Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China Builds Artificial Islands In South China Sea

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the mine-now-I-take-it dept.

China 192

An anonymous reader writes about a Chinese building project designed to cement claims to a disputed region of the South China Sea. Sand, cement, wood, and steel are China's weapons of choice as it asserts its claim over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Brunei have sparred for decades over ownership of the 100 islands and reefs, which measure less than 1,300 acres in total but stretch across an area about the size of Iraq. In recent months, vessels belonging to the People's Republic have been spotted ferrying construction materials to build new islands in the sea. Pasi Abdulpata, a Filipino fishing contractor who in October was plying the waters near Parola Island in the northern Spratlys, says he came across "this huge Chinese ship sucking sand and rocks from one end of the ocean and blasting it to the other using a tube."

Artificial islands could help China anchor its claim to waters that host some of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The South China Sea may hold as much as 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. China has considered the Spratlys—which it calls Nansha—part of its territory since the 1940s and on occasion has used its military might to enforce its claim. In 1988 a Chinese naval attack at Johnson South Reef, in the northern portion of the archipelago, killed 64 Vietnamese border guards.

cancel ×

192 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All wars ... (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 months ago | (#47295783)

Are resource wars.

And start out rather like this.

Re:All wars ... (5, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 months ago | (#47295811)

We have always been at war with East Asia.

Re:All wars ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296041)

i think its nuts the way star trek has this race called Ferengi. you know what that means? do you know what that means?? the producers were too chickenshit to just be honest with us and call them Space Jews

Re:All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296083)

i think its nuts the way star trek has this race called Ferengi. you know what that means? do you know what that means?? the producers were too chickenshit to just be honest with us and call them Space Jews

Is that because of the ears?

Sorry, I dont see the connection....

Re: All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296087)

Or they were cultural aware enough to realize how fucking stupid that would be, you white trash loser.

Re:All wars ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296611)

Really? I just assumed they were Americans.

Re:All wars ... (3)

VibratoryDavid (3419769) | about 2 months ago | (#47296095)

We are now at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia

Re:All wars ... (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 months ago | (#47296345)

Orwell was a sucker. The way it actually works is like this: we are always at war on terrorism*.

* For the up-to-date list of groups designated as terrorists, and states designated as sponsors of terrorism, see United States State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (as amended by special registries A* and B**).

** Classified.

*** Top secret.

Re:All wars ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295827)

Clearly you're too young to remember the Cold War, a war of Ideology. Not resources, because both sides had shitloads of resources. Open a history book sometime, moron. There was a time before your precious fucking Iraq War for Oil.

Re:All wars ... (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#47295839)

Clearly you're too young to remember the Cold War, a war of Ideology.

So...it was a war for human resources? :-)

Re:All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295859)

No, that was the Punic Wars.

Re:All wars ... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 months ago | (#47295923)

Are you kidding? - The cold war was (and still is) all about oil and gas.

Re:All wars ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295945)

Still is? The Cold War is over. Get new parts for your head.

Re:All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296071)

Is it? I vaguely recall that round two started not three months ago in a place you in the US haven't heard of called Ukraine. It totally tastes like Poland.

Re:All wars ... (1)

Lotana (842533) | about 2 months ago | (#47296555)

What does Poland has to do with the Cold War?! Do you mean the invasion of Poland by Germans that started the World War 2?

What does Ukraine have to do with the Cold War?

Ukraine ousted Russian-supportive leader, so Russia annexed part of Ukraine to have guaranteed control of the strategic ports in the Black Sea.

What have the West done about it: A few sanctions, but overall nothing substantial. Are they going to do anything about it?

EU: Gets 15% of their gas from Russia. They will do nothing to upset them over this land change. Come back if Russia annexes Kiev.

US: They don't give a shit about Ukraine! You honestly think US will start anything over a useless backwater like Crimean peninsula? Come back when/if Russia annexes Kiev.

Also Cold War was about ideology. There is no ideology involved in the current conflict.

Re:All wars ... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 months ago | (#47295977)

nonsense, proxy wars of the cold war in korea and viet nam were not about those

Re:All wars ... (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 months ago | (#47295995)

Technically the Cold War is so named because it was a time of hostility, but not outright and open conflict, between 2 powers. And power and influence-which is what the US and USSR were essentially fighting over(who would become the dominant superpower)-are very much types of resources.

Re:All wars ... (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 months ago | (#47296351)

The Cold War was a war to decide who gets to dominate the world. Which is basically just a fancy way of saying "control all of the world's resources".

Re:All wars ... (2)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 2 months ago | (#47296477)

Also the cold war was not really a war...right guys?...because hostile diplomatic relations is not actually a war?

People above appear to have forgotten this.

Perhaps because they come from the society that brought us the "war on"(TM) drugs, terrorism, obesity, aids, jesus, christmas, immigration, gays and a whole host of other things that are in no way at all wars.

Re:All wars ... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 months ago | (#47296479)

Cold War is traditionally considered to include all the associated proxy conflicts - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and numerous civil wars in Africa and Latin America.

Re:All wars ... (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 2 months ago | (#47296519)

And as such was not a war...

Re:All wars ... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 months ago | (#47296577)

Korean war was not a war?

Re:All wars ... (4, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 months ago | (#47295877)

Are resource wars.

Except the resources that China hopes to gain will never equal the cost, in defense spending and lost trade, of alienating her neighbors. In the modern world, all wars are dumb.

Re:All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295915)

Make love, not war! Slashdot virgins need some lovin.

Re:All wars ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296057)

Make love, not war! Slashdot virgins need some lovin.

Yo mama got some lovin from this dick. Your Mom - removing virginity from slashdotters! It's her life's purpose. Your mom's a slut.

Re: All wars ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296227)

Your mom is your dad! Your dad is your mom! Did your dad suck your mom's dick or did your mom suck your dad's dick?

Re:All wars ... (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 months ago | (#47296007)

>> In the modern world, all wars are dumb

Unless they lop off chunks of the Ukraine. Or depopulate chunks of rival territory in Bosnia. Or expand tribal influence over oil-rich parts of Iraq. Or...
(Long story short, there are still some pretty evil dudes in "the modern world.")

This essay's also a good introduction to the role of trade in precipitating war (e.g., "lost trade" doesn't necessarily reduce chances of war):
http://www.ied.info/articles/a... [ied.info]

Re:All wars ... (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 2 months ago | (#47296183)

There is a reason bullies tend to pick on weak loners, it's because they are unable to defend themselves and unable to get enough support from friends to overpower the bully.

The thing about Vietnam is that it it's a small country that doesn't have a lot of allies(Laos and Thailand have had armed conflicts with Vietnam in the not so distant past, and of course the whole French/US thing). China may be betting on Vietnam basically being forced to deal with China, since China is the dominant economic force in the area.

Re:All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296305)

Vietnam had a border war with China after the US Vietnam War was over. Won it apparently.
There is a reason why the communists in China (yes it IS the same people still ruling that country) are accelerating their military spending.

Re: All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296311)

China and Vietnam have a history going back nearly a thousand years. And it looks very much today like it always has--close economic and cultural tires with simmering geopolitical conflict. 20th century history adds nothing unique to the equation.

Re: All wars ... (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 2 months ago | (#47296465)

Actually it does because Vietnam is even more isolated, thus it will have a very hard time forming regional alliances against China, esp. if China bribes Thailand and Laos with either cheap oil or jobs on the rigs.

Re:All wars ... (1)

Lotana (842533) | about 2 months ago | (#47296575)

I disagree.

China is vastly militarily superior to the immediate neighbors. They don't need to do any extra spending that they are not doing already.

China is such an integral manufacturer that no one substantial will be cancelling trade. They got a massive internal market as well.

So what is the downside to acquiring more territory right now? What is Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, or Brunei going to do about it? Beg the US for intervention? Considering how US relies so much on Chinese market: Good luck with that. What other superpower going to help them?

Re:All wars ... (1, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 months ago | (#47296035)

Re "Are resource wars."
China has learned from history and will not allow its own well funded emerging brands, own exporters and needed imports to be contained, slowed and encircled like the Soviet Union was.
China has to ensure its own flagged ships can move freely to bring value added Chinese branded finished goods to any market globally without any interference.
China can see it is been rapidly encircled by regional tame puppet governments and dictated one sided treaties again.
China has to be able to diplomatically and politically show land use and possession that it will not be reduced China to the role of foreign branded factories and limited shared export earnings.
China is been confronted, contained in Africa, South America and Asia over raw materials. A lot of effort went into trade and aid resulting in real progress and infrastructure as a gift from China. Other nations linked basic food aid to post colonial political lectures.
The EU seems more open to lucrative high technology transfers that China is working to expand.
China still has a few years to build on the image and branding of its own quality, price competitive brands globally. Until then it is more dependant on whim of outside forces. China also has to contain foreign backed NGO's, environmental groups, separatist and well funded faith based groups trying to distract and alter its plans for growth.
A huge diaspora is able to bring any technology back as it is been developed in any advanced country, for almost free.
China just has to build its own brands in time - low cost, disruptive on price, good quality and stop renting tech with every product sold (foreign set expensive codecs, standards).
China is in a global race to get its own products to a waiting global market. ie AC this has an ongoing effort since the 1960's over many generations and via different nations for trade, energy and jobs. Other nations opt to spend their gold on weapons, ever more distant wars or deceptive political charity.

Re:All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296075)

That's a lot of metric tons of conspiracy and ZOG, all concentrated in one post, my friend.

Re:All wars ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296067)

And this is why we need to get the fuck off this rock. The Universe is a very large place with a very quantity of resources--all getting further away. In the end, it won't be pretty anyhow, but in the intervening time, we might as well do our thing. The resources of Earth will only sustain us for so long. The only real question left is: do we die here or expand outward, eventually to form disconnected colonies?

As Dijkstra explained [utexas.edu] :

A very useful measure is —called after its inventor— the "Buxton Index". John N. Buxton discovered that the most important one-dimensional scale along which persons are or institutions to be compared, can be placed is the length of the period of time in the future for which a person or institution plans. This period, measured in years, gives the Buxton Index.

The great significance of the Buxton Index is not its depth, but its objectivity. The point is that when people with drastically different Buxton Indices have to cooperate while unaware of the concept of the Buxton Index, they tend to make moral accusations against each other. The man with the shorter Buxton Index accuses the other of neglect of duty, the man with the larger one accuses the other of shortsightedness. The notion of the Buxton Index takes the moral flavour away and enables people to discuss such differences among themselves dispassionately. There is nothing wrong with having different Buxton Indices! It takes many people to make a world. There is clearly no moral value attached to either a long or a short Buxton Index. It is a useful concept for dispassionate discussion.

Go ahead and make your space nutter comments now. ;)

Re:All wars ... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 months ago | (#47296557)

Are resource wars.

And start out rather like this.

You credit people with much more sense than they have. There are and have been many wars based on ideology and religion - in fact there is a religion whose stated aim is to fight all who do not convert or accept a status designed to "make them feel subdued"

Another very good reason... (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#47295789)

...why we really need to get weaned off of fossil fuels. Otherwise it's like the next day's heroin fix, only with oil.

Re:Another very good reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295845)

I think one Minuteman missile would solve this conundrum. Boom.

Re:Another very good reason... (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47295881)

yes cuz every american city would melt, concurrently with every chinese city.

Re:Another very good reason... (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 months ago | (#47295907)

Not unless they sent them Fed Ex. :p

Re:Another very good reason... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 months ago | (#47295985)

no, China does not have sufficent weapons to do that

Re:Another very good reason... (2)

crioca (1394491) | about 2 months ago | (#47296059)

Uh, are you sure about that? Because the number of nuclear weapons held by China isn't known.

Re:Another very good reason... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47296103)

Maybe not - but in the event of nuclear war, Russia would immediately jump in on their side too.

Re:Another very good reason... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#47296145)

I doubt russia would do that. They know it would cause them to be targets. The problem is that mutually assured destruction is still a possibility and quite a few weapons systems design to evade first strikes still exist.

Re:Another very good reason... (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 months ago | (#47296361)

In the event of a nuclear war between US and China, Russia would fetch popcorn and watch the show. It would be an epic win on all counts - the major potential adversary with a large land border and a likelihood of future conventional conflict completely annihilated, and another major potential adversary significantly weakened and likely going isolationist for decades to come to lick its wounds. Meanwhile, Eastern Europe without US as a de facto guarantor of security would be having a real fun time dealing with Russia in such a new reality.

Re:Another very good reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296541)

I had read that they have ~200 warheads. Imagine losing the 200 most populated counties in the United States. I would imagine that this would kill over 50% of the US population and make life difficult for the survivors, as well as reduce the nation's capabilities and economy below those of the the remaining nations. NATO obligations also come into play.

Re:Another very good reason... (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47295987)

also apparently the minutemen soldiers spend the day jerking off or something like that.

Re: Another very good reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296249)

1440 times a day!

Re:Another very good reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295979)

So it will be interesting to see how the claims will be processed when they go underwater due to climate change.

My guess is it will be like the pacific islands that are going underwater. Someone is going to use the UN to give those guys compensation for loss of homeland. China will probably make the same claim thru the UN for their construction on the spratlys, and use their permanent seat as leverage to get political deals on stuff that will REALLY matters.

Meanwhile GOP stick their head in the sand, denying existence of climate change. Dumbasses should've tried to claim the spratlys while they had office and done the same.

Re:Another very good reason... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296391)

Exactly... a gigantic percentage of all violence in the world appears to be over this stupid oil shit.
Crimea, the Ukrainian-Russian pipeline, middle-east pipelines, the China sea, Antartica. They are all prepping to go to war over all of these areas just to get at oil. If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't all be fighting over these areas. I mean how fucking stupid is that? Oil is hard to get? oh, let's use something easier to get... instead of getting ourselves killed over it like a bunch of stupid animals fighting over a carcass. Evolve damn you!

Eastasia builds Floating Fortress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295791)

much better headline

Re:Eastasia builds Floating Fortress (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47295891)

actually you're right that's extraordinarily apt. +1.

Not really (5, Interesting)

mfh (56) | about 2 months ago | (#47295803)

Like that guy who built his house on public property [wave3.com] , these islands will just be removed if they aren't part of China. That's kind of sociopathic [wikipedia.org] of them to pull that kind of a stunt unless the dispute is resolved, cooperatively.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295821)

Ummm... the difference being that some guy in a house != China. China kinda can give the finger to everyone on this and no one can do jack shit.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295851)

How the hell is an accidental construction of a MacHome over a property line analogous to a deliberate act by China to gain territory? Are you on drugs or something?

Re:Not really (1)

mfh (56) | about 2 months ago | (#47295889)

Microcosm/Macrocosm... you think the home owner didn't know? haha he was trying to annex extra land.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295959)

You'd have to be insane to believe you could "annex" property by building a home on it.

Re:Not really (4, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#47296197)

In most places in the US, if a building ends up being across a property line for a number of years unaposed, that amount of property becomes a deeded right of way. It used to change ownership and might still do so in some areas via squatters rights.

These rules came abouy from problems with surveys, incorectly recorded deed maps, and the lack of zoning over history. It could come about from something like a house or out building being built on or close to the property line. It gets added on and not recorded, sold and the new owner sees they have 20 feet to the property line on the east side of the building not realizing the previous owner already used 15 feeet up. So the new owner adds on another 15 feet and not its ten foot over. Now lets say 20 years pass and the neighboring property is passed to an heir. They cannot make you tear down the building now.

It isn't much of an issue now because zoning requires set backs and building permits and this is checked with plotting maps made from deed data. But at aone time, you could survey your property and find the survey pin was moved our something and someone's barn or house was on your property.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296219)

Yes, you acquire those rights after living in a place for many years. It means tons of legal costs to sort out, and a hard time selling the place for a long time. Only a fool would do this deliberately. And a fool couldn't pull this off deliberately because nobody else involved would go along knowingly since they might be liable.

And it would be even more foolish to do this in 2009 and try to sell in 2011, as happened here.

Re: Not really (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296325)

Adverse possession is rather easy to show, presuming you meet the standard. You then bring an action to quiet title. There's not much to dispute; either the judge agrees with you or he doesn't. In any event it's not the kind of thing that can be dragged out for very long.

Re:Not really (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#47296171)

A two million dollar home is a hell of a thing to gamble in an effort to win a small bit of public land. Yes, I think the homeowner didn't know.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296193)

Not really. 2 million dollars for land surrounded by public use zoned land is remarkably valuable. Imagine being able to own a house in the middle of Central Park. You'd have real estate agents fighting just to talk to you.

Drugs might have been involved (2)

istartedi (132515) | about 2 months ago | (#47296423)

According to Mail Online [dailymail.co.uk]

It was built by Robert C Lamoureux and his company Four Twenty Corp in 2011

I can picture this now. "Yeah dude, we like... totally surveyed the place. It's all good. You can start digging tomorrow."

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295869)

Like that guy who built his house on public property [wave3.com] , these islands will just be removed if they aren't part of China. That's kind of sociopathic [wikipedia.org] of them to pull that kind of a stunt unless the dispute is resolved, cooperatively.

Except dude who owned that house didn't have a huge army, or nuclear weapons or all those other good things that make international relations so much fun.

Re:Not really (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | about 2 months ago | (#47296225)

How do you propose removing an island, and to where?

Re:Not really (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296581)

For details of how such things are done, see "Bikini Atoll.'

Sellng widgets win wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295857)

It's amazing how much more powerful China is now after freeing up their economy in the 90s.

Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295863)

Right now what I wrote sounds extreme.

10 years from now you will all then understand I saw the future you did not yet see,
and you will call me prescient and wish those in power had done what I suggested.

Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295879)

Godless fucks, sure, but slant eyed? They were born that way, you racist extremist.

Equality for all! Nuke EVERYBODY.

Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295903)

... slant eyed? They were born that way, you racist extremist.

BWAHAHAHAHA !!!!

Did your knee hurt your face when it jerked in reaction to my post, you pathetic
little politically correct cunt ?

You obviously don't know what the Chinese are really like. Sure, they were "born that
way" but only a naive fucktard like you embraces moronic ideas like "everyone is
equal" or "all races are the same".

Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295921)

Did you miss the part about equality means nuking everybody equally? You deserve to be nuked for missing the joke.

Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. (0)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47296119)

Uh, you are not helping

Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296173)

Eat a nuke, living scum.

Re:Nuke the godless slant eyed fucks, NOW. (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47296315)

That's how Godzilla was born, I hope you know.

NUKE them NOW. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295883)

It will only cost more later to deal with the problem, when these godless
slanteyed fucks decide they need to take over the US.

Re:NUKE them NOW. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47295925)

Why would they need to take over the US politically? They've already taken over economically when absolutely everything is Made In China.

take over the US with 1 soviet russia aircraft car (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#47295961)

China has lot's of old soviet stuff.

The hypocrisy (5, Interesting)

Rick in China (2934527) | about 2 months ago | (#47296025)

China in this instance, is so ridiculously hypocritical - their entire argument about the Senkaku(Diaoyu) islands is that Japan has only controlled them in modern times, and China has laid claim (based on little evidence, and they're uninhabited) since ancient times. Yet, here, they're claiming these islands from all these other countries, and have only laid claim since 1940 -- a claim that seemingly hasn't been supported except by China themselves. Which way they want it? All ways. China has a big 'face' problem so can't look weak to it's oppressed masses for fear of social unrest, and like Russia, thinks the whole world around it belongs to them. Really tired of this bullshit.

Occupation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296189)

The islands belong to whoever lives there and manages to chase others away. If China successfully put troops and guns on them, then the islands are theirs, end of story.

Re:The hypocrisy (4, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 2 months ago | (#47296199)

Well the problem will persist basically as long as the Chinese Communist Party does.... The CCP is deeply unpopular in pretty much every arena save for how it is handling the economy, if the economy starts to go south you may see Tienamen-like events erupting all over the country. In order to combat this the CCP has to keep the economy humming along and large #s of migrants from the countryside employed. They have done a decent job thus far, but there are some major cracks in the Chinese economy on the horizon. Long story short they copied the Japanese model, right down to the bad loans.

If China's economy does not keep on expanding you are looking at a potential financial crisis that would make the whole Lehman thing seem tame by comparison. The reason they are getting so bold is because to the CCP, exploiting these resources may literally be a life-or-death situation, as most dictators don't tend to just end up retired in a villa somewhere, they end up with their heads being separated from their necks.

Re:The hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296207)

.. and have only laid claim since 1940 -- a claim that seemingly hasn't been supported except by China themselves.

You may wish to at least have a check in Wikipedia next time before ranting. China assert its claims since the ancient times. The claim is also asserted by the Republic of China before it recedes to Taiwan. The article's mention of "1940's" probably refers to the claim of present PRC government, which of course could not make any claims beforehand as it only came into existence at that time.

Re:The hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296243)

So what? Mind your own business.

Re: The hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296427)

If you read up the history the Daiyou belonged to China was taken by the Japanese prior WW2 when China was very weak. There was an international treaty that dictate that all these terrorities captured by the Japanese prior the WW2 be returned. Daiyou was one, and the Islands of the South China Sea as well, were to be returned. The problem with Daiyou was the USA was adminsitrating it after they went into Japan, and the problem was single handed created by the USA. Or intentionally planted by the USA, if it is abided by the international treaty, there is no issue. China will not accept the USA to hand over the island to Japan. It is not the USA property and do what they like. And all these just the China containment strategy and China knows it full well. The stand of China now is avoid confrontation but if it is forced to, they would not run away from a war however costly it can be. The island was kept as a non-issue until the Japan nationalised it from so called private owners. All the stupid treat to fool a 3 year old. Pirvate owners, you cam as many as you like from China also but it is nationalised, you force the China to respond. USA is just scare to see if the East Asia walk yoo close to become like the EU.

Re: The hypocrisy (1)

grouchomarxist (127479) | about 2 months ago | (#47296535)

> The island was kept as a non-issue until the Japan nationalised it from so called private owners.

No, the island was an issue well before then. Chinese politicians were raising the issue, and Chinese (and Taiwanese) boats were landing on the island before it was "nationalized" (essentially re-nationalized because it was owned by the Japanese government and then leased. The "nationalization" was the cancellation of the lease).

South CHINA sea (0)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 2 months ago | (#47296091)

Isnt it kinda obvious that the islands in the South China Sea belong to (south) China?

I mean, thats why its called the South China Sea, and not the Philippines Malaysia Vietnam Taiwan Brunei Sea.

Or am I missing something here....

So all of South America belongs to America, right? (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 months ago | (#47296097)

Or, perhaps, do you want to rethink your silly stance on "naming makes it so"?

Re:So all of South America belongs to America, rig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296149)

No. "Terra Australis", or Southern Land, clearly means that the whole southern hemisphere belongs to Australia.

Jeez.

Re:So all of South America belongs to America, rig (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 2 months ago | (#47296323)

Not to weigh in on the south china sea thing. But we have been the
"United States OF America" since we were founded.

---

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary...

---
And...
---
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The united states military forces are formally named "U.S. Blah Blah". (Etc.)
--

The continent of america was named around 1507. Long before the united states existed. It was not named by a united states citizen.

"American" has become an acceptable slang term for united states citizen in many countries but is also not used in many countries.

Sort of like the "under god" portion of the pledge of allegiance, use of the term "American" was added later.

Re:South CHINA sea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296153)

So you must agree then that everything in the Sea of Japan belongs to Japan...

Re:South CHINA sea (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 2 months ago | (#47296187)

omg...come on guys, seriously now. This lack of a functioning sarcasm detector is disturbing to find on a geek news website.

Has it not occured to you, after reading that poast, that it was obvious sarcasm? ( do you not also see it in this poast? do I need to spell it out?)

Or do you really, truly, think that somebody intelligent enough to write a coherent sentence on a computer is so *stupid* to take the name South China Sea so literally?

Come on Slashdot, dont get lazy, we need to up our game here...this is getting embarrassing.

Re:South CHINA sea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296209)

It would also hold up as a citation of a former president of the USA. Too many people wouldn't find the way around the globe to make sarcasm the obvious choice.

Re:South CHINA sea (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 months ago | (#47296449)

The thing is, it's not really sarcasm. Pretending to be stupid and confused while not making a point doesn't serve any purpose other than maybe as a troll.

Re:South CHINA sea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296201)

Or am I missing something here....

Education?

Re:South CHINA sea (1)

hax4bux (209237) | about 2 months ago | (#47296289)

I was thinking "troll" but you might be right

South CHINA sea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296559)

Does the entire Gulf of Mexico belong to Mexico?

Trend (2)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47296115)

Jeez, even islands are "Made in China"

Re:Trend (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296195)

I think you are the only person on Sloshdat with a sense of humour.

Floating Atolls (0)

Baldrson (78598) | about 2 months ago | (#47296155)

Floating atoll remediation of civilization's environmental footprint [blogspot.com] would, in addition to permanently rewilding agricultural lands and containing all urban population effluent (including CO2, CH4, N2O and CFC emissions) for 10 billion people at higher than US standard of living, sequester on the order of a teratonne of CO2 from the oceans and atmosphere.

The Seasteading Institute [futurepundit.com] is being left behind by AT Design Office [atdesignoffice.com] under contract to the Chinese construction firm CCCC [ccccltd.cn] , as they proceed with the pilot project to build a 10 square km floating city [fastcoexist.com] . What the Seasteading Institute has going for them is their association with Breakout Labs via Peter Thiel, as it supports fluid dynamics research for of the Atmospheric Vortex Engine [blogspot.com] . Although the AVE would be advantageous even with advanced nuclear technology, any radical reduction (less than 1 cent/kWh) in electric cost -- with or without the AVE -- will suffice to enable the rest of the floating atoll remediation. This is one of a few things that Marshall Savage didn't have the technical chops to address -- the other major things being photobioreactor technology and the notion of atolls unifying beachfront real estate demand with wave break for fragile (hence economic) PBRs.

At this point, it appears to be an entirely feasible economic proposition given the requisite lowering of cost for pollution free electric generation.

If the AVE experiments currently underway attest its economy, the Seasteading Institute can take the floating atoll proposal, package it up the way Mashall Savage should have, and present it to the Chinese. They'll bite.

China is a bully... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296169)

And eventually, someone will strike back....

Pushing your weight around with threats of military actions when you're the one in the wrong will only get you so far. Not only with this but also with the Senkaku islands. This isn't the first time they just went ahead and started doing something, not caring about how the dispute isn't settled yet.

Free Tibet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47296453)

The Chinese Communist Party needs to get its troops the hell out of occupied Tibet.

GreekGeek :-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>