|
On June 26 2011 01:56 Feridan wrote:
The world economic system basically needs one superpower to keep the global sea trading lanes open - used to be the British Empire that filled that role, but after the world wars the US discovered that it had to take over. They can't allow a regional power to shut down the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Hormuz, the Panama or Suez canals etc, since they are so dependent on them - and so is the rest of the world. We need the US to maintain that role. If they go all isolationist on us, all hell will break loose between up-and-coming powers seeking to take over in their own spheres of influence: russia in the arctic, china, japan and indonesia in the yellow sea and straits of malacca, brazil in the atlantic and panama, and turkey in the middle east (bab-el-mandeb, suez, hormuz).
If keeping the global sea lanes open is beneficial to the world economy, wouldn't that suggest they'd be kept open with or without a superpower police, since it'd be in the interests of each country to do so?
|
On June 26 2011 01:59 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:56 Feridan wrote:
The world economic system basically needs one superpower to keep the global sea trading lanes open - used to be the British Empire that filled that role, but after the world wars the US discovered that it had to take over. They can't allow a regional power to shut down the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Hormuz, the Panama or Suez canals etc, since they are so dependent on them - and so is the rest of the world. We need the US to maintain that role. If they go all isolationist on us, all hell will break loose between up-and-coming powers seeking to take over in their own spheres of influence: russia in the arctic, china, japan and indonesia in the yellow sea and straits of malacca, brazil in the atlantic and panama, and turkey in the middle east (bab-el-mandeb, suez, hormuz). If keeping the global sea lanes open is beneficial to the world economy, wouldn't that suggest they'd be kept open with or without a superpower police, since it'd be in the interests of each country to do so?
Suggesting that all leaders, governments, and countries would think and act rationally is naive to a certain point.
The short answer is "no" they wouldn't do that without trying to swindle some kind of advantage, leverage, or benefit.
|
On June 26 2011 01:40 Crisco wrote:
Actually NK's army is vastly larger than SK's
size of an army means nothing especially when compared to the strength of the South Korean air force and naval capacities as well as having the most modern military equipment on the planet, just because North Korea has more land troops means nothing in terms of their military capabilties
|
On June 26 2011 01:56 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the US ever left SK and Japan, both SK and Japan would start enlarging their navies and there would be a naval arms race between them and China. That would be the biggest political change from the US leaving, Japan returning to its status as a premier naval power in the Pacific. What the.... You know that japan hasn't had a standing army since WW2, and it's a violation of UN resolutions if they re-militarize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces
Oh they have an army alright. And a mechanized infantry. And a navy. Japan and US are huge tech traders in terms of military.
|
On June 26 2011 01:56 Feridan wrote:
They can't allow a regional power to shut down the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Hormuz, the Panama or Suez canals .
have you ever heard of the suez crisis?? The US allowed the situation you're describing as not happening to happen
|
On June 26 2011 01:59 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:56 Feridan wrote:
The world economic system basically needs one superpower to keep the global sea trading lanes open - used to be the British Empire that filled that role, but after the world wars the US discovered that it had to take over. They can't allow a regional power to shut down the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Hormuz, the Panama or Suez canals etc, since they are so dependent on them - and so is the rest of the world. We need the US to maintain that role. If they go all isolationist on us, all hell will break loose between up-and-coming powers seeking to take over in their own spheres of influence: russia in the arctic, china, japan and indonesia in the yellow sea and straits of malacca, brazil in the atlantic and panama, and turkey in the middle east (bab-el-mandeb, suez, hormuz). If keeping the global sea lanes open is beneficial to the world economy, wouldn't that suggest they'd be kept open with or without a superpower police, since it'd be in the interests of each country to do so?
Stop being rational and sensible, this is international politics, money, sex, murders and all that jazz. "Benefits", "truth" and "reason" has nothing to do with this. Those concepts are far to advanced for the stone-age thought process of "the strongest is right".
|
US should at least cut their expenses asap in the zones they are not immediately needed, but the pacific presence is probably the most important.
|
This is why the US will pull out of Germany / Japan and South Korea.
![[image loading]](http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/5203600166_d002334af8_z.jpg)
atm the US is 14.000 billion in debt; 1.400 to china alone.
They have already begun to cut funds from NASA etc but very soon they will begin to cut funds from the army. There's no other option since the US citizens already have bad healthcare and other social services. There is nowhere to cut funds from anymore.
|
On June 26 2011 01:59 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:56 Feridan wrote:
The world economic system basically needs one superpower to keep the global sea trading lanes open - used to be the British Empire that filled that role, but after the world wars the US discovered that it had to take over. They can't allow a regional power to shut down the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Hormuz, the Panama or Suez canals etc, since they are so dependent on them - and so is the rest of the world. We need the US to maintain that role. If they go all isolationist on us, all hell will break loose between up-and-coming powers seeking to take over in their own spheres of influence: russia in the arctic, china, japan and indonesia in the yellow sea and straits of malacca, brazil in the atlantic and panama, and turkey in the middle east (bab-el-mandeb, suez, hormuz). If keeping the global sea lanes open is beneficial to the world economy, wouldn't that suggest they'd be kept open with or without a superpower police, since it'd be in the interests of each country to do so?
A regional player can gain a lot by flexing their muscles and stopping trade. Just think with Turkey - they can't get into the EU, and the Arab states are falling apart. They ride in to the rescue, become the dominant power in the region, giving aid, propping up new governments etc - the other Sunni muslims are grateful, Turkey becomes the new power - and then it's the US and Israel vs every other Sunni country in the region. If they decide they don't want oil or other goods to go through their sea lanes, or only allow ships through of countries that agree to condemn Israel, what is everyone else going to do about it? Same principle in SE asia. Lots of Chinese communities living in countries throughout the area, China might need to 'protect their people', which requires a naval presence - aaaand maybe they start stopping ships of nations that disagree with their mandate - etc etc.
|
On June 26 2011 02:02 Telebear wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:40 Crisco wrote:
Actually NK's army is vastly larger than SK's size of an army means nothing especially when compared to the strength of the South Korean air force and naval capacities as well as having the most modern military equipment on the planet, just because North Korea has more land troops means nothing in terms of their military capabilties
actually i'm pretty sure military power in general (equipment, numbers, resources) is vastly superior for NK if compared to SK without US support.
|
On June 26 2011 02:18 Crisco wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 02:02 Telebear wrote:On June 26 2011 01:40 Crisco wrote:
Actually NK's army is vastly larger than SK's size of an army means nothing especially when compared to the strength of the South Korean air force and naval capacities as well as having the most modern military equipment on the planet, just because North Korea has more land troops means nothing in terms of their military capabilties actually i'm pretty sure military power in general (equipment, numbers, resources) is vastly superior for NK if compared to SK without US support.
well, NK has enough artillery/bombs to flatten Seoul
|
There's no political pressure in the United States to pull out troops since nothing has really happened (yet).
If the US did pull out troops then it would destabilize the region, because many Asian countries see the US presence as a strong deterrent to the expanding powers and ambitions of the Chinese military.
|
On June 26 2011 02:18 Crisco wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 02:02 Telebear wrote:On June 26 2011 01:40 Crisco wrote:
Actually NK's army is vastly larger than SK's size of an army means nothing especially when compared to the strength of the South Korean air force and naval capacities as well as having the most modern military equipment on the planet, just because North Korea has more land troops means nothing in terms of their military capabilties actually i'm pretty sure military power in general (equipment, numbers, resources) is vastly superior for NK if compared to SK without US support.
You've got to be kidding. Have you checked South Korea's GDP recently ? Equipment is easy to buy at any time. South Koreans probably want the US there because they just don't want to invest into the equipment themselves.
|
I don't know what would happen, but I do know that China owns something like $800BIL of USA's debt..
|
On June 26 2011 02:18 Crisco wrote:
[
actually i'm pretty sure military power in general (equipment, numbers, resources) is vastly superior for NK if compared to SK without US support.
South Korea has one of the best equipped militaries in the world with the latest technology and equipment numbers aren't an issue size doesnt matter if you're using arms from the 1970's against arms from the 21st century
here is an interesting post on the strength and capabilties of the North Korean army http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?162240-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes
|
This isn't 1930, there is no way an "arms race" would emerge in the present day. Also there are severe restrictions on the Japanese military because of WWII.
Ummm, this is why China is upgrading their navy and air force and to a slightly lesser degree their army, there is no arms race.
What the....
You know that japan hasn't had a standing army since WW2, and it's a violation of UN resolutions if they re-militarize
Wrong...
And to people who think that Japan would be violating some UN resolution if they were to "re-militarize," totally wrong. Only Japanese law (specifically their constitution) restricts their military. Their constitution says they are not allowed to have any offensive forces whatsoever. That's why their army and navy and air force have "Self-Defense" in the title, that's the only constitutional thing for them to do, they're allowed to have "self-defense forces."
Japan has already become more and more right-wing in its foreign policy especially toward North Korea, if the US left Tokyo and Seoul would both be terrified of Pyongyang and would greatly increase their forces as a result. Japan does not like and is very suspicious of NK especially because of the decades of NK kidnapping random Japanese off Japanese beaches to train NK spies on how to act Japanese.
Japan can change its constitution whenever it wants.
have you ever heard of the suez crisis?? The US allowed the situation you're describing as not happening to happen
Ummm... wrong.
England and France approached Israel and said we're going to attack Egypt you should help us because hurting Egypt will help you in the short and long run. Israel said okay. England and France went to Eisenhower and said you should come too and he said no, and we can't support you in doing it. Don't do it. England and France did it and the US did not support them and forced London and Paris to accept a cease-fire when the USSR threatened to get involved. In England especially what the US did was viewed as the death knell of the British empire and was not very well received by the Brits.
|
As it stands, China's military capability is not enough to deter Korea or Japan and both countries will do their absolute best to keep it at that and as for North Korea, people need to wake up, they are not going to invade Japan and in a likely event of war against South they will lose, their only card is causing mass damage on the South Korean population due to the proximity.
China is not going to wage wall on them because it does absolutely nothing for China. Short of a military regime take over and go on a revenge against Japan for the past wars, I just don't see how China would fight Japan. What would they accomplish except killing Japanese for the sake of killing Japanese? They are no oil or resource in Japan or Korea.
Japanese navy alone is enough to stop any Chinese aggression. Land army and tanks don't mean shit when you can't land them.
The game has changed. No sane country is going to attack another for land anymore. It is all about the resources.
Now, about the oil under the sea, that might be something and is a good reason for some build up and posturing but again, unless Japan/Korea totally fuck up their intelligence and upgrades they will still be ahead.
If US pulls out, then in a few decades we will just see both countries arm themselves to appease their voters and in a few decades they will become closely with China due to economic reasons.
I don't think a lot of people understand the amount of investments and money that Japan is making from China. They have a lot at stake just like the west so a war is very unlikely.
|
On June 26 2011 01:58 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:53 Voltaire wrote:On June 26 2011 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the US ever left SK and Japan, both SK and Japan would start enlarging their navies and there would be a naval arms race between them and China. That would be the biggest political change from the US leaving, Japan returning to its status as a premier naval power in the Pacific. This isn't 1930, there is no way an "arms race" would emerge in the present day. Also there are severe restrictions on the Japanese military because of WWII. What stops NK or China from taking over? It is actually a good thing that we are still in SK they can concentrate their money on things that aren't military related improving the living conditions of the country. Japan on the other hand could probably defend themselves now.
SK can defend itself from NK. You are completely naive if you think China would invade.
|
Well, Japan doesn't have a strong standing military.... The U.S army is effectively Japans standing army. SK is still in war with NK so they have a required draft, if they didn't, U.S would be their standing army as well.
In general, the US and China are fairly strong allies and have a good history. The 700b that US spends on military protects a lot of countries. The range of the US military is quite extensive and is one of hte reasons why we have general stability in the world. W/out a standing superpower (china would theoretically take its place) the geography of eastern Europe, middle east, Africa, central and south America would probably change constantly.
|
For all its meddling in foreign affairs, at least the US does some good. Oddly, China appears to be gaining a lot of good-will and influence on the grounds that they aren't meddlers (except in how they're screwing around with everyone else's economies in a clandestine fashion, but hey...). It's a great irony of being in power. The one in power is expected to simultaneously solve everyone's problems and get out of everyone's way. Meanwhile, the one in second place is preparing to strike while he's distracted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
