- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
More irreverent talk of military escalation over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute…
Sooo this means if Japan goes to war (we all know they cant be the initiator after WW2), then US might step in to defend Japan? Why would US defend Japan? Regardless, this will end up in retardedness and hurt us Yankees in China.
Sooo this means if Japan goes to war (we all know they cant be the initiator after WW2), then US might step in to defend Japan? Why would US defend Japan? Regardless, this will end up in retardedness and hurt us Yankees in China.
Sooo this means if Japan goes to war (we all know they cant be the initiator after WW2), then US might step in to defend Japan? Why would US defend Japan? Regardless, this will end up in retardedness and hurt us Yankees in China.
China will ceaselessly provoke but China’s growth is heavily reliant on the rest of the world, a war just doesn’t make sense. Plus, all of China’s ships would be sunk within a day.
About a month ago Chinese media reported that they had successfully landed aircraft on the Liaoning, their first aircraft carrier, which is a 30 year old Soviet-era ship that was bought at auction. It was purchased in 1998 under the pretext of being retrofitted as a floating casino, before it was turned into a makeshift aircraft carrier. Compare that to the 10 Nimitz-class “supercarriers” which the US has patrolling the entire globe, the most recent of which is only 3 years old. China is many things, but it’s not stupid.
Quote:Sooo this means if Japan goes to war (we all know they cant be the initiator after WW2), then US might step in to defend Japan? Why would US defend Japan?Yup. The US is bounded by treaty to defend Japan.
China will ceaselessly provoke but China’s growth is heavily reliant on the rest of the world, a war just doesn’t make sense. Plus, all of China’s ships would be sunk within a day.
About a month ago Chinese media reported that they had successfully landed aircraft on the Liaoning, their first aircraft carrier, which is a 30 year old Soviet-era ship that was bought at auction. It was purchased in 1998 under the pretext of being retrofitted as a floating casino, before it was turned into a makeshift aircraft carrier. Compare that to the 10 Nimitz-class “supercarriers” which the US has patrolling the entire globe, the most recent of which is only 3 years old. China is many things, but it’s not stupid.
Quote:Sooo this means if Japan goes to war (we all know they cant be the initiator after WW2), then US might step in to defend Japan? Why would US defend Japan?Yup. The US is bounded by treaty to defend Japan.
Let’s see, US economy is tanking right now, due to ‘physical cliffs’ talk, yea you read that right.. physical… That alone will create a recession world wide (if no deal is reached), but US will be really effected. If it’s a war that is not for resources, then US will be in debt like they were in WW2, but this time, no selling of govt bonds can bail them out. Overall, it’s quite stupid if US were to go into war, but yea, a piece of sheet ‘treaty’ is suffice vs the stability of the world….
Let’s see, US economy is tanking right now, due to ‘physical cliffs’ talk, yea you read that right.. physical… That alone will create a recession world wide (if no deal is reached), but US will be really effected. If it’s a war that is not for resources, then US will be in debt like they were in WW2, but this time, no selling of govt bonds can bail them out. Overall, it’s quite stupid if US were to go into war, but yea, a piece of sheet ‘treaty’ is suffice vs the stability of the world….
War wont happen. A few skirmishes at worst, but for war to happen, one side must be convinced it can win; or one side must fear not entering war; and sides entering a war must feel they can survive it (otherwise surrender comes).
China, the US, and Japan have a lot of bilateral trade to be lost, they wont war on this basis alone. The rocky islets are about resources (geography is a resource, regardless whether specific resources have been proved to be within). What allows the issue to be disputed is that most of these islets were never properly governed in the past, and depending what approach you use, most sides can make claims. This means everybody creates an argument that stands on its own merits, but no-one can tally up with the others.
War though? Its not likely, but journalists rarely get paid to write an article that says “probably nothing will happen, so read something else”… haha
War wont happen. A few skirmishes at worst, but for war to happen, one side must be convinced it can win; or one side must fear not entering war; and sides entering a war must feel they can survive it (otherwise surrender comes).
China, the US, and Japan have a lot of bilateral trade to be lost, they wont war on this basis alone. The rocky islets are about resources (geography is a resource, regardless whether specific resources have been proved to be within). What allows the issue to be disputed is that most of these islets were never properly governed in the past, and depending what approach you use, most sides can make claims. This means everybody creates an argument that stands on its own merits, but no-one can tally up with the others.
War though? Its not likely, but journalists rarely get paid to write an article that says “probably nothing will happen, so read something else”… haha
I think the deal with the treaty between the US and Japan (which the US wanted) was basically this: If you (Japan) promise (in your constitution, no less) to get rid of all your defense forces and most of your weapons (and never build nuclear weapons), we (the US) promise to protect you.
Not that I would know, but it seems to have worked rather well for the last several decades (i.e., no Japanese aggression against its much poorer, much less powerful but much more resource-rich neighbors).
Ironically, now it is the US who would prefer it if Japan took a more active role in its own defense but all these years later the Japanese public is overwhelmingly pacifist and distrustful of the military so it’s kind of hard to get them to sign off.
I don’t for one moment think this would ever escalate to full blown conflict, for the reasons mentioned above and more.
What would be distressing is if Japan were to enter into an era of military fortification, something that the US may be only too happy to see happen. Weapons manufacturers love new customers!
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.