Japan Warns It May Fire On Chinese Aircraft Over Disputed Islands; China Retorts

A Pacific Rim arms race... fun. Actually, Japan is no slouch right now militarily. I have no doubt she has the ability to arm herself quickly. In fact, I think that's what America will do, in lieu of direct involvement unless/until absolutely necessary. History has shown that we perfer the natives to do most of the work.

 

Well, yes, a Pacific Rims arm race would not be really beneficial for anyone, least of all the US. That's why they won't leave. Of course, that doesn't stop Mathloon from screeching 'EMPIRE EMPIRE" and supporting the Chinese. Who of course aren't a real empire, they're just taking which belongs to them, like other rocks which are like 2 miles way from the Phillipines.

 

", the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf."

I agree with you that it's largely over the mineral and fishing rights right now, but let's not think that countries on either side aren't wary of it's potential use if you start arguing the definitions. Given how disputed these islands are based on multiple different interpretations of treaty's and declarations going back 50+ years, the fear of certain interpretation on the importance of these islands is something that both sides are unlikely to overlook.

What about naval exercises in the Pacific then? It's a game of international chicken and if it's not this, it'll be something else. Point is, as long as these islands are disputed, the pissing contest will be about these islands, and the interpretation of who they belong to. There are some outs in not getting involved or aggressive on either side. If something is "decided", and then a party challenge the decision, it's a lot harder to contain the situations.

Yup, but let's just say China gives up the pissing contest and give Diaoyu to Japan, 20 years down the line a Japanese right wing decided to take a hard line stance on what EEZ definition should be (if even for just personal political gain and nothing more). What do you think China's next move could mean? Either give up access to the Pacific or risk confrontation with either Japan or Taiwan.

I still think having these islands be disputed is the most peaceful solution for all side.

Yup, no one wants wars, and it's a lot of sabre rattling. I hope that's all it'll continue to be. But sadly it'll just take one politician trying to make his bones and get more well known among his peers (whether it's Chinese or Japnese) and push things too far, make it too public, and then the crap hits the fan. I hate politics, can't we all just get along

 

The relationship between the US and South Vietnam, which a few years before had been part of French Indochina, and the relationship between the US and Japan, post-WWII, couldn't begin to compare to each other. If Japan is attacked, we are obligated to defend her, and we will. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Mathloom, you're going off the reservation, dude.

 

Not after China have lost 30,000,000 lives and still could not get their islands back.

 

Team Japan

 

It is beyond r****ded to argue who would win in a nuclear war. I thought even a 5 years old should know everything in this world will be wiped out if a nuclear war breaks out.

 

Who said otherwise? I'm sure there will still be hostility with China and, if Americans leave on a good note, there will be good relations.

There's nothing wrong with relations. It's just about the type of relations.

 

Nah, if China don't get back the islands soon or at least put the islands back to the pre-nationalized status. The citizens will be overthrowing the commies in the next decade, they are so fed up by the communists government giving up its territories here and there since the 50s.

Too many misinformation in the west, no one in the west knows what they are talking about.

Most Chinese from mainland didn't even know the dispute until recently. On the opposite, Taiwan and Hong Kong citizens (hint: not being governed by the Communists) have been the leaders fighting this dispute since the 70s.

But obviously no one cares, oh those bad commies stealing Japan's island... those brainwashed peasants!!! Nuke them all. America ***** yeah!

ROFL

 

I can't believe how many people here think a nuclear war with China is something we can just limp away from. I guess no one here lives in a major city. And you guys think Russia would just sit idly as the USA and Japan dropped nukes on their border?

 

The Abe administration us a headscratching one. On the one hand they say they want to get Japan's economy going, whilst increasing military spending! I do wonder if Japan will ever be able to get out of the deflation trap, since there have been reports that the Japanese are getting used to falling prices and adjusting their behaviour as such. I actually quite like Japan, having interned there for two months last summer, but I just can't understand why they can't so a Germany, apologise for whatever they did in the war, and move in. Instead, whenever Japan and China get involved in a dispute, neither side can forget WWII, which is only really relevant to old people in their 80's and 90,s now.

 

Because you're forgetting in your rantings about empire that no one wants the Americans to leave Japan. Japan would rather not spend money on an arms race, China would not rather deal with a resurgent Japan and the nationalist feelings that would spur, and the US would rather not deal with a more destabilized Pacific Rim. Top it off with your discussion of poor China ( these rocks are far from the only area where China is b****ing about them to other Asian countries to take advantage of the marine areas) and it shows that you're not really interested in this besides your "America is evil" stuff.

 

Intentionally and directly to China, but indirectly and perhaps unintentionally the Chinese people as well. I assume you have never experienced living long-term in that type of country, so it doesn't naturally occur to you that external conflict solidifies that type of government. That's textbook stuff. So much so that this type of government habitually exaggerates or lies about external conflict to solidify its position. If/when there is no substantial external conflict, then there is nothing and no one to blame but the government itself for the country's problems.

So for example, any US aggression against China - they will parlay that into "they're jealous", "they hate us", "this is the product of a multi party system", etc. Highly ideological (religious, nationalist,economic, etc.) citizens eat that $hit up - their focus will be shifted or split, and their demands rejected easier since the government is facing a greater than normal threat.

I also have a real example which I barely believed myself when I looked it up!! Take Iran:

In 1997 relatively reform-minded Khatami was selected to be President and shortly after that Clinton eased restrictions on Iran till 2005. In this time period, Iranians saw a relatively high level of government reform, and also in 1999 held the largest demonstrations since the 1979 revolution which toppled the Shah.

In 2005 Ahmedinejad became President and lifted the ban on uranium enrichment. What followed was a sharp increase in sanctions. In 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011. The year that's missing in this list, 2009, is the year that Iranians topped the 1999 protests by holding the largest demonstrations again since the 1979 revolution.

Clockwork. Why else would a country like China with so much poverty not be pushing harder for reform? In 1989 in the midst of the biggest boom in US-PRC relations since the establishment of the PRC, the Chinese took to the streets in 400 cities in the tianmen square protests.

History shows, if you cared for their liberation, you would back off. Putting pressure on a government is a stupid way to try to get rid of them.

 

Right your speculation is rational and mine is insincere. lol

All I need to say in your posts is that you referred to the US gov, Chinese gov and Japanese gov as "no one". That says it all.

 

I don't think China will aggress itself toward war with Japan, but it may channel anti-Japanese feelings toward internal ethnic conflict. In terms of cultures/ethnicities/religions to exploit, there are a few in Inner Mongolia and some on its far western border regions.

In fact, using ethnic/religous bigotry to channel feelings of contempt toward the government/rulers is nothing new. Blacks have been a constant source of hatred for many white (major racial group) Americans; Kulaks for Russians; Jews for Germans.

The idea that China does not want to address its own disharmony goes against its own legalist (non-western) and Confucianist thought. State-run capitalism has produced a huge amount of wealth for China in the past 30 years, much of it in the past 15 years. The wealth/income inequality in China is quite staggering. What Would Mao Do?

 

Most of you guys don't get it, it is about pride. If someone rapes your mom and tells you it is not a big deal, you are not gonna take it. Most Chinese in their heart would want to wipe Japan off the face of the planet.

 

I literally don't understand that statement. Are you saying that all three of those actors want the US forces to leave Japan?

 

Mathloom seems to be struggling with foreign policy and power politics lately. I agree with your earlier post. China doesn't want the US to leave Japan, because it would cause Japan to build a far more powerful military than she has today, with atomic weapons, and she certainly could do just that. Japan prefers to have us defend her, because it saves them one hell of a lot of money and provides a great deal of "peace of mind." And the United States is and will continue to be a Pacific Power. Our bases in Japan are a linchpin of our forces in the Western Pacific. In my opinion, of course.

 

If China and Japan wipe each other out, wouldn't the US almost be debt free?

 

lol, you truly believed what you've said?