Like Tree51Likes

China's 6 Wars in the next 50 Years

Closed Thread
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
  1. #81

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ouwen:
    It if it was not from reuters I would hope that was a spoof! Reality makes me despair sometimes.

    On the ADIZ on further reading I think it is a bit of a storm in a teacup.
    ouwen likes this.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    That is Japan's stance. Although China felt Japan violated a tacit understanding to shelve the dispute with them when the Japanese nationalized the islands in September last year. The Chinese felt this was a unilateral change of status quo and could not be tolerated. Not saying I agree with the Chinese's actions, but it is indeed true that the dispute heated up seriously after the island nationalization. This ADIZ may very well be, from the Chinese's standpoint, giving Japan a taste of their own medicine. The danger of incidents would be used to pressure Japan to accept a dispute exist. Whether Japan does so is another question of course. So what we have is brinkmanship...
    The international press reported at some length the planned purchase of some of the islands by a nationalistic city mayor e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-islands-china and then it appeared the Japanese central government stepped in to purchase the remaining islands to ensure a continuation of peaceful stewardship (some islands were already held by them). They have also maintained and enforced laws to stop its citizens from visiting the islands.

    To suggest that the 'nationalisation' of some of the islands was a provocative act is disingenuous at best but to fan the flames of nationalism over the matter does look irresponsible and lacking maturity.
    Last edited by East_coast; 04-12-2013 at 07:12 AM.
    kimwy66 and Watercooler like this.

  3. #83
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    The international press reported at some length the planned purchase of some of the islands by a nationalistic city mayor e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-islands-china and then it appeared the Japanese central government stepped in to purchase the remaining islands to ensure a continuation of peaceful stewardship (some islands were already held by them). They have also maintained and enforced laws to stop its citizens from visiting the islands.

    To suggest that the 'nationalisation' of some of the islands was a provocative act is disingenuous at best but to fan the flames of nationalism over the matter does look irresponsible and lacking maturity.

    It is however, selling a lot of American weapons, stimulating the development of China's weapons industry, and promoting a whole bunch of new Generals and Admirals. Politicians that "lack maturity" are much smarter, more powerful and wealthier than you and I will ever be.
    Watercooler likes this.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    The international press reported at some length the planned purchase of some of the islands by a nationalistic city mayor e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-islands-china and then it appeared the Japanese central government stepped in to purchase the remaining islands to ensure a continuation of peaceful stewardship (some islands were already held by them). They have also maintained and enforced laws to stop its citizens from visiting the islands.

    To suggest that the 'nationalisation' of some of the islands was a provocative act is disingenuous at best but to fan the flames of nationalism over the matter does look irresponsible and lacking maturity.
    The Japanese may have thought their move would ensure peaceful stewardship, but the net effect was to change the status quo of the islands, something the Chinese could not accept. Disingenuous or not, it is a fact that the island dispute heated up only after the Japanese "nationalization" of the islands. The Japanese were naive to misinterpret what the Chinese would think of this move.

    As for irresponsible or lacking in maturity, that's quite true and I agree with that. But I seriously doubt the Chinese care what the western world think of their move. By it's very move, it is designed to raise the temperature against Japan. It is called brinkmanship. Whether it is immature or not is immaterial so long as it can achieve what the Chinese want. Pressure the Japanese to accept there is a dispute. The Japanese so far aren't giving in, but the US may force the Japanese. Behind their veil of solidarity, the last thing the US wants is to be dragged into a Sino-Japanese conflict.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 04-12-2013 at 04:43 PM.

  5. #85

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Mui Wo, Hong Kong
    Posts
    742

    Big Joe Biden's in China to talk about this (and other things, I imagine)

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-zone-tensions


  6. #86

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Original Post Deleted
    From whose perspective? It is a reductionist way of understanding international relations to think a country's actions will always be interpreted the same way by another country. From China's standpoint, it makes no difference whether the islands are controlled by a racist mayor or nationalized. They are both equally bad. Unreasonable? Perhaps. Or maybe the Japanese have not adequately communicated their intentions to the Chinese prior to their move? Had the Japanese thought their nationalization move would have lower temperature, they would have made greater effort to communicate their intent to the Chinese. The fact they fail to do so indicate their lack of appreciation of China's position. And a misstep on the Japanese's part.

    I'm not saying the Chinese was correct to impose an ADIZ. But the Japanese are by no means blameless in this mess. The bulk of "wrong" action may have been committed by China, but Japan isn't an innocent victim here either.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 04-12-2013 at 05:01 PM.

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Original Post Deleted
    With the greatest respect, you also have no idea what you are talking about if you think a country will always understand what another country does. There is a failure of communication by the Japanese. The issue is not what is more inflammatory to us, but what is inflammatory to the Chinese leaders. Having the islands bought by the Tokyo mayor or by the Japanese government makes no difference to the Chinese. In both cases there is change in status quo and a breach of "shelving the disputes" agreement by Japan. The Japanese did not appreciate this.

    The bottom line is this: It is not about what action is inflammatory to us the average joe, but what is inflammatory to the Chinese leaders, whose political calculations and decision-making process is far more opaque.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 04-12-2013 at 05:09 PM.

  8. #88
    ouwen

    Details, details, details....... did anyone step back and look at the big picture?

    In early 2010, the US defence agreements (US govt clearance to sell certain types of weapons) for South Korea, Japan and Taiwan were due to expire. The three countries were allowing the contracts to expire, because they had no fear of China. They were, in fact, doing more business with China than with the US.

    Three weeks before contract expiration, the South Korean war ship Cheonan was cut in two by a underwater explosion. North Korea was blamed. North Korea angrily denied involvement and threatened military retaliation if punished.

    Speculation flys about whether it was a N. Korean torpedo, or an old mine. Of course no one would dare mention a Limpet mine for fear of being called a "conspiracy theorist". Limpet mines have been effective clandestine ship killers for nearly a century, and 41 very concerned nations gathered in the Arabian Gulf for International Mine Countermeasures Exercise 13, but that couldn't be applicable here. No way...

    The three contracts were renewed, with very expensive land joint exercises tacked on, as well as joint naval exercises in the East China sea. This irritated China (as intended) and put the fear on North Korea. North Korea does the war dance of rocket testing, so that the US can sell anti missile systems to Japan and S. Korea. Thank you North Korea, but sorry, no commission.

    Now Japan, how about those island disputes. We have these weapons that would be perfect for such a situation. The Phillipines just ordered them and they are extremely pleased. Only 450 million each......... We can noise up the island dispute situation a little to justify the expense to the voting public.

    And the band plays on......... nothing ever changes..... except the PR.


  9. #89

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,040

    None of this matters. The US has quietly been developing the biggest "game changer" since nuclear weapons and it has China very worried. While China is trying to put men on the moon and build aircraft carriers, the US is developing technology that will render all other weapons as useless.

    Air breathing engines!!!

    hypersonic propulsion system technologies that have defense potential well beyond aircraft. Missiles, high-speed weapons and advanced defense systems could all be enhanced by this sort of tech.

    This next stage hypersonic speed could be very useful for time-critical missions, and give the U.S. unprecedented speed in global strikes. Imagine missiles hitting targets across the planet in mere minutes?

    This missile has tested out at hypersonic speeds above Mach 5!!!!!

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3_RrFXQ...%3D3_RrFXQViyo

    Last edited by closedcasket; 05-12-2013 at 10:59 AM.

  10. #90

    Is this the same as HOTOL the British were playing with back in the early 80s?


Closed Thread
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast