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."
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?"
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
They've considered this, but have found that strapping prostitutes to the hard mounts would have little to no safety benefits.
"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.
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.
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.
You mean their own "war on communism/drugs/terror"?
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.
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?
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.
Maybe, maybe not.
US, Japan agree to revise mutual defense treaty for first time in 16 years
Is the U.S. Committed to Defend the Senkakus? Text of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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