Slashdot Mirror
China Creates Air Defence Zone Over Japan-Controlled Islands, Issues War Threat
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."
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
"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.
...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 policeman, and let the chips fall.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
This. When you have internal dissent at home, you make up external existential threats.
Hell, it works for us doesn't it?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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 a better article. :)
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?
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.
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.
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.
More than that, China is planning to claim the entire east china sea as an "inland sea". Once they get enough islands, that is.
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.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
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?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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.
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.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
"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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
What potential allies would those be? They can't even get anyone but America to sell them weapons because everyone is so afraid of China. As for letting Taiwan defend itself, you do realize that we pulled all our troops and Naval bases out of Taiwan back in the 70s, don't you?
I do agree with you though that Taiwan should do more to defend itself.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
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?
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.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
...
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 - 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.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
And we live in a Country where the national gaurd uses live fire on protesting college students, what is your point exactly?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html