WWIII ruminations

Let's suppose that Japan and China do come to militaristic blows – not beyond the realms of possibility given Japan's recent claims – and that the US is drawn in, being beholden to Japan were such a situation to arise- where would this kind of conflict leads us? How do the respective "allies" and "axis" (delegate those terms at your prejudicial leisure) line up? Who would win? Would it / could it come to nukes?

The obvious notable Sino 'friends' would be Korea DPR, Iran and possibly Russia. On the other side we'd have the US, Japan, South Korea, Europe, Israel, Canada, Australia and possibly most neighbouring minnow Asian nations. That leaves the South Americas, of which I'd guess Argentina and Brazil would (at least passively) support the former factions – Falkland Islands and trade ties dictating this respectively – together with Venezuela. The Africas and the Middle-East would bring up the rear. ...not that they'd be much help in a global conflict.

How would such a war play out? Would the US attack China directly to wipe out its debt in one fell swoop directly or simply support Japan's sovereignty? Would the latest crazy Kim stay true to his Hollywood aspirations and take the opportunity to try rain wormwood on the "imperialist swine" US and their "lapdog traitor" S.Korea? How about Iran- would Israel themselves play the opportunists and raze the Persians to the ground as they've so long hankered to do?

Would anyone go full retard and use a nuke??

How's my RTS game shaping up? Looking like the makings of a best-seller we could see on future Xboxes and Playstations in the coming decades?

Goodbye Japan!


That was easy to figure out.

reply to post by CristobalColonic


China won't go to war over a few islands.

The losses they would take economically outweigh the benefits they would gain from military action.

Its really that simple.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Goodbye Japan!


That was easy to figure out.

What, so the Chinese would run the Japanese through with their own samurai swords, returning the favour owed to them since c.1937? Or are you implying the US would be impotent in the face of China's great newfound might?

Perhaps you mean no one would risk their economic relationship with China to help Japan and would just let the island nation sink...?

Originally posted by CristobalColonic

Originally posted by DaTroof
Goodbye Japan!


That was easy to figure out.

What, so the Chinese would run the Japanese through with their own samurai swords, returning the favour owed to then since c.1937? Or are you implying the US would be impotent in the face of China's great newfound might?

Perhaps you mean no one would risk their economic relationship with China to help Japan and would just let the island nation sink...?

edit on 6-2-2013 by CristobalColonic because: (no reason given)

The last part.

Between Fukushima and inevitable future EQ activity, it's not worth supporting as a long-term economic ally.

Originally posted by Spookycolt
China won't go to war over a few islands.

The losses they would take economically outweigh the benefits they would gain from military action.

Its really that simple.

Not really.

China experts have been saying that due to the shift in focus of China on its domestic economy and civil stability, it's foreign policy will take a back seat and become more reactionary in this new communist government's term. That is, if there's a flare-up, there won't be the diplomacy you'd expect if foreign policy were at the forefront of the govt's minds and contingencies for such scenarios were in place. This is from those who know the region; not some Internet fear monger forum.

Couple that with current Chinese and Japanese nationalistic ferver and you have a powder keg any trigger-happy ship captain could easily set off.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Between Fukushima and inevitable future EQ activity, it's not worth supporting as a long-term economic ally.

So the US's word means... nothing?? How would that look on the world stage- letting an ally sink despite allegiances?

Moreover, isn't the US built on its military might? Shying away from an opportunity to demonstrate thus effectively declares the US's inferiority and paves the way for the relinquishing of its 'superpower' status...!

Originally posted by CristobalColonic

Originally posted by DaTroof
Between Fukushima and inevitable future EQ activity, it's not worth supporting as a long-term economic ally.

So the US's word means... nothing??

How would that look on the world stage- letting an ally sink despite allegiances?

Moreover, isn't the US built on its military might? Shying away from an opportunity to demonstrate thus effectively declares the US's inferiority and paves the way for the relinquishing of its 'superpower' status...!

Does anyone's word mean anything? Ally shmally. Japan has gotten more isolationist in the last 10 years, and frankly it's a nuclear disaster that they've hid facts about. They're as much our friend as China or any other export nation.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Does anyone's word mean anything? Ally shmally. Japan has gotten more isolationist in the last 10 years, and frankly it's a nuclear disaster that they've hid facts about. They're as much our friend as China or any other export nation.

It's not the point.

A) The US is obliged under the US-Japan security alliance to come to Japan's aid in case of aggression directed towards it. This is the trade-off for Japan agreeing to maintain only a "self-defence force" as distinct from a fully fledged, war ready military.
B) The US wants / needs all the allies it can get. The last thing the White House would want is Asia – this century's likely economic engine room – falling under Chinese, communist auspice.

It would be illogical and irrational, not to mention immoral, for the US to forsake Japan under such circumstances. It would also greatly displease the US's other allies. Be realistic. America ain't going rouge and neither it nor Japan can be isolationalist in a today's global economy.

And that's not even touching on the issue of import- the region becoming a playground for some of the US's mortal enemies, like Iran and DPRK...

reply to post by CristobalColonic


Who you see as mortal enemies, I see as future allies. DPRK + Iran > Japan

Collapse in Japanese auto sales in China 2012.
In a chart it compared the Japanese drop-off in October year-to-year to a rise in sales for some other suppliers:

Mazda: down 45%
Honda: down 54%
Nissan: down 41%
Toyota: down 44%

Contrasted with:
GM: up 14%
Ford: up 48%



The interesting element of this graphic is that the only non-Japanese suppliers listed are both Americans. The largest foreign player in China auto sales - Germany's Volkswagen, whose share is equal to the four Japanese makers combined and experienced a huge jump in sales at Japanese expense in October - was ignored. Also ignored was South Korea's Hyundai, the third-largest in the market, and which also posted a healthy boost in sales.


I think this is the carrot dangling before US.

Originally posted by mypan

Mazda: down 45%
Honda: down 54%
Nissan: down 41%
Toyota: down 44%

Contrasted with:
GM: up 14%
Ford: up 48%

This drop in sales of Japanese cars in China is more than remotely related to the nationalism formented there as an offshoot of regional disputes and simmering historical animosity that have been given more attention since China's rise and entrained assertiveness / hubris.

I don't believe economic incentives could avert wars stemming from ingrained hatreds. I mean, the quickest way for the US to clear it's debt with China is... how? A. War. That, and Asian fanaticism should not be underestimated. Research the Korean war the 50's – the proxy WWIII that is still yet to be resolved – to see how utterly brutal these people can be. Many Asian conflicts make European bellicosity look positively gentlemanly.

The Chinese will just squeeze the Japanese black and blue economically and USA will do nothing.

1) This is not America's fight, America cannot protect Japan for eternity and the American's economy needs tending.

2) America is playing both sides and only the Japanese are myopic and China is awared of what it needs to do or what it shouldn't do.

3) America ability to fight 2 1/2 wars is a myth. Any war started from this angle will set the ME ablaze as well and the Arabs will sack your embassies since this is their new found favourite past times.

4) Take all your GI's home before that crazy Kim carries out his threat. Mainland USA might not be reachable for him yet but your serving boys and girls in SK and Japan are just too tempting a target.



GO HOME and take stock of what needs to be done in this once great country. Don't do the bidding of those Global Cabalists.

Based on the various economic and security treaty organisations in the region, I believe the chips would fall thusly:

"Bad" guys:

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation states: People's Republic of China and Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

There are also some SCO "observer" states which may or may not join the festivities on the side of the "bad" guys - Iran, Pakistan, Mongolia.

I am surprised that North Korea isn't in there anywhere, since the DPRK would most definitely side with the "bad" guys. en.wikipedia.org...

ASEAN is one of the Guest observers at the SCO and includes some states which may become belligerent on the "wrong" side of any conflict - Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand. en.wikipedia.org...

"Good" Guys:

Japan obviously. South Korea would be pulled into any conflict upon entry of the North Koreans.

Taiwan would be extremely lucky to avoid any participation.

I think that given Vietnam's history of conflict with China they would be on the "good" side this time.

Singapore and the Philippines would likely be on "our" side for cultural and economic reasons.

Australia, New Zealand and India would most likely be the biggest peripheral regional players on the side of the forces of "Good".

The United States of course has an immense security and economic interest in seeing Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Australia remaining untrashed and uninvaded. Vigorous US involvement in such a conflict would possibly invoke the NATO treaties - involving the UK, Germany, Canada, etc., and thus turning a regional conflict to a global one.

This is not something ANYONE would enter into lightly. If China and Japan started a shooting war over some pissant islands with lots of fish, Russia would be compelled to provide security or military assistance to China under the terms of the Shanghai Cooperative Organisation treaty - you can clearly see how it would then escalate stupid-fast.

China wouldn't fight us they know what we would do to them.
Nearly all of there population lives on the coast line 2-3 well placed nukes bam 500 million plus gone in minutes

Doubt hahaha oh well

WW3 doubt it.

Only multi staged multi nation Emp and assault may knock US off its rocker maybe

Originally posted by KonigKaos

Nearly all of there population lives on the coast line 2-3 well placed nukes bam 500 million plus gone in minutes

You say that as if the Chinese leadership doesn't see war as a viable, quick and easy means of population and resource control. 1 million plus male soldiers who will never find a woman remember... The social fallout of that alone will be horrific.

Open your mind. 2D thinking is SO 2005

Originally posted by nottelling
You say that as if the Chinese leadership doesn't see war as a viable, quick and easy means of population and resource control. 1 million plus male soldiers who will never find a woman remember...

It's closer to 40 million in the general populace, making for ample meat shields for 'Leongzhanks' to throw at the cause.

Originally posted by nottelling
If China and Japan started a shooting war over some pissant islands with lots of fish

This is the misconception the 'Asia illiterate' West need to discard. It's little to nothing to do with the islands per se. Senkakua / Daioyu are just a scapegoat for long fermented angst between the neighbours. It only takes a glance at the history of the pertaining countries to see if it wasn't these islands, it would be something else. North Korea, REE (Rear Earth Element) export quota restrictions, nationalistic sentiment in the respective countries... whatever. I'd wager China would turn bellicose just to prove they're no longer the 'slanty-eyed', rickshaw donkeys they've always been portrayed as by 'us'.

Anything could serve as a catalyst to these two locking horns, now that China feels it can flex its muscle. This is the point of import- China have the balls now to do what they've been spoiling for for time immemorial. Ask any honest ex-pat Chinese and you'll get the same gist. This 'recalcitrance' also extends to the West. The sacking of the Forbidden City, the opium wars etc, are far from forgotten by most Chinese. Only the younger generation look forward rather than backward in this respect; a generation that has its media censored and its power to choose government confiscated.

The mistake, I've always believed, is we, the West, allowed China to grow too fast; blinded by our own greed for cheap shít imports coupled with an ignorance for this region of the world. Now the horse is about ready to bolt and the question is: will it? And if it does, how far will it run?

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by CristobalColonic

 

China won't go to war over a few islands.

The losses they would take economically outweigh the benefits they would gain from military action.

Its really that simple.

They would risk war over a few islands. It would be a message that they mean business over Taiwan. If the Chinese took these islands by force and happened to kill a few Japanese soldiers, the US and Japan would do nothing. There is no benefit for them to get into conflict with China. You have to remember we are not dealing with a western mindset. We are dealing with the Chinese mindset primarily, and a communist one secondarily.

Nevermind already posted.

China /Japan war?? Maybe , DPRK and RoK yes and not far off, China and Japan will be brought in when the hot war flare's up.
To have China and Japan go tow to tow over some little rock, fishing rights is not in the equation... muscle flexing and the old lock on, cat and mouse game, will be the norm. the real story on the rock www.nakedcapitalism.com... from the link

By Robert H. Wade, professor of political economy at the London School of Economics. Cross posted from Triple Crisis

The current dispute between China and Japan over a few barren islands inhabited by goats – called Diaoyu in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese – looks at first sight to be a mere territorial spat. But it has escalated to a very dangerous level in recent months — first words, then actions of police forces, now actions of air forces, and, behind all these, both sides have mobilised all their military, political, economic, diplomatic, and cultural energies to engage in the dispute. It is more fundamental than normal territorial disputes, because the very identities of the two countries are at stake.

A strong narrative has taken hold in the West and much of East Asia about China’s behaviour, which starts with the proposition that China is the provocateur. Examples include, “China sows new seeds of conflict with neighbours”;[1] China has adopted an “increasingly sharp-elbowed approach to its neighbors, especially Japan”;[2] “China…has launched a new campaign of attrition against Japan over the Senkaku islands…. Beijing has sought to challenge Japan’s decades-old control, despite the risk that an accident could spiral out of control”.[3]

Slapping face, name calling and the old "mom he took my cookie" is to me what Japan and China are doing to bad it has to be done with weapons of war.