/ War with China

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
woolsack - on 28 Nov 2013
Anyone care to speculate if this situation will escalate or whether it will just simmer away for years like this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-25144465
henwardian - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

Best to assume it won't escalate properly. No sense worrying about a nuclear world war, it's not like you can do anything about it or even hide from it.

I recon China is governed by people who are sensible and conservative enough to stop short of a proper war and for the forseeable future, the USA is going to be far to busy either threatening, preparing for or actually invading countries in the middle east.

I'd worry much more about the war between Israel and Iran, much closer to home and probably only a matter of time. If you want to fear a state with nuclear power, it's Israel every time for my money. Religious extremism at it's most dangerous.
biped - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to henwardian:

Agreed but I'd say it's more ultra-nationalism rather than religious extremism.
David Martin - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

Can't see the point in it escalating. I'd imagine both sides are trying it on, not willing to cede ground, seeing if they can emphasize their primacy over the islands' airspace. The fallout from any bloodletting, even if it was just a plane or drone shot down would be so economically costly for both sides that it would be far from their intentions. And if it did come to that, an escalation to all out war would be akin to WWI over Archduke's death all over again.
Ben Sharp - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to David Martin:

That's how war starts though isn't it, an unlikely event. I agree with everyone whose said that no one wants war. That in itself makes it very unlikely, because both sides will try and avoid it. But yeah, a mistake, miscomunication, a plane coming down, suspicion, reaction and you have a war. Not saying it's going to happen but any instability or power play lay the grounds for an unlikely event or mistake to lead to it.
Bruce Hooker - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

Did you see this on Tuesday:

"US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25110011

That Japan and Taiwan have planes in the area is perhaps understandable, but these B52s were several thousand miles from home - it could only be a deliberate provocation. It looks like the US swing from the Middle East to the Pacific basin is hotting up.
Tom Last - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

Looks a bit chossy, not even any real lines - can't see the point really.
paul mitchell - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to Tom Last:

I lived in N East China for a while,teaching English in Shandong.
There was no crisis while I was there,but they had jets in the air near the coast,24/7.

Mitch
AJM - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Or a deliberate testing of China's provocation, I suppose. Plenty of analysis about suggesting that the announcement of this zone was a test to see what the US would do about it and how strongly they would stick by Japan, given it covers lots of those disputed islets.
ice.solo - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

This is a slow boil border dispute. Its disturbing that china already has hotter border issues along almost all its borders that have escalated in the last few years but go unreported.
Whats the worry is chinas refusal to take the matter to the appropriate internatioal bodies.

US flights in the zone are normal (they were US territory till the late 60s), and the US has ongoing security agreements with SK and japan. China showed no interest in the islands until possible gas reserves were identified. Japan and the US monitored shipping safety for decades under maritime law whilst china contributed zero.

If china has serious claims then process exists. Making up boundaries arbitarily is roguism.
ice.solo - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to Ben Sharp:

Good points.
Only a few months ago china locked armed response targetting systems onto 2 japan coast guard planes.
It was claimed to be accidental, which i personally find just as much a worry.
paul mitchell - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

US missile attack on Chinese embassy,Belgrade 1999.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/...

I was in China at the time.I made a point of telling the locals I was NOT American.I did not leave my flat for 3 days after that.

Mitch
paul mitchell - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

maybe this link will work...



Washingtonpost.com: Missiles Hit Chinese Embassy

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/...

08/05/1999 Firefighters surround the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, after it was reportedly hit by NATO cruise missiles. (AP)
pavelk - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

Agree. Japan is resolut to protect Sengoku island and there is real risk of conflict. There is no hot line between Tokio and Pyongyang and any small incident could escalate.
There are doubts whether Chinese army is under full control of politburo which makes situation even more confused
David Martin - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to Ben Sharp:

I think the difference is that skirmishes between super-powers are only likely to boil over in to full scale war if one side feels a very strong military advantage or a sure win or if one side feels its back is to the wall.

Can't see either side in this feeling militarily secure, before or after any conflict, neither is really threatened, and even if one side was to win militarily, economically they'd probably end up in the stone age.
Bruce Hooker - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

> Whats the worry is chinas refusal to take the matter to the appropriate internatioal bodies.

Perhaps because it thinks these bodies are not impartial? It's hard to deny this objectively.

> US flights in the zone are normal (they were US territory till the late 60s),

A long way from Kansas then! Do you mean they were colonies? In which case this land grabbing hardly justifies their continued presence - one of the first thing the UN did was pass resolutions to put an end to colonialism.

> China showed no interest in the islands until possible gas reserves were identified.

A bit like the British in the Malvinas then :-) It's pretty obvious that there will be many disputes in the future concerning mineral rights on the ocean beds. At least these islands are near China, a lot more justifiable than many US claims, British and French too. Why is there always one rule for the West and another for the rest of the world?


David Martin - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> A long way from Kansas then! Do you mean they were colonies?

In B52 terms, its a mere hop from Guam and anywhere around Okinawa is pretty much the US' back doorstep.

As much as the US presence there is despised by many and the target of much protest, there is not shortage of ganguro birds loitering around the bases only too happy to enjoy the western ways.

Definitely a love-hate relationship. I don't think we can put the US presence down entirely to the wishes of the US against that of Japan.
Skip - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

> Making up boundaries arbitarily is roguism.

Surely the arbitrary making up of boundaries/borders has been the norm for the whole of history.
ice.solo - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

whilst i agree the dispute tribulal may not be ideally impartial, im not seeing a better option. several precedents exist in the region for peaceful solutions (tho slow). examples are japan/koreas disputes over islands, japan/russians disputes over the kurils.
it makes sense that favour would go to the country that provides the better case, which includes contributions to maritime safety and free passage.

nothing to do with kansas. the islands are part of okinawa prefecture, which the US annexed after the war to prevent japan from terrorizing asia again, and to safeguard major shipping routes. at that time china had no navy and japans was dismantled.
not a colony as it was never colonized, unlike some other island outposts in the region where small bases are manned to provide presence.

i have no idea about the malvinas. have never been there and dont follow the matter.
but yes, there will be disputes, tho unilateral territory grabs against international law (not just a nations law as is often the case) is not the way forward.
the US doesnt have any claim to the islands, japan does. the tokyo govt owns them (until recently a billionaire did) as a territory of okinawa. the US only is involved because it has agreements over japans security and because they lay under flight paths.
chinas claim is based on obscure ancient stories, with them citing historical sovereignty - despite ignoring sovereignty of others elsewhere such as tibet, kashmir, mongolia and turkestan etc.
ice.solo - on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to Skip:

agreed it has, but over the last few decades numerous diplomatic solutions have been organized that supercede the thuggish methods china is attempting to use.
Graeme Alderson on 28 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> A bit like the British in the Malvinas then :-)

Stop being a dick Bruce.
Dispater on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

The Chinese deep fry puppies while they're alive. Because the adrenaline and stress hormones make them taste nicer.
Nuke the effin lot of em, I say.

War is looming, wtf you think, so let's sort em out now before we're all speaking Mandarin.

r0x0r.wolfo - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> A bit like the British in the Malvinas then :-) It's pretty obvious that there will be many disputes in the future concerning mineral rights on the ocean beds. At least these islands are near China, a lot more justifiable than many US claims, British and French too. Why is there always one rule for the West and another for the rest of the world?

You mean the Falklands right? The islands have been British for hundreds of years. Discovered by Britain first, colonised before even Argentina's predecessor Spain. Spain was not in de facto control of the island when Argentina declared independence, thus Argentina can not claim uti possidetis juris (i.e the islands being 'passed on' to Argentina from Spain).

I get it, lets all take a stance against colonialism, although it's really ironic we're talking about a Spanish ex colony, a country who's ancestors totally eradicated the native indigenous population of South America.

There was no indigenous population before the British people that live there now. As the first settled population of the islands they are the indigenous population of those islands, and the attack by Argentina was an attempt to exert control of a foreign settled population. Or in other words a scruffy attempt at Imperialism.
teflonpete - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:

> The Chinese deep fry puppies while they're alive. Because the adrenaline and stress hormones make them taste nicer.

> Nuke the effin lot of em, I say.

> War is looming, wtf you think, so let's sort em out now before we're all speaking Mandarin.

Surely if we nuked the effin lot of them, we'd nuke all the puppies too.
teflonpete - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> You mean the Falklands right?


Don't feed the troll!
The New NickB - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:

> The Chinese deep fry puppies while they're alive. Because the adrenaline and stress hormones make them taste nicer.

> Nuke the effin lot of em, I say.

> War is looming, wtf you think, so let's sort em out now before we're all speaking Mandarin.

Classy
teflonpete - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

> Classy

with the faintest whiff of xenophobic nutterism.
GrendeI on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

It will probably simmer away for years until they come to a conclusion such as that of the Norwegians and Russians in the Barents and just split it all in half... Although with significantly more imperialistic willy waving I imagine.
TonyG - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> As much as the US presence there is despised by many and the target of much protest, there is not shortage of ganguro birds loitering around the bases only too happy to enjoy the western ways.


Well, thank god that government policy in Japan exists to make sure that a handful of country teenage girls get a shag! What a bizarre take you have on the way things work over here... But that's okay, you know the word "ganguro" so you must be an expert :)

David Martin - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to TonyG:
Would you deny that the US presence is mutually beneficial? The US gets its power projection, a plethora of useful bases and the hefty might of the JSF, while ensuring the pacifist constitution could be enforced and communism could be kept at bay. The Japanese get to abide by the document, are ensured a powerful ally against any Chinese or North Korean agro, as well as a arbiter in their testy relations with South Korea.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. But to label the arrangement as neo-colonialism isn't exactly accurate in my opinion. The American presence in Guam or Diego Garcia would be an example of colonialism, and the share number of forces and facilities in Okinawa is touchy. But the underlying security arrangement with Japan isn't.
Post edited at 13:12
drunken monkey - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

the yanks have B-52's based in Guam which is not far from the area in question.

Does appear to be a bit of muscle flexing from the USA though.
Dispater on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to teflonpete:
I'd rather be nuked than deep fried.
Dispater on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to teflonpete:
Only faint?

:(
teflonpete - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:

> I'd rather be nuked than deep fried.

So would I. I signed the Change.org petition at the beginning of the week when I first heard about the live dog boiling / deep frying thing.

Still think that nuking everyone in China is a bit over the top though.
Richard Carter - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to teflonpete:

I'm sorry, is this dog thing true?!?!?
Choss on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Richard Carter:

> I'm sorry, is this dog thing true?!?!?

Sadly it is.

I raised a fair bit of money for animals Asia this last summer. They Rescue moon bears From god awful bear bile farms and run sanctuaries for them.

They are also Changing attitudes to dog and cat Meat Trade in a big way.

Seems to be working, and Spreading in all south east Asia.

Didnt occur to me to just nuke em all!
teflonpete - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Richard Carter:

> I'm sorry, is this dog thing true?!?!?

No idea. If it isn't then I can't see what harm signing a petition for it to stop is going to do. To be honest, if it is true, I can't really see what good signing a petition is going to do either. :0(
David Martin - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Richard Carter:

Don't we do it to lobsters though?
teflonpete - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> Don't we do it to lobsters though?

We do, and I think that's wrong too, that's why I don't eat them. I'd be quite happy to sign a petition against live lobster boiling so I don't think that signing a petition against live animal boiling in another country is hypocritical.
Choss on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to David Martin:

> Don't we do it to lobsters though?

Thats Becoming increasingly Recognised as unacceptable as well.

ads.ukclimbing.com
drunken monkey - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Choss:

Is it better to put them in a freezer first?
Choss on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to drunken monkey:

Better to Leave them where they Belong.

But ill play your Game. If you absolutely have to eat them, best to kill them outright, or as Near as. sharp Heavy knife Separate brain From body. Brain stays Alive for a short While, but at Least its getting no pain signals From rest of its now Deceased body.
drunken monkey - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Choss:

No game here. I thought the Norweigans had [somehow] proven that they cannot feel pain.
Timmd on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to drunken monkey:

> No game here. I thought the Norweigans had [somehow] proven that they cannot feel pain.

How do Norwegians manage not to?
Timmd on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to drunken monkey:

(;-))

(some text)
Dr.S at work - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to drunken monkey:

> No game here. I thought the Norweigans had [somehow] proven that they cannot feel pain.

That is a spectacularly difficult thing to prove.

I think there is some evidence that crustaceans can feel pain, and there are certainly better ways to kill lobsters...
http://crustastun.com/science-research.html
Dispater on 29 Nov 2013
In reply

> Didnt occur to me to just nuke em all!

Just a bit of lateral thinking. That and their increasing militarisation, which frighteningly mirrors Germany in the 1930s.

Two birds with one stone, sorta thing.

David Martin - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:

Or perhaps they are simply creating a military force in line with their size, wealth and global influence?

Granted, it would be nicer if no one else was as militarily powerful as us. But its a bit unrealistic to expect those who are bigger to agree.

Rather than being unhappy with the Chinese for it, perhaps you should take your ire out on our shopping habits and retailer's choice of supply chain - both have essentially funded this military emergence.
Dispater on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to David Martin:

Perhaps you shouldn't assume I need you to tell me how to suck eggs?
Bruce Hooker - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

I don't think we should open this debate again, ukc is well known for being a hive of British Colonial nostalgics most of whom believe the fairy tale you have just posted, but coming back to the actual subject, I don't think anyone would deny that the British revival of interest in the Malvinas is linked to oil finds and the general growing awareness of the importance of sea bed mineral rights, they were on the point of handing them back to Argentina not that long before. At present we are in the rather absurd position whereby a country with claims to many little rocks, can, by the enormous extension of territorial waters over the last few decades, lay claim to huge areas of fishing and mineral rights. My point is that the old colonial powers like Britain and France are milking this windfall gain to the hilt but appear to get upset when other nations attempt to do the same.

I don't think this will end in war, despite the usual US brinkmanship - they really didn't need to send two B52s to deliberately fly over a dispute lump of rock, did they? China, unlike the USA, Britain, France and the rest of the NATO rogue states has not gone to war outside it's territories for quite a while. The difference is that now they are showing that they will no longer allow themselves to be pushed about by countries with imperial ambitions as they had to in the past. The world is changing, for the better in many ways, and we had all better realise this... declining colonial powers will not be able to play the bully boys for much longer.
drunken monkey - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Oi! Hooker!! We're talking about lobsters dammit
highclimber - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to drunken monkey:

> the yanks have B-52's based in Guam which is not far from the area in question.

> Does appear to be a bit of muscle flexing from the USA though.

Maybe they could sing Love shack and they could all have a dance around!
Bruce Hooker - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to drunken monkey:

Sorry, I didn't realise that the title: "War with China", was a coded reference to lobsters. Now I know I can add a contribution, I was always told when a child that being boiled alive was a nice way to go... They are just lolled to sleep as the water warms up. Crabs, on the other hand, must be spiked to kill them before cooking. I don't why. To be fair those who told me this made their living fishing so they may not be the best sources of information.
ice.solo - on 29 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:

> In reply

> Just a bit of lateral thinking. That and their increasing militarisation, which frighteningly mirrors Germany in the 1930s.

Id be interested to hear this and the fried dog thing explained a bit more clearly.

After 20 years studying and nearly 15 years working and travelling in china ive not noticed either.

aln - on 30 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I don't think we should open this debate again

Yet, again, you did.

PeakDJ on 30 Nov 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

> Id be interested to hear this and the fried dog thing explained a bit more clearly.

> After 20 years studying and nearly 15 years working and travelling in china ive not noticed either.

I agree.

Yes, the customs and system of government are different here to what we are used to. I am sure the dog-frying thing involves a very small minority amongst over 1.3 billion people.

Take the percentage of people involved and I bet it's fairly small. That doesn't make it right, but it's probably less than the number of people producing foie gras in France and boiling live lobster in England. Both could be considered equally cruel.

As an aside: Before I came here to live I was told by many that Chinese people are generally rude, Chinese cities are filthy and that the internet is so heavily policed I would have trouble accessing many sites. After admittedly only a few months here much of this seems like total bollocks for much of the time. The cities are clean, the people are just different in the way they interact (but not necessarily rude) and many people who want to use the internet freely can do so without too much trouble.

Don't believe everything you read about countries you don't really know. I am pretty sure there is an element of propaganda both ways.
Richard Carter - on 30 Nov 2013
In reply to David Martin:

"Don't we do it to lobsters though?"

You might, but I don't :-P
r0x0r.wolfo - on 30 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> but coming back to the actual subject, I don't think anyone would deny that the British revival of interest in the Malvinas is linked to oil finds and the general growing awareness of the importance of sea bed mineral rights, they were on the point of handing them back to Argentina not that long before.

What revival of interest? You're not talking about the political gesturing from Cristina the last few years? Got to take minds of that economy my friend, not to say Cameron didn't profit here also. There were discussions before the war but the islanders quite vehemently opposed it so any idea of a handover was scrapped. Seems fair enough to me.

At present we are in the rather absurd position whereby a country with claims to many little rocks, can, by the enormous extension of territorial waters over the last few decades, lay claim to huge areas of fishing and mineral rights. My point is that the old colonial powers like Britain and France are milking this windfall gain to the hilt but appear to get upset when other nations attempt to do the same.

I suppose the whole idea of idea of arbitrarily splitting up land and resources must be quite strange following this logic. Who are Britain and France mad at?

> I don't think this will end in war, despite the usual US brinkmanship - they really didn't need to send two B52s to deliberately fly over a dispute lump of rock, did they? China, unlike the USA, Britain, France and the rest of the NATO rogue states has not gone to war outside it's territories for quite a while. The difference is that now they are showing that they will no longer allow themselves to be pushed about by countries with imperial ambitions as they had to in the past. The world is changing, for the better in many ways, and we had all better realise this... declining colonial powers will not be able to play the bully boys for much longer.

I thought we're talking about sea territory here and not a particular 'lump of rock'. I get the feeling that the U.S patrols were a regular feature anyway, happy to be corrected here. China has had it's moments of bullying others not to mention it's piss poor humanitarian record, but quality of life for so many is improving and I hope they will settle into their superpower role in years to come. Anyway as far as laying claim to this stretch of water, isn't it a South Korea, Japan and China dispute? America arent flying through to assert sovereignity but I'm sure you know this.

wintertree - on 30 Nov 2013
In reply to woolsack:

This border dispute does not worry to much - it seems like classic posturing to test the limits of each others resolve. Perhaps the USA is less likely to suck up the almost inevitable aircraft losses that result from the misunderstandings and tensions these things invoke.

The China/Ladakh and China/Siberia incursions are, I think, more likely war triggers. As well as more resources than these islands there is land - potentially lots of land - to be had.
Bruce Hooker - on 30 Nov 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> America arent flying through to assert sovereignty but I'm sure you know this.

The USA, America as a whole is not involved, most definitely are flying over to do just this, to reassert their sovereignty over the whole planet. It is a dispute between Asian neighbours and yet the yanks really can't resist a flagrant provocation, interfering and envenoming things just because they thing it is their god given right to do this. In past centuries we British did the same, now the USA continues the good old tradition.
ads.ukclimbing.com
ice.solo - on 30 Nov 2013
In reply to wintertree:

> The China/Ladakh and China/Siberia incursions are, I think, more likely war triggers. As well as more resources than these islands there is land - potentially lots of land - to be had.

insightful. few have ever heard of these conflicts - including the chinese population. i wonder how much the hype over the dispute with japan is given rev to rally the hillbillies and divert attention to much more volatile scenarios.

id add to siberia/aksai qin the incursions in 'south west tibet' where india and china dispute the borders with sikkim and arunachal (in a tripartate scenario where the locals dont want to be occupied by either, sikkim being semi-autonomous already) often violently. only about a year ago things flared with the chinese and indians exchanging shell fire.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.