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."

52 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Most of this will be about internal politics by gilgongo · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    1. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by dugancent · · 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.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    2. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by ArbitraryName · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's far more than symbolic. Controlling the islands grants access to the large Economic Exclusion Zone around them and the fishing fields, oil/gas resources and any other natural resources..

    3. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by hargrand · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by gtall · · Score: 3, 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.

    6. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by John.Banister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Try this definition. It's really special. Amusingly, in a dispute between US fisherman and the Canadian government, lawyers once successfully argued that scallops are not "sedentary species" because they don't push against the bottom to move themselves. USA loves this "continental shelf" extension past the old 200 mile limit for claiming petroleum resources in the Gulf of Mexico.

    7. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by ebno-10db · · Score: 3

      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.

    8. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by toQDuj · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    9. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, 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.

    10. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by toQDuj · · Score: 3, 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

      But somehow, even among the Dutch, there is a persistent belief that Japan never apologised.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    11. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by EdIII · · Score: 4, 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.

    12. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by HiThere · · Score: 4, 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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Most of this will be about internal politics by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Far east Asian foreign policy is even more about playing off internal factions than it is in the West.

      The U.S. is bound by treaty to defend Japan against an attack by a foreign power. 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.

      The chances of nukes and bang bangs over this are very, very low. See also North Korea.

      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.

  2. Begins? by game+kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've always been at war with Eastasia.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:Begins? by lookingglass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      War. War never changes. Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage. (many thanks to Fallout 3)

    2. Re:Begins? by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. Cue SDI by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:Cue SDI by GarethIwanFairclough · · 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.

    2. Re:Cue SDI by LordLucless · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  4. Re:Escorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They've considered this, but have found that strapping prostitutes to the hard mounts would have little to no safety benefits.

  5. Re:..and now you see why by flaming+error · · 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.

  6. Easy by Hamsterdan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Every country should boycott stuff made there in protest.

    Oh wait...

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  7. J.Kimmel show kid says "Kill everyone in China!" by burni2 · · Score: 3, 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".

  8. Re:for internal consumption_fear not China by Animats · · Score: 4, 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.

  9. Re:War by jythie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Civil War seems more likely. All of this posturing seems to be more intended to impress their own people then outsiders and can be read as a government nervous about keeping its all powerful image to an increasingly wealthy population.

  10. Re:One big flood by dk20 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean their own "war on communism/drugs/terror"?

  11. Re:Don't look now by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.

    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?

  12. Re:War by ColdWetDog · · 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?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  13. Re:Don't appease aggression by Arker · · 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.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  14. Re:..and now you see why by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  15. Re:for internal consumption_fear not China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually it was never correct. China is in fact a second-world country.

  16. Re:How is this Spongeworthy? by jones_supa · · Score: 4, 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 a better article. :)

  17. Re:Only partly joking... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  18. Re:Free Tibet! by Luckyo · · 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 region is now ethnic han. Are you planning on some ethnic cleansing on the side?

  19. Re:Seems "normal" enough? by gtall · · 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.

  20. Re:Don't look now by Luckyo · · Score: 4, 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.

  21. Re:Don't appease aggression by gtall · · 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.

  22. Re:J.Kimmel show kid says "Kill everyone in China! by Luckyo · · Score: 4, 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.

  23. Re:Only partly joking... by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:War by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

  25. Re:..and now you see why by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  26. Re:War by readin · · Score: 4, 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.

    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.
  27. Re:Don't appease aggression by Arker · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  28. Re:Seems "normal" enough? by readin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  29. Re:War by DexterIsADog · · 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?

  30. population/pollution by globaljustin · · Score: 3, 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!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  31. Re:Don't appease aggression by fliptout · · Score: 3, 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

    --
    A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
  32. Re:War by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, 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.

  33. How is it different from this ... by Taco+Cowboy · · 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 - 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 !
  34. China's strategy ... by Taco+Cowboy · · 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 newest crop of leaders grew up post Mao's calamitous reign over China.

    In other words, this group of leaders worldview is very different from that of Deng Xiao Ping, and they are not afraid to engage Japan head-on, along whoever dare to aid Japan, in an all-out war.

    That's the exact message they are giving Uncle Sam - fuck us and you will burn.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  35. Re:War by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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