What's new

US sends F-22s from Alaska to Guam

Lets say the oxygen issues have been fixed, don't ignore its capabilities to tear the Chinese fighters apart. We have thousands of aircraft mostly modern to be capable of dealing with China's military even with small number of F22s.

I didn't say which side is better. The point here is the U.S will think more than twice before doing anything stupid.
 
F-22s are suffering from oxygen issues. BTW, how can you be so sure about the current number of jets shown to the world. It doesn't necessarily have to be correct. China has reached its aerospace industry and mass production to an unbelievable pace. If you want to talk about prototypes than let us also include J-21 (another stealth jet), J-16, J-15, J-10B etc....
Buddy, just look at US Navy and its air wing. You will have my answer. Lets not be too optimistic about J-20 and J-21.

I am not counting in the experience and operational capabilities US has due to years of war they have been from Vietnam to Gulf, Afghanistan etc.

The most important deterrence China has is Nuclear MAD.

To be on ground reality, both US and China can't afford war especially China as any war will slow down its economy where as US economy where Defense industries have good portion, will get a boost.

World is already facing certain problems due to Euro-Zone crisis, talking about three of the top economies in the world in war will bring many problems which will create more chaos thanwhat we already have now, look at terrorism, growing religious intolerance, Africa, Syria, Iran-Israel etc.

Don't even support or talk about war, it will bite us very hard.
 
The problem is that both next governments are gonna be more hardline. Xi from what I've read from him is more hawkish... the Japanese opposition which is set to take power soon are more hawkish too... and on the slim chances that Romney gets elected, it won't help things either.

As for China and Japan being hurt by an economical war... it seems China doesn't THINK it would be that bad. (and what the policy makers think, not facts, matters in these kind of decisions)

Beijing hints at bond attack on Japan - Telegraph
Mr Jin said China can afford to sacrifice its “low-value-added” exports to Japan at a small cost. By contrast, Japan relies on Chinese demand to keep its economy afloat and stave off “irreversible” decline.

“It’s clear that China can deal a heavy blow to the Japanese economy without hurting itself too much,” he said. It is unclear whether he was speaking with the full backing of the Politburo or whether sales of Japanese debt would do much damage. The Bank of Japan could counter the move with bond purchases. Any weakening of the yen would be welcome.

Let me ask you this. How much bonds does China has on Japan?

I didn't say which side is better. The point here is the U.S will think more than twice before doing anything stupid.

You mean China should think twice before doing anything stupid.
 
U.S should not interfere. The issue is solely between China and Japan. If you try to destabilize the region further, then its anyone right to fire at you.
apart from the fact that US is treaty bound to intervene, and it clearly is preparing for it.
 
The issue is solely between China and Japan. U.S should not interfere. If you try to destabilize the region further, then its anyone right to fire at you.

Well then fire away. We didn't put those ships and planes in Asia just for the fun of it.
 
Well then fire away. We didn't put those ships and planes in Asia just for the fun of it.

Typical American mentality. First go and fix your domestic issues. Hint the money you are printing is not doing any better to your economy lol.
 
Read this to understand why US has to interfere in this tussle then discuss the matter.

MOFA: Japan-U.S. Security Treaty

On the islands dispute, Panetta said Washington stood by its mutual defense obligations under the U.S.-Japan security treaty, but he also pressed for Japan and China to take constructive steps to resolve the dispute peacefully.

U.S. urges China, Japan to cool anger in islands dispute | Reuters


“United States policy with regards to these islands is well known, and obviously, we stand by our treaty obligations,” Panetta said. “But the United States, as a matter of policy, does not take a position with regards to competing sovereignty claims.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ding-diayudai-says-panetta.html#ixzz26ymcyEjD



That's the loophole for the US to back out, just like in the Philippine case, if she chooses to. Believe me the US is not that kind of country to have her hands tied by a treaty and why should she anyway.
 
As well as the U.S. A possible war leads to sanctions against Chinese made products which China depended on significantly with the trade imbalance.

We should be more prudent and understand that in general sanctions rarely do any good. In the case of China, it would be a lose-lose situation for the world as most of the world has extensive economic relations with China.
 
230 billion $$$. It would wreck havoc on the already very fragile Japanese bond market.

230 billion out of what? What is the percentage?

Typical American mentality. First go and fix your domestic issues. Hint the money you are printing is not doing any better to your economy lol.

Fix your own domestic issues before you guys think about invading all of Asia. China's trade imbalance can't save it forever.

“United States policy with regards to these islands is well known, and obviously, we stand by our treaty obligations,” Panetta said. “But the United States, as a matter of policy, does not take a position with regards to competing sovereignty claims.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ding-diayudai-says-panetta.html#ixzz26ymcyEjD



That's the loophole for the US to back out, just like in the Philippine case, if she chooses to. Believe me the US is not that kind of country to have her hands tied by a treaty and why should she anyway.

We don't want to take sides who owns the territory. But if you decide to go to war to enforce it, believe me that U.S. will get involved.
 
As well as the U.S. A possible war leads to sanctions against Chinese made products which China depended on significantly with the trade imbalance.
It's not a one-way street. America would be harmed too, like China and Japan (and the rest of the world). The economies of these three particular countries are too important for the world. Obviously some will be more harmed than others, but it's difficult to predict to what degree, and in the end the effects are gonna be bad enough that it's pointless to bicker about who came out on top.

It's all posturing for now, and all the world's economies are interlinked more than ever before because of globalization, but nobody should count out the possibility of conflict, even if "logically" it's not in anyone's interest to **** everything up for no reason.
 
We don't want to take sides who owns the territory. But if you decide to go to war to enforce it, believe me that U.S. will get involved.

Where was the U.S. when Britain was going to war snatching territory from all over world? Oh wait, you were doing the same thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom