EPTVietnam in live-fire drill amid South China Sea - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
Empyrean
16934 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote: 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. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
Way too much more to lose than to gain for China. This is not the 1900's, these country are important economic partners. | ||
|
Empyrean
16934 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:06 VIB wrote: I bet my left kidney + my right ball that there will be no war. Way too much more to lose than to gain for China. For both sides, actually. I realistically don't see China going into any armed conflict in the foreseeable future. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:04 Empyrean wrote: 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. Yep, I agree to that as well. US and China will not risk an actual conflict with each other. But they won't not risk giving out this area without doing anything. We are talking about war, but not actual war, I think diplomatic war between all parties involved and their allies will be fierce though. And this diplomatic war has been going on for quite sometime now. Last year Hillary Clinton was in Hanoi for no reason at all, and she stated that US wants the South China Sea region to be a peaceful region. Japan also wants to prevent anything will happen in the SCS cos its the main shipping line to supply oil and material for Japan. | ||
|
Empyrean
16934 Posts
It's my honest opinion that in modern society, conflict between major powers would be devastating to everyone, so no one wants to risk it. Armed "Wars" nowadays are usually either conflicts between (and I hate to use the term, but...) minor nations or a major power and a smaller one. | ||
c3rberUs
Japan11285 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. So you mean, because Vietnam is doing this drill, China doesn't care about the Philippine claim to the islands (at least right now), correct? edit: nvm, just saw you answer the other guy. ^^ | ||
|
vohne
Philippines197 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote: Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome. | ||
|
kdmx
United States23 Posts
| ||
|
Turenne
331 Posts
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this Please tell me this is a troll post. | ||
|
vohne
Philippines197 Posts
IMO it will not escalate to a war, the possibility is remote. US is in a defense treaty with the Philippines and its ambassador has already reiterated this over the past few days. US is also sending one of its powerful destroyer class vessels into the South China Sea. What I think will happen is a surge of anti-Chinese sentiment in the SEA. Hopefully China weighs this one out properly, and of course, Philippines and Vietnam too. | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:59 Empyrean wrote: 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. Of course the United States would not enlarge it to a cross pacific scale. The US and China are both Nuclear Powers, with enough ICBMs aimed at each other to obliterate all human life on Earth in a matter of minutes. If the US involved itself, it would be in the reverse of the role the Soviet Union played in the US invasion of Vietnam: war by proxy. It would be massive military aid. Of course China is too smart to start a direct regional conflict: the resulting economic sanctions would cripple their development. Much as we in the west are dependent on Chinese imports, China is dependent on foreign exports. The difference is that cheap labor is easy to come by, the western multinational companies can just as easily find their cheap labor in India and South America. Rich importers of manufactured goods are much harder to find. Even sanctions as small as a tariff sanction by NATO would be a huge blow to the Chinese economy. The NATO economies would suffer too, but China's developing economy would have far more to lose. Even more terrifying for China, is the fact they they are literally dependent on US food exports. The trade balance for food vs the US is 10 billion dollars. If the US decided to play dirty and cut off food exports, in conjunction with the other NATO food exporters, the resulting humanitarian crisis would be one of the worst in world history. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 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 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. You might be right, but we are talking about maritime dispute, you do not need to occupy a big piece of land to achieve that. Also consider that the general chinese population are different to the americans, where state propaganda has been going well, with a history of past conflicts, you'd find way more people supporting the governament actions than than the anti war ones. China definitely won't find shortage of good soldiers either. In China, to be part of a military is a privilege. Only the top men gets to join because of how large the population is, it is slightly different to the US where some people joined the army as second way out. | ||
|
vohne
Philippines197 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:16 kdmx wrote: Superpower has been thrown around a lot in this thread, and apparently having a huge army means you're a superpower now. China is not a superpower. The US is a superpower. The reason being is that they can project their military might anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. No other country in the world can do this. The US navy is more powerful than all the navies of the world combined. They have 11 aircraft carriers currently in service. China has 0 carriers, (I think they are currently building 1). China is not a superpower in the militaristic sense, while you may think this is all that matters, in this situation, it isn't. China's economic might and growing political clout will be useful as it conducts their affairs in the SEA. And also put things in relative terms. To the US and Europe, China is not a military superpower. In the eyes of the smaller SEA nations, it is. It is all relative. | ||
|
b0lt
United States788 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:15 vohne wrote: Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome. Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. | ||
|
c3rberUs
Japan11285 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:22 vohne wrote: China is not a superpower in the militaristic sense, while you may think this is all that matters, in this situation, it isn't. China's economic might and growing political clout will be useful as it conducts their affairs in the SEA. And also put things in relative terms. To the US and Europe, China is not a military superpower. In the eyes of the smaller SEA nations, it is. It is all relative. I think this is what you're saying is this Great Power | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:22 vohne wrote: China is not a superpower in the militaristic sense, while you may think this is all that matters, in this situation, it isn't. China's economic might and growing political clout will be useful as it conducts their affairs in the SEA. And also put things in relative terms. To the US and Europe, China is not a military superpower. In the eyes of the smaller SEA nations, it is. It is all relative. Normally the word to describe this is regional power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_power | ||
|
c3rberUs
Japan11285 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote: Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality. | ||
|
vohne
Philippines197 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote: Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. Look at any map of SEA with Spratley Islands, you will see that the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam are the countries closest to these Islands. "The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines and Malaysia (Sabah), about one third of the way from there to southern Vietnam." Feel free to do the research, and check some maps out. The spratley islands closest to the Philippines could be almost swimmable from the closest land area in the Philippines rofl. | ||
|
vohne
Philippines197 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:33 c3rberUs wrote: Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality. Oh yeah, didn't see the map from the OP rofl. GG. | ||
| ||
