Top Chinese diplomat tells US to 'shut up' on arms spending

Unsuccessful spin again.

Nobody confirmed or established that China INTENDS to use military power for more than defending homeland. They need to have the ABILITY to do more, but that is NEVER INTENTION. You are capable of killing someone with a knife, but no one can accuse you that "you intend to kill someone with a knife".

Nobody confirmed or established your claim about Japanese all defensive positioning. You skipped my post on that part again. You skipped so much information and data provided by so many posters, and came out to announce case closed. LOL.

 

You know I'd much rather NewYorker "end this debate" with him claiming victory. You may loose some fun killing time at work, but we are all better off this way.

 

You are right

Because of my inferior English knowledge, I don't particularly appreciate someone intentionally plays game of words with me, like switching "capability" with "intention". But, there isn't too much to debate any more, not there was much to start with.

 

It appears that I am reduced to quoting my old posts with the hope that you actually read them the second time around:

Your claim about Type 89 Torpedos and Harpoon Missles in no way has anything to say about attacking land. They have weapons for attacking ships as is the case with every other military submarine since about 1900. The same also holds true for the many more submarines which China has.

I left out the cruise missle submarines and nuclear submarines as Lil pointed out because I was only intending to show similar capacity from China, but China does have submarines designed to attack land targets which Japan does not.

In terms of land launched weapons on Destroyers:

I will not speculate as to why you are missing parts of what I am writing but it is very frustrating for me to have to repeat what I wrote after being accused of writing something else or not having written something at all.

 

ROC = ?
Im a newbie, dont shoot.

 

ROC = Republic of China = Taiwan

Taiwan is where the non-communist Chinese forces in the civil war retreated when Mao was winning. Through the 60's they still believed that they could take China back from the communists, so they kept describing themselves as the 'legitimate Chinese government'. The United States government recognized them as such until it became more expedient to align with the PRC (People Republic of China) for other purposes.

 

For what I concern, ROC has legitimate claim over every square mile of the Mainland. China is like a big private lot divided by a bad ass river, with two brothers each occupying his portion of the real estate on either side of the river. The conflict between the two brothers is family feud.

 

I don't know how anyone established that Japan's military is for defense only. Submarines are offensive weapons and that is why US did not agree to sell subs to Taiwan until Bush took office. Subs such as those Japanese have are the most efficient tools to blockade ports. weather subs have missiles to attack land targets are of little meaning because such capability is not important when two sides are so close to each other.

Spin it however you want, but what matters is the majority of Asian countries think Japan is more of a military threat than China. That is the end of it and that ends the debate.

Other than being angry with what is going on in Japan, I doubt people are gonna do anything dramatic. They are just gonna marginize Japan. It will loss its influence on regional matters more and more, until it goes back to face history honestly and earn the trust of neighboring countries.

 

Yeah, right. Chinese should just take your words for it

Nobody intend to invade Japan more than China, why is Japan spending even more money on military? Nobody wants to, nor is capable of, invading US, why is US spending that much money on military? You think extrem islamic have ballistic missiles? If not, why spending so much on anti-ballistic-missiles system? Why keep 10000 nuclear heads? Keeping 10000 nuclear heads is NOT for defensive purpose. It is enough to blow up the whole planet.

 

I think you all would agree China isn't really that communist after the fall of Mao?

The reason why Taiwan is against China's take over is because of communism?

I believe the Chinese who fled to Taiwan were called Nationalist?

What is Taiwan's opinion regarding China and HK's "two governments or whatever its called"?

In summary, is it possible Taiwan isn't really against rejoining China? Is it possible T and C are using the word "invade" as a ruse?

The only reason why im bringing this up is because I spent hours reading this thread and people kept mentioning the part about China invading Taiwan.

 

Well until recently, China did face actual threats of invasion. During the Korean War, MacArthur wanted to invade China. During the Sino-Soviet split, there was a real threat of war with the Soviet Union. Nowadays, I agree that the threat of an actual invasion is reduced and the military is about defending geopolitical interests as much as actual physical defense from foreign invasion.

But this could be said completely of the huge U.S. miliary spending (which is much larger than all other nations combined). With huge oceans separating it and with neighbors like Canada and Mexico hardly a threat, by this reasoning, the U.S. also has no valid reason for its military buildup and spending.

If China shouldn't have a military because it faces no credible threat of actual invasion, then by this logic, neither does the U.S. if not moreso. But if the U.S. is "allowed" to defend its geopolitical interests, I hardly see why it would be different for China to do so.

 

That is a very fine and generous analogy and it speaks well of you. It is one of the few times that I have listened to the 'One China' philosophy and didn't thing it was a somewhat self-interested viewpoint of either the PRC or ROC government but rather a genuine feeling and ideal.

Honestly I am a little surprised and genuinely encouraged by your post. Not because you are a reasonable and thoughtful person, but the ROC/PRC discussion always reminds me a little bit of the Palestine/Israel debate. Everybody's viewpoint tends to fall back to rhetoric because it has been repeated so much.

Of course when the two merge there will be a lot more of the big brother (PRC) than the little brother (ROC) but if they are willing to work together to find accommodation I will feel all warm & fuzzy and be happy for the peoples of China wherever they are.

 

It is difficult to say that it is a complete thing of the past as long as the ruling government still calls itself The Communist Party of China but in practice I think most people would agree.

I think there is definitely posturing going on when either side talks about invasion or independence. I'm sure that there are some who believe in invasion or independence, but I from the little I know I believe for that most people involved your statement is true.

 

Could you please just start a thread on the topic? It is hard enough to follow this one as it is. Thanks in advance!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Actually it means everything. Japan's navy lacks any land attack capabilities. That means that though it is very high in quality, it cannot be used to capture land from someone. The most aggresive move they could make would be to set up a blockade. All of their equipment is anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, or anti-shipping. No matter how many harpoon missiles they have, they are not very useful for anything except blowing up enemy ships, same goes for torpedos. When the most agressive move you can make with your equipment is to establish a blcokade, and the equipment is perfect for maintaining an area of air and naval superiority around your home island, that shows that the purpose of your equipment is defense.

If Japan was outfitting all of its ships with Tomahawk cruise missiles and had large cruisers, battleships, or aircraft carriers that they could use to create a beachhead to land an army, that would be evidence of an offensive military, like that of the US. We have missile cruisers and aircraft carriers (and a couple of battleships that are decommissioned), not to mention ballistic missile submarines, that show our navy to be an agressive one. We can park a carrier battle group off the coast of a country and with few exceptions become the strongest regional military power.

All of this is true. China has every right to build whatever it wants to. To build a US style military and claim it is solely for self-defense is asinine though.

 

Offense doesn't necessarily mean sending your troops over to others' land! Blockade ports, disturbe communications, cut off transportion path for oil and export. That is almost certain way of offense nowadays. So don't tell me Japan has no offensive power.

By your logic, China has even less offensive power, since Chinese cannot swiming accross the sea therefore they have NO way to capture Japanese land.

 

I would like to point out that your initial arguments centered on the fact that Japan has a history of invading the mainland and so they are militant. Now you admit they have no way to invade land and couldn't if they wanted. You are in the remarkable position of having just defeated yourself in an argument. I don't know whether to congratulate your or console you.

More to the point, no Navy has been able to blockade ports since before the turn of the last century. Costal artillery and later airplanes and shore based missiles make that impossible. This is the sort of thing that you learn in Naval Warfare 101. Do some research on 'unrestricted submarine warfare' and you might learn both why port blockading isn't attempted in war and why anti-submarine/anti-air destroyers are an important component of national defense for a country that has few natural resources.

 

Things were on the right path to a friendly merger till Lee took over and vetoed that idea. Right now there is a huge movement in Taiwan to remove the Chen administration which has followed Lee's footsteps.

Mainland Chinese do not want Taiwan to be used as an american tool to threat China from close distance, as much as americans didn't like Cuba to be used as a similar tool of former Soviet unions. National interest trumps all.

The more neo-conservatives talk about containing China, the more unsafe Chinese feel, the more aggressive they have to be. So the best thing US can do is to stop talking about containing China.

Ultimately, everyone knows that Americans do not want to see a strong China, democratic or not. Being the single superpower in the world is not something you ever want to give up. If Japan were in the position to overtake US as the biggest bully on earth, US wouldn't be very friendly with Japanese either.

 

In the past, offense means invasion. Nowadays things are different. A country will crash without energy supply. Got the idea?

With a fleet of subs, Japan can easily cut down Chinese oil import by 50%, that is enough to crash the economy. Why do you think Japan spend so much money on anti-sub destroyers and jets?

It is you want need to learn more about modern warfare.

PS: you did not answer my question. Why do you think China post a threat to Japan if your standard is offense is the "capability to capture land". Didn't you defeat yourself in the argument?

 

I think if one would review this thread and collates all of your opinions about people who are out to get China one could get the idea that you are slightly paranoid and xenophobic.