China Creates Air Defence Zone Over Japan-Controlled Islands, Issues War Threat 519
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."
War (Score:2)
... and so it begins.
Begins? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Begins? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
China's strategy ... (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
That's literally true. Japan and Russia at least are still at war.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
How is it different from this ... (Score:3, Insightful)
...
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)
And we live in a Country where the national gaurd uses live fire on protesting college students, what is your point exactly?
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re:War (Score:5, Insightful)
This. When you have internal dissent at home, you make up external existential threats.
Hell, it works for us doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Propaganda can absolutely be lies, it just doesn't have to be. Take the Iraq war, we were told it was necessary to keep WMD's out if Saddams hands and prevent support of terrorism. Years of searching & investigations after we invaded it was proven beyond all doubt that the WMD claims were completely unfounded and the Iraqis had gone out of their way to get rid of the chemical & biological weapons. In addition no concrete terrorist ties were found pre-invasion, in fact it is widely believed that t
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is extremely unlikely. First of all, China will have to match US spending before they can exceed it. And to do that, they need to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars away from their already very poor interior. Second, the US accounts for something like half of their exports. Since the conventional wisdom is that the only reason the Chinese government can keep legitimacy is through high economic growth, it would be suicidal for them to risk that trade - even if it would severely damage the US
Re:War (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the factory workers I read are from the rural areas. They send money back to their villages each paycheck.
Yes, many factory workers are from rural areas. But they do NOT have the same civil rights as "urban" class people. In China, you are assigned a class at birth. This class does NOT depend on where you are born. It is hereditary: you inherit your class from your father. So if your father had a "rural" hukou, then so do you. Even if your family has lived in Shanghai or Beijing for two generations, you will have NO right to attend public school, NO right to medical treatment, and NO right to complain to the courts if the cops beat the crap out of you because you are sleeping on the street since you have NO right to live in many housing districts.
When you consider the number of people affected, the Hokou system is probably the biggest violations of basic human rights in the world today. Yet you hear very little of it in the Western press. The reason for this is that 99% of Chinese that emigrate to the West have urban hukous, and their families benefit from the current system.
Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Informative)
They don't care about the islands, they care about the water around them. They are abundant in fish and oil/natural gas.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, we can fix this in one jiffy.
A bunch of bottom trawlers to wipe out the fauna.
Haliburton and friends to set up some side drilling rigs at the periphery of the military zone and make some very long straws.
Then all you have is some stinking desert.
The free market wins again. No need for the military folk.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of these island disputes would go away if these "economic exclusion zones" were redefined from "N km from the shore" to "minimum(N, sqrt(area of island)) km from shore". It would make more sense, as well.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Informative)
Amusingly, in a dispute between US fisherman and the Canadian government, lawyers once successfully argued that scallops are not "sedentary species"
Most species of scallops are not sedentary - they swim around. Just because they're bivalve mollusks doesn't mean they live the same way as clams and oysters.
USA loves this "continental shelf" extension past the old 200 mile limit for claiming petroleum resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
Those bullying Yanks - imagine trying to use a provision in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, just like other countries do.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Informative)
It's more than purely symbolic. There are extensive undeveloped natural resources in the area which the Chinese would like to control. The islands also lie at a strategic location between the Pacific and the East China Sea, and just north of Taiwan. If the Japanese, Americans and Taiwanese do nothing to abate this, the Chinese will be emboldened to act more aggressively in the area.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:4, Informative)
Not just this area, China is claiming all the ocean down to the Philippines. China has driven several of the SE Asian countries closer to the U.S. Even Vietnam wants to cuddle closer to the U.S.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a report the other day saying that China is trying to claim enough islands around the east china sea so that it can claim the entire sea as an "inland sea". Hence the disputes over islands with everyone, from Indonesia to Japan. It seems like they are hoping to claim enough barren rocks to make this dream a reality.
It was said back then that this is necessary for fishing and mining.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:4)
These ain't no Falkland Islands.
True - they have fewer sheep.
The Falkland Islands were no strategic prize either (though they had been when ships needed coaling stations). They're an idiotic traditional cause célèbre in Argentina. They're of no great value to anyone, and at 300 miles off the Argentine coast, are pretty far out of their territorial waters. The reason that the UK had to defend those islands is that their subjects live there. You don't let your own people stay the victims of an invasion.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
China is asserting itself. If it senses weakness in the US it will attack unarmed perimeter nations. That's the way of the species. The Chinese government has never ceased its war mongering propaganda about foreign powers; the West, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Its subjects support this aggression and will support more. Apologists that give reason to pretend otherwise will be the cause of great violence, as usual.
In the near future it is unlikely China will start a hot war. America still has too much power. They'll be smart enough to wait a decade or two until America's debt makes American military power unsustainable and China's economic growth allows them to create a much more powerful military.
Of course if they can persuade countries to surrender without a fight in the meantime simply by using threats, or by coaxing them with promises of market access, they'll be happy to do so.
Either way, it appears that
Re: (Score:3)
they believe their civilization has been unfairly held down for too long by hostile foreign powers and that it is finally time for their superior race/culture to take its rightful place of leadership on the world stage.
In China's case, there were the opium wars and the invasion by Japan. It doesn't help that China feels they have still never received a proper apology, and that there are Nanking deniers among Japan's right wing conservatives, including current prime minister Shinzo Abe. China has also been in place of leadership throughout most of its history (so far as Asia is concerned at least), with the last few hundred years being the exception.
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:4, Interesting)
" It doesn't help that China feels they have still never received a proper apology"
Which is interesting, as there have been a fair few apologies from the Japanese:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan [wikipedia.org]
But somehow, even among the Dutch, there is a persistent belief that Japan never apologised.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that I qualified my statement to both include China's perception, and "proper".
In 1972, 1995, and in 2001, various Japanese prime ministers have issued what they considered to be a valid apology. Each time, China rejected the statement as a valid apology for one or more of three reasons: 1) the lack of the explicit mention of the word “apology,” 2) the lack of the explicit mention of China as the victim of Japanese aggression, and 3) the apology was only stated in a speech, but not written down in an official document. - See more at: http://www.tealeafnation.com/2012/12/has-japan-ever-apologized-to-china-for-its-wartime-aggression/#sthash.bIg5DWBO.dpuf [tealeafnation.com]
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Informative)
You REALLY don't understand atomic weapons. REALLY don't.
If there is a major nuclear exchange between major powers, we won't have global warming, we'll have an instant ice age. Expect 90% casualties among all living humans. (Details, naturally, vary, but none of the scenarios are nice.)
Now if there were a minor war, say between India and Afghanistan, and they refrained from using nuclear weapons on cities, we might only get several degrees of cooling for a decade or so. (This is based on weaponry estimates over a decade old, however, and they were ESTIMATES.) In that scenario the countries north of the equator would be spared most of the cataclysmic results. (Note: most, not all.) If, however, cities were burned, then the projections are several times worse, and widespread recovery of the glaciers is likely in the south within two years, and in the north within the decade.
The reason for this is that nuclear explosions lift soot into the stratosphere, above the level at which rain clouds form, so it takes decades to centuries to settle out. And at that height it acts to cool the Earth. Because of wind currents, the particles tend to remain either north or south of the equator, but over a period of a decade or so will spread out more evenly.
OTOH, this *would* solve the global warming problem. Just not in a very desirable or predictable way. And it wouldn't do anything to solve to acidification of the oceans. (A population crash caused by massive global crop failures, however, would act to solve that.)
And again, please note, this is for a nuclear war between countries that don't have many nuclear weapons. Which describes neither China nor the US. In that case we probably wouldn't see a re-enactment of "On the Beach", but something not too different, only featuring starvation and glaciers is reasonable. (Radiation poisoning is highly over-rated as a quick kill. It takes far too high a dose to be likely even in a maximal exchange. [I'm not counting, here, the induced cancers that show up 15 or more years later.] One should, however, expect the average lifespans of the survivors of a nuclear war, and their descendents for the next three generations, to be around 20 years, due to increased induced cancer, though this would drop off as the more radioactive elements burned out.)
We AREN'T going to invade China, and they aren't going to invade the US. Not unless someone with launch authority really wigs out. (This would be more comforting if we hadn't already had several close escapes. The report is we were once within 30 seconds of the US launching on Russia.)
P.S.: It's still true that only an idiot would get the US into a land war in Asia. This would be more comforting if there weren't so many idiots in positions of power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Well.... what do you want to do?
There's Too-big-to-fail and there is also Too-big-to-fight.
You simply cannot engage China in war. The end result is so catastrophic both economically and otherwise. Too damn big. Plus, it's across the Pacific Ocean. How the hell do you even land troops and create a reliable beach head? This is many orders more complicated than D-Day in terms of logistics, infrastructure, materials, intelligence, keeping the element of surprise, etc.
Japan can and will put up a hell of a fight, but everyone knows they will lose in the end. Simply a matter of numbers. South Korea and Taiwan are the same. It's still a big maybe if Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan all form an alliance and attack/defend against China.
Russia should be able to put up on hell of a fight too. No way to know for certain who would win. I would bet on the Russians though as those people are crazy, drunk, fearless, and in general, up for some shit. I've seen their dash cams. That guy lowered his visor with a meteor crashing down like it was just Tuesday. No, I don't really want to fight Russians either.
It all comes down to the sheer numbers that China has. IIRC, it has a militia numbering 3+ million with a regular army comparable in size to Russia. It's ability to manufacture instruments of war easily rivals and exceeds that of the US during WWII. Technology wise is anyone's guess.
You're left with fucking around in diplomatic circles and threatening sanctions. That ultimately only works if China cares. If China truly doesn't care they can annex the whole area and there is not much the world could do about it.
Unless you want World War III. Don't be too certain which side the Russians will choose either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who modded this tripe up.
All that fnj has shown is that he has no idea how WW 1 or 2 started. The build up of armies and materials began years before the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. Everyone knew war was inevitable, it was only a question of when. It didn't pop up all of a sudden in 1914.
Same with WW2, German military buil
Re: (Score:3)
No, he was completely accurate in his description. The seeds of WWI were sown in the calamitous defeat of the French in 1870 at Sedan, when Napoleon III was captured. Whoops, there goes that government.
Not that either the German nor the French governments had existed long at the time (and the French in particular had gone through quite a run of them) but though the Germans had won the strategic victory, there was no way they could effectively conquer the French. Their armies were tiny by comparison with WWI
Re: (Score:3)
Cue SDI (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Blast those yellow reds to hell ? (Score:2)
You just started a fire!
Re:Cue SDI (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the war has already been fought and won.
That's how Sun Tzu says to do things. The victorious warrior wins first and then goes to war, while the defeated warrior goes to war first and then seeks to win.
Re:Cue SDI (Score:4, Insightful)
That's due to selection bias. The nations that China won against aren't nations any more, and you therefore don't consider them when looking at China's war record.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
One big flood (Score:3)
Re:One big flood (Score:5, Funny)
Escorts (Score:3)
It's expensive, but call their bluff and escort every craft in that airspace.
Re:Escorts (Score:5, Funny)
Don't appease aggression (Score:3)
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.
Re:Don't appease aggression (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't appease aggression (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
the world is everyone's interest
you nip problems when they are small and far away, or when they are large and on your border
those are your choices in life
i'm glad the usa is involved heavily in the world- by that i do not mean wars, i mean policy questions, like diplomacy with iran
you make enemies sure. you also make a lot more friends
isolationism is a failed, loser's attitude
Re: (Score:3)
"you nip problems when they are small and far away, or when they are large and on your border
those are your choices in life"
No, actually, they are not.
People talking just like that have been running our foreign policy for the last century and have bee proven wrong time after time after time, always with disastrous consequences for the country as a whole. Yet they keep getting promoted.
In fact, the world works better when the people actually involved in a problem are allowed to solve it, rather than having s
Re: (Score:3)
you're about 75 years too late
isolationism's heyday has come and gone
appeasement doesn't work. it just emboldens aggressors
Re:Don't appease aggression (Score:4, Insightful)
"Had we not fought in Vietnam, where would the momentum of communism have carried it?"
Exactly where it did carry it - to the grave. Communism wasnt stopped with guns or bombs, economics is what killed it and what was always going to kill it. A beast like that dies more quickly in peace time (when people expect to eat) than in wartime (when they can easily be taught to blame their empty stomachs on the enemy.)
"Would a newly communist Vietnam, without the economic and military ruin of a long war have felt emboldened both by success and by ideology to invade Thailand? Malaysia?"
Vietnam was a nationalist struggle against the French, they 'turned communist' to get communist bloc weaponry once they were certain no one else would help them. They havent been aggressive outside their borders in modern history, the country was a shambles, and the entire idea sounds like something you would have to know nothing at all about the situation to take seriously.
Unless you are one of those people that likes to play with the meaning of 'impossible.' No, it's not impossible. Not impossible that the French will nuke us in the morning either, but I think it's a fairly safe bet. And remember you dont get to weigh some imaginary costless intervention against the remote possibility of something bad happening. Real invasions, at their best, are still very very bad. Lots of death and destruction and misery and lots of monetary expense. Not something you want to run around doing on a whim just because it's 'possible' that something bad might one day happen if you dont.
"Would Saddam Hussein have used oil profits from both Kuwait and Iraq to build a larger military to subdue Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and with enough money even Iran? "
Look at his track record. How many invasions did he launch? Two. How many did he get a US 'green light' on before he moved? Two.
He was a greaseball and a thug and not a nice person at all, but he could be and had been deterred very effectively, just like all the others.
Re:Don't appease aggression (Score:4, Informative)
There was a war between the two in 1979 regarding Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge (Communist government of Cambodia) made the mistake of attacking battle hardened Vietnam, and the Vietnamese responded by invading and taking over Cambodia. Cambodia's communist government was supported by China, and tacitly by the USA, so China decided to teach Vietnam a lesson for interfering. One positive byproduct of the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was to stop the genocide of counter-revolutionaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Japan "nationalize" those islands just last year. Are you calling the one that just annexed new land the victim?
Japan nationalized them to try to avoid actions that might annoy China. China chose to get annoyed anyway.
In addition to being part of Japan, the islands had been the private property of a Japanese citizen. He decided to sell the islands. There was fear that some Japanese zealot might buy the islands and use them for propaganda purposes. A new owner might plant Japanese flags all over the islands or do something else as a private citizen that would highlight Japanese sovereignty. Japan nationalized
Only partly joking... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Only partly joking... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Only partly joking... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
> 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.
Actually, it does. AFAIK, Japan is constitutionally prohibited from having more than a token, purely-defensive military, and totally depends upon the US for its protection. A loss for national sovereignty and pride, but an epic win for s
Re: (Score:3)
Japan is constitutionally prohibited from having more than a token, purely-defensive military
First, Japan's "self defense forces" are only a token force by US standards. By regional standards they're highly regarded.
Second, Japan can amend its constitution, if it even needs to:
On May 30th, 2013, The ruling Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDPJ) Council of National Defense approved the draft of the full-scale rearmament of the country. This would also cause the renaming of the Japan Self-Defense Forces into that of a full army of national defense. [wikipedia.org]
Simpler solution (Score:3)
I have a simpler solution. Japan should just sell the islands to Larry Ellison.
Easy (Score:4, Funny)
Every country should boycott stuff made there in protest.
Oh wait...
Don't look now (Score:2, Insightful)
...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)
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)
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.
J.Kimmel show kid says "Kill everyone in China!" (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
Re:J.Kimmel show kid says "Kill everyone in China! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The only thing we have to fear... (Score:3)
...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.
Re:..and now you see why (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't have any problem with nuclear weapons - they're a fact of life now. I just want ours to be the best."
I agree. Knowing that our nukes are shinier than China's will make our death so much more satisfying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:..and now you see why (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe, maybe not.
US, Japan agree to revise mutual defense treaty for first time in 16 years [japandailypress.com]
Is the U.S. Committed to Defend the Senkakus? Text of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterated the defense treaty yesterday. He said it applies to the disputed islands.
Re:..and now you see why (Score:5, Insightful)
How does a war between two of our three biggest trading partners, one of which is bound to us by a defense treaty and hosts 35,000 US troops impact us?
Re:for internal consumption_fear not China (Score:5, Informative)
China is a 3rd world country wholly dependent economically on the US...China's economy is only as good as the 'Full faith and credit' of the US Bond's it is based on.
That's about 20 years out of date.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it was never correct. China is in fact a second-world country.
population/pollution (Score:4, Interesting)
Apartment building & iPhones dont make them '1st World'...
They are a **communist totalitarian country** with **state controlled media & markets**
Has everyone forgotten what a state controlled media means? Fox News is horrible, but it is ***NOTHING*** compared to China's news.
Here's why China is not threat: they can barely keep their country together & it's zooming to an environmental/human crisis...
1. Pollution
1.a. Human Pollution: China's disasterous 1 child policy and culture of favoring male children has resulted in a whole generation of Chinese society that is 60-40 Male-Female...it's a social crisis they talk about all the time over there
1.b. Environmental Pollution: Have you seen the fucking pictures of the smog? Dumping of industrial waste turning rivers red? Dumping of Human corpses into main rivers? Its a fucking nightmare...
Chinese people are just as awesome as any other people...it's their government and our government's relationship to it economically that causes any notion of friction
China is **not** a threat to the United States in any serious way!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what propoganda you have been reading but in practical terms this is just not the case. China has a working modern industrial base, and natural resources to power it. The Chinese also have a command economy and a central bank run by the ruling party.
Yes they have lots of their wealth invested in our bonds, which they would very likely be deprived of if a armed conflict broke out. It would not derail their economy though. Right now all that money owed in bonds is effectively in the mattress
Re:How is this Spongeworthy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry for the Seinfeldism but how is this high tech, geek/nerd related? This is saber rattling. Now if you had maybe a science connection like "China Air Defense System Causes Jellyfish Bloom in China Sea!" or "China Air Defense Grab Causes Large Tsunami" then I might be interested.
Then submit [slashdot.org] a better article. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So they can go to what? The previous brutal theocracy that was considered by historians to be one of the more brutal regimes of the time?
For all the rage that chinese deserve, Tibet is not one of the places they deserve it for. The only reason we here in the West view the issue as such is because of current Dalai Lama's skilled diplomacy.
Read up on region's history. Theocratic system that they had in place makes current chinese government look better than Swiss. And let's not forget that over half of the re
Re:Seems "normal" enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't have anything to do with ICANN. It has everything to do with China realizing it cannot keep expanding its economy without a lock on a lot more natural resources. They've already claimed most of the S. China Sea all the way down the Philippines. Their "deals" in Africa are designed to lock in their claim to Africa's natural resources. They have even expressed an interest in making claims in the Arctic.
Put quickly, there is no governor on China's ambitions. Their domestic politics requires them to keep their young people supplied with enough interest in economic gain so that they don't turn to political interests. They also see the U.S. as a declining power.
This is only the beginning. It will be rough century.
Re: (Score:3)
why don't they just go after siberia?
Nuclear weapons, perhaps? Russia has them, Japan doesn't. In theory America provides a nuclear umbrella for Japan, but in practice America has been a notoriously unreliable ally for the past 50 years.
America's recent actions toward Taiwan have helped underscore this for China. In the 90's, China had to sabre-rattle and make threats to keep try to keep Taiwanese from openly announcing they are independent. But in recent years America has thrown a lot of support behind pro-China candidates that have ru
Re:Seems "normal" enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do agree with you though that Taiwan should do more to defend itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Politically claim a batch of islands and let international law give you what you want for nothing.
Depend on which worthless islands you're talking about, China's claims under international law are somewhere between tenuous and laughable. Were it otherwise, they'd likely be pursuing that approach.
Re: (Score:3)
i wasn't thinking about tom clancy, i was thinking about recent history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict [wikipedia.org]
not to mention manchuria and beyond has been a war field between russia, japan, and china for decades in recent history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur [wikipedia.org]
china, today, has border arguments with all its neighbors, all around
but russia?
shhh
all quiet on the western front
ominous
Re: (Score:3)
ruling?
they floated boats there
they made maps
that's not rule
Re: (Score:3)
are you telling me the chinese have common culture with coral sponges?
no one lives there. no one ever did. it's a fucking joke that china claims these atolls clearly the property of the philippines
as for russia being an ally, you're historically ignorant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Enforcement of access to the land is possession. Note that in this case China does not need to physically control every square inch of the claimed territory. They only need to control it better than Japan does.
The obvious next move for the Japanese (or the US) is to flagrantly violate that claimed airspace, pointedly ignoring the procedures the Chinese demand.
I do not believe that there is anyone in Tokyo or Washington that is so much invested in these islands to risk *everything* for them. China alre
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively we could make iPhones and iPads in the US. Might cost 10% more. Either consumers will have to pay more than Apple's already inflated prices, or Apple's cash hoard might shrink to a measly $100B.