Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Radar

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

How will China know when it controls the Diaoyu Islands? How will China know when it's won the territorial dispute?

I can think of two ways Chinese control over the DYT is clear. One is that Japan and other countries acknowledge Chinese ownership and does not impede Chinese ships and citizens around the islands. The other is that China keeps its citizens on the island for an extended period of time without interruption.

I really cannot imagine scenario one occurring in the next 20 years. Other countries who don't have a stake in the dispute might recognize China's sovereignty, but among the nations that matter, namely the UN Security Council countries, Japan, and South Korea, it's not going to happen for a long time.

Scenario two is more likely. It's how China has cemented its control over the Paracel Islands. Not even the most ultra-nationalist Vietnamese citizen proposes retaking the Paracel Islands after they lost it to China in 1974. Vietnam has limited its position to defending its control of the ~26 small islands and forts in the Spratly Islands. Vietnam still claims the Paracels but has in fact given up on them.

This is the most likely scenario for Japan. China asserts sovereignty and Japan begrudgingly acquiesces because they know it's not worth fighting over. If the Falklands had been completely unpopulated and undeveloped, there is a good chance they might've ignored Argentina's attack. But since it had thousands of British citizens, the government was obligated to launch and all-out effort to retake them. Since Japan has no citizens or buildings on the DYT, it would easier for the government to let them go.

Some time in the future, China has to put some permanent buildings and citizens on the islands if it wants to convince the world that it deserves ownership. This could be a plan for 2016 or 2020, but eventually it has to be done. Otherwise territorial claims are just lines on the map and we all know how weak those are.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Simply put, if you're China, you don't want to risk playing the endgame now because:

1. You're still rapidly developing your strength.
2. You've not yet gained a clear upper hand in regional power balance, you're not yet strong enough to win without a costly and risky fight.
3. Your adversary has reached their peak and is growing at a much slower rate than you are, if at all.

Conclusion: time is clearly at your side.

Given this premise of a changing power balance in the East Pacific, it should be Japan who would want to claim as much as they could as soon as possible. If anyone is going to officially send people on the island to back up their territorial claim in the near future, it is much more likely to be Japan, not China. Instead of thinking how China should put people on the island, it is more meaningful to think about how China could react if Japan is going to send people to the island again and perhaps build facilities there. I'm not saying they will, I'm not even saying this is probable, but the Japanese at least have a logical reason to "keep pushing" when they still can, so this is still a more realistic risk of conflict than China sending people to the island with armed escort. For the Chinese, it is more about how to contain, dilute, counter and deter any escalation of control from the Japanese at this moment.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Are they within the 12 km territorial limit? Or are they further out, but in the EEZ zone? Makes a big difference.

Click to expand...

says the buoys are 1,000 feet from Japanese-controlled waters.

Mr. Suga did not say how far the buoys were located from the islands. He said they were in undisputed waters controlled by China, but had been placed on Feb. 17 less than 1,000 feet from the edge of Japanese-controlled waters.

Click to expand...

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

The idea of playing of the long-game keeps coming up in Chinese strategy whether it's Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, or the Diaoyu Islands. It's a solid idea, but you need to take a skeptical look at it. Chinese nationalists are way too smug regarding this strategy. They think they've got it figured out, that they're cleverer than everybody, and China will beat everyone in the end. But in the meantime, 23 million Chinese residents of Taiwan happily defy Beijing, Vietnam and the Philippines confidently reinforce their outposts in the Spratly Islands, and Japan has not changed it tune on the Diaoyu Islands one bit.

If division of Chinese territory is such a painful action for Chinese people, then every day that goes by where Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, and Diaoyu Islands is another grain of salt in the would. If territory doesn't matter to China now, why keep fighting for it in the future? Either the territories of Taiwan and the Spratly and the Diaoyutai Islands matter to China or they don't. You can't say their separation from China doesn't bother China now, and then be triumphant if China gets them back in the future.

China has almost nothing to show for its long-game strategy in terms of recovering "stolen" territory. China has the same amount of control over Taiwan today as it did in 1949 and 1979. China has the same amount of control over the Diaoyu Islands as it did in 1896. When has China under the CCP substantially strengthened its territorial hand? Through decisive actions, first with the Hainan Island campaign in 1950, then the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974, then the Johnson Atoll/Johnson South Reef skirmish in 1988.

The playing the long-game strategy has resulted in amicable resolutions to the border disputes between China and Russia, Tajikistan, and Vietnam, but those are always minor issues. The Paracel Islands action was significant. So was the Johnson South Reef skirmish. The long-game strategy only works if it's followed by an endgame of decisive action. Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan are not going to roll over and present their respective territories to China on a silver platter. China is eventually going to have to force issue.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

superdog said:

Simply put, if you're China, you don't want to risk playing the endgame now because:

1. You're still rapidly developing your strength.
2. You've not yet gained a clear upper hand in regional power balance, you're not yet strong enough to win without a costly and risky fight.
3. Your adversary has reached their peak and is growing at a much slower rate than you are, if at all.

Conclusion: time is clearly at your side.

Given this premise of a changing power balance in the East Pacific, it should be Japan who would want to claim as much as they could as soon as possible. If anyone is going to officially send people on the island to back up their territorial claim in the near future, it is much more likely to be Japan, not China. Instead of thinking how China should put people on the island, it is more meaningful to think about how China could react if Japan is going to send people to the island again and perhaps build facilities there. I'm not saying they will, I'm not even saying this is probable, but the Japanese at least have a logical reason to "keep pushing" when they still can, so this is still a more realistic risk of conflict than China sending people to the island with armed escort. For the Chinese, it is more about how to contain, dilute, counter and deter any escalation of control from the Japanese at this moment.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. At this stage I think China's only and best option if Japanese civilians or officials attempt to land on the Diaoyus/Senkakus is to protest and prevent it before an actual landing or to remove them after a landing takes place. That's when China's determination is tested.

However, contrary to the assumptions some are making, I would say the PR and diplomatic conflict is in a state where the same 'drawing first blood(landing that is, everyone's seen Rambo right?)' burden exists for Japan as it does for China. In fact without drastic action on the ground such as a landing or building, I would say that the PR and diplomatic conflict is to China's advantage.

The same escalation chain/risk applies if either side attempts to land anyone or build anything directly on the islands. But that will eventually happen when one side feels that they can do it either without the escalation risk or that they can win even if the entire escalation chain plays out.

Therefore just like how it is an ongoing PR and diplomatic conflict, it is also an ongoing test of wills and preparation for escalation with the continuing potential of the two sides sitting down for negotiations at any time.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Geographer said:

The idea of playing of the long-game keeps coming up in Chinese strategy whether it's Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, or the Diaoyu Islands. It's a solid idea, but you need to take a skeptical look at it. Chinese nationalists are way too smug regarding this strategy. They think they've got it figured out, that they're cleverer than everybody, and China will beat everyone in the end. But in the meantime, 23 million Chinese residents of Taiwan happily defy Beijing, Vietnam and the Philippines confidently reinforce their outposts in the Spratly Islands, and Japan has not changed it tune on the Diaoyu Islands one bit.

If division of Chinese territory is such a painful action for Chinese people, then every day that goes by where Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, and Diaoyu Islands is another grain of salt in the would. If territory doesn't matter to China now, why keep fighting for it in the future? Either the territories of Taiwan and the Spratly and the Diaoyutai Islands matter to China or they don't. You can't say their separation from China doesn't bother China now, and then be triumphant if China gets them back in the future.

China has almost nothing to show for its long-game strategy in terms of recovering "stolen" territory. China has the same amount of control over Taiwan today as it did in 1949 and 1979. China has the same amount of control over the Diaoyu Islands as it did in 1896. When has China under the CCP substantially strengthened its territorial hand? Through decisive actions, first with the Hainan Island campaign in 1950, then the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974, then the Johnson Atoll/Johnson South Reef skirmish in 1988.

The playing the long-game strategy has resulted in amicable resolutions to the border disputes between China and Russia, Tajikistan, and Vietnam, but those are always minor issues. The Paracel Islands action was significant. So was the Johnson South Reef skirmish. The long-game strategy only works if it's followed by an endgame of decisive action. Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan are not going to roll over and present their respective territories to China on a silver platter. China is eventually going to have to force issue.

Click to expand...

Hey geographer, calm down a bit. This isn’t 20th century anymore. Nations don’t give out their territory easily. Nowadays these issues are negotiated and nations must be patient and not expecting a lot out of it. You can’t invade other countries territory (or at least territories whose administration by other nations are internationally recognized) and not expect to be labeled and treated as an aggressor. There has to be a solution acceptable to both sides.

The border disputes between china and USSR weren’t minor issues. China and USSR almost went to nuclear war because of them. But in the end, 22 years later, both sides came to an agreement about the issue.

Besides I don’t think that Taiwan and spratly islands are that much in ordinary Chinese people´s minds. China and Taiwan are in good relations and more and more economically connected. Only the diaoyu islands raised passions because it involves japan. In the end japan and china must come to an understanding about this issue, because they don’t have any other choice, IMO.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Schumacher said:

Admitting to China winning against Japan is quite different from admitting to it winning against US as well which is what I suggested, which seems to have touched a raw nerve with him.
What we're seeing so far in the South/East China is as much about China vs US as Japan/Phil, likely even more so.
Which is why I responded when some suggest US will get involved if China do this/that. US has been very much involved from day 1.

Click to expand...

China is being pro-China not anti-US with these territorial issues. The circumstances dictate that the US be involved because the status quo is being changed and the US is the only global superpower. However, being the only global superpower is different from being the ruler of the world which must not change. China wins by simply not being against the US.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Here's a question: what if we had a repeat of the Scarborough Shoal stand-off, but in DYT instead? And instead of fishermen, we have Hong Kong activists.

I think that is the most likely scenario of a landing in the near future. So what happens then? How is the Japanese law enforcement going to evict those activists when a Filipino warship could not arrest those fishermen? Isn't it more useful to look at what has happened in reality than rely on conjectures?

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

solarz said:

Here's a question: what if we had a repeat of the Scarborough Shoal stand-off, but in DYT instead? And instead of fishermen, we have Hong Kong activists.

I think that is the most likely scenario of a landing in the near future. So what happens then? How is the Japanese law enforcement going to evict those activists when a Filipino warship could not arrest those fishermen? Isn't it more useful to look at what has happened in reality than rely on conjectures?

Click to expand...

That's going to be the very, very unlikely scenario now, because those hotheads' fishing boat, that "blockade runner", is totally grounded by HK authorities with red tapes (fishing license, sea worthiness, stuff like that...the latter is actually legit, consider how banged up it got last year, and yet being fully repaired), and all those nut jobs can do now is screaming at the top of their lungs...equally unlikely they could rent another boat either in HK or Taiwan, because that's the whole point they pool those past donations into getting that little blockade runner.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

solarz said:

Here's a question: what if we had a repeat of the Scarborough Shoal stand-off, but in DYT instead? And instead of fishermen, we have Hong Kong activists.

I think that is the most likely scenario of a landing in the near future. So what happens then? How is the Japanese law enforcement going to evict those activists when a Filipino warship could not arrest those fishermen? Isn't it more useful to look at what has happened in reality than rely on conjectures?

Click to expand...

I believe ther Chinese MAritime Authorities and the PLAN will not allow them to do so.

If they were able to do so, against the will of the Chinese authorities, then the Japanese would in fact detain them and remove them from the islands.

In that scenario, as long as proper restraint was shown, the Chinese vessels would not do anything about it.

OTOH, which I feel is entirely unliekly, if the Chinese encouraged the HK activists to do this, in order to push this thing in such a rabid diretion, then the Chinese woud be standing by to try and stop the JApanese from evicting them and then all you know what would break loose.