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.
The US will be forced to give up a region in the future. Will it be Asia, the Middle East, or Europe? I really can't see the US giving up the Middle East so I expect them to give up Asia since it is becoming far more difficult to project power in the region. The Middle East on the other hand is still relatively undeveloped and all the countries there with the exception of Israel are incredibly weak which means the US won't need to spend much on defense to be the dominant power in the region.
Powerful nations get to set the boundaries.
China, that is PRC (Communist) China, is becoming increasingly powerful and at an increasing rate of speed.
Borders have changed for centuries, weak "nations" or "peoples" loose and the powerful gain.
Brunei, Philippines, Vietnam are weak and can't counter PRC Chinese moves. China has the power and the will to take by right of conquest some lousy rock, awash at high tide, dump a bunch of sand on it dredged up from the ocean floor, plant their flag and call it "China". Iceland has done similar with volcanic islands that sprout up, the UK has done similar with a freaking rock in the Atlantic, I think Samoa did something similar as well many years ago. Not an entirely new idea. I think that the U.S. did this with some small uninhabited barren, water-less, desert islands in the Pacific that actually may have "belonged" to someone else. They dumped a bunch of Hawaiian dudes on them, kept them there for years and called the islands "U.S." territory.
The U.S. does not have even a shred of will left to "defend" the Western Pacific in the name of "Freedom of the Seas". The U.S. likes to have EEZ boundaries, the PRC Chinese like to have EEZ boundaries too.
The U.S. is really going to have a difficult time justifying an aggressive military stance so far from home waters, over such really insignificant lumps of sand, where hitherto no one lived. The American merchant fleet is all but gone. So what freedom of the seas are we going to risk confrontation for again? Is the U.S. going to "defend" the sea-lines of communication, make them safe for PRC Chinese-owned merchantmen to transit PRC Chinese-controlled waters? That would be weird.
The Americans are really grasping at straws on this one. Really, if the Americans wanted to make a statement re: interest in Pacific affairs she ought to "re-occupy" all the small pacific islands she gave back to the gooney-birds years ago, re-militarize them and station troops there on a rotating basis, sort of in-house deployments type of thing.
I think Bush really messed up in Iraq and afghanistan. He hurt American power. Afghanistan should have only required special forces, air power, and the CIA. They have no port and the paks are untrustworthy. Iraq was just a wtf.
I think the US should the let middle east go. Israel could keep it together and pay off Egypt to use the suez. Maybe give the kurds a state. Asia is much more valuable. Its where the money is at.
A smart american statesman should divide and conquer Asia without getting into a land war. I do not think the PRC is invincible. Just because they have a large population, doesn't mean they will dominate. Indonesia and vietnam both defeated the yuan dynasty when they tried to invade.
anceint chinese saying, "have the barbarian fight the barbarian. Its cheaper."
I could see Japan and other asian countries being used as pawns to contain china.
The south china sea is a very important sea lane. A lot of money goes through there. If the next president is a republican, they will not let it go. They are still hellbent on going to war.
Powerful nations get to set the boundaries.
China, that is PRC (Communist) China, is becoming increasingly powerful and at an increasing rate of speed.
Borders have changed for centuries, weak "nations" or "peoples" loose and the powerful gain.
Brunei, Philippines, Vietnam are weak and can't counter PRC Chinese moves. China has the power and the will to take by right of conquest some lousy rock, awash at high tide, dump a bunch of sand on it dredged up from the ocean floor, plant their flag and call it "China". Iceland has done similar with volcanic islands that sprout up, the UK has done similar with a freaking rock in the Atlantic, I think Samoa did something similar as well many years ago. Not an entirely new idea. I think that the U.S. did this with some small uninhabited barren, water-less, desert islands in the Pacific that actually may have "belonged" to someone else. They dumped a bunch of Hawaiian dudes on them, kept them there for years and called the islands "U.S." territory.
The U.S. does not have even a shred of will left to "defend" the Western Pacific in the name of "Freedom of the Seas". The U.S. likes to have EEZ boundaries, the PRC Chinese like to have EEZ boundaries too.
The U.S. is really going to have a difficult time justifying an aggressive military stance so far from home waters, over such really insignificant lumps of sand, where hitherto no one lived. The American merchant fleet is all but gone. So what freedom of the seas are we going to risk confrontation for again? Is the U.S. going to "defend" the sea-lines of communication, make them safe for PRC Chinese-owned merchantmen to transit PRC Chinese-controlled waters? That would be weird.
The Americans are really grasping at straws on this one. Really, if the Americans wanted to make a statement re: interest in Pacific affairs she ought to "re-occupy" all the small pacific islands she gave back to the gooney-birds years ago, re-militarize them and station troops there on a rotating basis, sort of in-house deployments type of thing.
Just a few ideas.
Does any American politician or political party even have the political capital to muster support for a military operation against China? Obama certainly doesn't and Bush only had political capital due to 9/11. Fighting a war over rocks in a sea thousands of miles away on behalf of foreign countries, some of which aren't even formal allies, while risking far heavier casualties than in any previous war (China would be the first near peer adversary in over 70 years) is extremely difficult to justify. China, unlike America's previous adversaries (North Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq), would actually know basic modern warfare concepts like Electronic Warfare (radar jamming and etc) which would guarantee that the US would suffer heavier casualties than in previous wars. China is aware of this which is why it probably won't fire first since they don't want to look like the aggressor which will galvanize support against them.
Does any American politician or political party even have the political capital to muster support for a military operation against China? Obama certainly doesn't and Bush only had political capital due to 9/11. Fighting a war over rocks in a sea thousands of miles away on behalf of foreign countries, some of which aren't even formal allies, while risking far heavier casualties than in any previous war (China would be the first near peer adversary in over 70 years) is extremely difficult to justify. China, unlike America's previous adversaries (North Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq), would actually know basic modern warfare concepts like Electronic Warfare (radar jamming and etc) which would guarantee that the US would suffer heavier casualties than in previous wars. China is aware of this which is why it probably won't fire first since they don't want to look like the aggressor which will galvanize support against them.
And...China has nukes.
Contrary to the propaganda that's running amok around western media, the real reason for all this is quite simple.
It's not that China is becoming aggressive and challenging the US, it's that the US is becoming scared of China's rise. This is the real reason why there is so much tension in the SCS, which by the way is literally at China's southern doorstep. The US, frightened by China's faster than anticipated rise (as seen through its humiliation of the AIIB and China's military modernization and spectacular economic growth etc) has to "do something." Since the US cannot directly confront a nuke armed China, and no longer has such overwhelming resources to carry out military and economic blockade, especially against a near peer adversary like China, it now has to rely on its little allies in the region, like japan and the filipinos to do the dirty work. It needs justification to confront China, so it picks this confused mix of "helping my little buddies against a bully" and "freedom of navigation" to pick a fight right in front of China's southern doorsteps. Do you really think China will back down right in front of its doorstep? The US really got itself into a mess this time. IF China backs down now, the government would be on shaky grounds with the Chinese people. If the Chinese are fighting for their "sacred territorial sovereignty", then what is the Americans fighting for? Does anyone know?
Freedom of navigation? But China has not disrupt any navigation through this whole region, nor does it want to.
Fight to protect its allies? Sure, but is that good policy that further the US national interest? No one is invading japan or the filipines, folks.
Fight to keep China down and to retard its continued rapid rise? Good luck with that. The Chinese can retaliate in so many different ways that it would be foolish for the US to pick a real fight now.
The window of opportunity to stunt China's rise has long closed. It was back in the mid to late 90's in the last century. The US can't do much to contain China now.
"China has the right to invade and steal land and from neighboring because they think it's historically theirs'"
This has to be the most stupid statement I read. It's like saying Russia has the right to take land from neighboring countries because those countries were once part of the Soviet Union.
I wonder if this poster is from the Nazis China propaganda machine.
Most Chinese do not support aggression. They are forced to say what the government wants them to say. If they don't, they will be imprisoned or executed. I am not against peaceful Chinese people which are the vast majority. It is their tyrannical government that causes worldwide sufferings.
"China has the right to invade and steal land and from neighboring because they think it's historically theirs'"
This has to be the most stupid statement I read. It's like saying Russia has the right to take land from neighboring countries because those countries were once part of the Soviet Union.
I wonder if this poster is from the Nazis China propaganda machine.
Most Chinese do not support aggression. They are forced to say what the government wants them to say. If they don't, they will be imprisoned or executed. I am not against peaceful Chinese people which are the vast majority. It is their tyrannical government that causes worldwide sufferings.
China's Nazis like aggression must be stopped.
so you are essentially countering stupidity with stupidity?
" They are forced to say what the government wants them to say. If they don't, they will be imprisoned or executed."? Are you sure? yes, the Chinese are not allowed to say certain things in public, especially when it comes to challenging the CCP, but they are not forced to say what the government wants them to say, and won't be imprisoned or executed for not doing so. Where did you get the idea?
And the tyrannical government is causing "worldwide sufferings"? Where in the world people are suffering because of the Chinese government?
Contrary to the propaganda that's running amok around western media, the real reason for all this is quite simple.
It's not that China is becoming aggressive and challenging the US, it's that the US is becoming scared of China's rise. This is the real reason why there is so much tension in the SCS, which by the way is literally at China's southern doorstep. The US, frightened by China's faster than anticipated rise (as seen through its humiliation of the AIIB and China's military modernization and spectacular economic growth etc) has to "do something." Since the US cannot directly confront a nuke armed China, and no longer has such overwhelming resources to carry out military and economic blockade, especially against a near peer adversary like China, it now has to rely on its little allies in the region, like japan and the filipinos to do the dirty work. It needs justification to confront China, so it picks this confused mix of "helping my little buddies against a bully" and "freedom of navigation" to pick a fight right in front of China's southern doorsteps. Do you really think China will back down right in front of its doorstep? The US really got itself into a mess this time. IF China backs down now, the government would be on shaky grounds with the Chinese people. If the Chinese are fighting for their "sacred territorial sovereignty", then what is the Americans fighting for? Does anyone know?
Freedom of navigation? But China has not disrupt any navigation through this whole region, nor does it want to.
Fight to protect its allies? Sure, but is that good policy that further the US national interest? No one is invading japan or the filipines, folks.
Fight to keep China down and to retard its continued rapid rise? Good luck with that. The Chinese can retaliate in so many different ways that it would be foolish for the US to pick a real fight now.
The window of opportunity to stunt China's rise has long closed. It was back in the mid to late 90's in the last century. The US can't do much to contain China now.
China doesn't have any plans to disrupt the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea since it would severely disrupt its economy to the point of inducing a recession. What they don't want is any foreign warships operating nears its borders which is why the US is opposed to China's view on the SCS since if China is in charge of the SCS, this will severely disrupt America's ability to project power in Asia.
China doesn't have any plans to disrupt the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea since it would severely disrupt its economy to the point of inducing a recession. What they don't want is any foreign warships operating nears its borders which is why the US is opposed to China's view on the SCS since if China is in charge of the SCS, this will severely disrupt America's ability to project power in Asia.
so how come they prohibit fishermen frm fishing in their occupied reefs and only allow Chinese fishermen?
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.
