All Asian Maritime Disputes

That was relevant. However, this:

And this:

were not relevant.

Opinion article: China and Japan could go to war over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, even if it meant economic ruin.

edited 11th Dec '13 3:55:00 PM by Quag15

What I find...eerie about people who say "oh, two great globalized nations will never go to war with each other" is that people said the same things in 1914. That is perhaps part of the reason WWI was so traumatic for many in Western Europe: people saw WWII coming a mile away, whilst WWI was - from the perspective of an ordinary European - a thunderbolt from a clear sky.

Just because we see these disputes coming, doesn't mean it 'makes sense' for conflicts to happen, regardless of scale.

Though I'll have to add that in this case it's a bit different: the PRC does not have a big list of (powerful) allies that it can drag into a war against Japan/US, whereas US is more likely to drag her allies into helping out with a war against the PRC. So it's probably going to hurt economically on a global scale, but most likely not going to be as traumatic as WWI.

Especially if the Ro C took this opportunity to take the mainland back with US backing, which is something that US would probably push for as well.

...A Taiwanese conquest of China, at this point?

That makes no sense. It made sense when the KMT was a warlord dictatorship, but now the ROC is a modern democratic republic with established governmental infrastructure tailored to governing the island of Taiwan and its possessions. It is not set up for suddenly absorbing a land area about the size of the US and a billion people, who all have very different governmental, economic and even cultural expectations.

The merger of the two would be revolutionary for both parties. It wouldn't be a simple "take back China."

At this point with the same status quo? Of course not.

But when the all possible US/Japan war with the PRC is over, it is entirely possible, assuming that US and Japan (along with US allies) all come and end up crushing the PRC. The US would want to establish a government that is going to be on her side and what easier way there can be than to prop up the Ro C?

edited 12th Dec '13 10:52:10 PM by IraTheSquire

Thing is, would the world want to acknowledge that massive dick move just because of a maritime conflict? I seemed to have stated that USA has no moral resources left whatsoever to wage another battle, let alone a war. Japan has no moral resources in Asia after its defeat in WWII.

The world won't acknowledge another "Eight Nations Army" at this point, especially when both USA and Japan are neck deep in deficits

@Ira: "Propping up" the ROC sounds more like something you'd do in a game than in reality. Again, what are you going to do, just tell Taipei "hey, you have responsibility for governing the territory once held under PRC control, and it's your job to figure out how the hell China will transition to democracy, elect its leaders, et cetera"?

This is, of course, assuming that Taiwan would be interested in even being a part of China once this was all done, which there is absolutely no consensus in favor of.

Trust me, the last thing the US wants is any sort of war with the PRC. we get too much stuff from them and our economies are too tied together. Even if we won the actual shooting war, which we probably would but it would cost too much in time, money and lives, any occupation would make Iraq and Afghanistan combined look like a tea party.

Thing is, if the PRC is going to go to war with Japan and US it's going to be defeated to the point of collapsing. Somebody has to take care to the mainland someone once the communists fall.

My own guess is that China's military will reach the point where it can give the US a credible fight at just about the same time the whole unwieldy political-economic system starts to really come apart. I would say another 5-10 years. I just hope that whoever is running things at the time doesn't come up with the idea that a war is just what they need to rally the nation behind them.

edited 13th Dec '13 4:39:11 PM by tricksterson

A Chinese amphibious dock ship crossed in front of the USS Cowpens, and then halted, 500 yards from each other, in international waters (West Philippine Sea) which the Chinese claims is "Chinese waters".

US media article

Philippine media article

Moral resources? Well, if the USA and Japan have zero moral resources, China must be in the negative already.

@Quag15: I don't know how that is suddenly irrelevant when that's part of the reason they're disputing things now. The Chinese were quiet with the Philippines until 1991. Then in 1995, the first of their "land grabbing" happened. So it just became obvious that without the US bases, their held belief that we are just a "country of servants" went to the forefront.

edited 13th Dec '13 8:56:36 PM by entropy13

I wonder if China is trying to persuade Japan or the US to enter into a 'blink and you'll lose' game, in order to grant them more international clout.

Also, USS Cowpens and China’s First-Mover Advantage:

And:

I was pointing out to the WWII analogy you made and the whole "DVD thing in Hong Kong" stuff I quoteblocked. Of course you can talk about the Nineties tensions between China and the Philippines, just don't put WWII or the atrocities by the CCP in the mix of this thread, that's all. And besides, don't worry, you're not solely responsible for the whole off-topic thing that happened in the previous page. I just warned everyone in order to avoid bad discussions, so don't get me wrong.

edited 13th Dec '13 9:04:32 PM by Quag15

China’s Contradictory Foreign Policy.

Posted because of the multiple references to the ADIZs.

edited 16th Dec '13 8:52:37 AM by Quag15

A comparison between the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute and Cold War Berlin. Despite its differences, of course.

Damn shame "Ram the fuckers" is considered distasteful now.

Though I'm fairly sure Right of way dictates that the chinese would be in the wrong...

A Three-Pronged Approach to the ADIZ.

East China Sea ADIZ: A Turning Point in US-China Relations?

The latest Economist has an article that compares the China situation to WWI, with China playing the role of (who else?) Germany, Japan as France, and the US as Great Britain. The parallels are not exact, they note.

Of course, the likelihood of an all-out war is very low. The Chinese goal is to break out of the string of semi-hostile powers and US allies that have them cut off from direct access to the Pacific Ocean. They are smart enough to go for a long-term, incremental approach. There is some danger of a small scale incident, I think.

Wasn't the start of WW 1 a 'small incident'?

That Germany proceeded to try to take advantage of due to its own regional insecurity, yes. I know the common thesis is that the alliance system dragged everyone in, but the balance of evidence is enough to convince me that it was an opportunistic war prosecuted by Germany on an all-or-nothing throw of the dice.

There is the risk of something similar happening in the Pacific, but less likely, I suspect. I suspect that all major powers involved are a lot more circumspect and a lot more careful than the German Empire was.

Oh? The last book I read blamed Austria for not accepting the Serbian concessions and Russia for going for revenge over Serbia.

In school, I had to write an essay arguing it was Britain's fault (this was in Britain, mind), and of course the Versailles treaty forced Germany to accept guilt.

The Treaty was no help, certainly. But, there were a lot of opportunistic actions and old grudges bubbling up that contributed to the meltdown. The alliance web was a factor... and a mask. <_<

Trying to ascribe full blame to any one of the entities involved? Is a mug's game. :|

edited 22nd Dec '13 2:29:45 AM by Euodiachloris

I might be a bit biased in the matter but I think that Germany was the main reason why the 'small incident' escalated into a World War is something that was made up after the fact. The treaty of Versailles was more than a bit unfair in that regard. Mind you, I don't think Germany didn't have a lot of resposibility regarding this but I disagree that they were the sole or even the main contributor to the escalation. One reason why it might have looked like that that I heard of was how the German emperor liked displaying his military power more than actually using it.

To apply this to the situation at hand, if the comparison were to be accurate there's also a lot of responsibility and risk on the side of Japan and the US. The US in particular are often accused of a certain gung-ho attitude.

Plus, nobody really knew what they were getting into in 1914 — by the end, everyone was just being sucked into the vortex.