East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

[Blackstone]

A submerged rock does not have air rights.

and as far as conflicting ADIZ goes,
China apparently informed SK couple of days before the public ADIZ announcement. and said to SK that the overlapping can be solved via cordial negotiations and SK said the same back.

Looking at the tiny sliver of overlapping between KADIZ and CADIZ I suspect that that tiny overlap is done on purpose... there is really no need for that overlap. it is a red herring thrown to Japan, to serve these purposes 1) show that SK is nominally on the same side as US-Japan Alliance 2) SK wants to take a lead and show that there is a way to negotiate with China over ADIZ, which makes Japan look like it is acting like a unreasonable and hysterical fool, which it is.

Ha ha ha, thank you for the good laugh, but you can't say something like that or Darth Vader and his minions will ban you.

 

[Engineer]

It's about defending sovereign rights. If PLAAF fighter planes flew within Japanese territorial air space and does not adhere and comply various warning to move away from territorial air space then that would be considered as a military provocation by the PLAAF in which at that point it doesn't matter who shot the first shot.
Basically PLAAF declared war at the point of not complying to warnings signaled out by Japan.

If Japan doesn't want Chinese aircraft flying into Japan's territory, then Japan shouldn't have draw an imaginary border in disputed territory to begin with. It is as simple as that. From a third party's point of view, since the area of concern is disputed territory, China has the rights to do whatever Japan has already done in that area. This of course includes the rights of overflying those islands.

 

[Blackstone]

This episode of the Newly declared ADIZ is slowly 'unveiling' into a "war of attrition" - for China and Japan. Both sides plus US are scrambling to assert their claims over this airspace are not only showing their strengths but a race to see if all sides have the means to maintain these war assets and a test of economy power. All fighter jets and warships as well as excerises needs $$$ and effort to maintain its presence.

China and Japan are jostling to assert their claims, but the US is doing all she can to make the best of a bad situation. Also, the US has a two-century tradition of 'freedom of navigation,' starting with the Barbary Pirates, so it's in US interest to argue the point. The ADIZ was a good move by China to contest Diaoyu dao, and to keep pressure on Japan.

For Japan, Abe is gathering all forms of support internationally for the "griefs"; and trying to portray herself as the innocent party with her soft tactics.

Shinzo Abe is trying to defend the undefensible, namely his administration's assertion that there's no dispute over Diaoyu islands (even though previous Japanese high government officials say there are disputes). He has painted himself into a corner and can't get out without losing face.

China on the other hand is not bowing down to international pressures from Japan and US and some western countries. Her claims over the East Seas ADIZ is like a test for the Xi's administration in handling an up level and high profile international 'crisis' handling. China is explaining the importance of the ID zone to ensure the safety of the mainland.

Xi's administration did well on ADIZ. Inch by inch, China tightens the vice on Japan.

US is at a dilemma. Caught in between China and Japan, is testing her resilient in between between "return to Asia" and "checking China's growth" as well as not 'offending' her competitor as well. Towards Japan, her most importance ally in East Asia is facing a "crisis" and is trying to solve the issue without sacrificing their love interests and at the same time not to anger the World's Second largest economy China. It's a love affair at lost for both US and Abe.

The US's rebalance to Asia has nothing to do with "checking China's growth," and everything to do with refocusing on the most dynamic region of the world. Also, the US's "love interest" with Japan goes only as far as it suits our national interest, and that's beginning to change. The national interests of Japan and the US are diverging, slightly for now, but probably more over time. Japan sees that, and has heart attacks every time China and US hold summits.

 

[chuck731]

China and Japan are jostling to assert their claims, but the US is doing all she can to make the best of a bad situation. Also, the US has a two-century tradition of 'freedom of navigation,' starting with the Barbary Pirates, so it's in US interest to argue the point. The ADIZ was a good move by China to contest Diaoyu dao, and to keep pressure on Japan.


Shinzo Abe is trying to defend the undefensible, namely his administration's assertion that there's no dispute over Diaoyu islands (even though previous Japanese high government officials say there are disputes). He has painted himself into a corner and can't get out without losing face.


Xi's administration did well on ADIZ. Inch by inch, China tightens the vice on Japan.



The US's rebalance to Asia has nothing to do with "checking China's growth," and everything to do with refocusing on the most dynamic region of the world. Also, the US's "love interest" with Japan goes only as far as it suits our national interest, and that's beginning to change. The national interests of Japan and the US are diverging, slightly for now, but probably more over time. Japan sees that, and has heart attacks every time China and US hold summits.

I have to,disagree. US rebalancing certainly has everything to do with entending the tenure of US hegemony in west pacific beyond when it would have faded due to shifting balance of power had the US continued it's previous deposition.

"Refocusing on dynamic region" is the sort of statement which is true but not convey the nuances of the situation. It in fact is selected specificLly to obscure to nuances, eventhough most people are not fooled.

n

 

[Blackstone]

See, nationalism is interesting. Once we accept various acts as normal we stop seeing the nationalistic semantic behind it.

The US media and film industry and society is one of the most nationalistic in the world. They could be more nationalistic, but they've effectively internalized the idea that they have the right to intervene in every country in the world and spread its values through a variety of means including war, and that they have a right to unfettered all aspect military domination.

Since film industries cater to domestic audiences first, it's only natural for them to be somewhat nationalistic. However, Hollywood, starting in the 1960s, is notoriously leftist, unpatriotic, and anti-religion, so chances of the next movie being anti-America is about as good as pro-America. Maybe better.

Slogans like "go navy" rings of old sounsd like "britannia rule the waves".

1) We have an all-volunteer force, so catchy slogans are needed to attract young men and women to the service.
2) The US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard provide more global public goods than all other nations combined, so the 'Britannia rule the waves' isn't quite accurate, it should be 'America rule the waves'. And we do!
3) Once China gets there, she'll have (cheesy?) slogans like ours too. Great powers get to play with their toys, it's a perk.

Channels like the military channel and discovery constantly broadcast films about US/western military developments, indirectly threatening enemies of the US with such advanced state of the art killing machines.
I used to like watching "weapons of the future" and such like that before realizing how it was effectively glamourizing US interventionism without me even knowing.

Guilty as charged! America has the baddest, most modern, most diverse (race, gender, religion), most professional military in the world, and we apologize to no one about it. Oh, and one that China is trying to emulate.

All this is off topic of course. I was merely commenting that all countries are relatively nationalistic, and pointing a finger and claiming one is more nationalistic than another is basically trying to paint the other side's arguments or positions as unreasonable, which I think is not conducive to proper discussion of the situation.

Agreed, all countries are nationalist to a degree, some more than others.

 

[chuck731]

I think it is inaccurate to say America is the most nationalistic country in the world. To be truly nationalistic one needs to know a thing or two about one's own country. American likely know less about their own country then any other people in the world.

Instead, Americans are the most full of themselves of any people in the world. Because they think so highly of themselves individually, they are compelled by their exorbatantly high opinion of themselves to believe the country they were born into must be the greatest and bestest of all time as well.

 

[Blitzo]

I think it is inaccurate to say America is the most nationalistic country in the world. To be truly nationalistic one needs to know a thing or two about one's own country. American likely know less about their own country then any other people in the world.

Instead, Americans are the most full of themselves of any people in the world. Because they think so highly of themselves individually, they are compelled by their exorbatantly high opinion of themselves to believe the country they were born into must be the greatest and bestest of all time as well.

Ouch rofl.

My point was more of an example that all countries are nationalistic in their own ways and I wasn't seriously accusing America of being the "most nationalistic" nor was I insinuating nationalism was necessarily a bad thing for all countries.


Anyway maybe we shoudl end this tangent for the thread before moderator red words head in.

 

[chuck731]

Ouch rofl.

My point was more of an example that all countries are nationalistic in their own ways and I wasn't seriously accusing America of being the "most nationalistic" nor was I insinuating nationalism was necessarily a bad thing for all countries.


Anyway maybe we shoudl end this tangent for the thread before moderator red words head in.

I had my tongue firmly in my cheek as well, hope the moderators have a sense of humor.

 

[Blackstone]

I have to,disagree. US rebalancing certainly has everything to do with entending the tenure of US hegemony in west pacific beyond when it would have faded due to shifting balance of power had the US continued it's previous deposition.

"Refocusing on dynamic region" is the sort of statement which is true but not convey the nuances of the situation. It in fact is selected specificLly to obscure to nuances, eventhough most people are not fooled.

n

The US has a regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine), but no hegemony anywhere else. Consider these events and tell me if a true hegemony would allow them to happen;

1) The Philippines told the US military to get out, and we complied.
2) North Korea stick it to us every chance they get. We throw words back at them.
3) Okinawa told the US to close our base, and we closed it even though we didn't really want to.
4) Japan conducted secret meetings with North Korea without informing the US.
5) Japan whitewashes WWII history and say they were victims and not aggressors. We let them get away with it.
6) We tell Israel to stop building settlements on the West Bank, and they build even more.
7) The US drew a red line in the sand on chemical weapons in Syria. Assad used them anyway. Assad is still in power, with military backing from Russia and political backing from both Russia and China.
8) US got the UN to impose sanctions on Iran, but many nations ignore some of the sanctions. Even our supposed friend and ally France (you might be right if you say France was never our true ally).
9) NATO countries (if we could be a hegemony anywhere, this is it!) routinely tell us where and when we could hold military exercises. Our main battle tanks are not allowed in some towns and cities.
10) NATO was suppose to keep Germany down and the Russians out. It's done neither.

The bottom line is the US is a regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, but not a global one, and definitely not in Asia. Of all countries in the world, the Middle Kingdom is the only one that can achieve hegemony in Asia. China knows it, the US knows it, Japan knows it, Taiwan has already bent knees, and South Korea isn't far behind.

I say again, the US isn't a hegemony in Asia, and we're not trying to be one.

 

[LesAdieux]

Biden will be in asia this week, washington post is talking about his "damage control" mission, I think the situation is going to calm down a little bit.

the big flash point is yasukuni, if Abe visits yasukuni in Dec as some of his aids said, then thing may get really ugly. China is tired of protests, it will surely resort to strong actions, that will certainly include Diaoyu.