China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[cmb=1968]

Re: A China Without Nuclear Weapons?

1st part: japan has a mix of fear, and to an extant, envy regarding china.

Is that a basic translation of the article or you opinion?
If it is a opinion what does Japan Envy about China?
China's power military/economic, or ability to pursue offensive military capability.

 

[Propagandalass]

Re: A China Without Nuclear Weapons?

China's Land, they can't help but try conquer it every few decades.

j/k I don't know what Japan could envy except maybe industrial growth or culture, but why are you so focussed on that detail? Its not much on the topic.

China is the first Country to declare itself strictly defensive (the mentioned "no first use of nukes" thing belong in here). Its main concerns are simply being able to maintain its borders and deter invasions, a bitter lesson it has learned the hard way from getting beaten down by foreign Nations over and over again for their interests (the Opium War, the Boxer Incident, the Sino-Japanese War and WW II), China is damn tough to still be standing today.

+ On International Level, China should leave everything alone that doesn't mess with China.

- China means serious business if its about borders, territory or "beachheads in neighbouring countries".

The Main Countries that view China as possible aggressor are those who are now friendly with the US and allowed them to have military bases on their territory. Ironically thats probably what makes China nervous about them.

-Japan, which was viewed by China as "little brother" suddenly went hostile with pirate assaults and invasions with no deeper political reason than simple hegemony. China hasn't trusted Japan much since these incidents. Also, America came over and demanded Japan to lick its shoes and allow US mlitary bases and supply points for no apparent reason. Because of the obvious difference in power percieved by the emperor, they agreed, those who didn't got massacred (cue in "Last Samurai"). These bases still exist.

-South Korea, Korea (as whole) once had good ties with China, but then Japan repeatedly invaded it. China was always requested by Korea as protector, but Japan eventually defeated China splitting Korea. When NK invaded SK, the USA pulled a sucker move to help SK under the guise of UN, but had to push the border all the way to manchuria, resulting in Chinese involvement of the Korean War, in which the PVA staved off the UN from the chinese border, but SK being thankful to the Americans now sides with the USA.

-North Korea on the other hand, started off well with China as their saviour in the Korean war and communist comrade, but fumbled its trust with its nuclear program (which is a perfect excuse for nuclear SK and Japan, and China doesn't want that).

-India, which had border disputes with China, China also distrusts it thinking it would claim Tibet. Though India was trying to show good will, it blundered by being insistant about certain regions (to be fair, China is always insistant, I'm not wording it to make it sound like its India's fault alone) and sending up troops to engage Chinese border enforcers. It made India feel betrayed and darkened its relation to China for a while, turning more to western powers.

-Pakistan, is actually friendly with China. Ironically, it solved its border disputes peacefully and now has China as "time-tested all-season friend" where India fumbled and took a sino-indian war to pay the price... Pakistan also peacefully evaded being run over by the US by bending to its will in the War on Terrorism. Its the 2nd largest contributor of troops to the UN, but the USA favours India (larger market, more cash) so it discards Pakistan like a used condom the moment they don't need it anymore. Since Mumbai, Pakistan is running danger on becoming stamped terrorist Nation yet again.

-Tibet, being Historically intertwined with China (sometimes positive, sometimes not... like when Tibetians hired the mongols to bring holocaust to everything non-buddhist) and claimed as Chinese region ever since the commies came to free the slaves (Dalai Lama approved), worked to abolish theocracy (Dalai Lama disapproved, fled after a CIA funded uprising failed) and maintain their border interests. Though separatists won't listen to logic (that Tibet is economically better off with China) or the Dalai Lama (who doesn't want them to riot, because thats why the PLA is up there in the first place), its 25% of China's territory. No sane Nation just gives stuff away like that.

-Taiwan (hiho guys! *wave* XD), aside of being conquered by Japan a few times, the KMT government came over, massacred the ('original') Taiwanese who didn't want them and struck roots here as sore losers of the Chinese civil war. Conveniently the USA was there to back them just to oppose the "reds". Most Taiwanese prefer an own identity, but heck, scottish also consider themselves scottish over english. I as Taiwanese also hold on my "Taiwanese" identity, but I'm also ultimately part "Chinese" as my roots lie there and Chinese reunification wouldn't change much anyways, it'll just have China stop aiming missiles at us (though it'll likely just turn them towards Japan XD) so I say its pure gain in that direction.

-Hong Kong, taken by England because China said no to drugs. As it was about to be returnd the World panicked that commie China would screw Hong Kong up for good. But China showed its new-found flexibility there.

-Russia, close friend in commie times, but China is give or take commie (heck, China had to make compromises from the beginning by replacing "working class" with "peasants") and much more radical due to Mao leading to a sino-soviet split.

As you can see, China's current state of "nervosity" is the result of its past lack of focus on military power, allowing hegemony and imperialism to affect itself, its neighbours as well as the economy fumbles in its newer communist days and the USA meddling here and there.

China today is different, it is building up a "minimal deterrance" military power so other countries can't just threaten it with nukes and get away all the time (China has just enough missiles and bombs for any range to make the price of messing with it uneconomical. Its not trying to "win nuclear wars") while its economy has more than recovered with its flexible management. If the World had no nukes, China wouldn't need them either. It believes more in quick regional operations anyways, which is perfect for non-nuclear standoffs of modern time (arresting terrorists or capturing/disarming WMDs). China's hate on Japan has also calmed by a lot (they don't even call them "Japanazis" as much as the Americans do. Heck, they put that on their comic covers... and advertise for war bonds. How many children do they expect to buy war bonds anyways?). Japan doesn't need to worry as long as they don't try to pull a third sino-japanese war for territory (learn to have 1 child policy if you're overpopulated dammit! XDDD).

 

[kroko]

Re: A China Without Nuclear Weapons?

Is that a basic translation of the article or you opinion?
If it is a opinion what does Japan Envy about China?
China's power military/economic, or ability to pursue offensive military capability.

its my opinion. Japan fears/envys china because:

economy
china has a lot more economic potencial than japan (1.3 billion people vs 120 million) , and it is set to surpass japan (china is growing 5+% while japan has negative growth, although im not sure about those figures). China may or may not surpass japan, but thats how people in japan see it.


military/politics
china is an independent power, with an largely independent military industry. Japan may (still) be richer than china, but in international politics it is, for the most part, an american follower. Thats why japan´s military industry is smaller then chinas and the reason it is more tecnologicly advanced then china its because it just uses imported american tecnology, for the most part.

 

[pla101prc]

Re: A China Without Nuclear Weapons?

China's GDP was predicted to surpass Japan by 2015 under the most optimistic assumption, now they say that its gonna happen this year.
in terms of buying power China is already number 2

there isnt much Japan should envy about China though, cept for security aspect. China has A LOT to learn from Japan

 

[kroko]

Re: A China Without Nuclear Weapons?

there isnt much Japan should envy about China though, cept for security aspect.

not only in terms of security, but in geopolitics too. japan can only dream of having china´s geopolitical influence, despite being much richer. As surely you have heard before, Japan is an economic giant, and an political/militarly dwarf

China has A LOT to learn from Japan

what works for japan doesnt necessarly apply to china.

 

[pla101prc]

Re: A China Without Nuclear Weapons?

not only in terms of security, but in geopolitics too. japan can only dream of having china´s geopolitical influence, despite being much richer. As surely you have heard before, Japan is an economic giant, and an political/militarly dwarf




what works for japan doesnt necessarly apply to china.

if i were a Japanese leader or something, i'd emphasize on Japan's economic and commericial influence...something in which they have excelled tremendously. as for geopolitical influence, Japan really doesnt have that luxury, i mean just look at its location. pretty shitty place if you ask me.

and yes in fact the Japanese model as a whole cannot be replicated, because it has nothing to do with democracy or market economy as westerners love to claim credit for. but that doesnt mean there is nothing you can learn from them.

 

[Ambivalent]

Re: cmb=1968

Is it wrong for Japan to concerned by China's Nuclear stockpile, they are the only nation to have been hit with a nuclear Bomb after all.

I am comforted by China's so called No first use policy about as far as I can throw any one.

Japan had an active nuclear program during WWII that actually pre-dated the US Manhatten project. They were about six months ahead of the US when a B-29 raid over Japan missed their target and wiped out an important Japanese lab. Had not the US nuked Japan first, the US would have been the first nation to suffer a nuclear attack. Take Japanese protests with a grain of salt.
Japan uses the tactic of not having a nuclear stockpile while letting everyone know it would be simple enough for them to go nuclear if there was a necessity.
The whole idea of complete nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. The best we can achieve is to limit the number of nuclear weapons. Here is the reasoning. Assume a nation honestly disarms. It now has no nuclear weapons. A cheater could build and hide a small quantity of their own nuclear weapons, say a dozen, and when the time was right, use these to blackmail the nation who disarmed honestly. A dozen weapons might be hard to find, do you agree, especially if the nation was a prior nuclear power who cheated on disarmament.
Now, if nations were allowed a hundred or so nukes, a cheater could not hide enough warheads to gain enough of an advantage to be able to blackmail another nation. I'm thinking of Sweden's nuclear program, which was officially discontinued ( if one believes this ) in 1970. Hiding a dozen or even two dozen nukes is one thing, Sweden managed to pop off ten underground tests without anyone detecting them, hiding a hundred warheads and the program that supports them would be close to impossible. It is likely that true disarmament is not possible, but it might be possible to limit nuclear arsenals to very low numbers and monitor these reliably without exposing the honest nations to nuclear blackmail by a rogue nation.

 

[pla101prc]

Re: cmb=1968

Japan had an active nuclear program during WWII that actually pre-dated the US Manhatten project. They were about six months ahead of the US when a B-29 raid over Japan missed their target and wiped out an important Japanese lab. Had not the US nuked Japan first, the US would have been the first nation to suffer a nuclear attack. Take Japanese protests with a grain of salt.
Japan uses the tactic of not having a nuclear stockpile while letting everyone know it would be simple enough for them to go nuclear if there was a necessity.
The whole idea of complete nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. The best we can achieve is to limit the number of nuclear weapons. Here is the reasoning. Assume a nation honestly disarms. It now has no nuclear weapons. A cheater could build and hide a small quantity of their own nuclear weapons, say a dozen, and when the time was right, use these to blackmail the nation who disarmed honestly. A dozen weapons might be hard to find, do you agree, especially if the nation was a prior nuclear power who cheated on disarmament.
Now, if nations were allowed a hundred or so nukes, a cheater could not hide enough warheads to gain enough of an advantage to be able to blackmail another nation. I'm thinking of Sweden's nuclear program, which was officially discontinued ( if one believes this ) in 1970. Hiding a dozen or even two dozen nukes is one thing, Sweden managed to pop off ten underground tests without anyone detecting them, hiding a hundred warheads and the program that supports them would be close to impossible. It is likely that true disarmament is not possible, but it might be possible to limit nuclear arsenals to very low numbers and monitor these reliably without exposing the honest nations to nuclear blackmail by a rogue nation.

i highly doubt that sweden has any nukes right now. the US for one would not tolerate that

 

[Ambivalent]

Re: cmb=1968

i highly doubt that sweden has any nukes right now. the US for one would not tolerate that

Well, officially they abandoned their nuclear program after ten underground tests. There is dispute in unclassified sources whether or not these tests involved a full nuclear yield or just tested how well the core was compressed by the HE surrounding it.
The fact that this program went undetected for over a decade was my point. It seems the Swedish experience would suggest it is possible for a nation to successfully hide a nuclear weapons program and bring it to the point of detonating weapons. Whether or not Sweden has nuclear weapons right now is sort of a moot point. They have the know how and most likely the materials to build workable nukes in a very short period of time. They have already done all of the hard work.
Btw, why would the US not tolerate a nuclear Sweden? They tolerate Israel, did effectively nothing to stop North Korea and remain powerless to stop Iran. Just saying.

 

[pla101prc]

Re: cmb=1968

Well, officially they abandoned their nuclear program after ten underground tests. There is dispute in unclassified sources whether or not these tests involved a full nuclear yield or just tested how well the core was compressed by the HE surrounding it.
The fact that this program went undetected for over a decade was my point. It seems the Swedish experience would suggest it is possible for a nation to successfully hide a nuclear weapons program and bring it to the point of detonating weapons. Whether or not Sweden has nuclear weapons right now is sort of a moot point. They have the know how and most likely the materials to build workable nukes in a very short period of time. They have already done all of the hard work.
Btw, why would the US not tolerate a nuclear Sweden? They tolerate Israel, did effectively nothing to stop North Korea and remain powerless to stop Iran. Just saying.

there is a big difference between israel and sweden. israel has a "israel lobby" in the US, sweden prolly does too but prolly not as influential; sweden is prolly safer now without nuke; and the difference between sweden and israel is like the difference between south korea/Japan and israel. israel is isolated and surrounded by enemies with no room for failure...meanwhile sweden is supposed to be under the protection of the US, if sweden gets away with it, everyone gets away with it, then the US lose its leadership role in the west...