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

I thought that was covered by the last part of my post on why it woun't be happening.

I think I covered that as well, and my whole post was a response to the claim that China was not building a navy capable of capturing territory, where you seem to agree with me, from what I bolded.

I try my best to entertain you.

This was for a couple of reasons - the IJA was quite a bit more powerful than the JSDF, but more importantly there was a thought that the people of the home islands would fight to the last man. I think now we are only discussing the military, not the farmers and businessmen and Harijuku Girls and Godzilla whoever else they might think could try to defend Japan.

About 9 of that model, yes (and building more, accoring to Wiki). That was an example of transport vessels. They have other models that carry the same load, and they have models that carry troops but not tanks. Using wikis ship count and the loads from sino-defense, they can move:
about 16,000 troops
about 400 MBTs
plus a significant amount of miscellaneous cargo (apcs, towed artillery, food, medicine, what have you). That is deploying more than a full division at one point at one time. Now, the JSDF has one armored division (total) with about 1000 tanks, and their entire personnel count is 180,000 men, including reserves. China would need to make 10 landings to have more forces in country than Japan, more as their transports were destroyed. Their advantage would be in concentration, as Japan's forces are spread across the whole country.

First, they can wait until they are done, and go at one time. These are important only because they give a significant range advantage over the Japanese who are using Harpoon missiles which go half as far. When they can destroy the Japanese fleet from well out of their range, they don't need that many ships.

They have several other classes of submarine as well, some of them of equal quality to the Kilos and many of lesser quality.

No one has a good chance of destroying multiple incoming missiles. They are there to destroy enemy planes. If they can shoot down a few missiles, that is a bonus.

Distance to Japan - 640 km
Combat radius of Su-30 using internal fuel tanks only - 1,500 km

The point was not to show that an invasion of Japan would be easy, or even have a reasonable possibility of success. The point was to show that the PLAN has equipment that is designed with the purpose of capturing territory. They are building more on the model of the US (especially if they continue they aircraft carrier program) than of Japan.

 

Tibet.

 

Make up your mind. Is Chinese navy capable of capturing land?

 

Please start your own thread.

 

The Agreed Framework was for N. Korea to suspend generation of weapons grade plutonium and for them to stay in the NPT. Members in the Bush cabinet rightfully feared that Kim was using uranium enrichment as a loophole. What I'd expect Kim to do is honor his commitments in good faith instead of blackmailing other nations for food and energy.

You can question US's intents and motives regarding N. Korea pulling out of the NPT, but then you'll also have to look inward and question why China's role in subduing Kim for the past ten years has been minimal at best. And if you want to pat China's back for the diplomatic efforts in 2005 with N. Korea, then you'll also have to acknowledge the Bush Admin's involvement for agreeing to it in the first place.

I'll be the first to call the administration incompetant and reckless, but it's not the admin's sole responsibility to subdue Kim.

A close analogy would be the re-unification of post Cold War Germany and the hundreds of million dollars W. Germany had to put into East for it to resemble an industrialized and free state.

The S. Korean government puts up nice words, but their actions lean more towards appeasement than active engagement towards reunification. There would be huge social, infrastructural and economic burdens should N. Korea reintegrate with the South. I have no doubt that the idealistic wish among Koreans is to reunify, but their politicians' wishes are weighted in reality.

It's a bit offtopic, but this issue isn't about what the neocons want.

 

Um, yes. I don't know what you mean by make up my mind, as I have never stated otherwise.

 

Just want to confirm your belief that Chinese navy is capable of capturing Japanese land. That is a stupid belief.

Deckerd was talking about China and Taiwan. He did not agree with you on your description of how China can invade Japan. Don't try to confuse anyone.

Like it or not, the China you hate is gaining popularity pretty much everywhere except Japan. I'd say that is the case even among practical americans, just not neoconservatives who have to have China as an enemy.

On the other hand, Japan is going downhill fast. Neighboring countries just don't trust it. I am very happy to see most people who knows the situation well have a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

 

Neverthless, Kim was doing his part of the deal, however flawed it was, while Bush declared him a devil on day one, and withheld what was promised to Kim for more than 12 months if I remembered right. Bush had a everything-clinton-did-was-wrong thinking when he took office, and he was determined to turn everything 180 degree. N. Korea was just one area. Isreal-Palastine was another area where Bush abandoned every thing Clinton had worked for. US-China relationship sunk to lowest in 10 years after Bush took office. It is neoconservatives interst to see a world with conflicts.

Regarding what China can and cannot do to N. Korea, I already expressed my opinion earlier on in either this thread or the shrine threat.

 

Let me ask you a question: who do you think will be the happiest to see the two Koreas reunite, Chinese, Americans, or Japanese? Who among the three do you think will be the least happy to see it happen.

I have a pretty good idea to the questions above.

 

IMO, Koreans would be the happiest. The Chinese have less a burden. Maybe the Americans in the middle. The Japanese would be least happy.

It's a pretty simplistic question. If North or South started building up nukes, no one would be happy. Should they reunify and keep the stockpile, that relationship wouldn't change. China and Japan would have a nuclear neighbor. Would Americans be happy about it? It wouldn't really be their business wrt Korea. On a larger scale...

American foreign policy in the Pacific rim is mostly about trade and stability. The events that evolve after reunification would have to be viewed in that lens.

 

Koreans will be happy, so will be Chinese. I don't think Americans are gonna be happy because it S. Koreans won't need them there any more. Japanese will be extremly unhappy because then Koreans will turn their attention to Japanese.

American foreign policy in the Pacific rim is about trade and containing China. It ia natural due to self interest.

My point is you see who have the highest incentive to push for a peaceful reunification of the two Koreas, and who have the least. IMO, China has done pretty much all it can, short of taking in millions of N. Korean refugees. On the other hand, Americans and Japan have little to loss to see this problem dragged on forever.

 

Now he's flip flopped back on the N. Korean stance (in the form of multi-lateral negotiaions) because previous actions didn't achieve the best results. He'd have to stay consistent and risk conflicts for your claim to hold.

If I were paranoid, it'd seem like China's enjoying the heat upon US with regards to its handling of N. Korea, in light of China being Kim's largest benefactor...

 

Rumsfeld's been restructuring military positioning and soldier strength in Korea has been diverted elsewhere. It seems like every other year, the US and Korean have heated discussions over the importance of the bases. The younger generation don't like it and the US isn't bound to stay there. The reality of it all is that there are hundreds of thousand missles and artillery aimed at Seoul, so the US isn't in a position to leave in good conscience. You should blame the person pointing those weapons at S. Korea instead of the US.

You also don't have any proof behind your claimed motivations of American military presense in S. Korea. Even if deterring China is the only motivation, S. Korea isn't a prime location for the very fact that N. Korea is its neighbor. The US's presense in the Rim can definitely be shifted elsewhere should the leave Korea or even Japan, and they have done it before. The ANZUS treaty guarantees this.

The US has a lot to gain from Korea's unification. Ridding the world of Kim and his nuclear ambitions is more than enough.

 

You are not quite up to date on this. The relationship between China and N. Korea has sored to the degree that China is only giving Kim some aid so that he agrees to keep his own people instead of letting millions of starving refugees flood into China. Of course, it is much easier for US to talk the talk half way accross the world.

The neoconservatives have to show that they are doing something, right? They will talk a while and then back up. They'd never want to get problems solved, because then their key weapon, fear factor, won't work any more.

 

You think I am saying good words for Kim. I am not. I don't like him any more than you do. But my point is Bush has done his part to maintain the hostility between the two Korea's. It is not only my opinion. I get the same sort of opinion from my S. Korean friends. Korea has strategic importance. It serves as a beachhead if US ever need to move large number of troops to Asia. For the same reason, US contacted Vietnam about leasing their military port abandoned by Russians.

Ridding Sadam hardly achieve anything, although they hyped it as if it were the greatest moment of the new millienium. Don't overrate symbolic things.

PS: it seems you did concer that containing China is a goal of US. It is not like there is something terribly wrong with it, but many people don't even want to admit it. Are people too shy to say "we are selfish"?

 

Please acknowledge the point.

 

What point? You are trying to derail every current discussion?

Search function is down. If you want to talk about Tibet, there are a few very good ones in the past, lots of posters contributed their knowledge, information, and opinions about it. You can certainly wait till the the search function is backed up, and I will be more than happy to help you find them. So you can read them first, then decide whether you have anything NEW to say, instead of hijacking current discussion to another direction. Because I do know that you are tired of rethorics from Chinese Mafia, if you read them first, we don't need to repeat. Is it fair? Though, it's a free board, nobody can stop you if you insist on anything.

 

I can't tell whether you want the US to be involved or you just want them to stay out of it. Americans can't seem to do anything right.

Sure, China has recently reduced aid, but this relationship has gone far longer than the last ten years. Its past degree of commitment is similar to the one the US has with Israel, and the US will never hear the end of critics saying that Israel is their fault.

I'd hope the neocon movement is dying down in light of their failures, but we have 2 more years to see how that pans out.

Why is Bush the cause for hostility between the 2 Koreas? Bush should only be blamed for the hostility between the US and N. Korea. If N. Korea overreacts and becomes hostile to S. Korea, isn't that the fault of Kim? The South Korean government doesn't have to follow Bush's policies.

There's a lot of circular logic among popular opinion.

So why does the US need a divided Korea when it can contact other nations like Vietnam for bases? You originally claimed that was one of the reasons why Americans wouldn't be happy with reunification.

What do you mean? Deposing Kim on the way towards an eventual reunification path would be a great moment for all Koreans, let alone the Americans who pay for the bases there.

 

In my wildest dream, things would go one of two ways:
1) China cut off aids to N. Korea totally, US agrees to send ships to China and take in N. Korean refugees no matter how many there are. That would make China willing to push Kim really hard.
2) Bush just STFU, stop talking about evil or sanction, and let the Koreans to sort it out. If they decide to go ahead and get the nuke, let them as long as the two koreas reunite. I just hope once they reunite and form a democratic country, they see it is in their best interest to give up the nukes.

Well, US is not cutting back aid to Israel and Israel won't export millions of refugees to US. So right now the aid to Israel is purely volunteer. On the other hand, Chinese aid to N. Korea in recent years has not been a choice.

I hope so too.

Well, S. Korea is kinda tied to US on this issue. US plays tough with NK, NK plays tough with US, SK gets afraid and seek US protection, NK and SK get more hostile. All these are tangled together.

Asia is a big continent, the more beachheads one has, the better. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India serve as a very good net around China. Japan and Taiwan are not beachheads. Vietnamese are not enthusiastic to be a beachhead of US. India and China are seperated by Tibet, thus not an ideal beachhead. Korea is the best beachhead right now.

Of course it is a great moment for all Koreans. The question is what there is for Americans. Saving cost? I thought S. Koreans pay for large part of it any way. The loss of a strategic military base is huge.

 

You said you wanted proof that China would invade Taiwan if the U.S. didn't interfere...and I gave you a very good example: Tibet. China invaded Tibet because no one cared or interfered.

So at least acknowledge there is a historical basis for the point I'm making, instead of just accusing me of trying to derail your thinking...i'm not, I am showing you why China would invade Taiwan.