If there is a war between China - Viet Nam in SCS

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

At least the Chinese Qing Empire was Vietnam's suzerain until the French arrived, also Vietnam copied political system and culture from the northerners.
And yes the Chinese military forces during these hundreds year are pretty disappointing. They even used to hire Vietnamese to handle some particular firearms in the Ming Dynasty.

Since when Qing dominated Vietnam? When they came, their horsemen were just kicked @ss by Tay Son's advanced muskets and cannons.
If you mean kind of S.Korea - US, ah yes, Nguyen Dynasty just threw away all "Westernized progress" from Nguyen Lords and Tay Son in 17,18th Century, turn to Pro-China and copy all political system and culture.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

You're right, that's if any future conflict arises out of Chinese desires for direct subjugation of all surrounding nations in an attempt to achieve regional hegemony. This idea is far-fetched, nothing short of fear-mongering. The Soviets only got away with Eastern Europe because it was during WW2. China has been pressing its SCS claims along with Taiwan on this matter so there's always the competing claims. If you see the SCS claims map, both Vietnam and the Philippines claim a large chunk of the SCS, not to mention Malaysia.

So it's not a clear black and white dispute between a clear aggressor and innocent defenders.

Assuming that China would blatantly attack Vietnam or the Philippines is a dangerous notion. It makes no sense when it already has credible claims in the dispute. How would the US react if a conflict arises out of an escalation due to a fault from both competing parties? How would the SCS be divided up (officially) between the competing claimants? With such uncertainty, the US would only step in for mediation, not to join any conflict.

To be honest, our govs haven't published any detailed official territory claim. Our claim is just general: Paracel and Spartly, EEZ from the coast. The Vietnam's line in your map is just a guess/ a supposition.
And you are right, it's the problem between China - aggressive invader and Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia - innocent defenders. Reason: Vietnam's claim is based on international laws and history evidences, Philippines, Malaysia's claims are based on international laws. China's claim is based on nothing.

1. Qing Emperors call themself Chinese Emperor (中國皇&#24093, just like every emperors in the Chinese history did;
2. Qing Dynasty legally inherited its predecessor Ming Dunasty;

I claim Nam Viet kingdom of Trieu Da (Nanyue of Zhao Tou) is a Vietnamese kingdom, for the same reasons. So, Vietnam today have the right over Quang Dong (Guangdong) and Quang Tay (Guangxi)

 

[Snomannen]

Since when Qing dominated Vietnam? When they came, their horsemen were just kicked @ss by Tay Son's advanced muskets and cannons.
If you mean kind of S.Korea - US, ah yes, Nguyen Dynasty just threw away all "Westernized progress" from Nguyen Lords and Tay Son in 17,18th Century, turn to Pro-China and copy all political system and culture.

I also mean the Tribute, but anyway China lost Vietnam as a Vassal state after Sino-French War.

I claim Nam Viet kingdom of Trieu Da (Nanyue of Zhao Tou) is a Vietnamese kingdom, for the same reasons. So, Vietnam today have the right over Quang Dong (Guangdong) and Quang Tay (Guangxi)

Well, you already said YOU claim, not the people nor the leaders of Nanyue.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

I also mean the Tribute, but anyway China lost Vietnam as a Vassal state after Sino-French War.

I thought you mean Chinese influence in Nguyen dynasty?

Well, you already said YOU claim, not the people nor the leaders of Nanyue.

People of Nam Viet are all died or Han-ized, so as to their leaders
Trieu Da called himself Nam Viet king Same as Qing and he called himself Chinese king
Qing dynasty and Yuan dynasty are similar to Trieu dynasty. So if you claim Qing and Yuan do declare lands, I claim Trieu to declare lands too

 

[Snomannen]

You need to read up some more on the Qing. The Qing dynasty by and large is a continuation of the Han dynasties before it. The culture, language, and governmental institutions are all Han. The ethnic makeup of the ruling class is irrelevant in determining the civilization (in fact, the Manchus themselves sinicized and lost their own culture in the process).

All things I've mentioned before, literature, customs, philosophy etc are all vastly more important than the ethnicity of the ruling class in determining heritage. If the ethnicity of a ruling class was the sole factor, then you could argue that Britain is actually German (read up on the origins of the House of Windsor). That is clearly ludicrous.

Whatever the case, Manchus and Han are all Chinese now. I dare you to find an ethnic Manchu that claims they're not Chinese. You will not be able to.

All he try to do is to narrow the range of Chinese ethnic groups to Han only (漢即中&#22283, just like saying Prussians were not German, Indians should not claim Mughal Empire and Alexandrian the Great was not Greek.

 

[Snomannen]

I thought you mean Chinese influence in Nguyen dynasty?

Yuppp.

People of Nam Viet are all died or Han-ized, so as to their leaders
Trieu Da called himself Nam Viet king Same as Qing and he called himself Chinese king
Qing dynasty and Yuan dynasty are similar to Trieu dynasty. So if you claim Qing and Yuan do declare lands, I claim Trieu to declare lands too

NamViet had already been "eaten" by the Qin and Han, there was not even a successor state exist.
Which is different from the northerners, the Republic was the successor state of the Empire.
Besides, nobody is claiming land here, especially me.

Actually, due to your opinion, China can claim Vietnam lands. Since China owns NamViet.

Also, can you answer why Norman dynasty, established by a French aristocrat, belongs to England?

 

[Viet]

I think the situation between Vietnam and China is similar to Bangladesh and India.

India helped Bangladesh defeat Pakistan in a similar way China helped Vietnam defeat USA but given that the alliance was only temporary between these ancient enemies, now Bangladesh is buying Pakistani Arms against India in a similar way that Vietnam is now buying Arms from USA against China.

And just like Bangladesh is a thorn on India's side, Vietnam is also a thorn on China's side, impeding its growth and its ability to project power.

In short,
Vietnam hates China because China stopped Vietnam from further expansion to the West.
China hates Vietnam, because Vietnam stopped China from further expansion to the South.

 

[Viet]

and the weakest opponent had been ruling your land for thousands year.

I do not deny that. But what I just want to say is, in the last century compared with the French, the Americans or even the Britisch and the Japanese, the Chinese were the weakest opponent for Vietnam.

 

[Icecreamcart]

I do not deny that. But what I just want to say is, in the last century compared with the French, the Americans or even the Britisch and the Japanese, the Chinese were the weakest opponent for Vietnam.

It's not wise to compare historical performances. The PLA of 1970 is vastly different from the PLA of 2012. The PLA of now is comparable to the 1990s US military as a whole. Besides, you're thinking of a land invasion from the north. Why would China invade you? Its only aims are the South China Sea. It doesn't want to overthrow the Vietnamese government nor does it want to reconquer Vietnam. It'll be an air and naval war. There's no point invading Vietnam proper.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

I think the situation between Vietnam and China is similar to Bangladesh and India.

India helped Bangladesh defeat Pakistan in a similar way China helped Vietnam defeat USA but given that the alliance was only temporary between these ancient enemies, now Bangladesh is buying Pakistani Arms against India in a similar way that Vietnam is now buying Arms from USA against China.

And just like Bangladesh is a thorn on India's side, Vietnam is also a thorn on China's side, impeding its growth and its ability to project power.

Country helped North Vietnam to defeat the U.S, that was Soviet Union, not China.
In 1969, after shaking hands with the U.S, China stopped all supports Vietnam. But that did not affect to North Vietnam, because the main supporter was Soviet Union, not China.
In 1973 North Vietnam defeated the U.S in the sky of Hanoi by SAM and MIG of Soviet, forcing the U.S withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973.
In 1975 Vietnam was reunified country.

Thus, although China joined hands with the U.S and stopped supporting North Vietnam in 1969 while Vietnam War was the most fierce, but North Vietnam still moved forward to win [with the help of the Soviet Union]....



Today, if China does not claim too greedy perhaps we are friendly neighbors...

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

Yuppp.

So ask I said, Nguyen Dynasty just threw away all "Westernized progress" from Nguyen Lords and Tay Son in 17,18th Century, turn to Pro-China and copy all political system and culture.

NamViet had already been "eaten" by the Qin and Han, there was not even a successor state exist.
Which is different from the northerners, the Republic was the successor state of the Empire.
Besides, nobody is claiming land here, especially me.

It means that Nam Viet was invaded and occupied by third party until 10th Century.
Like Mongolia was invaded by Qing until 1911.
In conclusion: Mongolian people are Chinese is as same as how Nam Viet people are Vietnamese Mongolia came from outside China today and occupied Song (ancestor of China today). Nam Viet came from outside of Vietnam today and occupied Au Lac (ancestor of Vietnam today).

Nam Viet - Mongolia
Vietnamese - Chinese

Actually, due to your opinion, China can claim Vietnam lands. Since China owns NamViet.

China owns Nam Viet is the same as how Mongolia own Yuan.
Then Vietnam can't claim Nam Viet, like China can't claim Mongolia.

Also, can you answer why Norman dynasty, established by a French aristocrat, belongs to England?

Can England today claim Normandy as their lands? No. So, Vietnam can't claim Guangdong, Guangxi and China can't claim Mongolia.

 

[gambit]

It's not wise to compare historical performances. The PLA of 1970 is vastly different from the PLA of 2012. The PLA of now is comparable to the 1990s US military as a whole. Besides, you're thinking of a land invasion from the north. Why would China invade you? Its only aims are the South China Sea. It doesn't want to overthrow the Vietnamese government nor does it want to reconquer Vietnam. It'll be an air and naval war. There's no point invading Vietnam proper.

Not even halfway close. The US military of the '90s defeated Iraq, a country that the world's militaries, including the PLA, predicted that would lose but would make the Americans pay heavily for it. The US military in the '90s had naval presence all over the world. Does the PLA have the same today? Remember, the PLA is all of the branches so try not to nitpick the acronyms.

 

[Icecreamcart]

Not even halfway close. The US military of the '90s defeated Iraq, a country that the world's militaries, including the PLA, predicted that would lose but would make the Americans pay heavily for it. The US military in the '90s had naval presence all over the world. Does the PLA have the same today? Remember, the PLA is all of the branches so try not to nitpick the acronyms.

Perhaps it's not a fair comparison if we match two different militaries in different decades. However, it wouldn't be too wrong to say current Chinese military technologies and capabilities is a match against the 1990 US military, barring the US carrier groups' power projection, of course. In the case of Vietnam, there's not much need for carriers anyway.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Perhaps it's not a fair comparison if we match two different militaries in different decades. However, it wouldn't be too wrong to say current Chinese military technologies and capabilities is a match against the 1990 US military, barring the US carrier groups' power projection, of course. In the case of Vietnam, there's not much need for carriers anyway.

Maybe you just simply compared them on quantity, not compare them on quality.

I suspect that PLA now cannot even compare to U.S army in 1970s.
Moreover, U.S army has many experience war, while China's army has nothing.
Until 1979 - 1980s, PLA was still humiliated by the girls of Vietnamese militia force....

 

[Snomannen]

I do not deny that. But what I just want to say is, in the last century compared with the French, the Americans or even the Britisch and the Japanese, the Chinese were the weakest opponent for Vietnam.

You are right.