Except that the UK has a significantly larger economy. As does China in this scenario.
Those with the larger economies can afford to wield better armed forces.
US Aircraft Carriers near Senkakus
- Thread starter Battle of Bach Dang River
- Start date
Except that the UK has a significantly larger economy. As does China in this scenario.
Those with the larger economies can afford to wield better armed forces.
Wrong. Japan's economy is better than Russia but still Japan is weaker than Russia in military capability. Even China having better economy than Russia cannot form better armed forces than Russia.
Guess why because Chinese men are weaker than Russian men both in physical and mental attributes.
Battle of Bach Dang River
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Related news:
USS Stennis group to Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, for a 4 day visit, starting September 30.
Stennis Strike Group Visits Kota Kinabalu | United States Pacific Command | USPACOM
--------------------
On the topic:
No doubt, the U.S is determined to protect Senkaku islands for Japan, her the most important Asian ally.
USS Stennis group to Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, for a 4 day visit, starting September 30.
Stennis Strike Group Visits Kota Kinabalu | United States Pacific Command | USPACOM
--------------------
On the topic:
No doubt, the U.S is determined to protect Senkaku islands for Japan, her the most important Asian ally.
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Either the naive Chinese military planners miscalculated their move by assuming that US would not intervene in any conflict between Japan and China or the CCP already knew that Senkakus would remain as Japanese/American territory but raised the issue deliberately to divert attention of Chinese public from the Bo Xilai case.
In either case, the Chinese came out as losers because they lost their face in front of the world. Now Chinese bluff cannot work for Vietnam or Philippines.
Battle of Bach Dang River
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Either the naive Chinese military planners miscalculated their move by assuming that US would not intervene in any conflict between Japan and China or the CCP already knew that Senkakus would remain as Japanese/American territory but raised the issue deliberately to divert attention of Chinese public from the Bo Xilai case.
In either case, the Chinese came out as losers because they lost their face in front of the world. Now Chinese bluff cannot work for Vietnam or Philippines.
I agree completely with you on this point.
Russia is a leftover of a former superpower. A very very rare case. And many nations dont take their defence as seriously during peace time. Japan being among them.
If Israel had the economy of the UK, we would have seen a much more capable military.
However, one should praise the American art of intimidation: from X-Band radar, anti ballistic missiles, naval exercise to aircraft carriers to the deployment of ospreys as if every move was carefully planned on the geo-strategic chess board.
I would like to suggest anyone who wants to take on USA to have endless contingency plans: from Plan A to B,C,D,E,F.... Z... and if possible Z1, Z2, Z3... because Pentagon has some unparalleled military planners.
I would like to suggest anyone who wants to take on USA to have endless contingency plans: from Plan A to B,C,D,E,F.... Z... and if possible Z1, Z2, Z3... because Pentagon has some unparalleled military planners.
Fanling Monk
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,660
- Reaction score
- 0
China pushes back against Japan
China's strategy on the Diaoyu Islands, or Senkakus as Japan calls them, appears to reflect careful calculation of risk and reward by the Beijing leadership, rather than the spasm of counterproductive nationalism sometimes described in the Western press. As a matter of equity, China has a pretty strong claim on the Senkakus. As a matter of geopolitics, the People's Republic of China (PRC) is not holding as weak a hand as one might think.
China's strategy on the Diaoyu Islands, or Senkakus as Japan calls them, appears to reflect careful calculation of risk and reward by the Beijing leadership, rather than the spasm of counterproductive nationalism sometimes described in the Western press. As a matter of equity, China has a pretty strong claim on the Senkakus. As a matter of geopolitics, the People's Republic of China (PRC) is not holding as weak a hand as one might think.
This is something that the administration of US President Barack Obama, to its chagrin, knows well.
Careful readers of The Japan Times (presumably includingstrategists in Beijing) may remember this passage from August 17, 2010:
The Obama administration has decided not to state explicitly that the Senkaku Islands, which are under Japan's control but claimed by China, are subject to the Japan-US security treaty, in a shift from the position of George W Bush, sources said Monday. The administration of Barack Obama has already notified Japan of the change in policy, but Tokyo may have to take countermeasures in light of China's increasing activities in the East China Sea, according to the sources.
However, US enthusiasm for using the Senkaku dispute as a useful diplomatic lever appears to be reaching its limit.
Two major US dailies, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, recently weighed in with reviews of the history of the islands that may cause the Japanese government some heartburn. Nicholas Kristof turned his NYT column over to a Taiwanese scholar, Han Yishaw, to lay out China's historical claims to the islands. [4]
The LA Times' Barbara Demick also looked skeptically at the Japanese provenance of the Senkakus with a piece describing the research of scholar Unryu Suganuma, who found several references in Japanese government documents describing the Chinese character of the islands. [5]
A glance at a map confirms the impression that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are in Taiwan's backyard, and Japanese efforts to claim them are almost as risible as China's infamous South China Sea-swallowing nine-dash line.
Japan's claim to incontestable sovereignty over the islands goes back no further than its seizure, together with Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands, from the Qing empire in the 1895 Sino-Japanese War, and not being forced to give them back in the post-World War II muddle.
The "spoils of war" argument, aka we got 'em and by golly we're gonna keep 'em approach, is an awkward one for Japan. It would dearly like to get back four islands on the southern end of an archipelago stretching between the Kamchatka Peninsula and Hokkaido, which are now occupied by Russia as heir to the Soviet Union's spoils of war.
Given this unfavorable position, Japan must contest the "spoils of war" argument and rely on emotive, historical claims to the islands - the exact opposite of its position on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.
The "exercised sovereignty" argument also provides no comfort to Japan in its dispute with South Korea over the Dokdo Islands (Takeshima to the Japanese). After the conclusion of World War II, the United States supported the historical Japanese claims to the islands but declined to put their defense within the scope of the US-Japan Joint Security Treaty.
In July 2008, the administration of then-US president George W Bush acknowledged South Korean control over the islands by designating them as ROK territory.
Therefore, Japan's attempts to hold on to the Senkakus on the principle that their effective de facto control, by itself, constitutes de jure sovereignty undermines its arguments on Dokdo and the Kuriles. This inconsistency, one might assume, does not make an ironclad case to the United States to encourage a regional confrontation over Japanese dismay over Chinese pretensions to the rocks.
full story> Asia Times Online :: China pushes back against Japan
separately: a sign of appeasement
Japanese PM adds Beijing-friendly education head in cabinet reshuffle
TOKYO -- Japan's unpopular prime minister reshuffled his cabinet Monday, picking a woman with Beijing-friendly credentials in what commentators said signaled his hope to move past a damaging territorial row.
Yoshihiko Noda named a relative unknown as finance minister, but kept several key positions unchanged as he seeks a balance of continuity and change ahead of an expected general election.
Photogenic Goshi Hosono, 41, left his post as environment minister to become party policy chief.
Noda, whose Democratic Party of Japan governs in coalition with a smaller grouping told reporters the changes would boost his government.
“This is a reshuffle that will help the government and the ruling parties cooperate to address a number of issues we are facing domestically and diplomatically and further strengthen the function of the cabinet.”
Later in the day, his newly appointed ministers were formally sworn in by Emperor Akihito in a palace ceremony.
Makiko Tanaka becomes education minister. The job is relatively powerless and has little directly to do with China, but commentators say her appointment is an attempt to telegraph Noda's willingness to heal diplomatic wounds.
Japan and China have clashed repeatedly over the last few months about the Tokyo-administered Senkaku islands, which China claims as the Diaoyus.
Tanaka is the daughter of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, who normalized diplomatic ties with Beijing 40 years ago last Saturday, and has warm links with China, where her family is held in high regard.
She was in Beijing last week as part of a cross-party parliamentary delegation.
Her short stint as foreign minister under popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was marked by rows with bureaucrats. It is chiefly remembered for the tearful speech she gave after being sacked in 2002.
Noda denied her appointment was anything to do with the island spat, citing her experience in science and technology matters as vital to her new role.
“I didn't select her for foreign minister,” he told reporters. “There is no way I decide on who will be education and science minister because of Japan-China issues.”
However Takehiko Yamamoto, professor of international politics at Waseda University, said there was no doubt that her appointment was intended as diplomatic balm.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/japan/2012/10/02/356259/Japanese-PM.htm
The selection of the photogenic Miss Goshi Hosono raise the approval rating of PM Noda from 26.3% to 29.2%
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121003a1.html
China's strategy on the Diaoyu Islands, or Senkakus as Japan calls them, appears to reflect careful calculation of risk and reward by the Beijing leadership, rather than the spasm of counterproductive nationalism sometimes described in the Western press. As a matter of equity, China has a pretty strong claim on the Senkakus. As a matter of geopolitics, the People's Republic of China (PRC) is not holding as weak a hand as one might think.
China's strategy on the Diaoyu Islands, or Senkakus as Japan calls them, appears to reflect careful calculation of risk and reward by the Beijing leadership, rather than the spasm of counterproductive nationalism sometimes described in the Western press. As a matter of equity, China has a pretty strong claim on the Senkakus. As a matter of geopolitics, the People's Republic of China (PRC) is not holding as weak a hand as one might think.
This is something that the administration of US President Barack Obama, to its chagrin, knows well.
Careful readers of The Japan Times (presumably includingstrategists in Beijing) may remember this passage from August 17, 2010:
The Obama administration has decided not to state explicitly that the Senkaku Islands, which are under Japan's control but claimed by China, are subject to the Japan-US security treaty, in a shift from the position of George W Bush, sources said Monday. The administration of Barack Obama has already notified Japan of the change in policy, but Tokyo may have to take countermeasures in light of China's increasing activities in the East China Sea, according to the sources.
However, US enthusiasm for using the Senkaku dispute as a useful diplomatic lever appears to be reaching its limit.
Two major US dailies, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, recently weighed in with reviews of the history of the islands that may cause the Japanese government some heartburn. Nicholas Kristof turned his NYT column over to a Taiwanese scholar, Han Yishaw, to lay out China's historical claims to the islands. [4]
The LA Times' Barbara Demick also looked skeptically at the Japanese provenance of the Senkakus with a piece describing the research of scholar Unryu Suganuma, who found several references in Japanese government documents describing the Chinese character of the islands. [5]
A glance at a map confirms the impression that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are in Taiwan's backyard, and Japanese efforts to claim them are almost as risible as China's infamous South China Sea-swallowing nine-dash line.
Japan's claim to incontestable sovereignty over the islands goes back no further than its seizure, together with Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands, from the Qing empire in the 1895 Sino-Japanese War, and not being forced to give them back in the post-World War II muddle.
The "spoils of war" argument, aka we got 'em and by golly we're gonna keep 'em approach, is an awkward one for Japan. It would dearly like to get back four islands on the southern end of an archipelago stretching between the Kamchatka Peninsula and Hokkaido, which are now occupied by Russia as heir to the Soviet Union's spoils of war.
Given this unfavorable position, Japan must contest the "spoils of war" argument and rely on emotive, historical claims to the islands - the exact opposite of its position on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.
The "exercised sovereignty" argument also provides no comfort to Japan in its dispute with South Korea over the Dokdo Islands (Takeshima to the Japanese). After the conclusion of World War II, the United States supported the historical Japanese claims to the islands but declined to put their defense within the scope of the US-Japan Joint Security Treaty.
In July 2008, the administration of then-US president George W Bush acknowledged South Korean control over the islands by designating them as ROK territory.
Therefore, Japan's attempts to hold on to the Senkakus on the principle that their effective de facto control, by itself, constitutes de jure sovereignty undermines its arguments on Dokdo and the Kuriles. This inconsistency, one might assume, does not make an ironclad case to the United States to encourage a regional confrontation over Japanese dismay over Chinese pretensions to the rocks.
full story> Asia Times Online :: China pushes back against Japan
separately: a sign of appeasement
Japanese PM adds Beijing-friendly education head in cabinet reshuffle
TOKYO -- Japan's unpopular prime minister reshuffled his cabinet Monday, picking a woman with Beijing-friendly credentials in what commentators said signaled his hope to move past a damaging territorial row.
Yoshihiko Noda named a relative unknown as finance minister, but kept several key positions unchanged as he seeks a balance of continuity and change ahead of an expected general election.
Photogenic Goshi Hosono, 41, left his post as environment minister to become party policy chief.
Noda, whose Democratic Party of Japan governs in coalition with a smaller grouping told reporters the changes would boost his government.
“This is a reshuffle that will help the government and the ruling parties cooperate to address a number of issues we are facing domestically and diplomatically and further strengthen the function of the cabinet.”
Later in the day, his newly appointed ministers were formally sworn in by Emperor Akihito in a palace ceremony.
Makiko Tanaka becomes education minister. The job is relatively powerless and has little directly to do with China, but commentators say her appointment is an attempt to telegraph Noda's willingness to heal diplomatic wounds.
Japan and China have clashed repeatedly over the last few months about the Tokyo-administered Senkaku islands, which China claims as the Diaoyus.
Tanaka is the daughter of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, who normalized diplomatic ties with Beijing 40 years ago last Saturday, and has warm links with China, where her family is held in high regard.
She was in Beijing last week as part of a cross-party parliamentary delegation.
Her short stint as foreign minister under popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was marked by rows with bureaucrats. It is chiefly remembered for the tearful speech she gave after being sacked in 2002.
Noda denied her appointment was anything to do with the island spat, citing her experience in science and technology matters as vital to her new role.
“I didn't select her for foreign minister,” he told reporters. “There is no way I decide on who will be education and science minister because of Japan-China issues.”
However Takehiko Yamamoto, professor of international politics at Waseda University, said there was no doubt that her appointment was intended as diplomatic balm.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/japan/2012/10/02/356259/Japanese-PM.htm
The selection of the photogenic Miss Goshi Hosono raise the approval rating of PM Noda from 26.3% to 29.2%
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121003a1.html
I think Russia is still a superpower. US is not the only one. OK lets forget Russia. How come China's economy could not help Chinese win the Opium Wars? Forget win, the Chinese could not even defend themselves on their own motherland! I heard that China's economy had been doing good prior to the invasion.
anarchy 99
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 0
Chinese empire ended in 1644.
The Qing dynasty was riding on the lead that the Ming had.
Just like Russia is riding on the success of the Soviet Union.
Yeah that Qing dynasty was doing good in economy still it was defeated in the Opium Wars. Why the Qing economy could not save China is the question.
anarchy 99
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 0
When you beat us in war, put man into space, do spacewalk, do space docking, win gold medals at Olympics, become UNSC veto member, do midcourse missile interception, build the best stealth fighters in the world like J-20 and J-31, build ASBM that can sink everything on this planet, lend more to developing world than world bank, become largest trade partner of many countries, become creditor nation, become major global investor, build turbofan engines like WS-10, be the largest contributor to global growth, build ICBM, get an IQ above 100, beat us on PISA tests, get more patents granted by WIPO, have more companies in global Fortune 500, GET AN INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
THEN lets talk kid!
China was liberated in 1945, not by your "People Liberation Army" but by the benvolence of USA.
China was not permitted into UN (leave alone UNSC), because USA thought so.
Then, China was "permitted" inside UN and UNSC... because it suited USA in 1972.
China is living of benevolence of USA .... worse than any other self-respecting country in UNO (leave alone UNSC).
The famed "veto power" could not prevent a UNSC member (Taiwan) to save itself in UNO ..... see how fickle your presence in UNSC is !!!!
We invaded and looted China during the Opium Wars.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/208804-how-chinese-fought-against-us-beijing.html
I cannot post some photos of Indian soldiers in China which will be considered offensive and graphic. So you can guess how those photos are.
Again we crushed China in 1962.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...hed-china-1962-contemporary-reports-show.html
We are still keeping your South Tibet, Ladakh and Sikkim under our occupation. We will annex Tibet and for that we still give shelter to Dalai Lama's exiled Govt.
You become more prosperous and accumulate more wealth. That is good for us because we will simply invade you and loot all your wealth just like what we did during the Opium Wars. Remember Old Summer Palace?
Find this book on Google Books:
The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of Another
By William Travis Hanes, Frank Sanello
Read page 93 about Indian soldiers in China. Tell me what is written there.
Similar threads
