EPTI don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country, and by claim the are of South China Sea as seen in the OP. China is pretty much in conflict with most of South East Asia countries. I am sure the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia, Brunei will not sitting still if China continue to a ridiculous claim like that.
Vietnam in live-fire drill amid South China Sea - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country, and by claim the are of South China Sea as seen in the OP. China is pretty much in conflict with most of South East Asia countries. I am sure the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia, Brunei will not sitting still if China continue to a ridiculous claim like that. | ||
c3rberUs
Japan11285 Posts
@ Empyrean, the Philippines not included in the dispute? Its all over the news here, the US has even voiced their support for the Philippines claim on the Spratlys. | ||
|
trucejl
120 Posts
China is doing what any powerful country would do. You think USA wouldn't fight back if something like what vietnam is doing happens in north america? Don't be illusional. Calling China a bully may be true but everyone knows the number 1 bully is USA undisputed. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this China is a dictatorship with a capitalist economy. | ||
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
Our goal is to stop war from happening from the first place. War just bring pain and lost to both side. Havent you learn anything from history? | ||
|
Nutype
Canada167 Posts
On June 15 2011 09:38 Endymion wrote: I was actually being sarcastic, sorry for the people quoting me and defending me, I think this will be a joke if China actually decides to fight because I can't see their military being as soft-heeled as the US was forced to be because of the domestic "war on war" that was going on during the first Vietnam war lol i cant even beleive so many people took you seriously. might wanna add a spoiler next time to show you were not serious haha. some people just cant detect sarcasm i honesty think the asian countries need to stop fighting eachother, but that sure wont happen anytime soon. | ||
|
TwoPac
United States163 Posts
On June 15 2011 08:53 spidey1991 wrote: Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won. The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't. We never took the offensive at all. I feel if we invaded the North and deployed all our military power, along with the use of nuclear weapons, Vietnam would not exist today. Not that I'm advocating it, but we definitely could've won that war. Easily. | ||
|
OFCORPSE
Sweden355 Posts
A bunch of starving, freezing boys killing each other so the rich people can stay rich. I hate war so much, can't we all just get a bong  | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:47 c3rberUs wrote: I see, so the Philippines is not the only one showing some force in this dispute. The Philippine navy has been reinforcing its military installations in the Spratly Islands. Yeah, Spratly Island are occupied by several country for a long time now including Philippine, Vietnam, China, Taiwan etc.. But now the Chinese wants its and most of the sea around South East Asia for themselves only. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:44 Caphe wrote: Actually, China has alot to lose if they go to war, no one in their right mind would wage war at this point or at any other point. You will just got sanction so bad by many other countries. Beside that China has alot more matters inside its own just waited to be awaken such as tibet, inner mongol, riots in poor farming provinces etc.. I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country, and by claim the are of South China Sea as seen in the OP. China is pretty much in conflict with most of South East Asia countries. I am sure the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia, Brunei will not sitting still if China continue to a ridiculous claim like that. Who exactly cares so much about Vietnam that they would sacrifice trade relations with China? Vietnam has no significant allies and no goodwill on the international stage. Sanctions.... lmao. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:50 Caphe wrote: Yeah, Spratly Island are occupied by several country for a long time now including Philippine, Vietnam, China, Taiwan etc.. But now the Chinese wants its and most of the sea around South East Asia for themselves only. False. The areas have always been 'disputed'. For anyone to claim otherwise is disingenuous. | ||
Empyrean
16934 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:44 Caphe wrote: Actually, China has alot to lose if they go to war, no one in their right mind would wage war at this point or at any other point. You will just got sanction so bad by many other countries. Beside that China has alot more matters inside its own just waited to be awaken such as tibet, inner mongol, riots in poor farming provinces etc.. I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country. In terms of a purely militaristic conflict, China would wipe the floor with Vietnam. If they were actually to go to war, though, I completely agree. China would lose respect and face in the international arena in terms of foreign affairs, but this is also countered by the internal cost (that is, to nationalistic pride and to its citizens) of allowing Vietnam to "win" by acknowledging its territorial claims. My best guess is that China's going to try more backdoor diplomacy so that both sides can walk away from this with relatively intact reputations and not resort to petty violence. In terms of the issues with China you pointed out, though, Inner Mongolia is traditionally seen as (and I hate to use this term) a "model" autonomous region. When riots broke out in Inner Mongolia, the government was unusually accommodating in its treatment. Keep in mind that the majority (around 90%) of Inner Mongolia's population is still Han Chinese. A bigger problem would be the Xinjiang autonomous region and the various issues involving discontent among the sizeable Uyghur population there. I'm not as familiar with Tibet, but I've read that many ethnic Tibetans are unsatisfied with the fact that China is developing it, and Han Chinese are absolutely baffled as to why. As to riots in poor farming provinces, there's actually not as widespread as you would think. Large scale protest against the Chinese government is virtually guaranteed to fail. Many people (even in Shanghai, where I'm currently living), seem to have a sort of resigned defeatist attitude when it comes to regime change, as they're more or less satisfied with their lives, don't have that big of a gripe with much (mainly little things, although internet freedom and inflation are common worries), and realize that honestly, the CCP is going to remain in power and that's that. On June 15 2011 11:47 c3rberUs wrote: I see, so the Philippines is not the only one showing some force in this dispute. The Philippine navy has been reinforcing its military installations in the Spratly Islands. @ Empyrean, the Philippines not included in the dispute? Its all over the news here, the US has even voiced their support for the Philippines claim on the Spratlys. This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:38 Empyrean wrote: I completely agree. Let's not kid ourselves here; if, in 2011, either the U.S. or China were to get in an armed conflict with Vietnam, it wouldn't even be a contest. I would agree and disagree. It would be about as one sided of an invasion as the actual invasion of Iraq was(not talking about the resulting occupation). But much like the invasion of Iraq there would be no clear path to a victory or exit for the occupying power. It would just result in years upon years of Guerrilla warfare, much like occurred in the original US occupation. The US had no problem achieving its military objectives there, nor did it lose a significant pitched battle at any point in the war. Even the Tet offensive was a tactical US victory: no territory was lost in end and the US+South Vietnam to North Vietnam casualty ratios were 2:1. The problem was there was no clear path to victory. All the US could in the conflict was sit there and take constant casualties from guerrillas, even though the casualty ratios were positive in favor of the US throughout the war, the US government eventually realized what the people had long before: that it was nonsensical to fight an extended war in a foreign country, for no good reason, where the only possible victory condition would be from an extremely long war of attrition. As a frame of reference, total US deaths from the Vietnam war were 58,000 dead, 358,000 wounded. North Vietnam: 1,176,00 dead, 600,000 wounded. | ||
|
JamesJohansen
United States213 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:04 tokicheese wrote: Trying to compare the war with China to the US back in the Vietnam war doesn't make sense. The cities are actually cities and not tiny little villages so if China does try to drop some bombs they wont be bombing some random trails in the mountains. Also something tells me China does not give a shit what other countries think. They have the highest amount of executions per capita and have pissed off every one around them at one point or another. And the people living in China presumably won't be as well informed as the US back in the 1960's due to the government censorship. And comparing this to France is even more retarded. France was still reeling from WW2 and is halfway across the world. China is right next door. Logistics back in the 1940s-1950s was much different getting men and supplies halfway across the world is still a pain in the ass now not to mention when the country doing the fighting doesn't support the war in the first place. China population may not like what's going on but the government doesn't really care. The same facts hold true of the Soviet Union during their attempted occupation of Afganistan yet even then, with the media supporting the military effort, there was no signs of victory. Media certainly helps a lot and played a large role in the American Vietnam war but there are larger factors at stake if China went to war with Vietnam. It would be a war of attrition and wouldn't end until either China gave up as the US did, or they rooted out most every guerrilla faction on Vietnam. And like the US Vietnam war, it would end up being far more costly for China since its highly maintained military would be far more expensive to keep rolling than the armed peasants of Vietnam. Thats just my amateur opinion, I'm no military analyst. | ||
|
Empyrean
16934 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:54 InvalidID wrote: I would agree and disagree. It would be about as one sided of an invasion as the actual invasion of Iraq was(not talking about the resulting occupation). But much like the invasion of Iraq there would be no clear path to a victory or exit for the occupying power. It would just result in years upon years of Guerrilla warfare, much like occurred in the original US occupation. The US had no problem achieving its military objectives there, nor did it lose a significant pitched battle at any point in the war. Even the Tet offensive was a tactical US victory: no territory was lost in end and the US+South Vietnam to North Vietnam casualty ratios were 2:1. The problem was there was no clear path to victory. All the US could in the conflict was sit there and take constant casualties from guerrillas, even though the casualty ratios were positive in favor throughout the war, the US government eventually realized what the people had long before: that it was nonsensical to fight an extended war in a foreign country, where the only possible victory condition would be from an extremely long war of attrition. I'd argue that China wouldn't need to invade Vietnam in an armed conflict. It has vastly superior long-range missile capabilities, as well as a vastly superior navy and air force. It could also cut off trade ties because honestly, Vietnam is much more dependent on bilateral trade with China than China is with Vietnam. The only thing I'd make sure to do is ensure that Vietnam doesn't attempt to strike southern cities like HK, Guangzhou or Shenzhen. Invading Vietnam would be costly and inefficient. It's much more effective to simply constantly bombard major Vietnamese cities with China's superior long-range capability, cripple the Vietnamese economy by cutting of trade relations, and threaten trade action against Vietnam's other local trade partners (all of whom have large bilateral trade relations with China as well) if they attempt to interfere. I also highly doubt the United States would risk enlarging this conflict to a cross-Pacific scale. | ||
|
Blacktion
United Kingdom1148 Posts
Do they go into detail about what exactly the "live fire drills" are? Live fire drills does not definatly mean they will be testing highly powered weapons in an attempt to scare an opponent. I was aboard HMS boxer (British warship) a while back when it was performing "live fire drills", which amounted to them firing off a few 40mm cannon shots into the sea. Really wasn't as interesting as the title "live fire exercise!" in the news would have you believe. I did get to dick about with an MP5 SMG though, which im not gonna lie was fun as hell! | ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
On June 15 2011 09:16 kineSiS- wrote: .... It's called SOLDIERS DIE during wars. Soldiers die due to wars, so if I was soldier, I would be scared. LOL and thats why youre not a soldier. how pathetic would a country's military be if soldiers started shaking in their boots from the mere threat of war? Do you think people join the military as infantry thinking its just going to be a parade march? Soldiers know that death is a possibility in their job and they still joined. I highly doubt that many of the soldiers are scared. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:50 Consolidate wrote: Who exactly cares so much about Vietnam that they would sacrifice trade relations with China? Vietnam has no significant allies and no goodwill on the international stage. Sanctions.... lmao. You misunderstood my post, the reason Vietnam will be able to survive is it has no significant allies. Do you know why many world power wants to invade Vietnam, look at it on the map. Vietnam has a one of a kind geographic location. It overlook the whole SEA and close to China. US and the West will jump in at a heart beat if any conflict broke out. China doesn't like the US presence in the region, US doesn't want China dominate the region. Thats the point. Any way, at this stage and this age, the chance of a war broke out is less than 0.0001%. We are all talking about a big IF here, so lets be imagination  | ||
|
vohne
Philippines197 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote: This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. | ||
|
Empyrean
16934 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:01 Caphe wrote: You misunderstood my post, the reason Vietnam will be able to survive is it has no significant allies. Do you know why many world power wants to invade Vietnam, look at it on the map. Vietnam has a one of a kind geographic location. It overlook the whole SEA and close to China. US and the West will jump in at a heart beat if any conflict broke out. China doesn't like the US presence in the region, US doesn't want China dominate the region. Thats the point. Any way, at this stage and this age, the chance of a war broke out is less than 0.0001%. We are all talking about a big IF here, so lets be imagination I highly doubt either China or the United States would risk actual conflict with each other beyond glancing blows in international diplomacy. As for Vietnamese trade relations, Japan, China, Singapore, and Australia are its major local trading partners. | ||
| ||
