doing business with China, which did not imply Chinese sovereignty. And if China occasionally acted as an imperial power in the region, that is surely cause for concern, not a basis for overlordship of a predominantly Malay sea. Otherwise, Turkey could claim Egypt and the Russians all of central Asia.

 

A revived China wants to flex its muscles and show who is boss in the region - just as it tried with Vietnam in 1979 - and remind the US of its own weakness. But there is also a basic reluctance to treat the non-Han neighbours as equals, people with their own history and cultures which, except for Vietnam, have never been subject to major Chinese influence.

 

China's history of assuming superiority, most especially over those with darker skins, is long. Belief in eugenics and the need to protect and enhance Han genetic characteristics was strong in the Republican era and found echoes in the opinions and social policies of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew. It has long been rejected in the West and was condemned under Mao Zedong . But it has been making a comeback on the mainland, where some academics find it hard to accept that modern man spread out of Africa and that China is thus not a separate and unique source of mankind.

 

Philip Bowring is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator

 

 

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Peril of pride and prejudice

Edited May 20, 2014 by Bugatti Veyron

[jacuzzi]

At the fast rate China is consuming its newfound prosperity such as lavishing billions of dollars on a weak oil claim, I would not bank on it to be in control even of its own financial standing. Creating animosity with its immediate neighbors and forcing itself or its will over united countries in the region will make the cost of military defense escalate. This is another reason for worry since military spending can skyrocket instantly sucking dry whatever state capital it got left. In fact the situation is so dire that the world's bankers view the Chinese economy in. its most critical or dangerous period.

 

 

The military. stance may just be diversionary from the real situation.

Edited May 20, 2014 by jacuzzi

[kisshmet]

Naku, dinemote mo naman yung tao Sir... He's a Lt. Gen (3 Stars), not a Maj. Gen (2stars)

 

I basically agree with his position except for the Submarine part. There's minimal chance of a shooting war ever happening between us coz of our MDT. Kahit ano pa man nakalagay jan na "Metropolitan area" or "Pacific Area" ang keyword don is "Public Vessel and Aircraft", sisipa at sisipa yung MDT natin.

 

We have one of the longest coastlines in the world, if i'm not mistaken, the 4th longest overall and the Submarine is primarily an Offensive weapon who loses much of its effectiveness on the surface. Hindi naman araw-araw mag gyera tayo, eh paano kung peace time??? na ang kailangan eh mga aircraft and surface vessels needed to patrol our coastline??? diba?

 

For a cash strapped state like ours, we can use asymetric warfare like the good general is espousing by using a different but cheaper kind of tool other than Submarines... Mines and torpedoes...

 

With a limited budget, we have to be forward looking and practical with our resources, be it manpower, money or materiel... How do you enforce our EEZ and fisheries law by using a sub??? can a sub chase illegal fishing boats without damaging itself???

 

Saka ang point naman dito is not to go toe to toe with China on a 1:1 ratio, our economy can simply not afford it, ang goal dito is to make the world aware of China's bullying and to make them bleed and hold the line till the Americans arrive, because I firmly believe that no matter how tired the American PUBLIC is with regard to "Foreign Adventures", NCA cannot pussyfoot and leave us out to die by Chinese hands because if they let that happen and the world sees them hesitate, it's Sayonara America in Asia for the forseeable future. No Asian government would take their words of reassurance anymore.

 

Submarines are effective intelligence gathering tool. It can monitor poachers while submerged & not alarm the crew doing their illegal activity

 

The chinese will avoid shooting at the americans & vice versa, otherwise it will be armageddon. Additionally, the chinese will have no qualms shooting at us pinoys so we have to have a stout heart to fight back

 

When the shooting starts the best the americans can do is supply us medically, together with some weapons. We shoot the chinese, the americans dont, they will only provide the ammos

Edited May 20, 2014 by kisshmet