Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with the OP. China is aggressively posturing against Japan, India, Philippines, Vietnam. It is also colluding with North Korea to stifle the increasing competition with South Korea. If China continues doing this, it wont be long before all these countries come together to sign a mutual defence accord much like the formation of NATO against the Russian threat.
That is extremely naive, if not ignorant thinking. If all the countries you listed are going to sign a defence pact, there would be some action already with Obama's "Asian pivot". However unlike with the Soviets, China is an integral part of Asia economically and culturally. Countries have to balance their economic well being with the geopolitics.
Anyway as for the article, it is rather biased. The fundamental issue here is that the actual Line of Control was never demarcated. I suggest those that are open minded to research the history behind the issues especially the Simla Accord. There were a couple good articles written by MIT's Prof. Fravel on the subject that offers an objective analysis of current situation and the history behind it.
That is extremely naive, if not ignorant thinking. If all the countries you listed are going to sign a defence pact, there would be some action already with Obama's "Asian pivot". However unlike with the Soviets, China is an integral part of Asia economically and culturally. Countries have to balance their economic well being with the geopolitics.
Anyway as for the article, it is rather biased. The fundamental issue here is that the actual Line of Control was never demarcated. I suggest those that are open minded to research the history behind the issues especially the Simla Accord. There were a couple good articles written by MIT's Prof. Fravel on the subject that offers an objective analysis of current situation and the history behind it.
China is the center economically, not culturally. That didn't stop the allied forces stomping on Germany during world war 2. Remember, an elephant can be taken down by a dozen bees.
"An integral part" does not imply "center". It just means that China has significant cultural ties to the rest of Asia. I fail to see how is Germany is related. Germany prior to WW2 was nowhere near an economic power. It was one of the reasons that enabled the rise of Hitler.
Btw neither of the articles you linked are even remotely objective. Even disregarding that fact neither of the articles address the likelihood of an actual "containment" succeeding.
"An integral part" does not imply "center". It just means that China has significant cultural ties to the rest of Asia. I fail to see how is Germany is related. Germany prior to WW2 was nowhere near an economic power. It was one of the reasons that enabled the rise of Hitler.
Btw neither of the articles you linked are even remotely objective. Even disregarding that fact neither of the articles address the likelihood of an actual "containment" succeeding.
Ahem, In those days, cool kids hung out at the military table, not at the economic one. Germany's forces had technological superiority but they failed against a collective. China is forcing a similar collective by pushing its claims vs Japan, India, Vietnam and the Philippines. They do revert back, so its not reason enough for the collective to formalize and ratify. When they start the expansion overtly, they will get bitten.
Also, LOL at your cultural ties argument. That didn't stop Japan vs China, Japan vs Korea, China vs Korea, China vs Vietnam.
You would have to define what "overtly" means. For example if you are to take the article the OP linked at face value that is an overt act of aggression. However there has been relatively little reaction to it.
p.s. You are arguing about containment. The containment of the Soviet Union for example was to have as little to do with it as possible (to put it very simply) while keeping its influence in check. That is fundamentally different from active warfare you are using as counter examples. Also, the articles you linked never correlated containment with warfare. Containment can lead to wars, but it is a cause-effect relationship.
Last edited by aceofangel; 05-31-2013 at 01:27 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
