|
On September 17 2012 03:52 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:36 Brutaxilos wrote:On September 17 2012 02:23 Xpace wrote:I remember seeing this painting in a French art magazine when I was living in Toronto back in 2006, by an expatriate Chinese in Canada. Titled "2008 Beijing", in commemoration of the 2008 Summer Olympic games held in Beijing, the painting was chock full of imagery and hidden meanings underneath the art. Many people, especially Chinese-Canadians and Chinese-Americans found it to be an excellent interpretation of the political situation in the Far East, particularly from a Chinese perspective. ![[image loading]](http://econintersect.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/frank-li-erotica.png) "2008 Beijing" by Liu Yi Firstly, the girl wearing a traditional article of Chinese lingerie with her hand in a fruit bowl represents Taiwan. The four mahjong players also represent countries – America faces the viewer, and opposite America is China. To the right, the reclining girl is Russia, and to the left, naked and scrutinising her tiles, is Japan. The image depicts the situation facing Taiwan, but Taiwan herself is not at the table. Only the four players of America, China, Japan and Russia will determine the outcome of this game. The skies beyond the window are dark and unsettled, as is the current situation. The clothing the four girls at the table are wearing expresses their respective strengths. America is in a strong position being fully clothed, and confidently watches Taiwan for a chance to strike without being overly concerned about the state of the game. Russia lies languidly with one leg resting on America, and an arm outstretched to China, stealthily assisting China with her concealed tiles. But Russia has no real interest in Taiwan, and her tiles are not strong. She is only interested in exploiting the Taiwan situation to her advantage, sympathising with America whilst selling weapons to China. China herself is half-naked, much of her body and clothing obscured from view by the table, preventing anyone from seeing how strong she is. One of her tiles is “East,” representing the DF-31 “East Wind” long range missile (ICBM). China also keeps some of her tiles hidden behind her, ready for any change in the game. Just how strong she really is, nobody knows. On the left, the naked girl is Japan. She has no clothes at all – she is the weakest of the four. She scrutinizes her tiles intently, completely oblivious to the artful tricks the other players are employing. Japan only conceives of the Taiwan issue in terms of how she can gain regional power – she is blind to the global aspect of the game. Whilst she may have a good hand, little does she realize the game will not be won through tiles alone. On China’s shoulder is a tattoo – the Fenghuang, or “Chinese phoenix.” This signifies the fact that in China traditional culture runs only skin deep – she is otherwise just the same as the west. On the contrary, it is Taiwan, with her traditional attire, who is the real heir to Chinese culture. Taiwan holds a fruit knife, but it is of no use in a game of mahjong and she cannot bring it to bear. All she can do is hold onto her fruit as the game plays out. This is probably off-topic when discussing about the issue of the Chinese riots, but after reading several posts arguing about America, Japan and China's position in the Far East, especially those with TL ID's from China saying "fuck Japan" and those from Japan saying "history is history, move on", I couldn't fathom how either side can't seem to look past emotions, or whatever the hell is motivating them to spout such ignorant nonsense. TL;DR: China can't do shit to Japan. They're not in a position to do whatever they want, at least not yet - it's in their best interests to keep things 'cool'. They need Japan. Korea needs Japan. Both countries (the people) hate Japan, but the 1% knows what's up. America's too smart to get their hands dirty, it's not in their best interests to piss off China, especially when it's Japan that's the target - it's not like the Chinese are preparing to invade Japan. Japan is the most insignificant of the three, they have no muscles to flex, yet their overinflated pride doesn't exactly allow them to concede, and even if they do, will that really quell the anti-Japanese sentiment in China/Korea? Yeah, this isn't biased in any way. My advice, stop viewing Taiwan as the saintly true China. If you didn't know, the CCP started BECAUSE the Guomindang was corrupt as hell (even more than it is today). Also, you should that most people living in Taiwan were Southerners who fled there after the Civil War. It isn't exactly an "heir" to all of Chinese culture, its only a snippet of it. What in the fuck? Are you sure this was the artist's intention or are we just reading way too much into an oil painting of naked girls?
It was the artists' intention.
My advice, stop viewing Taiwan as the saintly true China. If you didn't know, the CCP started BECAUSE the Guomindang was corrupt as hell (even more than it is today). Also, you should that most people living in Taiwan were Southerners who fled there after the Civil War. It isn't exactly an "heir" to all of Chinese culture, its only a snippet of it.
Taiwan back then, and Taiwan today. China back then, and China today.
|
On September 17 2012 03:54 Arcanis wrote:Reading pages of uninformed opinions about who would win in a war between China and the US... people talking about China military being strong that only the US military can surpass it. This is a joke, everyone forgets about nukes? Sure the Cold War is over, but the balance of military powers (or better said who can annihilate faster the enemy) hasnt changed. America is still number one, followed by Russia and then the European block of nations, for god sake even Israel has the same number of nukes as China and surely a better payload delivery system. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weaponsA modern all out war wouldnt be fought by fishing ships full of explosives swarming supercarriers, but it would be won in a few days based on who has the better first-strike and second-strike capability and payload delivery system. Right now China pales in comparison to America, Russia and the EU. But feel free to ignore the importance of nukes in today geopolitical balance of powers and continue fantasizing about a World War 2 like scenario with Marines storming islands on the pacific and whatnot....
Pressing a button that launches a nuclear missile is like pressing a button that starts Armageddon.
|
On September 17 2012 03:54 Arcanis wrote:Reading pages of uninformed opinions about who would win in a war between China and the US... people talking about China military being strong that only the US military can surpass it. This is a joke, everyone forgets about nukes? Sure the Cold War is over, but the balance of military powers (or better said who can annihilate faster the enemy) hasnt changed. America is still number one, followed by Russia and then the European block of nations, for god sake even Israel has the same number of nukes as China and surely a better payload delivery system. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weaponsA modern all out war wouldnt be fought by fishing ships full of explosives swarming supercarriers, but it would be won in a few days based on who has the better first-strike and second-strike capability and payload delivery system. Right now China pales in comparison to America, Russia and the EU. But feel free to ignore the importance of nukes in today geopolitical balance of powers and continue fantasizing about a World War 2 like scenario with Marines storming islands on the pacific and whatnot....
Nukes won't be launched for land grabs.
Nukes won't be fired against any nation that can fire back.
Nukes are a deterrent, and are more likely to be used by terrorist, if anyone ever uses one again.
if anyone is out-out-touch it would be you thinking about a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario.
Might want to look into escalation policies before you spout off against people trying to have a legitimate discussion.
|
On September 17 2012 03:45 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:38 Cambium wrote:
There is no way a war could break out between Japan and China.
China has a lot of options that are much more cost effective than an all out war. An economic sanction, something as trivial as a ban on the export of rare earth metals and restricted tourism could severely damage Japan's already weakened economy that will likely force Japan to succumb to terms with China. There are obviously other more drastic steps China could take, such as an overall ban on trades with Japan, that could have much bigger implications on Asian and global economy as a whole.
China is a powerful nation not only because of its military standings, but more importantly, its economic presence and potential. It's a lot to hope that the only thing preventing human extinction is that every country with nukes acts perfectly reasonably.
What does that even mean? Why is suddenly everyone talking about wars and nukes? Are you suggesting China is going to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan over Diaoyutai?
|
On September 17 2012 03:02 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 02:57 Immutant wrote:
Isn't most of America's fleet/army in the Middle East?
Take a look at the map, at China's size vs Japan and their proximity. If China went all out (zerg Japan with a few million soldiers - remember that Japan's military might is constricted by WWII protocols), and quickly subdue Japan, the US will probably not be able to do anything (since Japan as its base is taken over).
Japan: SDF
Military units (from wiki)
The JSDF numbered 239,430 in 2005 with 147,737 in the Ground Self-Defense Force, 44,327 in the Maritime Self-Defense Force, 45,517 in the Air Self-Defense Force, and 1,849 in the Joint Staff Office. Reserves numbered 57,899.[11]
Five armies,
Five maritime districts, and
Three air defense forces
China: PLA
The PLA is the world's largest military force, with approximately 3 million members, and has the world's largest (active) standing army, with approximately 2.25 million members. The PLA comprises five main service branches, consisting of the PLA Ground Force, PLA Navy (PLAN), PLA Air Force (PLAAF), Second Artillery Corps (strategic missile force), and the PLA Reserve Force.
China may not be able to zerg the US, but they CAN zerg Japan. What happens afterwards is rather complex and depressing to contemplate.
The US can probably do more if it is a protracted war, but then the situation would be even worst for the region and the world.
As a resident in SE Asia, the situation is particularly worrying... Finally somone who gets it. spot on. The ME has a small portion of our forces, most of which would be withdrawn if it was really NEEDED. Also only our EASTERN fleet is in the ME region. Our pacific fleet is right where it needs to be. Also the size of Japan's army isn't the worry. We limit the TYPE OF ARMS they can yield. Certain missille types are illegal for them to possess. Missilles that could help defend them if China enters the sea of Japan. Fire from the mainland, would help slow/weaken the Chinese amphibious assault
The US overtly bolstering Japan's military capabilities would be a diplomatic catastrophe, this decision would fly right in the face of the negative Chinese sentimentality towards Japanese military that has been more or less the topic of this thread.
Policies should encourage further inclusion of China in the global stage such that China's continued prosperity is tied with the rest of the world. Military bolstering of Japan would steer China in a direction where it seeks to dominate over the Asian region, which would ultimately lead to military conflict.
I'm not drawing conclusions on what your opinions are, and I don't think you've explicitly stated them, I just noticed some of your posts detailing military build up in the East Asian region, something which has severe consequences and shouldn't be undertaken lightly.
|
On September 17 2012 03:57 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:56 SayGen wrote:On September 17 2012 03:45 CountChocula wrote:On September 17 2012 03:39 NadaSound wrote:On September 17 2012 03:30 Silver777 wrote:
I am not sure why anyone here thinks China could ever conquer Japan or any developed country for that matter due to the sheer amount of treaties involved in every country surrounding China. Invading a developed country without a ridiculously good reason that the rest of the world agrees is a good reason and supports is paramount to declaring war on every other country in the world. Even removing nukes aside that is suicide for that country as their is no way for them to win militarily, let alone economically. If they involved nukes, well that would probably be the end of the world as we know it then, which no one wants, so the invading country would never invade another to begin with.
I am unsure of why everyone is arguing of who would win in a war when its rather obvious...either the aggressor will lose or the entire world will lose and in either case the aggressor is pretty much fucked. Finally a voice of reason. Because it's hip and cool to talk about geopolitics instead of that lame old pacifism. Also, everyone wants to impress everyone else by turning into a military genius. Or maybe, we just like to discuss things. Maybe it's not a dick measuring contest like people keep saying. Maybe your wrong. Maybe some of us do have some meritt and find this topic and ones like it intresting. Well, I was under the impression that this was a thread about a current event rather than another one of the millions of geopolitical china/USA threads where every armchair general has to chime in. Was much more interesting that way too.
Every topic and every thread you could make that argument anytime a topic expands or does to a big picture.
We are all "arm chair"ing
Doesn't make our thoughts and ideas less intresting or worth considering. If you really so offput by it why are you here?
Don't go around insulting people for discussing topics that are intresting to them.
If anything is off topic- what you doing is derailing. And i'm done with you.
PS: Look up the word "Ad hominem"
|
On September 17 2012 04:01 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:45 obesechicken13 wrote:On September 17 2012 03:38 Cambium wrote:
There is no way a war could break out between Japan and China.
China has a lot of options that are much more cost effective than an all out war. An economic sanction, something as trivial as a ban on the export of rare earth metals and restricted tourism could severely damage Japan's already weakened economy that will likely force Japan to succumb to terms with China. There are obviously other more drastic steps China could take, such as an overall ban on trades with Japan, that could have much bigger implications on Asian and global economy as a whole.
China is a powerful nation not only because of its military standings, but more importantly, its economic presence and potential. It's a lot to hope that the only thing preventing human extinction is that every country with nukes acts perfectly reasonably. What does that even mean? Why is suddenly everyone talking about wars and nukes? Are you suggesting China is going to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan over Diaoyutai?
No, I think people are just trying to take things out of portion.
Nukes won't work, due to 'MAD'.
Small armed engagements and chess like maneuvering are the wars of the future.
War evolves as technology evolves.
after all you don't see lines of people with muskets shooting across a field at each other do you?
Nukes are old tech, and won't be used against any opponent who can use them to fire back.
also lastly on the comment of payload delivery systems.
They are irrelevent.
Read George Orwell's 1984 he address payload delivery systems.
|
On September 17 2012 04:01 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:45 obesechicken13 wrote:On September 17 2012 03:38 Cambium wrote:
There is no way a war could break out between Japan and China.
China has a lot of options that are much more cost effective than an all out war. An economic sanction, something as trivial as a ban on the export of rare earth metals and restricted tourism could severely damage Japan's already weakened economy that will likely force Japan to succumb to terms with China. There are obviously other more drastic steps China could take, such as an overall ban on trades with Japan, that could have much bigger implications on Asian and global economy as a whole.
China is a powerful nation not only because of its military standings, but more importantly, its economic presence and potential. It's a lot to hope that the only thing preventing human extinction is that every country with nukes acts perfectly reasonably. What does that even mean? Why is suddenly everyone talking about wars and nukes? Are you suggesting China is going to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan over Diaoyutai?
No, I'm not talking about China or Japan in general or even this situation.
I just worry that our weapons are too dangerous and that as soon as some escalation gets too big there will be no going back.
These discussions always turn into discussions about nukes.
|
Yes, I agree. These discussions always go down some imaginary worst case scenario that are extremely unlikely.
Like I said, China has a lot of other options than an all out nuclear war.
How I see it is that Japan relies on the U.S. for military support. Any strike against Japan will almost guarantee to involve the U.S., which is far from ideal. A simple economic sanction (or simply raise tariffs to ridiculous amounts, something that Japan actually practices on rice imports) on Japan is far more effective and involves only China and Japan, and hence gives no reasons for other countries to interfere. I think even that may be considered 'extreme' by current standards (this is what the world is doing to NK to try to get them to back out of their nuclear programme), and is something that the government wishes to avoid.
|
On September 17 2012 04:03 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:57 Taku wrote:On September 17 2012 03:56 SayGen wrote:On September 17 2012 03:45 CountChocula wrote:On September 17 2012 03:39 NadaSound wrote:On September 17 2012 03:30 Silver777 wrote:
I am not sure why anyone here thinks China could ever conquer Japan or any developed country for that matter due to the sheer amount of treaties involved in every country surrounding China. Invading a developed country without a ridiculously good reason that the rest of the world agrees is a good reason and supports is paramount to declaring war on every other country in the world. Even removing nukes aside that is suicide for that country as their is no way for them to win militarily, let alone economically. If they involved nukes, well that would probably be the end of the world as we know it then, which no one wants, so the invading country would never invade another to begin with.
I am unsure of why everyone is arguing of who would win in a war when its rather obvious...either the aggressor will lose or the entire world will lose and in either case the aggressor is pretty much fucked. Finally a voice of reason. Because it's hip and cool to talk about geopolitics instead of that lame old pacifism. Also, everyone wants to impress everyone else by turning into a military genius. Or maybe, we just like to discuss things. Maybe it's not a dick measuring contest like people keep saying. Maybe your wrong. Maybe some of us do have some meritt and find this topic and ones like it intresting. Well, I was under the impression that this was a thread about a current event rather than another one of the millions of geopolitical china/USA threads where every armchair general has to chime in. Was much more interesting that way too. Every topic and every thread you could make that argument anytime a topic expands or does to a big picture. We are all "arm chair"ing Doesn't make our thoughts and ideas less intresting or worth considering. If you really so offput by it why are you here? Don't go around insulting people for discussing topics that are intresting to them. If anything is off topic- what you doing is derailing. And i'm done with you. PS: Look up the word "Ad hominem"
Go back to the earlier pages. For example this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=369083¤tpage=19#379 See that? Much more interesting discussion. The thread was about the anti-japanese protests, what caused them, why they are reasonable/unreasonable, and the consequences. Now we've got all these people talking about nukes, chinese-american wars, and basically dick waving contests of militaries. Also I'm quite familiar with the term ad hominem, I don't recall ever going after any specific person though, strange.
|
On September 16 2012 06:47 Zahir wrote:
I think Japan should turn the islands over as a gesture of goodwill. They havent done one nice thing for china diplomatically since the end of ww2. And the islands are geographically closer to taiwan than Japan. Japan also signed a treaty saying it would release most of the territory gained in ww2. So I think china has a decent claim, and Japan could go a long way towards mending relations by relinquishing its claim.
I also think handing it over to taiwan would be a brilliant, although politically ruinous, troll move.
Exept the massive development aid that China has recived for 30 years. Its billions of dollars that they have recived. Funny thing is that most Chinese people doesnt even have a clue about it..
|
On September 17 2012 04:00 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:54 Arcanis wrote:Reading pages of uninformed opinions about who would win in a war between China and the US... people talking about China military being strong that only the US military can surpass it. This is a joke, everyone forgets about nukes? Sure the Cold War is over, but the balance of military powers (or better said who can annihilate faster the enemy) hasnt changed. America is still number one, followed by Russia and then the European block of nations, for god sake even Israel has the same number of nukes as China and surely a better payload delivery system. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weaponsA modern all out war wouldnt be fought by fishing ships full of explosives swarming supercarriers, but it would be won in a few days based on who has the better first-strike and second-strike capability and payload delivery system. Right now China pales in comparison to America, Russia and the EU. But feel free to ignore the importance of nukes in today geopolitical balance of powers and continue fantasizing about a World War 2 like scenario with Marines storming islands on the pacific and whatnot.... Nukes won't be launched for land grabs. Nukes won't be fired against any nation that can fire back. Nukes are a deterrent, and are more likely to be used by terrorist, if anyone ever uses one again. if anyone is out-out-touch it would be you thinking about a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario. Might want to look into escalation policies before you spout off against people trying to have a legitimate discussion.
You may be right for some part, but you forget one tiny thing. Remember what happenend in WW2? Japanese soldiers who suicide themselves in huge numbers to prevent "losing"? Hitler, throwing old men and children, even woman into battles which was like a death sentence? On the verge (maybe spelled wrong) of losing, they wont care anymore.
Tell me one thing. Do you think that Hitler would not have used a nuke if he had one? They wont give a fuck about a nuclear war if US/NATO-Troops land on their coast. The only nukes ever fired were a warcrime commited against an already beaten japan, because they could not fire back. When a war folds out in which the US etc are winning, as soon as they dont see a way to win anymore, they will launch. You know why? Because the US could not fire back. Why? Because it would be a warcrime again. You would not hit the guys that launched the nuke, but only civilians. And that shit should lay behind every western country after seeing Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
Edit: of course, if there was a war starting. Which i dont believe.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 17 2012 03:56 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:45 CountChocula wrote:On September 17 2012 03:39 NadaSound wrote:On September 17 2012 03:30 Silver777 wrote:
I am not sure why anyone here thinks China could ever conquer Japan or any developed country for that matter due to the sheer amount of treaties involved in every country surrounding China. Invading a developed country without a ridiculously good reason that the rest of the world agrees is a good reason and supports is paramount to declaring war on every other country in the world. Even removing nukes aside that is suicide for that country as their is no way for them to win militarily, let alone economically. If they involved nukes, well that would probably be the end of the world as we know it then, which no one wants, so the invading country would never invade another to begin with.
I am unsure of why everyone is arguing of who would win in a war when its rather obvious...either the aggressor will lose or the entire world will lose and in either case the aggressor is pretty much fucked. Finally a voice of reason. Because it's hip and cool to talk about geopolitics instead of that lame old pacifism. Also, everyone wants to impress everyone else by turning into a military genius. Or maybe, we just like to discuss things. Maybe it's not a dick measuring contest like people keep saying.Maybe your wrong. Maybe some of us do have some meritt and find this topic and ones like it intresting. On September 17 2012 04:00 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:54 Arcanis wrote:Reading pages of uninformed opinions about who would win in a war between China and the US... people talking about China military being strong that only the US military can surpass it. This is a joke, everyone forgets about nukes? Sure the Cold War is over, but the balance of military powers (or better said who can annihilate faster the enemy) hasnt changed. America is still number one, followed by Russia and then the European block of nations, for god sake even Israel has the same number of nukes as China and surely a better payload delivery system. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weaponsA modern all out war wouldnt be fought by fishing ships full of explosives swarming supercarriers, but it would be won in a few days based on who has the better first-strike and second-strike capability and payload delivery system. Right now China pales in comparison to America, Russia and the EU. But feel free to ignore the importance of nukes in today geopolitical balance of powers and continue fantasizing about a World War 2 like scenario with Marines storming islands on the pacific and whatnot.... Nukes won't be launched for land grabs. Nukes won't be fired against any nation that can fire back. Nukes are a deterrent, and are more likely to be used by terrorist, if anyone ever uses one again. if anyone is out-out-touch it would be you thinking about a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario. Might want to look into escalation policies before you spout off against people trying to have a legitimate discussion.
You see my point. It's less of a discussion than you (and others) trying to say things as matter-of-factly as possible and trying to impress us with your oh-so-great military knowledge when the discussion is supposed to be about anti-Japanese protests in China.
|
On September 17 2012 02:09 Ventris wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 02:02 sephiria wrote:On September 17 2012 01:58 Ventris wrote:On September 17 2012 01:51 sephiria wrote:On September 17 2012 01:39 Ventris wrote:Europe, esp the EU needs to step up soon. America can't hold forever. I agree, but it will depend on how the unification process continues. The current nation states are to small to finance an efficient military able to operate on a global scale and don't really need it for their political agenda. thats plain wrong. If germany would stop pumping money into israel's military or into the infamous 'kampf gegen rechts' the economic strength of germany and a few other key states (UK and France) would enable the EU to build an incredibly strong army. The problem ist that the german population tends to think that military strength is bad. the prestige of being in the army is extremly low. soldiers are mostly regarded as primitive thugs (not my opinion, just what I observed) Without giving up freedom to the EU (which, if done, will in the end give birth to widespread discontent. You cant just break nation states. Sooner or later they will re-emerge) I also think EUstates need to step up and side with Japan and US to balance out the rising power of China. I'm to much german to think you could build a central state in the french modell and centralize all power in Brussels. But some kind of federation could manage the military far more efficient than it is currently done. ok, I guess I misunderstood you. a unified joint chief of staffs board for joined operations (not joined armys) would be a good idea. efficiency during the syrian crisis was quite low. The whole matter was extremley embarrassing for europe I feel. It's been like this since Yugoslavia collapsed and the EU was unable to stop the massacres in the civil war. I'm proud on Europe in many ways, but military affairs are always a shameful thing to watch <.<
there was a civil war in yugoslavia? do tell me more, please.
|
On September 17 2012 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 04:00 SayGen wrote:On September 17 2012 03:54 Arcanis wrote:Reading pages of uninformed opinions about who would win in a war between China and the US... people talking about China military being strong that only the US military can surpass it. This is a joke, everyone forgets about nukes? Sure the Cold War is over, but the balance of military powers (or better said who can annihilate faster the enemy) hasnt changed. America is still number one, followed by Russia and then the European block of nations, for god sake even Israel has the same number of nukes as China and surely a better payload delivery system. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weaponsA modern all out war wouldnt be fought by fishing ships full of explosives swarming supercarriers, but it would be won in a few days based on who has the better first-strike and second-strike capability and payload delivery system. Right now China pales in comparison to America, Russia and the EU. But feel free to ignore the importance of nukes in today geopolitical balance of powers and continue fantasizing about a World War 2 like scenario with Marines storming islands on the pacific and whatnot.... Nukes won't be launched for land grabs. Nukes won't be fired against any nation that can fire back. Nukes are a deterrent, and are more likely to be used by terrorist, if anyone ever uses one again. if anyone is out-out-touch it would be you thinking about a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario. Might want to look into escalation policies before you spout off against people trying to have a legitimate discussion. You may be right for some part, but you forget one tiny thing. Remember what happenend in WW2? Japanese soldiers who suicide themselves in huge numbers to prevent "losing"? Hitler, throwing old men and children, even woman into battles which was like a death sentence? On the verge (maybe spelled wrong) of losing, they wont care anymore. Tell me one thing. Do you think that Hitler would not have used a nuke if he had one? They wont give a fuck about a nuclear war if US/NATO-Troops land on their coast. The only nukes ever fired were a warcrime commited against an already beaten japan, because they could not fire back. When a war folds out in which the US etc are winning, as soon as they dont see a way to win anymore, they will launch. You know why? Because the US could not fire back. Why? Because it would be a warcrime again. You would not hit the guys that launched the nuke, but only civilians. And that shit should lay behind every western country after seeing Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Edit: of course, if there was a war starting. Which i dont believe.
Once total war starts there is no such thing as a war crime.
Nukes are a total war weapon.
This part of the discussion is pointless.
A nuke won't ever be used, even if US or China got hit in their respective homelands.
Now can we move on from Nukes. The whole ideology is flawed.
|
On September 17 2012 03:24 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Zerging carrier task forces is old news. The US Navy's known about it for years and has come up with some kind of doctrine that it thinks will handle it. The Japanese did the same thing in WW2, they didn't just use kamikaze planes and submarines, they used boats as well. Lay down a lot fire and you stop almost all of them.
And a war with China would be for keeps. If they sink a carrier or four, we wouldn't quit.
And, because a war with China would be for keeps, that's why neither side will start one. China's never going to become so much more powerful than the US and our allies that they could just sweep us back to Hawaii no problem. China will become so strong that it won't be possible to beat her except in a total war scenario that is not ever going to be a possibility. I don't share ur optomisim. 5-20 years China will be the leading military power in the East, possibly the world if US keeps downsizing and EU/Russia doesn't pick up the slack.
The Navy is the one force that isn't getting downsized even though not enough ships are being built true.
|
You see my point. It's less of a discussion than you (and others) trying to say things as matter-of-factly as possible and trying to impress us with your oh-so-great military knowledge when the discussion is supposed to be about anti-Japanese protests in China.
Ok lets have a dicussion about math without talking about or using numbers.
What is going on in China-Japan relations affects the entire world- esp the major players as Xspace has already explained.
|
On September 17 2012 04:17 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 06:47 Zahir wrote:
I think Japan should turn the islands over as a gesture of goodwill. They havent done one nice thing for china diplomatically since the end of ww2. And the islands are geographically closer to taiwan than Japan. Japan also signed a treaty saying it would release most of the territory gained in ww2. So I think china has a decent claim, and Japan could go a long way towards mending relations by relinquishing its claim.
I also think handing it over to taiwan would be a brilliant, although politically ruinous, troll move. Exept the massive development aid that China has recived for 30 years. Its billions of dollars that they have recived. Funny thing is that most Chinese people doesnt even have a clue about it..
I thought that wasn't aid but rather war reparations for the fact that Japan leveled much of China to the ground amongst other things. Even then, I don't think those payments were sincere in the fact that if they weren't forced to make them then they wouldn't have. That combined with all the double-speak from parts of the political leadership of Japan in downplaying Japanese warcrimes, it makes sense that Chinese/Korean people don't think it's enough.
|
The way I see it, once you become a sufficiently developed country, basically there are 3 options:
1. No potential enemy/rival in the region
2. Have nukes
3. Ally with a country with nukes
China is 2, Japan is 3 with US being its ally. As long as Japan is not stupid, Japan has to keep US-Japan alliance at all cost. When US-Japan alliance ever ends in, say, 50-100 years time, then I wouldn't be surprised to see China-Japan alliance no matter how difficult it seems from today's situation. I don't see Japan having nukes in the near future because there is no way China accepts it. Therefore, Japan needs either US or China as their partner. Losing US almost automatically means needing China whether they like it or not.
|
On September 17 2012 04:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:24 SayGen wrote:On September 17 2012 03:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Zerging carrier task forces is old news. The US Navy's known about it for years and has come up with some kind of doctrine that it thinks will handle it. The Japanese did the same thing in WW2, they didn't just use kamikaze planes and submarines, they used boats as well. Lay down a lot fire and you stop almost all of them.
And a war with China would be for keeps. If they sink a carrier or four, we wouldn't quit.
And, because a war with China would be for keeps, that's why neither side will start one. China's never going to become so much more powerful than the US and our allies that they could just sweep us back to Hawaii no problem. China will become so strong that it won't be possible to beat her except in a total war scenario that is not ever going to be a possibility. I don't share ur optomisim. 5-20 years China will be the leading military power in the East, possibly the world if US keeps downsizing and EU/Russia doesn't pick up the slack. The Navy is the one force that isn't getting downsized even though not enough ships are being built true.
I heard it straight from the mouth of a 4 star that we were losing 120K soliders over the next 2 years.
The Airforce for example has already lost 30 and we are losing another 10 this next fiscal year.
I was offered an early exit if I wanted from my commission as an active duty airforce member.
We are downsizing all branches, the Army getting the worst of it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/07/inside-obama-s-pentagon-downsizing-more-drones-smaller-military.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
