Like Tree51Likes

China's 6 Wars in the next 50 Years

Closed Thread
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
  1. #121

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Original Post Deleted
    As a word of kind advice, try to understand what I am saying before you sprout off nonsense. It really helps if you actually pay attention to what I said. Because right now, you come across as a know-nothing. Alright?

    The Japanese government took the least worst opinion from their perspective. It doesn't mean the Chinese will accept that. Is that so hard for you to understand? I guess it is.

    Yes, the Japanese would certainly have enrage the Chinese more if they station troops or construct buildings on the island. But the Chinese don't see it that way. They may see it simply as a creeping change of status quo which is unacceptable all the same. It matters little if there is no real substantive change from the Japanese's perspective. What matters is how the Chinese interpret this. And they certainly did'nt see it as the least worst opinion with no change. That's what matters in the end. Now what the sender think is the least worst option, but whether recipient think as well. Like I said, breakdown in communication. The Japanese did'nt realize what the Chinese interpretation will be. And the Chinese did'nt understand or could not accept what the "least worst option" from the Japanese side is.

    Now, before you respond, read my post carefully. Word by word.

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Thank you for telling me. What the international community thinks is probably more important than what the CCP thinks.


    So in essence every totalitarian regime doesn't have to care what people think of their actions and they also usually end badly...

    As with the Senkuka/Diaoyu Islands where China are the 3rd nearest country they also claim the Socotra Rock where Korea and Japan are nearer (rather than Japan and Taiwan)



    What justification is there for this aggressive stance?
    So long as they feel they are justified, they don't really need to explain it to others. That's how the CCP works. Speaking of the international community, it is interesting. The news has been going on how the US challenged the zone with their B-52s and all that. But go underneath the surface and you will see something a little different. The US has been actually been careful not to provoke the Chinese over the zone. This B-52 flight is actually just to assure the Japanese. Had the US really want to provoke the Chinese and stick it in their face, they would send a hell of alot more than just a pair of B-52s.

    That means the US is less gung-ho than the Japanese. You can already see this when the US advice their carriers to report their flight plans to the Chinese, contradicting the Japanese. They may well be advising the Japanese behind-the-scenes to not let things get out of hand. The last thing the US wants is to be dragged into a Sino-Japanese conflict over some islands.

  3. #123
    ouwen
    Original Post Deleted

    My last post documented the probability that China's claim to a submerged rock is an attack on Japan's and Korea's ability to apply for determination of maritime limits. I also pointed out that there is no other reason to claim a submerged rock, because submerged rocks cannot be used as a baseline for the drawing of maritime limits. My post also documented that this manover opens the possibility of legal military occupation of the China/Korea continental shelf.

    My comments are not factually incorrect. They simply exceed your educational and mental comprehension level, and do not agree with the fantasy of your non existent war.

    And I am not in Asia, and I don't give flying flip about your domestic politics. I have enough domestic political problems in my own country.
    Last edited by ouwen; 09-12-2013 at 10:54 AM.

  4. #124

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Original Post Deleted
    I never said whether the Japanese had any other options. Maybe there are indeed no other options as you say. Maybe there was a third way out, but we'll never know now. That is not the issue however. The issue is whether the Chinese understood or accepted Tokyo's explanation, politically-speaking. It seems clear that the Japanese explanation is unacceptable for Beijing (or politically, they could never accept it). Either the Japanese communicate their view poorly to the Chinese or the Chinese could never accept such change in status quo (and warn the Japanese to find an alternative, whether one exist or not).

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    But go underneath the surface and you will see something a little different. The US has been actually been careful not to provoke the Chinese over the zone. This B-52 flight is actually just to assure the Japanese. Had the US really want to provoke the Chinese and stick it in their face, they would send a hell of alot more than just a pair of B-52s. That means the US is less gung-ho than the Japanese.
    Seems conjecture. Didn't the Japanese airlines inform the Chinese they were entering the "special ADIZ" until the US sent a couple of B52's to prove a point. Now the ADIZ is routinely ignored by many countries.

    Whatever the intention of the fly through by the B52's it has rendered the Chinese special ADIZ redundant (with a probably big loss of face). The CCP doing what it wants because it is the CCP is not a very good justification and certainly does not make the actions better.

    Perhaps you can try a better argument to show the CCP are in-fact being treated badly by the international community and their actions are justified.

  6. #126
    ouwen
    Original Post Deleted

  7. #127
    ouwen
    Original Post Deleted

    That applies to Japan, where we don't have any other choice, because Japan is not allowed to possess offensive weapons due to it's role in WWII. The US has diplomatic ties with China on the same footing as any other country. Japan is farther down the list as a war criminal on probation.

    My government does not recognize Taiwan as a country. It is recognized as part of China. The US sells weapons to Taiwan with which Taiwan is expected to maintain it's own defensive capability.

  8. #128
    ouwen
    Original Post Deleted

    No sane commercial airline pilot is going to fly anywhere without being under air traffic control. If you are under air traffic control clearance, you are cleared to be in the ADIZ. I doubt seriously that Japanese or Hawaiian air traffic control are going to try controlling an airliner flying into China. It would really be difficult sending their fire trucks and ambulances to the mid air collision and crash sites off the coast of China. Really be messy if one of them crashed into downtown Shanghai...........
    Last edited by ouwen; 09-12-2013 at 12:50 PM.

  9. #129
    ouwen
    Original Post Deleted
    My military area of expertise is Airborne Combat Information Technology, not air traffic control.

    An aircraft is rarely, if ever, outside the coverage of some form of air traffic control. After take off, an aircraft is handed over to an air traffic control center. When he leaves that center's coverage area, he is handed over to the next air trafffic control center, which might be in another country, or over the ocean.

    From Wikipedia.. after an aircraft takes off and clears the airfield, it is handed over to En-route air traffic controllers who work in facilities called Air Traffic Control Centers, each of which is commonly referred to as a "Center". The United States uses the equivalent term Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). Each center is responsible for many thousands of square miles of airspace (known as a Flight Information Region) and for the airports within that airspace. Centers control IFR aircraft from the time they depart from an airport or terminal area's airspace to the time they arrive at another airport or terminal area's airspace. Centers may also "pick up" VFR aircraft that are already airborne and integrate them into the IFR system. These aircraft must, however, remain VFR until the Center provides a clearance.

    Center controllers are responsible for climbing the aircraft to their requested altitude while, at the same time, ensuring that the aircraft is properly separated from all other aircraft in the immediate area. Additionally, the aircraft must be placed in a flow consistent with the aircraft's route of flight. This effort is complicated by crossing traffic, severe weather, special missions that require large airspace allocations, and traffic density. When the aircraft approaches its destination, the center is responsible for meeting altitude restrictions by specific points, as well as providing many destination airports with a traffic flow, which prohibits all of the arrivals being "bunched together". These "flow restrictions" often begin in the middle of the route, as controllers will position aircraft landing in the same destination so that when the aircraft are close to their destination they are sequenced.

    As an aircraft reaches the boundary of a Center's control area it is "handed off" or "handed over" to the next Area Control Center. In some cases this "hand-off" process involves a transfer of identification and details between controllers so that air traffic control services can be provided in a seamless manner; in other cases local agreements may allow "silent handovers" such that the receiving center does not require any co-ordination if traffic is presented in an agreed manner. After the hand-off, the aircraft is given a frequency change and begins talking to the next controller. This process continues until the aircraft is handed off to a terminal controller ("approach") for landing.
    USA40-40 likes this.

  10. #130
    ouwen