SinoDefence Forum

AssassinsMace

Are you forgetting? Many politicians in the US say China is the worst country in the world and should be included in the Axis of Evil. The US has attacked countries for less. And somehow you think the rhetoric coming out of China is a legit reason for antagonism and suspicion from the US but not the other way around?

AssassinsMace

The last I heard China is involved in joint development porgrams with several nations with claims over the Spratleys and has pledged a peaceful solution to ASEAN over the issue.

FuManChu

The US has not attacked countries just because some people argue they should be included in the "Axis of Evil"! Iraq was attacked for a variety of reasons, and maybe if China was a major energy supplier it could have grounds for concern. But it isn't, and there is nothing to actually be gained from attacking China. Washington knows that, so it won't attack China lightly. As I said, the same works the other way around.

Where did I say that? Please show me. I merely pointed out that reacting to the voices of some people will create a vicious circle. The best thing to do is talk with the administration and those people that want good relations.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

Hendrik_2000

Yes I say US and Japan that want to contain China .US try to enlarge Nato mandate by invoking Islamic threat and from there it is only small step to include Asia Pacific as theater of operation Sofar the European refused to get dragged into future quakemire

What are you talking about It is the principle that count Owning nuclear bomb is discourage So I don't see any difference between India and Iran What it got to do with Israel Do you mean that the whole world owe Israel a security blanket

To butress my point for long time US has refused to sell India offensive weapon because India explode nuclear bomb only recently in an effort to contain China US butter up to India

I don't see any need for Japan to rearm because Japan is under protection of US nuclear umbrella and 7th Fleet Anyway Japan has the best defensive Navy outside US and has been spending heavily over the decades

To declare Taiwan straits as area of future collaboration between US and Japanese navy is offensive and cannot be considered as friendly act

US is a capitalist country nothing come free in US Plus defensive industry is large source of employment in certain district in US Ofcourse US will charge arm and leg for its weapon It is the Taiwan opposition party that wisely refused to dole out ransom money They don't see any need to buy grossly overprice weapon system that take to long to implement and will be outdated by the time it come into service

tphuang

Actually, it's not that easy. I didn't start to fully appreciate the anti-Chinese sentiment in the American congress/senate until after I came to New York. There are many in America that sees a conflict with China has inevitable and so do people in China. But China has far more reasons to avoid such a confrontation than America, since it stands to loose far more.
I said SSF has to be greater than the entire Indian Navy and that one carrier group of SSF has to be able to defeat any combination of carriers + escorts sent out by Indian navy.

FuManChu

Since when did the US and Japan constitute the entire "Western world"?

So now NATO enlargement is just about China? There is nothing to suggest that at all.

So you wouldn't have a problem with Japan going nuclear and threatening to "wipe North Korea off the map"?

India is far more concerned about Pakistan at the moment than it is China.

It's Japan's choice whether it rearms. Why should it be the only country in the region to have an unofficial military? Besides, if China is concerned about protecting its shipping, Japan should be even more concerned as an island nation. They can't count on the Americans forever.

Neither is suggesting nuclear strikes against the US West Coast by PRC missiles, but there you go.....

Outdated?! The P-3C Orion is going to outdated by the early point of next decade? As will PAC-3 and a new fleet of SSKs (if they ever find a builder)? Hahaha, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. You really don't know much about Taiwanese military affairs, apart from Chinese propaganda do you?

Besides, the KMT have given their support to the arms purchases in part, as can be seen by the fact they've helped the government pass the procurements in the 2007 budget to the second reading. But if you knew about the situation in Taiwan you would know all that.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

Hendrik_2000

No they don't pass the whole defense budget they only allow selected weapon purchase and oen of the item is buying Orion Lougheed anti submarine system

So why is allright for Japan to rearm and not for China to protect SLOC ?

AssassinsMace

Listen to the rhetoric for attacking Iraq. Human rights... getting rid of dictators... saving oppressed women... having WMDs... all things that can be said of China. Unless you want to admit that this is all bull. Just like with China?


Where you said it was pointing out a Chinese general boasting about reaching LA with a nuke. It was just rhetoric. So if you use that as a reason for US antagonism for China which was there long before that comment, then China has a hundred times more reasons.

FuManChu

The US still has a lot to lose - just because China may suffer more doesn't mean the US would benefit. It would be a lose-lose conflict.

Ok, but I still disagree. You said it would operate two carriers - the Indians could easily end up with more than that by the time China could have two carriers at all. Even then China would have to deploy both its only big ships into the SSF and leave the other fleets with no carriers. Maybe you think that wouldn't be a problem, but personally I wouldn't want to concentrate my assets like that, until I had 3 carriers.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

FuManChu

They allowed most of it through, especially the bits that commentators regard as being the most important. P-3C Orions, PAC-2 upgrade, R&D money for the SSKs and a budget for the F-16s if Taiwan can get a pledge from Washington the sale will be approved. It would have been unwise to pledge money for submarines that don't have a designated builder. As for new PAC-3 batteries, there was a squabble over the use of a referendum - they may be approved next year (or not).

Certainly the KMT wanted these weapons when they were in power. If they regain the Presidency in 2008, I am sure they will be placing more orders for arms, just like in the "good old days".

I never said China "couldn't" protect its sea-lanes. I questioned whether there was such an urgent threat that it had to increase its ship production faster than it is already progressing!

Besides would you want to see Japan kit itself out with as much stuff as some people here want China to in as short a time period?

America has accepted China as a nuclear power. The issue of WMDs and China is a non-starter, unless it develops a "death ray" that could wipe out the entire US and render its nuclear counter-strike unusable. Whereas Iraq was in the centre of one of the world's most key energy centres - there was no way in the Americans' minds they could take the risk Saddam would get the sanctions lifted and rearm himself. Maybe they shouldn't have attacked, but they saw a slim window of opportunity to stop him. That can't apply to China as it is already nuclear (unless as I said China invents some doomsday weapon).

As to human rights and the rest of it, that was a subsequent justification when the US realised it had screwed up over the WMD business. Saddam seemed to be interested in getting more, but he didn't have anything at the time that the US could point to. So the politicians tried to find other reasons to justify the war - what could they say, "sorry we got the WMD reason wrong, so we shouldn't have gone to war"? In that respect it was bull. Saudi Arabia is a human rights abuser, but the Yanks get on really well with them. Do you see Riyadh being concerned about an American invasion in the name of human rights?!

How often has the US threatened to nuke China if it does whatever?

If you're saying that the Chinese general's comments were pure rhetoric, then surely the same can be said about US comments. Why not just discount both and ignore them? That is what I've been saying all along - ignore hardliners.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

tphuang

that's why there isn't a conflict right now, but nobody knows in the future. If China wishes to be a super power (it has already developed enough soft power in this direction), it has to develop and deploy a fleet that would match its status. Once can argue that it doesn't need its own GPS system either, but it's still going to put up Beidou. Point is, it needs to be able to operate on its own and defend its own interests.
If there are 3 carriers in China, I would put 2 in SSF. All the advanced SSKs go to ESF for good reasons. And it does appear to me that China wants to have around 3, so 1 can be deployed at all times. And my point from start was that 1 carrier group sent by PLAN has to be able to defeat multiple carrier groups sent by IN based on the larger size of the carrier allowing to carry greater number of planes and fixed wing AEW + better escorts in terms of AAW and attack submarines.

FuManChu

Maybe you are correct to say that the PLAN carrier group would be required to be able to defeat multiple IN carrier groups, but I do not think that would necessarily happen. I would prefer two medium carriers to one larger one. As for the rest, it's rather difficult to know how the IN and PLAN will match up by the time China has a fully operational carrier group it could afford to send against the IN - even more so by the time it has three carriers in total.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu

AssassinsMace

And I've seen a poll where the US is seen more positive by the Chinese and Russians than by the US's own allies. These types of polls go across the board. I'll tell you the Chinese aren't pre-occupied with seeing the US as the enemy as Americans are to see China. Chinese antagonism towards the US comes from how the Chinese see the US treat China (as a threat) on the world stage. US antogonism for China is based on US politicians' own failed and hypocritical policies. Like the trade deficit of their own making by limiting what China can buy from the US to products they can make for themselves and at lesser costs, etc., then blaming China for not buying American. Then hide the little fact that about at least 60% of the trade deficit is actually profits going to foreign corporations (including American) that just manufacture their products in China. Really, how many Chinese brands are household names in the US?

AssassinsMace

I hear all the time especially before the Iraq wars that China has no right to nukes for it has no enemies the US can think of. Sounds like the same thing Rumsfeld said about China and its military spending increase. I heard plenty of times Americans demanding China dismantle its nukes. So Americans have not accepted it.

Their have been at least three incidents where the US has considered using nukes on China:

The Korean War with MacArthur wanting to invade China after they were done with North Korea.

Another one soon after regarding Taiwan when the US thought an invasion of Quemoy and Matsu was imminent.

And during the Vietnam War, the US thought China was supplying arms to the Vietnamese against the US.

Who knows what else.

I already saw the Chinese general's comments as rhetoric. You're the one that made it more than that. MacArthur was actually in a position to carry out his threat of at least invading China to which Truman might've actually had to use the bomb if that happened.

FuManChu

I was talking about recently. In the past there is often a lot of ill-will, but relations with China are much better than they were back then. For one thing the US actually has diplomatic relations with China.

---

By the way, TP, Americans used to think it was inevitable the US was going to go to war with the USSR/Russia. That worked out ok in the end.

__________________
"Japan is as much of a threat to China, as China is to Japan."

--FuManChu