Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Earth Technology

China's Island-Building In Pictures 140

Posted by Soulskill from the still-waiting-on-the-instructables-guide dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The South China Sea is just small enough to have high strategic value for military operations and just large enough to make territorial claims difficult. For over a year now, the world has been aware that China is using its vast resources to try and change that. Instead of fighting for claims on existing islands or arguing about how far their sovereignty should extend, they simply decided to build new islands. "The islands are too small to support large military units but will enable sustained Chinese air and sea patrols of the area. The United States has reported spotting Chinese mobile artillery vehicles in the region, and the islands could allow China to exercise more control over fishing in the region." The NY Times has a fascinating piece showing clear satellite imagery of the new islands, illustrating how a fleet a dredgers have dumped enormous amounts of sand on top of existing reefs. "Several reefs have been destroyed outright to serve as a foundation for new islands, and the process also causes extensive damage to the surrounding marine ecosystem." We can also see clear evidence of airstrips, cement plants, and other structures as the islands become capable of supporting them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China's Island-Building In Pictures More

China's Island-Building In Pictures

Comments Filter:

  • Intervention? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xenotransplant ( 4179011 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @03:49PM (#50226357)
    Who cares why china is building islands and increasing instability in an already unstable area? Let's give them another Olympics!!!!
    • Sarcasm does not show very well on the internet.

    • My suspicion is that China's island-building brinkmanship is intended simply to stoke the fires of nationalism while the Chinese economy teeters on the verge of collapse. What better way to mis-direct the discontent at home than perceived enemies abroad (us against the world or at least our nearby neighbors)? That or the Party is making the landgrab while it still.

      • Or like magratheans, building islands for the super rich while the times are good.

      • If I were prone to dark speculation, I would think about the ChiCom leaders with an overabundance of men in the population (resulting from preferential male births).

        They have 50 million more men than women. That's a frustrated powder keg that must dealt with; one way to reduce that population is a land war.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by readin ( 838620 )

          If I were prone to dark speculation, I would think about the ChiCom leaders with an overabundance of men in the population (resulting from preferential male births). They have 50 million more men than women. That's a frustrated powder keg that must dealt with; one way to reduce that population is a land war.

          On the other hand a huge portion of those men are only-childs, and even only-grand-childs. Getting a lot of them killed would create another group of people who are plenty pissed off and have nothing to lose.

        • That would be a lot of war dead.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by KGIII ( 973947 )

            Japan is not so busy lately and they likely have some medical experiments to conduct. I can see this working out in the end.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by readin ( 838620 )

        My suspicion is that China's island-building brinkmanship is intended simply to stoke the fires of nationalism while the Chinese economy teeters on the verge of collapse. What better way to mis-direct the discontent at home than perceived enemies abroad (us against the world or at least our nearby neighbors)? That or the Party is making the landgrab while it still.

        I think a lot of it is simply nationalism. We've seen it before where a country that feels it is naturally better than everyone else but has been unfairly held down suddenly gets its act together and starts becoming powerful and wants to take its 'rightful place' as the boss. Yes the leadership is stoking nationalist fires, but much of the leadership is also burning with nationalism and nationalist ambitions.

        • China, and the chinese, have a massive superiority complex laid over a very deep inferiority complex stemming from the 1800s all the way to the 1940s.

          Until that gets resolved, they are more dangerous than average. They have a chip on their shoulder and have something to "prove" combined with a sense of manifest destiny.

          Their military spending is much less BUT their labor costs are much less so their spending is much higher than it looks like given the raw numbers. Effectively its 3 to 4 times as large.

          Hop

  • Seems like a piece is missing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jbmartin6 ( 1232050 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @03:53PM (#50226399)
    The NYT article didn't really explain this bit: "The Chinese were relative latecomers to island building in the Spratly archipelago" So this tactic isn't new or unique to China.

    • Re:Seems like a piece is missing (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31, 2015 @04:04PM (#50226479)
      "Although several other countries - including Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines - have undertaken some land reclamation activities, Gomez says they have reclaimed less than 100 acres of land, combined, over the last several decades." Source [truth-out.org]

      • Re:Seems like a piece is missing (Score:5, Informative)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Saturday August 01, 2015 @12:54AM (#50228223)
        The amount of land isn't as important as the location. The land gives the country an exclusive economic zone [wikipedia.org] which extends 200 nm out from the land. When claims by neighboring land conflicts, if the countries can't come to a mutual agreement the line is usually drawn equidistant from the nearest land . That's whay the line for the territorial waters between the U.S. and Mexico [noaa.gov] angles slightly north of the U.S.-Mexico border (the nearby Coronado Islands just offshore belong to Mexico), before angling sharply south (San Clemente Island further offshore belongs to the U.S.).

        Countries cannot restrict passage through the exclusive economic zone, but they can regulate economic activity that occurs there - mainly fishing and mining (oil drilling). So islands in the right location are a big deal. The Japanese spent millions setting up a breakwater around a couple rocks because they were Japanese land and gave them exclusive fishing rights to over a hundred thousand square miles of ocean. The rocks were in danger of collapsing into the sea from wave erosion.

        To qualify as land, it has to remain above sea level at high tide. Dumping sand atop underwater corals to create islands isn't generally recognized as legitimate land despite China's claims to the contrary, and would establish a very bad precedent if it were allowed. If that's the way China wants to play, the U.S. could in theory build a new island just off of mainland China and take away a huge swath of ocean territory from China. That's a can of worms you don't want to open. That's why the U.S. has been very clear in stressing that it doesn't recognize this as a legitimate "island," to the point of flying navy aircraft right over it.

    • Also missing is the motivation - possible oil and gas reserves under the South China Sea. China wants to strengthen their territorial claim and then say the entire area is theirs.

      • Also missing is the motivation - possible oil and gas reserves under the South China Sea. China wants to strengthen their territorial claim and then say the entire area is theirs.

        They already say the entire area is theirs (see the dotted red line in the article). Their plan is for these islands to give them a stronger presence so they can militarily force the issue in the future.

        • This is what's absurd. China's claim if you look at the dashed line is obviously exaggerated and that part of the ocean is obviously not Chinese. It's nowhere close to China and the dotted lines are well within the normal territorial waters of other countries. It's like some general took a crayon and with a shaky hand drew it out and said "this remote and distant ocean is now ours". Columbus style in other words.

          Next up, they'll claim that Vietnam and the Phillipines are Chinese territories, and have a

          • This is what's absurd.

            It is not absurd, and they will probably get away with it. America is the only nation powerful enough to stand up to China, and America is unlikely to go to war to defend Vietnam's or Indonesia's territorial rights. The only American ally with claims in the SCS is the Philippines, but their claims are rather modest, so China can compromise with the Philippines, and take the rest. Who is going to stop them?

            • they can rule against them in an international tribunal

              The Philippines' attempt to haul China to an international tribunal is a problem because it is invoking the very compulsory jurisdiction which China has disavowed since 2006. But even if the Philippine attempt to arbitrate fails, any marshaled argument can subsist, and that case may be fielded in other venues. If a military engagement were to ensue, the same case could be brought to the United Nations Security Council -- the principal repository of enfo

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by readin ( 838620 )

            This is what's absurd. China's claim if you look at the dashed line is obviously exaggerated and that part of the ocean is obviously not Chinese. It's nowhere close to China and the dotted lines are well within the normal territorial waters of other countries. It's like some general took a crayon and with a shaky hand drew it out and said "this remote and distant ocean is now ours". Columbus style in other words.

            Next up, they'll claim that Vietnam and the Phillipines are Chinese territories, and have always been Chinese territories.

            Yep, They did that with Taiwan. When America helped for a pro-China candidate to win the presidential election in Taiwan and China was able to start getting a lot of concessions, they moved on to the 9-dash line. Once we appease them with that they'll expand their claims. I understand they have even made a few comments about Okinawa.

          • Maybe they just need some elbow room?

          • It's like some general took a crayon and with a shaky hand drew it out and said "this remote and distant ocean is now ours".

            I bet that's almost exactly what happened. You can tell by the name - "the nine-dashed line". The only name they have for that line is the number of dashes that were used to draw it on the first map, almost as if they didn't think a more permanent name would be necessary.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pikoro ( 844299 )

        This reminds me of Civilization where you build your cities close to your enemies cities in order to influence them to join your culture. All China needs to do is wait a few turns and move in the troops when the other cities in the area fall to Anarchy.

      • Also missing is the motivation - possible oil and gas reserves under the South China Sea. China wants to strengthen their territorial claim and then say the entire area is theirs.

        The airstrip seems to suggest a more direct military goal.

        • The airstrip isn't the motivation, it's the means. The oil and gas is what they want, and the airstrip strengthens their position to enforce their claim on it. Which doesn't mean that they won't find other uses for it, of course.

    • Here's a map of the Spratly islands [energyinasiablog.com]. You can how they are positioned relative to countries around them.

  • Touch it with a 12 mile pole. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @04:03PM (#50226473) Journal

    You get the 12 mile military and 200 mile fishing limits for your land per international law. However, this must be land above the water. You cannot find land under the surface, dump tons of dirt on it, and claim those rights, per same law.

    This doesn't mean you can't create the islands, but you can't do the 12 mile/200 mile thing. China thinks it can.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rich0 ( 548339 )

      Well, ultimately you can do whatever you can get away with. Build some oil platforms, and what is anybody going to do about it? Of course, others could also start building platforms as well in competition, and then the Chinese are left with the same dilemma. The only way to truly enforce exclusivity is to either go to war or start imposing economic sanctions/etc, but if the US were to start putting sanctions on China that could get messy fast with all the trade.

      Nobody really wants to get into a shooting

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why do they need any international law? Might makes right.

    • Re:Touch it with a 12 mile pole. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Defenestrar ( 1773808 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @05:01PM (#50226823)

      You get the 12 mile military and 200 mile fishing limits for your land per international law. However, this must be land above the water. You cannot find land under the surface, dump tons of dirt on it, and claim those rights, per same law.

      This doesn't mean you can't create the islands, but you can't do the 12 mile/200 mile thing. China [a nuclear power with a massive army and permanent UN veto] ... can.

      FTFY

    • The snag though is how do they justify these islands as theirs in the first place? If they somehow made an island in the Atlantic would they think it was theirs despite being on the opposite side of the earth? So why do they think these reefs which are so very remote from China is somehow theirs? The 9 dash line of claim is a ridiculous one and any child looking at a map could tell that this ocean is not a part of China. Instead what we have are some puffed up generals drawing a dotted line of a big pha

  • How durable are these islands? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @04:26PM (#50226615)

    Do they erode fairly quickly, requiring continuous replenishment of their fill or can they build them with good long-term stability?

    • Once the material settles I'm sure they're as durable as any other island of comparable size.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Why would you be sure of that? Other islands could have been created by volcanic activity. ie. rock versus sand

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Higaran ( 835598 )
      I'd be more worried about the sea water rising and covering them over any erosion that may happen.

      • I'm sure that sometime over the next century or so, China could dump another few feet of soil on them. If they can afford to build them, they can surely afford to maintain them.

    • Re:How durable are these islands? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rgbatduke ( 1231380 ) <<ude.ekud.yhp> <ta> <bgr>> on Friday July 31, 2015 @05:51PM (#50227067) Homepage

      You mean, will they survive a direct hit by a serious typhoon?

      A very good question. I'm guessing that the answer is no, but if they ring the whole thing with ten feet of concrete above high tide tied into the coral reefs underneath, maybe.

      From the scale of the photos, though, one good sized tropical storm that hit it just right would erase it. I'm sitting here looking out over the Beaufort Inlet in NC at the gap left by Hurricane Sandy where it washed maybe half a mile of Shackleford Banks out into the bay. This was all sand that had been stable for, well, "forever", tied down with trees and grass. Sandy sat offshore and hit it with a week long northeaster. The inlet still hasn't stabilized -- the sand is all over everywhere, reefs shifting constantly, dredging required to keep the Morehead City port open.

      Sandy was a wussy little hurricane -- only category 1. Well, it was actually spatially really big (part of the problem) and slow moving (another part). If they get a storm surge that gets over the top of whatever is holding all that sand in, life on the "island" could get very interesting in the sense of the Chinese curse.

      rgb

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by readin ( 838620 )
        IANACE* If they build a runway on the reef I assume they would put something more durable under the pavement than sand. Wouldn't they need to at least run some steel posts into the reef below? A category 5 direct hit hurricane would probably take out most buildings, but if you know the hurricane is coming you can evacuate the planes, ships and people before it arrives. The really expensive stuff (the runway) would survive. The buildings could be replaced quickly (it's a military base not a luxury hotel

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Do they erode fairly quickly, requiring continuous replenishment of their fill or can they build them with good long-term stability?

      Well, considering that the two most prominent features are a 2 mile runway and a cement plant, my guess is that they're building an island with long term stability similar to a concrete block.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @04:59PM (#50226809)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      "The only reason why they would do this, is so that they can call it sovereign territory, and to game international border rules to their own benefit."

      Yes but the deeper reason is that the Communist Party of China has no legitimacy, so the Party uses anything they can to make their dicks look bigger.

    • Calling these things 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' shows just what a daft idea this is, militarily.

      Maybe you are thinking to literally. A better description might be "very big, reasonably cheap, immovable aircraft carrier". They are designed to base aircraft and some troops.

      You wouldn't use one of these to fight an actual war.

      True but they will be very useful in other ways. The most important one being a base for maritime patrol aircraft. That can send patrols out to locate and identify ships entering "Chinese waters" and vector ships to intercept them. That way they can exert de facto control over the area.

      The only reason why they would do this, is so that they can call it sovereign territory, and to game international border rules to their own benefit.

      That is exactly what they are doing and it is qui

    • In a no-holds-barred fight, they have a HUGE bullseye painted on them, and will be easy to take out.

      Easy being a relative term.

      Keep in mind that in World War II, the Japanese had lots of bases on little tiny islands. And it took hundreds of thousands of Marines to take them away. The US then took advantage of these islands to support attacks on other islands and, eventually, the Japanese mainland.

      So, yeah, having islands out that far with fighter planes and such on them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

      • Re:Smashing idea (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @10:07PM (#50227899)

        In a no-holds-barred fight, they have a HUGE bullseye painted on them, and will be easy to take out.

        Easy being a relative term.

        Keep in mind that in World War II, the Japanese had lots of bases on little tiny islands. And it took hundreds of thousands of Marines to take them away.

        The only reason this was done was because carrier aircraft of the era didn't pack anywhere the same punch as land based aircraft. Land based aircraft didn't have the range to hit Japan from areas under US control and return to base. In-flight refueling was still very experimental. Island hopping is no longer necessary. These rocks are small enough to completely obliterate in an afternoon by air anyway. Anybody left is not going to be in a position to threaten high-flying aircraft or ships.

      • Re:Smashing idea (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Saturday August 01, 2015 @07:13AM (#50228865)

        Keep in mind that in World War II, the Japanese had lots of bases on little tiny islands. And it took hundreds of thousands of Marines to take them away. The US then took advantage of these islands to support attacks on other islands and, eventually, the Japanese mainland.

        Taking them as part of the "island-hopping" strategy (which was a good way to advance to the Japanese home islands) was expensive, although not "hundreds of thousands". Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest of those battles, was fought by 70,000 US troops, which is still a large number, of course. Neutralizing them was much simpler. The kingpin of the Japanese bases guarding the Central Pacific was an island called Truk. You've never heard of the great battle of Truk, because there wasn't one. We blockaded it, staged a massive bombing raid to destroy the aircraft and warships stationed there, and rendered it completely irrelevant. No attempt was made to take the heavily fortified island itself (which would have been a much tougher task than taking the islands we did take), because it wasn't necessary. Truk never fell; it was still under Japanese control when the Japanese surrendered. But without supplies and replacements for the destroyed planes and ships, it could no longer affect the course of the war.

        • The other reason you never heard of the Battle of Truk was that the Japanese found out the US fleet was coming, and left in a very big hurry. Many US sailors were unhappy about having to attack a stronghold like Truk, but they really didn't have to worry.

    • "what a daft idea this is, militarily."

      Which is fine, since the military value of anything built on the island, and the island itself, is irrelevant.

      The only value is to make an increasingly plausible territorial claim over the surrounding ocean, which includes everything on, in, and under the water: The fishing, the drilling, the shipping.

    • Calling these things 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' shows just what a daft idea this is, militarily.

      In a no-holds-barred fight, they have a HUGE bullseye painted on them, and will be easy to take out. The general idea of naval power is to project power, and being able to hide this capability in plain sight in a huge ocean is what makes a movable aircraft carrier a better idea. You wouldn't use one of these to fight an actual war.

      Fixed fortifications are monuments to human stupidity. I could see this being like the Maginot Line or the Atlantic Wall.t

      That quote is lifted directly form the lips of George S. Patton and while it is mainly correct, you are not going to base your national defense on fortresses in this day and age. fortifited positions can be used very effectively in defebsive and delaying actions and were used very effectively against Patton himself in places such as Metz [wikipedia.org]. Fort Driant was effectively everything Patton despised and yet he was unable to deal with it in the swift and effortless manner everybody expected him to after his bold cl

  • while Trump yammers about Mexico. I see so much about Trump in the news while this island building has been major activity for some time, all part of plan to "extend" territorial boundaries of China. Glad to know we got our priorities properly set.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by readin ( 838620 )

      while Trump yammers about Mexico. I see so much about Trump in the news while this island building has been major activity for some time, all part of plan to "extend" territorial boundaries of China. Glad to know we got our priorities properly set.

      I'm no fan of Trump (that's an understatement), but Mexico is an existential problem for American ideas. We see that Mexicans who come here and vote, and their children who vote, tend to vote for the same kinds of policies that have made an economic and political catastrophe of every attempt at democracy in South America, Central America, and Mexico (with or without American involvement). We've seen from the example of American Indians that failing to have and enforce an immigration policy is a recipe for

  • Sinking island (Score:3)

    by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @07:08PM (#50227393)
    The funny point is that once you kill coral by dumping tons of sand on it, the island will not raise anymore with oceans. They are going to need a lot of sand to keep the island afloat.

    • Re:Sinking island (Score:5, Informative)

      by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Friday July 31, 2015 @09:44PM (#50227857) Homepage Journal
      The sad point is that by killing the coral reef they are destroying the ocean's ecosystem. Forget about the military implications, this is something that the international community needs to stand up and punish China for.
      Even though coral reefs [noaa.gov] cover less than one percent of the ocean floor, they support an estimated 25 percent of all marine life, with more than 4,000 species of fish alone. In fact, coral reefs are some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world with thousands of species relying on reefs for survival. They also serve as important sources of food, income, protection, and new medicines for mankind.
  • ...now that they're lifting the one-child-per-family law, they're expecting a huge population explosion! They're also leveling mountains to create more city space: http://www.newser.com/story/18... [newser.com] http://www.newser.com/story/18... [newser.com]
  • They are NOT building new islands... Rather they are building military infrastructures on existing islands that are center of ownership disputes.

    If you read asian news... You'd see that China singly declares ownership of lots of islands in this ocean region... single handedly announced 30 days of no-fishing for all countries around the area... which caused lots of people to starve because they don't have the ability to stand up against Chinese Navy.

    They have now deployed military presence and airports

Slashdot Top Deals

What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?

Close