Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Island Showdown



Island Showdown© (2016)








































  1. What is described would be a radical departure from current practice. I don't think the Navy would ever be this aggressive for fear of reprisals. That said, we might be able to pull a stunt like this once or twice before the Chinese start escorting their ships.

    1. Yes, confrontation would be a radical departure from appeasement.

    2. Where does confrontation end and a war begin?

      I'm all for taking a tougher stance against China, but running spikes against another ship could get someone killed. Then China might respond by bumping one of our ships.

      I'm not sure how to deter China from building man-made islands other than with aggressive freedom of navigation patrols.

    3. "... aggressive freedom of navigation patrols."

      That's hilarious! Has China shown any sign of altering their behavior as the result of our FON patrols?

      I have a question for you. Where does appeasement end and war begin? Neville Chamberlain could answer that one for you. Appeasement ends with the German blitzkrieg.

    4. Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    5. "... but running spikes against another ship could get someone killed"

      You got the part that the spikes only come into play when SOMEONE ELSE DECIDES TO BUMP YOU. They bring it on themselves.

    6. Are you really that afraid that you think a single instance of confrontation will lead immediately to all out war? If that happened then it meant that China was all set for war and just looking for an excuse and if it wasn't a confrontation of our choosing then they'd manufacture one of their choosing.

      Come on, get a grip on reality. China is no more going to war over minor confrontations than we are. Don't be frightened of your own shadow.

    7. Judging by your other comments, you're in a rare mood today.

      The Navy will never harass a ship as you described. We're not going to buzz another country's aircraft either. It's just something we don't do.

    8. And how is that working out for us?

      China has all but seized the South China Sea in a fait accompli.

      Russia is moving to seize the Baltic, Black, and Bering Seas, has seized Crimea, and is in the process of annexing Ukraine.

      Iran seizes our boats and crews with impunity.

      NKorea continues on its nuclear path with an insane madman in control.

      How's our non-confrontational policy working out?

    9. When it comes to our foreign policy, you're preaching to the choir. We've been feckless in dealing with China and Russia. But, we're supposed to be the good guys, that means we don't buzz or harass other countries ships and aircraft.

    10. "But, we're supposed to be the good guys, that means we don't buzz or harass other countries ships and aircraft."

      Not quite. Being a good guy doesn't mean you forfeit your right to defend yourself. It means that we don't initiate these kinds of acts. However, we can certainly respond in kind. Actually, the effective way to respond is to escalate.

      Iran mined the FFG Roberts and we responded by wiping out their so-called navy, destroying oil rigs, etc.

      If a bully takes your lunch money, you don't respond by taking his, you respond by beating him senseless so he'll never try anything ever again.

      This is elementary human relationships and psychology that any school kid instinctively understands.

  2. We had an agreement with the Soviets to limit bumping actions and keep them in context and keep them from starting a general war. We should work on that with the Chinese regardless of what we do with the Islands. They are a growing naval power and we are an existing one, and our aims are often conflicting. Its a good idea.

    I think part of this is 'how much do the Chinese consider these islands part of their sovereign territory'? Will *they* go to war over it.

    These Islands are in clear violation of UNCLOS, to which they are a signatory. We should sign UNCLOS so we have standing. Then we can start doing the things CNO says and put the onus entirely on China.

    I like the idea of his ship. I'd add another thing for our freedom of navigation patrols around existing islands that might be able to be made more quickly and cheaply. A modern day Q ship.

    Build a merchant vessel with a reinforced hull and fill that puppy with foam or cork. You could have the 'spikes' be internal, pressed against the skin of the ship. They bump us and bend metal the spikes get exposed.

    We need to be creative, because in some instances this isn't unlike the cuban missile crisis.

    1. We don't need to be a signatory to stand up for principles.

      The onus is already on China as it is with any criminal.

      You really think that a modern day Q ship won't be well know to the Chinese? They know all are stealth secrets and probably everything else that's classified. How would they be surprised by a single "merchant" ship aimlessly wandering around the disputed islands?

      What worked in the Cuban missile crisis, appeasement or confrontation?

    2. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.

      Signing isn't a bad idea. Its a good one. But okay, we can do this without signing. We just leave a tool on the table we could use.

      As to a modern day Q ship being well known, who cares? The germans were well aware that Q ships existed. The same could be said about the ship you propose.

      What I'm borrowing from here is the fact that they are a bear to sink. We'd use them on existing islands while your ship is preventing new ones from being built. Your new ship won't wash away a built up island air strip.

      The Q ship class would sail openly and frequently within sight of the existing reclaimed islands that aren't legally islands. They'd likely get bumped, nudged, maybe shot at with smaller caliber weapons.

      Why use them? Because they'd be tough ships to sink that could take a pounding. They'd give up no secrets if they were captured. They'd be cheap. The alternative is to send a true merchie that might get damaged enough to sink (then we look like idiots); or send a naval vessel. An LCS might sink too, so that's dumb. And its ridiculous to play bumper boats with a billion dollar 'Burke.

    3. I'm arguing because modern society has allowed legalities to take the place of responsibilities. Signing a document isn't going to suddenly imbue us with moral courage. Either we defend our principles, without needing any paperwork, or we don't, in which case we don't deserve to be taken seriously.

      The point about a Q ship is that in WWII there were many hundreds of merchant ships scattered around the world and a German raider could encounter one anywhere. That's a valid element of surprise. Here, we're talking about a single "merchant" ship sailing aimlessly around disputed islands. Could there be any more obvious set up? It would be pointless.

  3. Well now shall we grow some balls?
    Chapter one is spot on...
    Whats next CnO an ambush raider capability?
    more than one 5' gun?
    Even semi-submersible???
    The Bats are cheesy...
    I will email you the
    Villagio system of static defense fence and laser and
    water jet protection Ie Fountain protection.
    Thanks for all your work and giving a damn....
    LTC RET Ken Cook

    1. "The Bats are cheesy..."

      Perhaps. The point was a non-lethal (usually!) means of imposing a long term problem (sticky gel) on an enemy. Something similar was actually done in Desert Storm via Tomahawk delivery using a specilized warhead with sub-munitions containing conductive filaments that shorted electric station.


    At this point the Chinese captain radios that his ship is under attack and opens fire on the American ship.

    And he is correct. This is like firing missiles with dummy warheads at a ship. Not too funny.

    1. And we fire back. Confrontation is not without risk as the Chinese should be well aware. When they overly aggressively confront us, are they not risking retaliation? Or is it only us who risk retaliation when we opt to confront?

      Did the Chinese not risk war when they forced down, seized, stripped, and held our EP-3 aircraft and crew?

      Did the Chinese not risk a shooting incident when they tangled up with USS McCain's towed array?

      Did the Chinese not risk a shooting incident when they dropped pieces of wood into Impeccable's path and tried to snag its towed array with grappling hooks?

      None of this is too funny.

      Why do you believe that only we should exercise restraint?

    2. "At this point the Chinese captain radios that his ship is under attack and opens fire on the American ship.


      Did you read the story carefully? If you did, you noticed that prior to the bats launching, the Chinese ship FIRED ITS GUN AT THE US SHIP, MISSING BY ONLY 20m. At that point, to paraphrase and reverse your own comment, the US captain radios that his ship is under attack and opens fire on the Chinese ship.

      And he is correct.

      Why do you only see the aggression from the US and not the Chinese?

  5. Imaginative and creative, what I can't grok in all of this at the cosmic level is why do I care what China does in the SCS? Their backyard. If we took the Japanese and sK forces from under the PACOM protectorate, they could fend for themselves along with ANZAC. Nothing would stop the USN from cooperating in joint exercises.

    The "strategic ambiguity" toward Taiwan proves this out.

    Any behavior like this from a Chinese vessel to the USN off the coast of America would be interpreted quite severely.

    This constant meddling planet-wide since the end of the War to Save Josef Stalin has certainly proven to be imprudent, wasteful and a convenient excuse for the US government to grow to the gargantuan and unsustainable proportions it has.

    Great story though and superlative vessel to transmit the ideas.

    Bill Buppert

    1. Thanks, I think.

      As to why, if Canada were to take over the entire western Pacific, I'd have no concerns. They'd manage the area fairly and for the benefit of all - we're talking international shipping, now. On the other hand, China - a communist, dictatorial state - would use the opportunity to regulate shipping, impose "fees", inspect cargoes, dictate shipping rates, dictate destinations and cargo restrictions, etc. They would put an end to the free movement of international shipping. I'm opposed to that. This is kind of like saying, why not let a criminal run a bank. The why not is cause you just know they can't resist being a criminal and before you know it, your bank account is theirs!

  6. What would it take to completely swamp these new airbases? How high above sea level are they? Surely we the ability to make big waves.

    1. We have the ability, not the will.

      Of course, the established bases are now too big to simply wash away. Our window of opportunity has passed. If we want to remove the bases now, we're looking at SEAL missions to mysteriously blow things up or some similar activity.

      By failing to act when we had the chance, we've effectively ceded the South China Sea to China.

      By failing to act in a timely manner, we allowed Hitler to plunge the world into war. The parallel between that and what's happening now is ominous.

  7. You’ve got a talent, Ive read worse “military fiction” in actual published books.
    I like the ship name, Summons stiring images !
    And the characterisation. Captain Bibberty-bob and his crew really got me chearing.
    He just needs a catch phrase “Blast your eyes Mr Christian”, “Dam the torpedoes!” or “Enguage No One !” you know, that kind of thing.

    1. Thanks. I appreciate that. It's fun to do. There's no reason a blog can't be entertaining as well as (hopefully) informative.

      I would have liked to use Victory for a ship name but the RN has exclusive rights to that one!

  8. To take a play out of the Chinese navy's playbook, we could also just jam all communications of said chinese ship, board it and intern the crew, and confiscate the ship. In fact, I can't remember which nation, I think Malaysia, their navy is infact DESTROYING all vessels that trespass the territorial waters of their country.

