Like Tree21Likes

Three Chinese fishermen killed in confrontation with South Korea coastguard

Closed Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    By not welcoming a missile defense system that makes the area safer but strongly suggesting it destabilises the region. It would seem they are trying to be antagonistic unless you read it differently.
    You think the PRC is being antagonistic because it's opposed to a missile system that would provide foreign countries a real-time view of its own airspace? I don't think any sovereign nation of the face of the planet would agree to such an arrangement of having a competing power's military installations so close to its borders, much less an advanced surveillance system like the THAAD.

    I also doubt that the THAAD system would make Korean peninsula as safe as you make it sound. The system is designed to shoot down missiles but does not prevent artillery fire, which are NK's "most threatening weapons" which they have 13,000 pieces of lined up on the DMZ.

    When the Soviets placed ballistic missiles in Cuba, a country only ~500KM away from the nearest American city, it was the closest we as a species has come to a full-scale nuclear war. So to say that a system that would provide real-time surveillance of a sovereign country's' airspace to another would destabilise the region is not out of the question. It might be a veiled threat on the PRC's behalf but I don't expect any sovereign country to kowtow to another on matters of national security.
    bunko8 likes this.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by rickyross:
    You think the PRC is being antagonistic because it's opposed to a missile system that would provide foreign countries a real-time view of its own airspace? I don't think any sovereign nation of the face of the planet would agree to such an arrangement of having a competing power's military installations so close to its borders, much less an advanced surveillance system like the THAAD.
    It would be very surprising if THAAD were the only view the US/Korea had of the region so the additional part is the missile defense system.

    Quote Originally Posted by rickyross:
    I also doubt that the THAAD system would make Korean peninsula as safe as you make it sound. The system is designed to shoot down missiles but does not prevent artillery fire, which are NK's "most threatening weapons" which they have 13,000 pieces of lined up on the DMZ.
    Which means the a missile defense system between China and Japan is the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by rickyross:
    When the Soviets placed ballistic missiles in Cuba, a country only ~500KM away from the nearest American city, it was the closest we as a species has come to a full-scale nuclear war.
    If the US had missile defense systems in the 60's then it would probably be less likely the USSR would of gone to the effort of putting missiles in Cuba.

    Again it is the defensive missile system that is causing a strong response.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,136

    I think we shouldn't pretend we know anything about Military equipment and how it's significant.


  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Creative83:
    I think we shouldn't pretend we know anything about Military equipment and how it's significant.
    You're right.


    The reaction by the Chinese Government is probably the best indicator.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,507
    Original Post Deleted
    Careful there, you almost cut myself on all that edge.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,136

    I tried getting us back on track but I don't see it happening given these ugly Brits are simply not interested in reality.


  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by rickyross:
    If you're choosing to ignore the PRC's stance of national security on this issue then yes, what you're saying is correct.
    I am not ignoring it just stating that the addition of another form of surveillance is not the issue. The ability to shoot down missiles the fly over the Korean peninsula is. Perhaps the USA should've said it would shoot down missiles from all countries that look like they intend to do harm. Then it would be 4 countries that could all react in the same way. No comments that I can see from Japan that I can see who will be affected in the same way as China.


  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    I am not ignoring it just stating that the addition of another form of surveillance is not the issue. The ability to shoot down missiles the fly over the Korean peninsula is. Perhaps the USA should've said it would shoot down missiles from all countries that look like they intend to do harm. Then it would be 4 countries that could all react in the same way. No comments that I can see from Japan that I can see who will be affected in the same way as China.
    Maybe you're not ignoring the PRC's national security but clearly it doesn't matter much to you.

    Justifying a missile defense system because other surveillance options exist doesn't change the fact that THAAD provides a real-time view of Chinese airspace to foreign countries.

    Perhaps if the THAAD were to shield against NK artillery strikes in addition to missiles, then there would no reasonable argument against the implementation of THAAD in SK but that's clearly not the case here.

    Japan doesn't seem to have any qualms about it because they are allied with the US and they are both interested in stemming the influence of China's increasing geopolitical influence. Now that isn't a problem in and of itself, but justifying the THAAD system on the basis of stemming China's influence undermines the SK defense argument.

    What is the map you've posted supposed to prove? It's a biased publication of the heritage.org foundation, one of the most prominent right-wing think tanks in America - I don't expect anything impartial from them. Does China have a history of firing missiles at SK or Japan that I don't know of? Even if it did, the proposed THAAD system wouldn't protect it from those either, which makes the argument for installing the THAAD system even weaker.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Bora Bora
    Posts
    259
    Original Post Deleted
    Didn't the US illegally invaded a sovereign country b/c they were thought to possess WMD? At least China only acted. Acting didn't result in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, as was in the case of the illegal invasion.
    rickyross likes this.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by bunko8:
    Didn't the US illegally invaded a sovereign country b/c they were thought to possess WMD? At least China only acted. Acting didn't result in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, as was in the case of the illegal invasion.
    Both countries have done horrific things in the past century or two to other countries as well as their own people.

    There's no point comparing.
    rickyross likes this.