China asks army to be ready for regional war

China asks army to be ready for regional war

www.hindustantimes.com

China said it was normal for its marine surveillance aircraft to fly over the disputed Diaoyu islands after Japan scrambled fighter jets to intercept the Chinese aircraft early on Thursday.

Within hours of the incident, Communist Party of China (CPC) general secretary was quoted by the state media as ordering the largest armed forces in the world, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to be ready to win “regional wars.”

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.latimes.com

Well it would seem that China and Japan are now doing some serious cat and mouse games over the disputed islands. Earlier today Japan scrambled 8 F-15 fighter jets to intercept a Chinese Aircraft in the region.

It would seem the Chinese are now preparing for a regional war with Japan.

It would seem the timing is just about right, and that neither side is going to back down in this dispute.

So my questions to you...

With Japan being an ally, does this mean that the US will be dragged into this war as well?

What are your thoughts on the progression here if China or Japan were to make a more "serious" move?


www.hindustantimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, unless some major treaties have been invalidated when I wasn't looking and no one mentioned it........China is messing with Japan only while Japan can handle this mess. When or if it gets to be too much for the Japanese Defense Forces, the U.S, is obligated to back their play with all we have as I understand this to be. It's HOW the U.S. has been able to demand and enforce the lack of any Japanese military worthy of the name since the end of World War II. Similar with Germany but especially with Japan. They didn't need a military because we've been that for them, by choice and arrangement.....and binding treaty. At least that's my understanding here.

I sure hope Tokyo and Washington are closely working together since it's very much tied to both nations if things get out of hand.

reply to post by xmaddness


At this point let um have what is disputed and draw the line on what you already have proven you own. Does anyone here see what's going on here?

Maybe I'm a bit optimistic on this, but I can not see a US-China military conflict in the near future. The implications would just be to...severe.

Especially over such a small territorial dispute. China isn't threatening to take over all of Japan. Unless there were a major escalation, this thing will stay contained.

In all likelyhood a 'regional' war would likely stay that way on a timeline measured in minutes. We would not leave Japan to fight China alone, not with so many bases and assets of the US there. They also represent an invaluable staging area for US forces quite close to China and the Russian far east. Of course talking about considerations for conventional warfare assumes the sides have at least some capability to intercept ICBMs, otherwise various shades of nuclear apocalypse would occur.

Well it's about to get messy. We are on the brink of it people and by "it" I mean WWIII.

I don't normally post things in regard to the whole WWIII stuff, but it's everywhere now. Gov'ts are pushing and pushing, it's only a matter of time until someone pushes back, and hard.

ETA; It starts with regional and just escalates. That's my two cents though.

-SAP-

It doesn't have to be major for two powers to go to war, there only has to be the perception of a threat for regional to occur. For example, Sparta and Athens weren't angeling for a fight in the Peloponnesian War, but a colony dispute between Athens and Corinth (A Spartan ally) brought those two Juggernauts into war. However, I will refrain from saying that this will be the spark that lit the match. Too soon to tell. Really the bellwether of Asian conflict will be Taiwain. When Taiwain gets extremely defensive with its moves--then its time to worry, after all they have the most to lose in a regional conflict.

-Ghoster

This sort of thing will continue so both sides can save face but, in the end no conflict over this will happen, Mostly because China and Japan have everything to lose and nothing to gain. With US intervention China would lose its navy and airforce and have its sea lanes cut and never see the Islands again. China knows this. Japan would come out on the winning side but its cities could sufffer from missle attacks. Japan keeps what it has it suffers damage. Neither side has anything to gain from a conflict but, they will play it up for public support. The problem for China is this will just increase distrust in the region causing more nations in the Pacific to build up bigger militaries and cause them to demand even more of a US presence.

reply to post by MrSpad


On the contrary, there is a lot to gain over this. The disputed islands sit on an oil reserve with 45 years worth of oil.

For China, which already can't keep up with demand for oil, this may be the saving grace.

It's my opinion that China is just flexing it's muscle. They know that they have military superiority in the region and the US does not have the resources at this time to step-in to assist.

I wouldn't worry much.

This is certainly interesting. While every army should be ready for war, i find it intriguing that China went out of their way to publicly order their military to be "ready to win regional wars."

Since they have stated this, it appears that China foresees a military conflict happening soon. But not just one, as they themselves stated "wars." This means that China is preparing for more than one war...but with who? Japan? The Philippines? Both countries have had their run ins with China lately.

It appears that Japan is China's main concern at this point in time, especially due to the fighting over the islands.

According to 2005 treaty, USA has no obligation to intervene militarily and side itself with Japan

Japan will defend itself and respond to situations in areas surrounding Japan, including addressing new threats and diverse contingencies such as ballistic missile attacks, attacks by guerilla and special forces, and invasion of remote islands. For these purposes, Japan's defense posture will be strengthened in accordance with the 2004 National Defense Program Guidelines.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well, unless some major treaties have been invalidated when I wasn't looking and no one mentioned it........China is messing with Japan only while Japan can handle this mess. When or if it gets to be too much for the Japanese Defense Forces, the U.S, is obligated to back their play with all we have as I understand this to be. It's HOW the U.S. has been able to demand and enforce the lack of any Japanese military worthy of the name since the end of World War II. Similar with Germany but especially with Japan. They didn't need a military because we've been that for them, by choice and arrangement.....and binding treaty. At least that's my understanding here.

The US does not seem to be committed to defending Japan's claim on the disputed islands:

www.globalsecurity.org...

The US does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Diaoyu Islands. On 14 September 1996, a US State Department spokesman referred to the US's neutral position on the Senkaku Islands issue. On 09 April 1999 US Ambassador to Japan Thomas S. Foley said "The United States notes the Japanese claim to these islands, and we are not, as far as I understand, taking a specific position in the dispute.... We do not believe -that these islands will be the subject of any military conflict, and so consequently, we do not assume that there will be any reason to engage the security treaty in any immediate sense."

The 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security applies to territories under the administration of Japan, including the Senkaku Islands. In November 1996, Assistant Secretary of Defense Campbell stated that the basic position of the US is that the Japan-US security treaty would cover the Senkaku Islands. Secretary of Defense William Perry reconfirmed this fact on 03 December 1996.

On March 24, 2004, Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman at the US State Deparment said "The Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the Government of Japan since having been returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972. Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security states that the treaty applies to the territories under the administration of Japan; thus, Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands. Sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands is disputed. The U.S. does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Diaoyu Islands. This has been our longstanding view. We expect the claimants will resolve this issue through peaceful means and we urge all claimants to exercise restraint."

On 10 February 2005 U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said that Japan's new assertiveness is in line with the desires of many Japanese politicians to take their country beyond its post-World War Two pacifism. "It's a question of the evolution of Japanese thinking on its own. Japan has made it clear they want to resolve all of the territorial disputes by diplomatic means and that's certainly something that we agree with. Our kind of getting in the middle of it is probably not the most productive way to proceed."

Modern day oil....paid for by human lives. Worth it's weight in blood.

Oil, fuels your car and the war machine.

I was thinking of going into marketing. jk

All kidding aside though, They will fight for oil so will we as history shows.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You are quite right that the US would be dragged in, but lets not do the Japanese "Self-Defence Force" an injustice. For such a pacifist title, it has quite big teeth as it quite capable of packing a punch. Same with the Germans, as you mentioned it and they're not even restricted by Treaty to be pacifists.

As for the OP, this is probably a bit of sabre rattling prior to any talks that may be held. No one, on either side, can be seen to be "weak" so everyone is growling at everyone else, but the chances are this will all be resolved without a shot even being fired...

Let's hope so, anyway...

Originally posted by xmaddness
reply to post by MrSpad

 

On the contrary, there is a lot to gain over this. The disputed islands sit on an oil reserve with 45 years worth of oil.

For China, which already can't keep up with demand for oil, this may be the saving grace.

45 years worth of oil ?!!!
You have got to be kidding!
Those tiny islands are sitting on $$$ billions of dollars worth of oil?

reply to post by TauCetixeta


Yup, hence all the sabre rattling. The whole South China Sea/Yellow Sea/Whatever you want to call it, is a gold mine, which is why China has claimed ALL of it, regardless of national maritime boundaries and previous claims.

Originally posted by xmaddness
reply to post by MrSpad

 

On the contrary, there is a lot to gain over this. The disputed islands sit on an oil reserve with 45 years worth of oil.

For China, which already can't keep up with demand for oil, this may be the saving grace.

It can not take the islands by force. Period. Any military action would lead to crushing blow for China. The money used for such a conflict it would lose can be used to buy oil elsewhere.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

Yup, hence all the sabre rattling. The whole South China Sea/Yellow Sea/Whatever you want to call it, is a gold mine, which is why China has claimed ALL of it, regardless of national maritime boundaries and previous claims.

Well, that's okay. I heard the whole world is coming to an end December 21, 2012.

Saved by the bell !
I guess that new/old russian/chinese aircraft carrier will be headed over there soon.