When the US was more self-confident, they were happier to see other countries develop.
Unfortunately, now the US faces a situation where it has to actively keep others down, in order to stay on top.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
When the US was more self-confident, they were happier to see other countries develop.
Unfortunately, now the US faces a situation where it has to actively keep others down, in order to stay on top.
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
Well, if Japan proceeds with pursuing nuclear weapons IN SPITE of maximum economic pressure, then I would interpret that as a very concerning signal, and at that point more direct measures, potentially culminating in military action, should be considered.
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
I would argue that more accurately, the US was interested in countries developing as long as it served US interests, and/or the interests of the Anglo-Jewish financial elite.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
No president goes out to tell the people, "We tried to develop nukes but the enemy strained our economy so we'll just capitulate. Well-played by them." Iran wasn't on the path to a nuclear weapon until the US and Israel made it clear to them that they absolutely must have them or they will be cotinuously attacked without provocation. The more you pressure Japan, the more they will be convinced that nukes are what they need.
The safest way is to just ignore them. The economic pressure is not for the express purpose of preventing them from developing nukes; it is simply because we don't think they deserve our business and we don't like them as a people. I think we can also close their embassies and recall ours. Just tell them we don't want to have any relationship; let the well water be separate from the river water.
As a consequence, they will lose enthusiasm screaming at an enemy who doesn't acknowledge them and they will be under too many economic woes to develop a proper military or nuclear weapons. Let the ill die in peace.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Japanese nuclear weapons is a red line Beijing will simply never allow them to cross.
If Japan is absolutely determined to obtain a nuclear weapon, then it will result in China triggering the Enemy States clauses within the UN charter and restart WWII which will not end until the total conquest and occupation of the Japanese home islands. China has already effectively given notice of this in as explicit a way as it ever will by citing those exact clauses.
As America is finding out the hard way in Iran, you cannot fundamentally remove a nation’s nuclear aspirations from the air, you need boots on the ground, and if you are already going that far, might as well go the whole way.
Modern Japan is in many ways an unrepentant continuation of the same Imperialist Japan as ravaged China and the rest of Asia during WWII. China has already learnt the bitter lesson from
America taking the easy way out after WWII and not thoroughly purging Japan of fascists as Germany was purged of Nazis, and the problems of Japan today are the direct consequences. So China is damn sure it’s not going to make the same mistakes, that there can be no half measure when it comes to rooting out the cancer of fascism. Either you cut it all out or it will grow back and become a bigger problem for future generations. So if Japan forces China’s hand, China will make sure they are dealt with completely this time.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Didn't you know that plutonium Japan have are reactor grade which is far far away from WgPu, also the majority are in UK and France to be processed further to become more fuel for their reactors. And Japan don't have the equipment to "convert" them
I don't think anybody interest for Japan to have a nuclear warhead and would take 5-10 years to develop it from reactor grade plutonium. I don't think USA would allow it and definitely not for the neighbouring countries like China or SK
There is a possibility China might strike the facility if Japan decided to develop it, which very unlikely
Under Articles 53 and 107 of UN
1. The "Enemy State Clauses" (Articles 53 and 107)
When the UN was founded in 1945, specific provisions were included to deal with the nations that fought against the Allies during World War II (primarily Germany and Japan).
Article 107: States that the Charter does not invalidate actions taken or authorized against an "enemy state" as a result of WWII.
Article 53: Allows "regional arrangements" to take enforcement action against an enemy state without prior Security Council authorization if it is intended to prevent "renewal of aggressive policy" by that state.
So China can legally strike Japan by invoking these clauses. The clauses are still very much active, if anybody wanted to make it obsolete, Ithnk Rusia amd China would simply veto it
I think the biggest issue undermining China's complete confidence regarding Japan's nuclear ambitions is still the less than adequate amount of nuclear arsenal that China itself has. Sure it might be the 3rd most in the world, but the gap between 3 and 2 is huge. I'm even saying this as someone who speculates the real size of China's nuclear arsenal is probably larger than the commonly estimated 600 number, possibly nearing 800. Some people may disagree and say China would never downplay their true nuclear arsenal in the interest of maximizing deterrence potential, but I think that China is trying to navigate a structured American hegemony collapse and frankly, doesn't want to spook them too much.
With this said, now that Japan is rattling the nuclear sabre as well, the only way for China to posture itself in an way that helps to alleviate national anxiety and instill more confidence is a huge acceleration of her own nuclear arsenal, much more quickly than the previously already nominally accelerated rate. Whether done openly and possibly creating anxiety in the US as I previously mentioned or clandestinely, it doesn't matter, because it simply gives the state a huge new breadth of strategic ability to deal with all the possible new scenarios with a historical enemy in the neighborhood being a nuclear threat.
I can definitely envision an "Asian Israel" tethered rabid-dog strategy in which the US encourages Japan to be nuclear armed and essentially threatens China by saying they will "let off the leash" as a way to coerce. We really can not underestimate how deviously these demons think. Basically, as a crude analogy, when the neighborhood gets more dangerous, you sacrifice some other parts of your life to buy more guns and ammo as quickly as possible.
With this said, now that Japan is rattling the nuclear sabre as well, the only way for China to posture itself in an way that helps to alleviate national anxiety and instill more confidence is a huge acceleration of her own nuclear arsenal, much more quickly than the previously already nominally accelerated rate. Whether done openly and possibly creating anxiety in the US as I previously mentioned or clandestinely, it doesn't matter, because it simply gives the state a huge new breadth of strategic ability to deal with all the possible new scenarios with a historical enemy in the neighborhood being a nuclear threat.
I can definitely envision an "Asian Israel" tethered rabid-dog strategy in which the US encourages Japan to be nuclear armed and essentially threatens China by saying they will "let off the leash" as a way to coerce. We really can not underestimate how deviously these demons think. Basically, as a crude analogy, when the neighborhood gets more dangerous, you sacrifice some other parts of your life to buy more guns and ammo as quickly as possible.
It would take a few years for China to ramp up nuclear weapons production, so we wouldn't see the effects till 2030 or so.
The US already projects that China will add ~100 nuclear warheads per year.
So by 2030, China would increase from 600 to 1100.
That isn't a huge gap with Russia or the US, with their 1600 deployed warheads each.
And by 2035, the Chinese nuclear arsenal would be equal.
5500 is not necessary a fact, there is a lot things needed to get done to get nukes and the mass producing them, remains to be seen if the material is really nuclear weapons grade or require more processing, they will have to test a device even if the US given them a reference design which the US is not fool enough to do that. Also China has and is capable of producing Tritium that allows them to build city buster megaton range weapons is not know if they that capability.
The thing with nukes is that once you have nuclear weapons you nation become target of nuclear weapons, even if your nation is not involved in a nuclear war, for example if the Russians and US are in nuclear war and Japan has nukes is highly probably that the Russian will try to destroy that arsenal just by the fact the Japan and the US are allies. Either way, China are not fools, they know that the US will try in a conflict to take their nukes before they can use them, China has make crystal clear in their policies that any use of nuclear weapons in China will result in a huge escalation and in a massive retaliatory attack against US cities, and China is not playing, they are going for the kill, they are going for mass casualties given their arsenal, the are going to hit every single big US city. So that leave many US politicians with a pretty big dilemma if things go south in the strait are they willing to sacrifice Los Angeles for Taipei?
In the hypothetical scenario of nuclear proliferation in East Asia that dilemma doesn't disappear, in a hypothetical scenario politicians for example will have to decide if they are willing to sacrifice a city like Tokyo for example and 5,000,000 people who live there for Taipei? is a dilemma. China may have decided that their territorial integrity is worth a nuclear exchange if necessary. I don't know if is the same for other nations instigating a conflict like this hypothetical scenario.
I posted a Deepseek response to my question of "how much time does Japan need to come up with nuclear weapons" yesterday, and added one paragraph of my own opinion at the end of the post after the Deepseek response, but I forgot to specify clearly that it was my own opinion.
And my post got deleted, probably because the moderators thought that I was trying to masquerade my own opinion as part of the Deepseek response. My apology to the moderators for causing the confusion.
And my post got deleted, probably because the moderators thought that I was trying to masquerade my own opinion as part of the Deepseek response. My apology to the moderators for causing the confusion.