Subject: Re: more fun is South China Sea

Of course open hostilities would be bad. As I read recently, we need to call China's bluff (if it is, in fact, a bluff). It is Philippine waters, so they would have to invite us (I assume). But then we could chase Chinese CG and fishing vessels out of Philippine territory. And if they try to ram us, sink them (self defense).** So far the Philippines hasn't invited us to help them at sea, or invoked the defense treaty.

My concerns is that "face" is a very important cultural concept in China. Xi would lose face if he backed down. So I'm skeptical he would, and if we stand up to him there will be some shooting. China would lose, especially if the UK and Australia come in on our side. Not sure what Japan would do. They generally don't venture into waters away from Japan and start shooting. Also, if we (USA) are attacked, would NATO join the party? That would add the UK, French, and German navies to the mix.

The Chinese are taught in school that the South China Sea is theirs. Austin said that an attack on PI military would trigger the treaty, but short of that is a good question - I think they are working it out now. I think an increased presence coupled with willingness to manhandle boats, etc., should get the point across without ruining "face". Evidently the ramming isn't considered an attack... yet. I think Marcos has already asked for the increased presence, but it isn't public.

The Air Force base that got covered with volcanic ash isn't suitable anymore, but we do need to increase our presence - the Chinese will know when we do it, and they have war hawks too, just like ours. We had clearance for more bases from Aquino that Duterte threw out, but now we're back im. We should get at least a 50 year guarantee after completion to build a base.

Dunno about NATO, but Europe has its own problems.