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 think you did not properly comprehend the problems with agreeing with actions described in first paragraph of the quoted post above. But then you repeatedly used the word "gonna."
Those conflicts are really ridiculous and outdated. Isn't there a UN or whatever organization that can settle border issues peacefully and rationally? Sometimes humans are so stupid, like in the stone-age
All those East Asian countries need resources such as oil, why not share them like civilized countries (if there are any around those islands to begin with, which is uncertain)?
There are several such disputes, like between Spain and Britain over Gibraltar, and even between Portugal and Spain, which are also both claiming some uninhabited rocks in the sea just in order to increase their greed zones
Sometimes I really wish there were no borders anymore so that people (or rather their governments, most people actually want to live in peace) would stop their egoistic 'my country first' approach that has caused so many wars. At the end of the day we all have to share this planet anyway, and if for instance China can't get some of those resources around those islands, they will take them from Africans who can't defend themselves. Is that what we want?
^^I think you did not properly comprehend the problems with agreeing with actions described in first paragraph of the quoted post above. But then you repeatedly used the word "gonna."
China's demands would alter the balance of power in Asia in favor of China and to the detriment of the United States. That said, I personally think the US should relinquish the entire Western Pacific to China and ask China not to conduct any military activities past the First Island Chains. The US has Guam and the Marianas so America shouldn't worry too much about losing their influence in the region if they relinquish the Western Pacific. China's demands aren't really all that different from the ROC's demands or from the citizens' demands since the Chinese populace has been demanding that China establish a security perimeter so even if China were a democratic country, they would have the same demands since the Chinese do not feel safe being encircled.
I am more surprised a lot of Americans want to maintain a presence in the Western Pacific because all it has gotten America are higher unemployment (from outsourcing factories), a lot of body bags, and a horrific trade deficit. The Pacific War didn't even accomplish all of America's war aims since China became Communist. Sure, America got rid of Japan as a competitor but instead it gained China as a rival.
Claiming an 'airspace" a few hundred miles within its border is bullying but deliberately flying into other people's "airspace" thousands miles away from its own border is not bullying.
No it is exercising the right of free passage provided for by international law.
China's demands would alter the balance of power in Asia in favor of China and to the detriment of the United States. That said, I personally think the US should relinquish the entire Western Pacific to China and ask China not to conduct any military activities past the First Island Chains. The US has Guam and the Marianas so America shouldn't worry too much about losing their influence in the region if they relinquish the Western Pacific. China's demands aren't really all that different from the ROC's demands or from the citizens' demands since the Chinese populace has been demanding that China establish a security perimeter so even if China were a democratic country, they would have the same demands since the Chinese do not feel safe being encircled.
I am more surprised a lot of Americans want to maintain a presence in the Western Pacific because all it has gotten America are higher unemployment (from outsourcing factories), a lot of body bags, and a horrific trade deficit. The Pacific War didn't even accomplish all of America's war aims since China became Communist. Sure, America got rid of Japan as a competitor but instead it gained China as a rival.
Only a very naive or poorly read person would believe China's ambitions are limited in view of their action in other parts of the world regarding a preference for eroding away at U.S. strengths.
Only a very naive or poorly read person would believe China's ambitions are limited in view of their action in other parts of the world regarding a preference for eroding away at U.S. strengths.
How much should the US spend to contain China? The current spending is clearly not enough if it isn't deterring China at all from its current actions. Should we cut the healthcare law and put all that money into containing China? Or should taxes be raised to raise revenues to fund the containment of China? Or would it be better to relinquish other regions like the Middle East to focus exclusively on Asia? America is a democracy so it is limited in how much it can do to contain China. Business conservatives are certainly not in favor of containing China since they fear it would have an adverse reaction to their business interests. Do you really think someone like Sheldon Adelson would be happy with harming relations with China? The thing is under the Bush administration, they gave China a lot of leeway since the business conservatives were demanding better relations with China so they could gain access to the market and I really doubt this will change in the future. America's Asian allies aren't any better and a lot of them are trying to play off America against China while doing what they can to maintain strong relations with China so that they can have access to its market. South Korea for example has been restrained in how it handled China's announcement of its new airspace.
China has had a policy of taking things like this one inch at a time. They take the airspace, say "hey we're just asking people who they are, its no big thing", Then they place some "markers" on the land, Then its a weather outpost, Then suddenly the weather outpost turns into a troop outpost, Next thing you know they're building peaceful cities there to help supply the soldiers.
China has become experts at using "wedge politics" to gain control of islands, and associated natural resources. They have used economic pressures to win these disputes, and when that fails they've been very willing to use military threats.
These islands will be no exception, maybe just a small rescue boat and a camp, claiming its needed in case of future accidents, and to protect lives. Even Japanese lives! How can that be bad? And the ownership of the islands IS disputed right?
And who can be the bad guy who would protest? And just keep taking the islands inch by inch, all the while trying to act like the victim if someone stops them....until...they suddenly block all access as hey-its Chinese territory, they have a city there and everything!
Seriously, China is being very aggressive in seizing territory that has any sort of dispute at all.
So there is going to be a conflict at some point. China isn't willing to just sit by and resolve this in any way that doesn't involve it getting its way. PERIOD. And their military is starting to feel like flexing their muscles. The question really is how big of a conflict.
And I think they're going to pick the size of the conflict. Large enough that we and japan get hurt, but not so large that the conflict extends past the islands. Given that....Despite their advances I dont believe that they really comprehend the size and capability of our navy. And we ARE obligated to defend these islands. My suspicion? They're going to try and take out a carrier after some incident, and some Japanese vessels. Preferably with standoff weapons. And then immediately call for negotiations on the island-and settle for maybe some sort of joint economic development thing....which they will immediately invest heavily in, and break any agreements in the future by indicating that japan did not invest in as they did, so it shouldn't be a equal division. If we let them do this they will use this sort of thing over and over.
Again putting us in the position of being the bad guy if we continue the conflict. The only way I think we can avoid this passive aggressive warfare is by responding fast and hard. And I think China doesn't comprehend just how badly we would take losing a aircraft carrier.
How much should the US spend to contain China? The current spending is clearly not enough if it isn't deterring China at all from its current actions. Should we cut the healthcare law and put all that money into containing China? Or should taxes be raised to raise revenues to fund the containment of China? Or would it be better to relinquish other regions like the Middle East to focus exclusively on Asia? America is a democracy so it is limited in how much it can do to contain China. Business conservatives are certainly not in favor of containing China since they fear it would have an adverse reaction to their business interests. Do you really think someone like Sheldon Adelson would be happy with harming relations with China? The thing is under the Bush administration, they gave China a lot of leeway since the business conservatives were demanding better relations with China so they could gain access to the market and I really doubt this will change in the future. America's Asian allies aren't any better and a lot of them are trying to play off America against China while doing what they can to maintain strong relations with China so that they can have access to its market. South Korea for example has been restrained in how it handled China's announcement of its new airspace.
You are asking questions you are not qualified to answer and yet reach conclusions to similar which you also are not qualified to answer. Ridiculous the same premise you use to counter positions counter to yours rebound on your own.
Also, anyone who uses the expression "the thing is" basically demonstrates they are relatively poorly read.
China has had a policy of taking things like this one inch at a time. They take the airspace, say "hey we're just asking people who they are, its no big thing", Then they place some "markers" on the land, Then its a weather outpost, Then suddenly the weather outpost turns into a troop outpost, Next thing you know they're building peaceful cities there to help supply the soldiers.
China has become experts at using "wedge politics" to gain control of islands, and associated natural resources. They have used economic pressures to win these disputes, and when that fails they've been very willing to use military threats.
These islands will be no exception, maybe just a small rescue boat and a camp, claiming its needed in case of future accidents, and to protect lives. Even Japanese lives! How can that be bad? And the ownership of the islands IS disputed right?
And who can be the bad guy who would protest? And just keep taking the islands inch by inch, all the while trying to act like the victim if someone stops them....until...they suddenly block all access as hey-its Chinese territory, they have a city there and everything!
Seriously, China is being very aggressive in seizing territory that has any sort of dispute at all.
So there is going to be a conflict at some point. China isn't willing to just sit by and resolve this in any way that doesn't involve it getting its way. PERIOD. And their military is starting to feel like flexing their muscles. The question really is how big of a conflict.
And I think they're going to pick the size of the conflict. Large enough that we and japan get hurt, but not so large that the conflict extends past the islands. Given that....Despite their advances I dont believe that they really comprehend the size and capability of our navy. And we ARE obligated to defend these islands. My suspicion? They're going to try and take out a carrier after some incident, and some Japanese vessels. Preferably with standoff weapons. And then immediately call for negotiations on the island-and settle for maybe some sort of joint economic development thing....which they will immediately invest heavily in, and break any agreements in the future by indicating that japan did not invest in as they did, so it shouldn't be a equal division. If we let them do this they will use this sort of thing over and over.
Again putting us in the position of being the bad guy if we continue the conflict. The only way I think we can avoid this passive aggressive warfare is by responding fast and hard. And I think China doesn't comprehend just how badly we would take losing a aircraft carrier.
Anyways we live in interesting times.
to anyone who cares, greywar just hit on why appeasement doesnt work with any country that has territorial ambitions. just like after hitler took power in germany, it was, we take a little, and if no one does anything, we take a bit more, and a bit more. at some point in time though you have to stop that encroachment on others rights, be they land or airspace, or sea lanes, or what ever. you have to draw a line somewhere and say this far and no farther. to do otherwise emboldens the aggressive country until it takes a war to stop them and force them back.
China has had a policy of taking things like this one inch at a time. They take the airspace, say "hey we're just asking people who they are, its no big thing", Then they place some "markers" on the land, Then its a weather outpost, Then suddenly the weather outpost turns into a troop outpost, Next thing you know they're building peaceful cities there to help supply the soldiers.
China has become experts at using "wedge politics" to gain control of islands, and associated natural resources. They have used economic pressures to win these disputes, and when that fails they've been very willing to use military threats.
These islands will be no exception, maybe just a small rescue boat and a camp, claiming its needed in case of future accidents, and to protect lives. Even Japanese lives! How can that be bad? And the ownership of the islands IS disputed right?
And who can be the bad guy who would protest? And just keep taking the islands inch by inch, all the while trying to act like the victim if someone stops them....until...they suddenly block all access as hey-its Chinese territory, they have a city there and everything!
Seriously, China is being very aggressive in seizing territory that has any sort of dispute at all.
So there is going to be a conflict at some point. China isn't willing to just sit by and resolve this in any way that doesn't involve it getting its way. PERIOD. And their military is starting to feel like flexing their muscles. The question really is how big of a conflict.
And I think they're going to pick the size of the conflict. Large enough that we and japan get hurt, but not so large that the conflict extends past the islands. Given that....Despite their advances I dont believe that they really comprehend the size and capability of our navy. And we ARE obligated to defend these islands. My suspicion? They're going to try and take out a carrier after some incident, and some Japanese vessels. Preferably with standoff weapons. And then immediately call for negotiations on the island-and settle for maybe some sort of joint economic development thing....which they will immediately invest heavily in, and break any agreements in the future by indicating that japan did not invest in as they did, so it shouldn't be a equal division. If we let them do this they will use this sort of thing over and over.
Again putting us in the position of being the bad guy if we continue the conflict. The only way I think we can avoid this passive aggressive warfare is by responding fast and hard. And I think China doesn't comprehend just how badly we would take losing a aircraft carrier.
Anyways we live in interesting times.
Well, their entire impetus toward military modernization was after seeing how rapidly the US defeated the Iraqi military in the first Gulf War. A2AD is designed to counter the US's naval advantages. Whereas Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union tried to match the US ship by ship, weapon by weapon; China isn't doing that and instead is focusing on asymmetrical warfare that is raising the stakes for the US. BTW, China's territorial claims are similar to the Republic of China's territorial claims. In fact, whereas the PRC recognizes Mongolia as a sovereign state, the ROC considers it a part of China so even if China were a democratic state I really doubt they would cease to pursue these claims.
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.
