Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Japan The Military United States Politics

China Creates Air Defence Zone Over Japan-Controlled Islands, Issues War Threat 519

Posted by timothy
from the halt-who-goes-there dept.
cold fjord writes "France24 reports, "Beijing on Saturday announced it was setting up an 'air defence identification zone' over an area that includes islands controlled by Japan but claimed by China, in a move that could inflame the bitter territorial row. Along with the creation of the zone in the East China Sea, the defence ministry released a set of aircraft identification rules that must be followed by all planes entering the area, under penalty of intervention by the military. Aircraft are expected to provide their flight plan, clearly mark their nationality, and maintain two-way radio communication allowing them to 'respond in a timely and accurate manner to the identification inquiries' from Chinese authorities. The outline of the new zone ... covers a wide area of the East China Sea between South Korea and Taiwan that includes the Tokyo-controlled islands known as the Senkakus to Japan and Diaoyous to China. "China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions," according to the ministry. ' The Politico adds, "Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Saturday the United States is 'deeply concerned'" over the move. Spiegel Online has background on the conflict with Japan and on related regional issues. This announcement follows the recent publication in Chinese state media of maps showing nuclear strike plans against the U.S."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Creates Air Defence Zone Over Japan-Controlled Islands, Issues War Threat

Comments Filter:
  • by Nerdfest (867930)

    ... and so it begins.

    • Begins? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by game kid (805301) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:22PM (#45509429) Homepage

      We've always been at war with Eastasia.

      • by Cryacin (657549)
        War never changes.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by lookingglass (2935519)
          War. War never changes. Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage. (many thanks to Fallout 3)
        • Re:Begins? (Score:5, Informative)

          by ebno-10db (1459097) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @08:01PM (#45510517)

          War never changes.

          Nonsense. What struck people at the time about WWI is that, rather than having to kill people onesy-twosey, it could now be done on an industrial scale. Twenty some years later, we developed a weapon that could destroy a modest size city with a single bomb. Later we developed the "super" (as Teller originally called it) and ICBM's, so we could wipe out a substantial portion of the human race within an hour (thus saving on overtime costs if we decided to play global thermonuclear war). Technology marches on.

          • As one who couldn't stand the tyranny of the CCP regime here's my take on why China is doing what it is doing ...

            This is a preemptive measure designed solely for America.

            It is designed so to tell America that if the United States really wants to engage China, it would be a SUPER EXPENSIVE affair.

            Although it is true, as Shanghai Bill has put it, part of the reason of what is happening now, is for internal consumption (to drum up support for the CCP inside China), one has to understand that China's ne

            • by Aighearach (97333)

              That's a bunch of nonsense, China and the US have a close working relationship.

              It seems kinda strange to write off conflict between Japan (who abused China badly during WWII and before) and China as really being about the US. They are traditional regional enemies, and control of these islands has real effects on the ground.

              I'm more worried about, does this force Japan to change their Constitution to allow a regular military? Does that inevitably lead to nuclearization?

      • by Luckyo (1726890)

        That's literally true. Japan and Russia at least are still at war.

    • by phrostie (121428)

      every few years i get the crazy idea that we've out grown this sh#t.

      but no, not this time either.

      • Re:War (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @08:13PM (#45510587)

        but no, not this time either.

        I doubt if this will turn into a real war.* China is mostly just pandering to their own population as a smoke screen for the changes that came out of the recent CCP meeting in Beijing. This sort of pandering works well in China. Because of gender-selective abortions, they have tens of millions of unattached young men in their late teens and twenties, with little chance of starting a family or even finding a GF. It is very easy to stir these young men up into an anti-Japanese frenzy. In fact, the hard part is keeping a lid on it. The last time the Chinese government tried this, they ended up with riots, and torched Japanese cars and Japanese restaurants, despite both the cars and restaurants having Chinese owners.

        *OTOH, almost everyone thought the same thing in July of 1914 [wikipedia.org].

        • Re:War (Score:5, Insightful)

          by readin (838620) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @09:24PM (#45510985)

          but no, not this time either.

          I doubt if this will turn into a real war.* China is mostly just pandering to their own population as a smoke screen for the changes that came out of the recent CCP meeting in Beijing. This sort of pandering works well in China. Because of gender-selective abortions, they have tens of millions of unattached young men in their late teens and twenties, with little chance of starting a family or even finding a GF. It is very easy to stir these young men up into an anti-Japanese frenzy. In fact, the hard part is keeping a lid on it. The last time the Chinese government tried this, they ended up with riots, and torched Japanese cars and Japanese restaurants, despite both the cars and restaurants having Chinese owners.

          *OTOH, almost everyone thought the same thing in July of 1914 [wikipedia.org].

          So if you can't keep a lid on all those young men, what do you do with them? A war might take care of the problem while giving you even more excuses to suppress civil liberties.

          • Re:War (Score:5, Insightful)

            by DexterIsADog (2954149) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @10:58PM (#45511463)

            So if you can't keep a lid on all those young men, what do you do with them? A war might take care of the problem while giving you even more excuses to suppress civil liberties.

            This is the country that ran tanks over unarmed students in a public square in the middle of their capital city. Do you really think they need to look for excuses to suppress civil liberties?

            • This is the country that ran tanks over unarmed students in a public square in the middle of their capital city.

              This may be nitpicking, but during the events of June 4-5, 1989 [wikipedia.org], not a single person was killed in Tiananmen Square. Nearly all the fatalities occurred on the roads approaching the square, especially along Chang'an Avenue [wikipedia.org].

              Do you really think they need to look for excuses to suppress civil liberties?

              Enormous changes have occurred in China since 1989. They are certainly still willing to suppress civil liberties, but an event like that would likely be handled very differently today. For one thing, it would be nipped in the bud, and never be allowed to get out of control like it did t

            • ...

              This is the country that ran tanks over unarmed students in a public square ...

              I came from China.

              In fact, I ran away from China's oppressive regime.

              After reading your description the image of this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings [wikipedia.org] - rushes back.

              Yes, China _is_ under an oppressive government, but that does not mean the same can/could never happen in the United States of America.

            • Re:War (Score:5, Insightful)

              by DarkOx (621550) on Monday November 25, 2013 @08:17AM (#45513375) Journal

              And we live in a Country where the national gaurd uses live fire on protesting college students, what is your point exactly?

          • You create a useless area for people to fight over. Like Cashmere. India and Pakistan ARE squabbling all the time for a reason, but it probably has more to do with 90% illiteracy in Pakistan than in anything important with the plots of lands they defend.

            I remember reading that the Great Crusades were a byproduct of better farming and transportation in Europe. Suddenly you had a lot of illegitimate sons of royals all clamoring for land. So they concocted an insult; "Heathens have our holy land!" and they sen

    • Re:War (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jythie (914043) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:59PM (#45509745)
      Civil War seems more likely. All of this posturing seems to be more intended to impress their own people then outsiders and can be read as a government nervous about keeping its all powerful image to an increasingly wealthy population.
      • Re:War (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ColdWetDog (752185) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @06:04PM (#45509785) Homepage

        This. When you have internal dissent at home, you make up external existential threats.

        Hell, it works for us doesn't it?

  • by gilgongo (57446) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:18PM (#45509403) Homepage Journal

    Far east Asian foreign policy is even more about playing off internal factions than it is in the West. I bet this is just a case of the Chinese making nasty noises in the hope that a) somebody will be placated, and b) Japan will know this and just play along until things die down.

    The chances of nukes and bang bangs over this are very, very low. See also North Korea.

    • by gilgongo (57446)

      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands [wikipedia.org]:

      "The island group consists of five uninhabited islets and three barren rocks."

      In other words, purely symbolic and having no real impact on anyone. These ain't no Falkland Islands.

    • by Solandri (704621) on Monday November 25, 2013 @04:12AM (#45512717)

      Far east Asian foreign policy is even more about playing off internal factions than it is in the West.

      The U.S. is bound by treaty to defend Japan against an attack by a foreign power. [wikipedia.org] That was one of the stipulations of the treaties which ended WWII -- Japan disarms, and in exchange the U.S. agrees to provide for its international defense. So it is not strictly an East Asian affair.

      The chances of nukes and bang bangs over this are very, very low. See also North Korea.

      I agree the chance of war is very low. But the route to this turning into war between the U.S. and China is also very short. A few dumb moves by people trying to "draw a line in the sand" and we could end up with a war neither side really wants just to save face.

  • Cue SDI (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shavano (2541114) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:23PM (#45509433)

    I want to disable those missiles during their launch phase. Or better, hack their software so they detonate immediately when ordered to launch. That is how I want the NSA to spend its money. And of course making sure they can't do the same to us.

  • by mdsolar (1045926) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:30PM (#45509505) Homepage Journal
    China is always just about one big flood away from revolution. I wonder if they are trying to set up a distraction.
  • by Hamsterdan (815291) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:33PM (#45509531)

    It's expensive, but call their bluff and escort every craft in that airspace.

  • by schwit1 (797399) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:42PM (#45509601)

    It only makes the aggressor more aggressive. If you want a history lesson see Munich 1938.

    I have to wonder if the Chinese are using Obama's appeasement of Iran's nuclear program as an opportunity to test the west.

    • by Arker (91948) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @06:04PM (#45509787) Homepage

      Err, dont look now, but this is *exactly* the internal logic in China that is leading them to assert themselves like this. Only they see the US as the aggressive power that's been appeased for too long already, and that case actually seems a bit stronger than the reverse. It's not like China allied with Mexico and started supplying them with weapons and encouraging them to stir up old border disputes - but that's exactly what the US is doing in e.g. the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, etc.

      • by gtall (79522) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @06:43PM (#45510059)

        Yes and no. Vietnam cuddled up to the U.S., not the other way around. They felt threatened by China. Can you imagine that?

        The Philippines told the U.S. to go suck eggs years ago when they closed the U.S. bases. Then the Muslims in the south got armed and pissed, the Philippines decided a bit of military training with U.S. advisers would be acceptable. But China next decided they owned the entire S. China Sea right down the Philippines. The Philippine government then more or less said, "bases, shmases, let's be buddies again like the good old days when you booted out the Japanese."

        China brought increased U.S. involvement in SE Asia on themselves.

  • I have kids, whenever I have two kids who behave like this, the first thing I do it take away whatever they are fighting over.

    What would happen (I say someone, but not completely jokingly) if the US sent in a Carrier Battle Group, claimed the uninhabited islands for ourselves and set up a base, proclaiming "if you two can't work it out, neither one of you can have them. Thanks for the gift...

    Yes, I know it isn't that simple, but maybe it should be sometimes when two nations behave in such a manner.

    • our Carrier Battle Groups use Chinese Chips.
    • Except it's halfway around the world for us and in their backyard. If the world needs policeman, then the world should put up the money to pay for them.

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      Then we'd have both China and Japan mad at the US, and they'd still be mad at each other. Sadly, you can't treat nations like children, even when they behave like it. Especially not when those nations are the second and third largest economies in the world.

      • That brings something up that has bothered me for awhile.

        If China and Japan have the second and third largest economies in the world, why don't their military forces reflect that?

        The USA has military forces that would completely swamp both nations in all respects, other than manpower.

        Why do we have such forces and they don't? Are we kidding ourselves and just feeding the military-industrial complex, or is the military there to be world police?

        Our Navy has 12 aircraft carriers, equal to every other

        • by perceptual.cyclotron (2561509) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @07:19PM (#45510271)
          Mainly because the US is imperialist, and its material wealth is directly tied to its coercive abilities inside and outside of its borders. If the west's wealth wasn't built on enduring theft and slavery, you might see a different configuration. China is only recently moving in that direction with its economic posturing in Africa and South America – and its pretty evident that this is mainly reactionary. Given its age, and the level of historic contact with other nations in the past, China has mostly only sought empire within its own borders, whereas the west has always taken a colonial usurpation approach.

          And the idea of ROI is a mistaken understanding of US power. You paid for it – but the return was never meant for you. The bloated war-mongering US military machine returns day in and day out by threatening untold violence against any economic dissent and any obstruction to continued US exploitation of the world's people and resources. The people footing the bills aren't the people reaping the rewards, and they were never meant to be. But the interests that are being protected are being served very well indeed.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 24, 2013 @06:11PM (#45509837)

      What would happen (I say someone, but not completely jokingly) if the US sent in a Carrier Battle Group

      And Americans wonder why people of other nationalities look at them funny?

      You realise you are fulfilling the Team America World Police stereotype by even suggesting that, right? This is a territorial battle between China and Japan, leave it to them to sort out or fight it out over on their own. Radical concept, I know, but just because something happens, it does not require you to sit your ass in the middle of it just because you can.

      I have kids, whenever I have two kids who behave like this, the first thing I do it take away whatever they are fighting over.

      Ah, "daddy knows best", I hear that worked out really well for Native Americans, and then the African Americans. Paternalistic racism, the "solution" that just keeps on giving! Daddy America has gotta teach them stupid chinks how to behave like real people, huh?

    • I have a simpler solution. Japan should just sell the islands to Larry Ellison.

  • Easy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hamsterdan (815291) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:48PM (#45509651)

    Every country should boycott stuff made there in protest.

    Oh wait...

  • Don't look now (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly (148874)

    ...but theres nothing the US can do to stop them. Maybe prior to 2000, maybe prior to 1990, but after years of appeasements, transfers of critical technology, and currency manipulations, the Chinese have the US by the short and curlies. Nobody wants to say it, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

    The real question is, does the US draw out some long embarassing, expensive, futile detente where they ultimately lose, or (my preference) just say Fuck It, boot the UN, cut off foreign aid, stop being the world's

    • Re:Don't look now (Score:5, Interesting)

      by russotto (537200) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @06:03PM (#45509773) Journal

      ...but theres nothing the US can do to stop them. Maybe prior to 2000, maybe prior to 1990, but after years of appeasements, transfers of critical technology, and currency manipulations, the Chinese have the US by the short and curlies. Nobody wants to say it, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

      And if the US were to start patrolling the region, pointedly ignoring Chinese demands, what precisely do you think the Chinese would do about it? "Accidentally" shoot down a US plane?

      • Re:Don't look now (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Luckyo (1726890) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @06:41PM (#45510043)

        They would pointedly ram a few ships with fishing boats for real. Then post nice picture of US marines shooting up peaceful looking fishermen. You know, like Greenpeace does, and like Chinese have been doing to US anti-sub ships for years now.

        Then, after a major scandal, if US still decided to stick to its guns and not bow down and apologize (as it likely would as at that point, any politician trying to do otherwise would likely go the way of JFK very quickly), you'd have a real cold war on your hands. We're talking breakdown of trade relations, sanctions and likely worldwide economic depression that would follow splitting of the world in two. You'd likely have NATO on one side, and Russia backed China with all its vassal states on the other with most of Latin America leaning strongly to support China, Australia dithering leaving NATO to avoid complete economic meltdown when they suddenly can't sell their mining produce to it any more and other massive geopolitical reverbations. It would also completely untie chinese hands in places like Nothern Africa to stop acting covertly in buying everything with money they have, and start making open offers to the countries of the region to join their side in exchange for massive trade benefits. And they could afford it far better than US or EU, that are currently stuck in a serious long term economical financial mess already which would be massively exacerbated by massive loss of trade with China.
        China would be suffering essentially the same consequences, with US and EU getting the ability to openly assault its strongholds in Easten Africa both financially and via military means "oh they are harboring terrorists!", as well as likely putting up heavy pressure on Latin America to cut down on trade.

        Essentially it would be a massive loss for everyone in the world save for third world countries, who would likely benefit greatly from two sides investing in them strongly to keep them in their sphere of influence. Which is why it would never happen - if there still are politicians in the West who are not wholly owned by corporate elite, they would be promptly assassinated or removed from power via other means to avoid such a disastrous outcome.

  • by burni2 (1643061) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @05:54PM (#45509697)

    Ok, will China go to war ? I think there is no default choice here, because chinese rulers decide a bit machivellistic, and therefore they have recognized that
    China cannot sustain it's own growth of population, wealth(=CO2 Emission), industrial production(=Self polution) these factors lead to social unrest and
    this is the last thing the rullers want. Looking back into the past(Tienamen Square Masacre) there is a chinese solution to social unrest - use the patriots view and direct it to an outside scapegoat / enemy.

    Japan is the enemy number one, also for historic reasons - japanese nationalism has done it's part in the situation we are in now (masacres, rapes, torture / WWII)
    and Japan is an easy enemy because on the one hand it's military force is specialised in defending(the main islands) but what comes in handy is the blood & death bonding with the U.S.

    So in reality China wants to demonstrate strength against the U.S. and Japan comes in second(Shinzo Abe - tries to alter the "National Defense Force" into a "National Offense Force" and what gives me the creeps is that Japans tendency for nationalistic thinking is very similar to the chinese view.

    China is in a deadlock situation for it's ambitions as a regional superpower, from the military capacity they are. (Nukes, Missiles, Destroyers, Subs, (experimental)Carriers)

    The deadlock consists of
    Japan:
    - Japan is under direct U.S. protectorate, if China attacks, U.S. are about to react.
    - China must find out if the U.S. will react or just play the non aggression card and give up on some rocks in the boiling sea

    Taiwan
    - U.S. allies
    - like swizerland - if someone attacks, they will secure the country by trip/tank mines and asymetric tactics, the only chance to win
    for China without paying an extreme death toll would be to blast Taiwan of the earth (Nukes)

    Vietnam
    - they don't like China, and feel threatened by China, espicially when China held back some good for vietman during the war

    Philipines
    - U.S. allies

    And well those deserted rocks in the boiling sea are the weakest target, but are a lithmus test for the unconditional military support for Japan to be supported by the U.S. But if China's leaders don't watch their steps closely they could really "kill everyone in China".

    • by Luckyo (1726890) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @06:52PM (#45510125)

      In reality, this is likely a shot directed inward. It's easy to unite the nation against a common enemy, and Japan is a very hated enemy by everyone in the region, be they han, korean, vietnamese, or any other ethnicity. Atrocities of WW2, and Japan's chronic inability to face them like Germany did ensure that it stays that way too.

      I seriously doubt that this is anything more than that. As for "kill everyone in China", let's not be utterly retarded on the issue. China is just as much of a nuclear armed nation with ability to enforce MAD as France or UK. No one will start a shooting war with them, and they won't start a shooting war with anyone in the nuclear club either. They may indeed be testing how US reacts, as a "kill two birds with one stone" action, but it's unlikely to be anything more than that on either side. And as pointed out in the article, US is highly unlikely to get involved for another reason - the islands are claimed by its other ally in the region, ROC (Taiwan) as well, so defending them on Japan's behalf against China would cause a massive fallout there.

      US will most likely stay the hell out of that three way fight and let them figure a way out on their own, at most offering diplomatic assistance and assurances that any kind of claims on currently undisputed territories would be met with force.

  • by argStyopa (232550) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @10:20PM (#45511269) Journal

    ...is the fact that there is clearly nobody - Democrat or Republican - who is competent enough to play a serious game of brinksmanship WITHIN our government without fucking it up. I can't imagine that they're going to be any more competent with the Chinese, and the consequences here are far more serious than the US budget for the year or Obamacare.

"How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows."

Working...