Why the US May Go to War in the SCS

[jkroo]

The problem is that the US has the control over your nuclear weapons, if they don't give you the access code, then you are screwed.

If they give you the access code, then they will also be involved into a nuclear conflict.

That's why it is a tricky question.

Bro, US and UK weared the same pants. How do you think when US pissed off that the pants will be still dry? Vice versa.

You can imagine when the pants became wet, how does the other one feel?

 

[Neemo neemo]

U.S already has its hegemony in Asia and all over the world as things stands, no reason for it to get into a war after spending trillions in afghanistan and Iraq for no real gain. I dont even know how some of you here can even think/believe the U.S will get into a war in SCS for some islands which as i said earlier MANY/SEVERAL different countries are contesting for. These countries should first solve their disputes among themselves before asking for any western/U.S help. how can we intervene when all of them are all disputing these islands? talk less of the U.S risking a war which will affect its economy/trade and maybe even its homeland .loool Wishful thiking at best. As i siad the U.S will provide support/arms/training/miltary vessels/diplomatic and economic aid and even sanctions but NEVER will it get involve in this senseless war in which several claimants are veeing for same prize by itself. NOPE.

As for U.S cuba crisis, did the U.S ever engaged in war(even limited one for that matter) with the U.S.S.R? NOPE. not because it didnt want to(there was several reasons for it to engage in one, more than today) but simply because the risk of getting involved in such a conflict escalating is simply too big to take. Moreover the U.S wasn't fighting for its terroritory, just to maintain its primacy/hegemony on earth. That's why they both threatened each other during the Cuban crisis, but at the end none of them gave into starting a war with each other(however limited it might have been). And mind you, this was as close to the U.S mainland/survival as it has ever been, yet it didnt go into war with the U.S.S.R, so why will it go into a war that doesnt even remotely threatens it in the SCS?lool

Asia needs to try and resolve their disputes peacefully or by share ownership/joint exploration in SCS, else they should fight it over and settle it once and for all , so we can all have peace, since they all have to much ego to agree to share the resources there. Dont expect the U.S to come and shed its blood for you people while resking its own survival for some follish reason. Never going to happen.

Replies for the bolded parts respectively.
1. US has, but not for too long. That is why the topic is about future conflict which may arise in next decade or so but not for now.
2. Nope, No country in the world right now has the power enough to take the fight to US soil. Ballistic missiles and air superiority is another thing, but landing troops on US soil and fighting is just out of question ( reason is USN ).
3. That is why there is no guarantee that US won't risk fighting any emerging superpower again. US has allies in asia which US will protect if China decides to attack or/and capture their territory.
4. DUHH, you should look for my flag before responding. I am an Indian. We do not need US of A to defend ourselves. Actually US did try to enter Bay of Bengal and fight us back in 1971, but backed off just because US was late to mobilize it's navy and we had Russian subs and carrier group there.

 

[jkroo]

It seems like you and your friend are confused. Please tell your officer that the Yijing diagram explaining how to deal with forum members need some adjustment because you guys are still confused and not sure about the identity of some people here.

Simply no and don't care the identity.

 

[Zsari]

@mike2000 said there will never be a direct armed conflict between US, Russia or China, so I used the 1969 conflict as an example that it could.

He said a limited conflict could escalate into an all-out war so these major powers will never dare to engage directly against each other in any limited conflict. I want to show him that in 1969, it happened. And it did not escalate into an all-out war.

So @mike2000 is wrong to say that these kind of limited conflict will never happen between the big powers because such conflict can escalate into an all-day, etc.

There is no way to guarantee a limited conflict will stay limited. The possibility and the cost of a limited conflict escalating into a major war is simply too great that neither Washington nor Beijing would be willing to risk. Besides, US has no direct territorial conflict with China unlike the 1969 skirmish that requires the direct involvement by Washington. Proxy war is the best one can hope for, if one hopes for war. And other than a proxy war between China and Japan which is highly unlikely, the other possible conflict in the region won't last long enough for US to respond militarily.

 

[BestUsernameEver]

[QUOTE


Dr. Ian Ralby is Founder and Executive Director of I.R. Consilium through which he and his team work with governments and organizations on solving complex security-related problems. He has worked extensively with governments in West Africa, the Caribbean, and the Balkans among others. He holds a BA in Modern Languages and Linguistics and an MA in Intercultural Communication from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; a JD from William & Mary Law School; and both an MPhil in International Relations and a PhD in Politics and International Studies from the University of Cambridge.

Haha really? An MA in Intercultural Communication

 

[Neemo neemo]

No country can defeat the US on ground or anywhere else. Case closed...(US can defeat anyone anywhere, because the war if there is one..which I dont think will happen, will be fought on US terms.

Tell me 1 country worth fighting against which US has won?
USSR? Nope
Russia? Nope
China? Nope
Any other similarly powerful country?
Hell, US hasn't won even against Afghanistan and Iraq yet.
For so called "US can defeat anyone anywhere" - Remember Vietnam?

 

[mike2000]

Replies for the bolded parts respectively.
1. US has, but not for too long. That is why the topic is about future conflict which may arise in next decade or so but not for now.
2. Nope, No country in the world right now has the power enough to take the fight to US soil. Ballistic missiles and air superiority is another thing, but landing troops on US soil and fighting is just out of question ( reason is USN ).
3. That is why there is no guarantee that US won't risk fighting any emerging superpower again. US has allies in asia which US will protect if China decides to attack or/and capture their territory.
4. DUHH, you should look for my flag before responding. I am an Indian. We do not need US of A to defend ourselves. Actually US did try to enter Bay of Bengal and fight us back in 1971, but backed off just because US was late to mobilize it's navy and we had Russian subs and carrier group there.

Didi i say China or Russia will launch a land attack on U.S soil?lol Nope they dont have that capabilities, and they dont need to at all, Nuclear ballistic missiles are enough for this, hence the U.S wont take this risk(and no coutnry will for that matter).

Yes i said U.S will protect its allies if they come under attack as i mentioned U.S has military bases in most of its allies/terroitories in Asia: Japan, South Korea, Diego garcia, Hawai, these are all territories the U.S will justifiably go to war(even a nuclear one) for,in case its bases there come under attack, i said it before on my preivious comment bro. But expecting the U.S to get itself directly into conflict/war in disputed islands by several different countries is far fatched and will never happen im afraid. NOPE.

I didnt say India needs the U.S proection(though it begged for U.S helped when it was defeated in 1962 by China, and U.S.S.R help during its 1971 war with East Pakistan) against anyone today, i was refering to smaller/weaker countries like Vietnam,Philippines, Taiwan etc. India is simply too big today and selfish of its sovereignty to ever ask for any U.S help against a bigger opponent/power. Anyway i appreciate India's drive for independence/non alignment though. However, i dont think this position will be sustainable in the coming decades as China and to some extent Russia grow more bigger and confident to challenge the U.S/west. Lets see how things play out anyway.

 

[Neemo neemo]

Didi i say China or Russia will launch a land attack on U.S soil?lol Nope they dont have that acapabilities, and they dont need to at all, Nuclear ballistic missiles are enough for this, hence the U.S wont take this risk(and no coutnry will for that matter).

Yes i said U.S will protect its allies if they come under attack as i mentioned U.S has military bases in most of its allies: Japan, South Korea, Diego garcia, Hawaii, these are all territories the U.S will justifiably go to war(even a nuclear one) for if its bases there come under threat, i said it before on my preivious comment bro. But expecting the U.S to get engaged in disputed islands by several parties is far facched and will never happen im afraid. NOPE.

I didnt say India needs the U.S proection(though it begged for U.S helped when it was defeated in 1962 by China, and U.S.S.R help during its 1971 war with East Pakistan) against anyone today, i was refering to smaller weaker countries like Vietnam,Philippines, Taiwan etc. India is simply too big today and selfish of its soverignty to ever ask for any U.S help against a bugger opponent. Anyway i appreciate India drive for independence/non alignment though. However, i dont think this position will be sustainable in the coming decades as China and to some extent Russia grow more bigger and confident to challenge the U.S/west. Lets see how things play out anyway.

Same was said during cold war. We are through cold war, aren't we?
Dude, what India wants only is to be a leader in manufacturing and spiritual leader. Nothing else. We have no intention of showing off our power or any hegemony of that sort. So unless and until we screw someone, why would anybody fight us? NAM movement did work, and it will continue to be.

 

[Keel]

Strange. Why don't you count another country? Twins, do you know?

To me, the writer just want to find another business, and the poster just want to find any potential candidates for support.

Neither the Viets nor Pinoys are as desperate it seems
They (Viets and Pinoys) just want to be moving headways in their livelihood, never wanna be one supa powa
Also SCS is none of the supa-powa-wanna-be's business. Isnt it more disgusting if they, being so poor, want to get involved in the muddy water?

 

[William Hung]

Neither the Viets nor Pinoys are as desperate it seems
They (Viets and Pinoys) just want to be moving headways in their livelihood, never wanna be one supa powa
Also SCS is none of the supa-powa-wanna-be's business. Isnt it more disgusting if they, being so poor, want to get involved in the muddy water?

It seems like you are obssessed with India, or you have some kind of sub-concious fear of India.

The article didnt mention anything about India and I'm not an Indian either, so why bring India into this thread?

How many countries have the US defeated so far in the past in a war that involved China - when China was really backward in weaponry and when US was much advanced and backed by its allies

The US have never fought China on Chinese soil. But I've read about how another country have fought on Chinese soil, and some Chinese members still can't get over it til this very day.

 

[Keel]

It seems like you are obssessed with India, or you have some kind of sub-concious fear of India.

The article didnt mention anything about India and I'm not an Indian either, so why bring India into this thread?

Nothing worthy for me to be obssessive for a place which is excellent in bragging but really running low on everything for real
Fear - yes, nightmares if I may think of the horrible states in India

Dont worry if you are Indian or not
I have you categorized
I have mercy not to let people suffer in state of low-esteemed and self-denial forever

 

[mike2000]

Same was said during cold war. We are through cold war, aren't we?
Dude, what India wants only is to be a leader in manufacturing and spiritual leader. Nothing else. We have no intention of showing off our power or any hegemony of that sort. So unless and until we screw someone, why would anybody fight us? NAM movement did work, and it will continue to be.

India wasnt all that non aligned during the cold war bro. It was kind of closer/aligned with the U.S.S.R (the wrong side unfortunately).

 

[Neemo neemo]

India wasnt all that non aligned during the cold war bro. It was kind of closer/aligned with the U.S.S.R (the wrong side unfortunately).

And you would have credible proof to prove.
India was leader in NAM, so your point is invalid.
We were not aligned with anybody, we just bought weapons and tech from USSR when nobody else would see us. We bought. That's not called aligning.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Major reason US will have to intervene in SCS besides Shipping traffic volume is potential nuclear weapons proliferation in the region to match Chinese conventional military.

In other words, US will have to deal with accepting a nuclear armed Vietnam, Indonesia etc.

 

[mike2000]

And you would have credible proof to prove.
India was leader in NAM, so your point is invalid.
We were not aligned with anybody, we just bought weapons and tech from USSR when nobody else would see us. We bought. That's not called aligning.

Ok if you say so bro.