China asks army to be ready for regional war

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Aveoamacus
 


Don't be silly, every claim any nation on this planet has or ever had is a result of war, colonisation or otherwise stealing it off someone else. The fact China appears to have surrendered any claim to it historically is the key bit and how they feel now is neither here or there.

China are also claiming huge swathes of sea up to the coasts of neighbours hundreds or even thousands of miles from it's own shores, so you harping on about them being "near" China is a moot point as they have no problem claiming sea-bed and islands literally off the coasts of the Philippines, Vietnam and others.

Bottom line is, this will have to solved by either diplomacy or War and to be honest, if they follow international conventions for maritime borders, they will lose out on most of their own greedy claims which is purely a resource grab anyway.




posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Don't be silly, every claim any nation on this planet has or ever had is a result of war, colonisation or otherwise stealing it off someone else. The fact China appears to have surrendered any claim to it historically is the key bit and how they feel now is neither here or there.

China never 'surrendered any claim to it historically'. Japan stole the islands in secret, as I've said several times before.


China are also claiming huge swathes of sea up to the coasts of neighbours hundreds or even thousands of miles from it's own shores, so you harping on about them being "near" China is a moot point as they have no problem claiming sea-bed and islands literally off the coasts of the Philippines, Vietnam and others.

That is not related to the subject at hand as the islands in question are on China's continental shelf (not Liuqiu's). It might also be interesting that the SE Asian countries had never made their claims there before the resources were discovered AND they were returned to China in a post-war treaty.


Bottom line is, this will have to solved by either diplomacy or War and to be honest, if they follow international conventions for maritime borders, they will lose out on most of their own greedy claims which is purely a resource grab anyway.

I can see why an uninformed outsider would find China to be 'greedy' in the Nan Hai dispute, but the Diaoyu Islands, which Japan illegally took from China AND should have been returned to China according to post-war declarations? Seriously? The Hague is likely to side with the US, of which Japan is a fan.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by diqiushiwojia
 


Look at this image of China's claims and tell me how they can justify claiming the entire sea, even up and down the coasts of nations far from their shores.... I can understand some of their claims, but to be honest they are taking the piss. If they continue to claim the entire sea as theirs, then they won't be heard on any claims they might genuinely have.





posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by diqiushiwojia
 


Look at this image of China's claims and tell me how they can justify claiming the entire sea, even up and down the coasts of nations far from their shores.... I can understand some of their claims, but to be honest they are taking the piss. If they continue to claim the entire sea as theirs, then they won't be heard on any claims they might genuinely have.




As a Chinese, I know very well the claims laid by my country. Yes, I can understand why you think that is ridiculous, but if you ignore your first impression for just one moment and take a look at historical facts, you may find that this is not the case. You'll discover that the sea has been incorporated into Chinese maps since the Tang Dynasty, which was over a millennium ago. After Japan took over them from Chinese rule during the Second World War, the Cairo Declaration (sorry if I sound like I'm talking about this all the time) states that they should be given back to China. SE Asia didn't really claim the seas until resources were found there a few decades ago.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by diqiushiwojia
 


It matters not if the SE Asian countries historically claimed those area's (many did not in fact exist in their current form), as international maritime law should be followed for the delineation of the maritime borders between countries. China is clearly ignoring international law and convention by claiming land well inside the EEZ's of other nations, in some cases right up to the territorial boundary. That is clearly unacceptable.

China would not tolerate it if, for example, Japan claimed the entire sea right up to the 12nm territorial limit or inside the 200nm limit and rightly so. Only recently Chinese fishing ships actually entered the EEZ waters of the Philippines on Scarborough Shoal (well inside the 200nm EEZ of the Philippines), leading to a bit of a diplomatic incident.

I also doubt, as "a Chinese", you have access to or have been given all the facts. Your country is hardly well known for tolerating dissenting opinion or information.....



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I haven't read the full text of the Law of the Sea so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but if you only look at the post-war treaties then they belong to China.

I'm from Hong Kong, where the government (nearly) never censors information. All websites are freely accessible (except on government Wi-Fi, which blocks out porn, pirate and gambling-related sites. At a point, they also blocked some human rights, religious, political and commentary sites too but this has since stopped.) There's also a notorious newspaper called 'Apple Daily', which is supported by the US and tries to embarrass the local and central governments on a daily basis.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aveoamacus

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Whether China "owned" them 700 years ago is meaningless. They gave up any and all claims in the 1800's. That was the price for ending the war.


Not meaningless, this is exactly the point. They belonged to China and they were taken during the war. It doesn't matter if there is oil or not. Had it not happened, they would still belong to China. USA enforcing that they belonged to Japan obviously did not help. China has essentially been bullied out of those islands and you are for some reason trying to justify it. Just because they gave in to pressure and violence doesn't make it right. That's like saying any country taken over by the Nazi's during the war still belongs to them because the people gave up their right to the country at the time.

China bowing to pressure all these years is perfectly understandable, as is standing up and taking them back once they are strong enough. There is no debate here. Japan has no claim or right to these islands. I really hope China reclaims them, but it's messed up how they are being portrayed as the bad guys for this



Why did China in 1953, before resources were found, say the Senkaku islands belonged to Japan? You really do not understand the dynamics. The islands were not actually part of the ending the war in 1895, it's a bit more complex than that. The islands were declared uninhabited (which is true). The Japanese laid claim to them. China accepted this claim. All OFFICIAL Chinese maps show the Senkaku islands as part of the Japanese empire after 1895. There was no dispute. The dispute only occured after the islands were found to be resource rich 70 years later.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia

Don't be silly, every claim any nation on this planet has or ever had is a result of war, colonisation or otherwise stealing it off someone else. The fact China appears to have surrendered any claim to it historically is the key bit and how they feel now is neither here or there.

China never 'surrendered any claim to it historically'. Japan stole the islands in secret, as I've said several times before.

China made several statements from 1900-1960 asserting Japanese control of the islands. China reversed their OFFICIAL position (which can be verified looking at OFFICIAL Chinese maps which show Senkaku Islands as part of Japan) after resources were found.



China are also claiming huge swathes of sea up to the coasts of neighbours hundreds or even thousands of miles from it's own shores, so you harping on about them being "near" China is a moot point as they have no problem claiming sea-bed and islands literally off the coasts of the Philippines, Vietnam and others.

That is not related to the subject at hand as the islands in question are on China's continental shelf (not Liuqiu's). It might also be interesting that the SE Asian countries had never made their claims there before the resources were discovered AND they were returned to China in a post-war treaty.

It is related, as it goes to the Chinese bully mentality where they are trying to take whatever they want and have no interest in what is fair or just.



Bottom line is, this will have to solved by either diplomacy or War and to be honest, if they follow international conventions for maritime borders, they will lose out on most of their own greedy claims which is purely a resource grab anyway.

I can see why an uninformed outsider would find China to be 'greedy' in the Nan Hai dispute, but the Diaoyu Islands, which Japan illegally took from China AND should have been returned to China according to post-war declarations? Seriously? The Hague is likely to side with the US, of which Japan is a fan.

They were being greedy in both, the Nan Hai dispute is simply much clearer. If OFFICIAL Chinese maps list the Senkaku islands as part of the Japanese Empire from 1900-1950 don't you think that's a good indicator there was no dispute, and China agreed they were Japanese?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
In the 1920's, Chinese Consul Feng Mien wrote a letter which the Japanese have on display that list the Senkaku islands as being part of the Empire of Japan.

1953, The People's Daily (communist part controlled paper so it's official) states the islands are Japanese.

In 1965, The Grand Atlas of the World Vol. 1 (Chinese) lists the Senkaku islands as being Japanese.

In 1969 the official PRC map lists Senkaku as being Japanese.
www.washingtontimes.com...

Recently Lee Teng-hui, the former President of Republic of China stated the Senkaku islands were Japanese (which is what his whole generation grew up believing).

There are similar points that can be made for Taiwan, that show clearly they did NOT dispute Japanese ownership of the islands.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The US is no longer the power it once was on that side of the world. China got her act together while the US is still fighting imaginary enemies in the ME. I really don't think that the US is capable of consolidating its force and look like the Japs will be thrown under the bus. Lacked of money and political will.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mypan
The US is no longer the power it once was on that side of the world. China got her act together while the US is still fighting imaginary enemies in the ME. I really don't think that the US is capable of consolidating its force and look like the Japs will be thrown under the bus. Lacked of money and political will.





Key word is fighting, something the Chinese have not done since 1979?

America has hardened vets and much more power



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NLDelta9

Originally posted by mypan
The US is no longer the power it once was on that side of the world. China got her act together while the US is still fighting imaginary enemies in the ME. I really don't think that the US is capable of consolidating its force and look like the Japs will be thrown under the bus. Lacked of money and political will.





Key word is fighting, something the Chinese have not done since 1979?

America has hardened vets and much more power




Not really much of a fight here.

Those stationed at Japan and S. Korea are just fodders. How long was it that the so called power projection of US is against an enemy that can gives as good at it gets ? I am afraid that the Chinese will fight a localised war while the Americans will have to cross an ocean just to be at the point B.

Can the US really have air superiority over an enemy like China, who themselves have kinda been busy with their carrier killers projects of their own ? Of course, nukes are useless tools becos both sides possessed them.

What people missed in this are:

China is very close to the supposed area and they have a very big missile force.

Hardened vets are a myth and America loses more from suicides than in actual combats as reported lately.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mypan

Originally posted by NLDelta9

Originally posted by mypan
The US is no longer the power it once was on that side of the world. China got her act together while the US is still fighting imaginary enemies in the ME. I really don't think that the US is capable of consolidating its force and look like the Japs will be thrown under the bus. Lacked of money and political will.





Key word is fighting, something the Chinese have not done since 1979?

America has hardened vets and much more power




Not really much of a fight here.

Those stationed at Japan and S. Korea are just fodders. How long was it that the so called power projection of US is against an enemy that can gives as good at it gets ? I am afraid that the Chinese will fight a localised war while the Americans will have to cross an ocean just to be at the point B.

Can the US really have air superiority over an enemy like China, who themselves have kinda been busy with their carrier killers projects of their own ? Of course, nukes are useless tools becos both sides possessed them.

What people missed in this are:

China is very close to the supposed area and they have a very big missile force.

Hardened vets are a myth and America loses more from suicides than in actual combats as reported lately.


Hardened vets is not a myth. Your next point proves it. We lose so few soldiers to combat that we lose more to suicide than actual combat. That is BECAUSE our experience in war is so superior we have extremely few casualties.

What naval force does China possess? There is so much wrong with your post I would have to contradict every statement you made. Carrier "killers" are theoretical, not tested. Every Carrier is surrounded by ships and guarded by the Aegis Missile Defense system. The Carriers themselves are designed to withstand almost anything short of a direct nuclear attack. We have two fleets in the Pacific, close to 70 ships.

China is buying 40 year old bombers from Russia, as well as fighter craft that were operational nearly 20 years ago (although the Chinese variant is actually inferior), and you think they will have air superiority?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by mypan

Originally posted by NLDelta9

Originally posted by mypan
The US is no longer the power it once was on that side of the world. China got her act together while the US is still fighting imaginary enemies in the ME. I really don't think that the US is capable of consolidating its force and look like the Japs will be thrown under the bus. Lacked of money and political will.





Key word is fighting, something the Chinese have not done since 1979?

America has hardened vets and much more power




Not really much of a fight here.

Those stationed at Japan and S. Korea are just fodders. How long was it that the so called power projection of US is against an enemy that can gives as good at it gets ? I am afraid that the Chinese will fight a localised war while the Americans will have to cross an ocean just to be at the point B.

Can the US really have air superiority over an enemy like China, who themselves have kinda been busy with their carrier killers projects of their own ? Of course, nukes are useless tools becos both sides possessed them.

What people missed in this are:

China is very close to the supposed area and they have a very big missile force.

Hardened vets are a myth and America loses more from suicides than in actual combats as reported lately.


Hardened vets is not a myth. Your next point proves it. We lose so few soldiers to combat that we lose more to suicide than actual combat. That is BECAUSE our experience in war is so superior we have extremely few casualties.

What naval force does China possess? There is so much wrong with your post I would have to contradict every statement you made. Carrier "killers" are theoretical, not tested. Every Carrier is surrounded by ships and guarded by the Aegis Missile Defense system. The Carriers themselves are designed to withstand almost anything short of a direct nuclear attack. We have two fleets in the Pacific, close to 70 ships.

China is buying 40 year old bombers from Russia, as well as fighter craft that were operational nearly 20 years ago (although the Chinese variant is actually inferior), and you think they will have air superiority?


Exactly. Hardened vets just don't off themselves so they can go to happyland.


The Chinese won't need their naval forces in the opening salvo of this war. That's the job of their 2nd Artillery Corps which is cleverly disguised missile force. How many missiles would they have to use to render useless 70 ships ? What's frightening is their manufacturing capabilities and home advantage. Those ships needed to be replenished too and those Chinese doctrine of area denying will come into play by not letting the US have air superiority.


What you failed to see is that the Chinese play a different game than you. You are showboating with sitting ducks while they are sharpening their skill to take you out assymetrically. Heck, I don't think they need an air force when you don't have anymore air force to threaten them with.


No, you simply can't take out China in their own backyard. It is not 19th century anymore.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mypan
Exactly. Hardened vets just don't off themselves so they can go to happyland.

Your opinion is awesome. Too bad it's not supported by facts. Being a master of the art of war does not make one immune to psychological problems that occompany war. Maybe you should do some reading about WW2 to see the difference between a unit of veterans and green troops.



The Chinese won't need their naval forces in the opening salvo of this war. That's the job of their 2nd Artillery Corps which is cleverly disguised missile force. How many missiles would they have to use to render useless 70 ships ? What's frightening is their manufacturing capabilities and home advantage. Those ships needed to be replenished too and those Chinese doctrine of area denying will come into play by not letting the US have air superiority.

You tell me how many missiles they will need. You are so far removed from battle doctrine realities it's laughable if you think they just launch some missiles and sink the largest naval fleet in the world. Drugs are bad.


What you failed to see is that the Chinese play a different game than you. You are showboating with sitting ducks while they are sharpening their skill to take you out assymetrically. Heck, I don't think they need an air force when you don't have anymore air force to threaten them with.

Sharpening their skills how? They have no skills as they have not been actively engaged in war. Why do you think they built a carrier to develop skills that America has honed to a razors edge in the past 70 years. If ships are so outdated and easy to kill why is China trying to build them? You seriously display a level of ignorance that is almost unheard of.



No, you simply can't take out China in their own backyard. It is not 19th century anymore.

You're right. That is why we can. In the 19th century it would have been impossible for America to do so. Now, we would destroy their infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities very quickly.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join