China Megathread - Their navy can be taken seriously or taken littorally

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > China Megathread - Their navy can be taken seriously or taken littorally

«‹›781 »

Vegetable: Oct 22, 2010

How much bullshit is in this?

http://www.japancrush.com/2013/stories/chinese-military-instructed-to-prepare-for-war-with-japan.html

quote:

Chinese Army General Staff Department Instruct Entire Military: �Prepare for War� Envisioning War Against Japan

It has been revealed that the General Staff Department which commands the People�s Liberation Army (PLA), has instructed the entire army that the army�s mission for 2013 is to �prepare for war�. This was reported in the January 14 edition of the military bulletin, the PLA Daily, among other places. Furthermore, state-sponsored media, such as China Central Television (CCTV) has recently broadcast special programmes on successive days that envision war with Japan, creating a sense of military tension.

Conscious of the military clash with the Japanese Self Defence Forces around the Senkaku Islands in Okinawa Prefecture, there is the possibility that the new Xi Jinping leadership has begun to initiate preparations and to create the right atmosphere [for attack].

According to the PLA Daily, in the 2013 �Instructions Relating to Military Training� that the General Staff Department issued to the entire military, the difficulty level of training for units is to be increased, and to be carried out more strictly� so that they might be able to respond in combat.

It is assumed that the leadership has taken a firm step towards preparing for war.

The PLA Daily also explained that this year�s objectives for military training were created based on important instructions by Xi Jinping, the chairman of the Central Military Commission, who took up his post in November of last year.

The original article is at Sankei MSN in Japanese

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/130114/chn13011419050004-n1.htm

# ? Jan 18, 2013 09:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 22:33

Grand Fromage: Jan 30, 2006; L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?

It's probably dickwaving. I have to think (hope) China's leaders aren't be stupid enough to actually go to war with Japan over some rocks. There's no way for China to win that, even if they could somehow take on the Japanese military and conquer the islands the political fallout coming down on China for it would be ungodly.

# ? Jan 18, 2013 10:11

LP97S: Apr 25, 2008

It would be quite a thing China piss away it's entire standing in Asia and see nations like the Philippines and Vietnam support Japan on an issue.

# ? Jan 18, 2013 10:38

pentyne: Nov 7, 2012

Grand Fromage posted:

It's probably dickwaving. I have to think (hope) China's leaders aren't be stupid enough to actually go to war with Japan over some rocks. There's no way for China to win that, even if they could somehow take on the Japanese military and conquer the islands the political fallout coming down on China for it would be ungodly.

I was reading an article about something similar. The newest/youngest wave of political and military leaders are those who've been spoon-fed the Chinese superiority and are coming into the game so full of themselves and their ideals that they are a real problem for international politics and negotiations. The author was making allusions to the Japanese pre-Lost Decade where all of the sudden the Japanese slashed their imports of US beef for, and this is as close as I remember, "your inferior western beef is unsuitable for our refined palatte"

A huge economic decision was made on the basis of assumed superiority, and the fear is that mentality will start to influence Chinese policy.

LP97S posted:

It would be quite a thing China piss away it's entire standing in Asia and see nations like the Philippines and Vietnam support Japan on an issue.

Yeah, nothing would unite the entirely of SE Asia like a aggressive expansionist China. Korea would probably be the lone exception, because of the atrocities during the Japanese occupation.

# ? Jan 18, 2013 11:02

Grand Fromage: Jan 30, 2006; L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?

Korea and Japan have already made overtures. They were literally hours from signing a mutual military treaty when the previous Lee Myung Bak decided to scuttle it to make some domestic political hay for the upcoming election. I think the threat of an aggressive China, plus I'm sure plenty of cajoling from their mutual ally in the USA may get them to work together.

# ? Jan 18, 2013 11:12

flatbus: Sep 19, 2012

Vegetable posted:

How much bullshit is in this?

http://www.japancrush.com/2013/stories/chinese-military-instructed-to-prepare-for-war-with-japan.html

My search-fu isn't very good. Do you know what the original article is? My best guess is this one (EN)

People Daily posted:

China will not frivolously wage a war, but "if we are attacked, we will certainly counterattack." This is absolutely our bottom line. Therefore, we should prepare ourselves to fight a battle as soon as possible.

It's a commentary piece (not an official order as suggested) and talks about some future scenario where Japan makes the first strike, so I'd say the BS content in the Sankei MSN article is pretty high - I don't see any state entity referenced in the commentary piece. The article is simply recalling the historical narrative of Japan being the aggressor, which is a very common rhetorical device. Even if Japan wanted to, it can't invade China again; even if China wanted to, it can't invade Japan. Neither side really can truly hurt the other, so I don't think there's the prospect of military conflict.

# ? Jan 18, 2013 16:47

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

I stop caring the China vs Japan shouting match after the last round of car wracking. Basically all 3 sides (China, Japan, US) are bluffing pussies. Whatever.

# ? Jan 18, 2013 16:56

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

It's good that you're able to see that the Chinese and Japanese leadership are just doing a little dance for domestic consumption, but the U.S. isn't really bluffing here. That's the scary thing for the U.S. really, we're bound up in this situation because of our defense treaty with Japan. The U.S. would prefer to do nothing and not be involved in this issue at all, but if the worst happens and the two countries start shooting we'll be dragged in.

We knew that people on both sides of the Sea of Japan were strutting saber-rattlers before. I think the biggest new piece of information is that the Japanese cabinet does not have firm control of their own foreign policy. When the Mayor of Tokyo can start an international incident you know the government has problems.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 04:11

Devil Child: Nov 30, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

whatever7 posted:

I stop caring the China vs Japan shouting match after the last round of car wracking. Basically all 3 sides (China, Japan, US) are bluffing pussies. Whatever.

The US, China, and Japan being bluffing pussies is what sensible people actually want. Why aren't you cheering this possibility?

# ? Jan 19, 2013 17:29

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Devil Child posted:

The US, China, and Japan being bluffing pussies is what sensible people actually want. Why aren't you cheering this possibility?

I am just saying the possibility of a hot war is alot lower than I thought 3 months ago and I won't be paying much attention to it, is all.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 19:31

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Doesn't seem like a good situation. The Economist, likewise published a recent article saying that the two were sliding toward war.

Lots of links embedded in this article.
http://www.businessinsider.com/live-weapons-involved-china-japanlife-fire-attack-drills-tracers-japan-f-15s-2013-1

quote:

Japan Threatens To Fire On Chinese Fighters � China Says 'There Will Be No Second Shot'

Robert Johnson | Jan. 21, 2013, 2:35 PM | 32,412 | 116When Chinese and Japanese fighters met for the first time over disputed islands in the East China Sea earlier this month, Japan promptly declared its right to fire tracers at China's jets.

Though met with outrage by China at the time, Japan continues promoting the live firing which Chinese military academics are calling the "first shot."

The Tokyo AP reports Japan believes it's simply following protocol:

�Every country has procedures for how to deal with a violation of its territory that continues after multiple cautionary measures,� Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said Wednesday when asked if tracer shots would be fired against intruding aircraft that refuse to change course. �We have response measures ready that are consistent with global standards.�

If Japan is using the talk of tracer fire to gauge Chinese reaction, the tactic worked.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said Sunday his country is on "high alert" and that Japan and the U.S. are ignoring the fact that "the islands are China�s inherent territory."

Never to be left out, Chinese military academics quoted in Beijing's state-run media provided far more fiery replies:

�Japan�s desire to fire tracer warning shots as a way of frightening the Chinese is nothing but a joke that shows the stupidity, cruelty and failure to understand their own limitations,� Maj. Gen. Peng Guangqian of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences was quoted saying by the China News Service and other state media.

�Firing tracer bullets is a type of provocation; it�s firing the first shot,� he said. �Were Japan to dare to fire tracers, which is to say fire the first shot, then China wouldn�t stint on responding and not allow them to fire the second shot.�

China then released photos of its East Fleet 052 destroyer during live fire exercises in the disputed area. The maneuvers involved both its East and South Fleets, simulating actual combat scenarios. Including multiple jet fighters and surface vessels, The South China Morning Post reports it as the first time naval air forces employed air-to-air missiles so far out to sea.

The second massive drill involving the South Fleet January 8, included Hong-6 bombers flying eight hour runs while evading radar and electromagnetic interference as they'd encounter in combat. One Beijing based naval expert said the drills would only increase in frequency and scope, and include other factions of the People's Army.

That appears to be accurate as China's also announced its army aviation unit of attack helicopters will shift from a logistics mission in preparation for combat.

The Times of India quotes the PLA Daily, China's official military newspaper:

The unit will work on major missions such as long-distance tasks, large scale offshore operations, attack coordination with other units and large scale airborne operations, it said, adding that the unit will also aim to improve its operation capability based on IT technologies.

The English PLA Daily army section has several announcements related to its helicopter units, their accelerated training, and even troops psychological readiness for "military transportation in high-tech wars".

Finally, because war preparation takes many forms, China's Communist Party news site the Global Times reports Beijing's new subway lines are fully online and able to withstand chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks. The tunnels have gates that form a seal between below ground and the street.

From the Global Times:

Jiang Hao, an engineer from the 4th Engineer Design & Research Institute of General Staff Department, said that the gates for civil defense have already been used in the subway in cities like Nanjing in Jiangsu Province and Shenyang in Liaoning Province.

"The new facilities also have other defensive capabilities like emergency communication equipment at each station, which makes effective communication possible during a conflict," Jiang said at the conference.

Of course, this may all be a matter of course as China exercises its financial ability and modernizes its military and infrastructure.

But there is little chance the disagreement over the disputed islands will quiet down any time soon with such intransigent claims of ownership coming from both countries. The feud also arrives as Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is eager to demonstrate a more assertive Japanese presence in the area.

With entirely new regional dynamics at work, it's difficult to say how much of this back-and-forth is posturing, and how much is some kind of mad inexorable WWI-like slide toward the unthinkable.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 14:29

TheBalor: Jun 18, 2001

I cannot believe the Chinese would throw everything away on this. If it looked like war was imminent, every organization from the US, the UN, to ASEAN would be using every trick they had to force a settlement. A war between Japan and China is a hair's thickness away from another world war. There's no way the current global system could survive that right now.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 14:42

flatbus: Sep 19, 2012

Charlz Guybon posted:

quote:
That appears to be accurate as China's also announced its army aviation unit of attack helicopters will shift from a logistics mission in preparation for combat.

The Times of India quotes the PLA Daily, China's official military newspaper:

The unit will work on major missions such as long-distance tasks, large scale offshore operations, attack coordination with other units and large scale airborne operations, it said, adding that the unit will also aim to improve its operation capability based on IT technologies.

The English PLA Daily army section has several announcements related to its helicopter units, their accelerated training, and even troops psychological readiness for "military transportation in high-tech wars".

Okay, I don't know anything about military stuff so this has me puzzled. What role do army ground attack helicopters play in island disputes? They can't fly out that far, right? Are they going to be transported by boat, and then fly over the islands? What's the use case for helicopters here? I can understand if they mentioned PLA Navy helicopters, but I don't understand the need for army aviation helicopters.

And I'll second the opinion that this war talk isn't likely since it's very stupid for either China or Japan to make the first move here. Japan less so since it has the US backing it, but for China there's really no material gain or backing if it goes to war.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 19:11

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

The Chinese have a very very limited littoral force projection capability, so there is indeed a nonzero chance that attack helicopters are part of a contingency plan to project force along their coast. Like, they could station the helicopters near Taiwan, allowing them to then redeploy other assets with farther range towards the Senkaku/Diaoyutai, etc.

That's just speculation, mind you, but the fact that the Chinese are kind of woeful in terms of littoral forces is pretty well established.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 19:16

Numlock: May 19, 2007; The simplest seppo on the forums

Judging from some news reports, there seems to be a cadre of PLA/PLAN officers who believe that China could wage a "Short, decisive, war" if not directly against the United States and Japan but against some of the other smaller nations whom they have competing claims with.

The idea is basically that China could attack (for example) Brunei, crush them quickly and force them to make a settlement before other nations (specifically the US) could figure out what their response would be. Then America would have to figure out if it wants to suffer the huge consequences of war with China, IE: a very unpopular war over some "dumb rocks", or just accept the new status quo. Even though we could certainly win, would we view the cost as worth it?

Could just be a few ostracized crazies mouthing off but China generally clamps down hard on talk that doesn't line up with official statements.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 20:20

Pump it up! Do it!: Oct 3, 2012

Numlock posted:

Judging from some news reports, there seems to be a cadre of PLA/PLAN officers who believe that China could wage a "Short, decisive, war" if not directly against the United States and Japan but against some of the other smaller nations whom they have competing claims with.

The idea is basically that China could attack (for example) Brunei, crush them quickly and force them to make a settlement before other nations (specifically the US) could figure out what their response would be. Then America would have to figure out if it wants to suffer the huge consequences of war with China, IE: a very unpopular war over some "dumb rocks", or just accept the new status quo. Even though we could certainly win, would we view the cost as worth it?

Could just be a few ostracized crazies mouthing off but China generally clamps down hard on talk that doesn't line up with official statements.

But why does China want to use such an aggressive approach? I understand that they want to expand their territorial waters but it's really loving stupid to act so aggressive and make all their neighbors hate them, why not use the approach that they are currently using in Africa? Where they are building infrastructure, becoming friends with the leaders and making deals that will give the significant natural resources.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 20:36

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Lord Tywin posted:

But why does China want to use such an aggressive approach? I understand that they want to expand their territorial waters but it's really loving stupid to act so aggressive and make all their neighbors hate them, why not use the approach that they are currently using in Africa? Where they are building infrastructure, becoming friends with the leaders and making deals that will give the significant natural resources.

I don't think that approach is as fruitful with their immediate neighbors because they have competing interests, in the case of Japan, the contested islands; in the case of Vietnam and the Philippines, another set of contested islands. In the case of India and Myanmar, security concerns.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 21:44

pentyne: Nov 7, 2012

Fine-able Offense posted:

The Chinese have a very very limited littoral force projection capability, so there is indeed a nonzero chance that attack helicopters are part of a contingency plan to project force along their coast. Like, they could station the helicopters near Taiwan, allowing them to then redeploy other assets with farther range towards the Senkaku/Diaoyutai, etc.

That's just speculation, mind you, but the fact that the Chinese are kind of woeful in terms of littoral forces is pretty well established.

The launch of their aircraft carrier was a big deal a few months ago. It's really nothing more then a floating hunk of metal the Russians didn't bother finishing and is incapable of doing anything but sailing in circles in the south China sea, and only just barely.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 01:41

Wibbleman: Apr 19, 2006; Fluffy doesn't want to be sacrificed

Numlock posted:

Could just be a few ostracized crazies mouthing off but China generally clamps down hard on talk that doesn't line up with official statements.

I dunno when you have Colonel Liu Mingfu telling Australia to tow the line, it gets a bit stupid. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/shun-us-tiger-and-japanese-wolf-chinese-colonel-warns-20130122-2d52d.html

Fantastic comments like:

quote:

Colonel Liu directly warned Australia not to follow the US or Japan into any military conflict with China. He said Australia should play the role of a ��kind-hearted lamb�� and China would discourage it from being led astray.
��Australia should never play the jackal for the tiger or dance with the wolf,��

quote:

Asked about the People�s Liberation Army fighting capability, Colonel Liu referred to the PLA department that houses China�s strategic missile and nuclear arsenal. He raised a hypothetical scenario that he said would justify a nuclear attack, while clarifying that he was not calling upon China to take such measures.
��If this Japanese wolf again attacks America�s Pearl Harbour or Australia�s Darwin, how do you know it wouldn�t receive another nuclear bomb?�� Colonel Liu said. ��The world would hail if Japan receives such a blow.
��I don�t want to mention China here, as it is sensitive,��

Seems to be ignorant of the treaties Australia is party to, Ie ANZUS which Articles IV and V deal with this directly. http://australianpolitics.com/topics/foreign-policy/anzus-treaty-text Also triggering of ANZUS will trigger NATO treaties on the American side, and while I don't think there are any offical treaties as such, attacking a Commonwealth member will tend to drag the UK into the conflict (as demonstrated by the Malay Emergency). Also the FPDA will trigger and cause the conflict to grow within the region.

I am also not really liking the references to Nuclear weapons there as well. China has pledged to "no first use", which seems to contradict the statements above. Though he isn't from the Second Artillery Corps so is probably talking out of his rear end. But the consequences of China usesing Nuclear weapons are very hard to predict, but would likely all end up negatively for China.

Hopefully hot heads like this can be reigned in.

Wibbleman fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jan 23, 2013

# ? Jan 23, 2013 05:16

Cirofren: Jun 13, 2005; Pillbug

Nuclear sabre rattling sure is a step up over some islands.

kazakirinyancat posted this article in the SE Asia thread regarding China buying up stockpiles of iron, gold, rice, and baby formula. Although it could be entirely to pull economic levers.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 05:35

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Wibbleman posted:

Fantastic comments like:

Dude's got a flair for the poetic, I credit him that.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 06:16

Wibbleman: Apr 19, 2006; Fluffy doesn't want to be sacrificed

Cirofren posted:

kazakirinyancat posted this article in the SE Asia thread regarding China buying up stockpiles of iron, gold, rice, and baby formula. Although it could be entirely to pull economic levers.

The baby formula bit looks like a bit of a red herring. There is no way individual shoppers are managing to buy up enough stock to be a significant supply for China. They did the same in NZ, but they were only buying the "premium" formulas and leaving the normal ones alone, so only impacted fussy rich people as most parents can't afford the 50% - %100 greater price for the premium formulas anyway (ie karicare gold vs Karicare normal prices have dropped as NZ Customs has started treating it as export without a license so its not happening here anymore. So it was just a excuse for more casual racism against Chinese people.

quotes like this

quote:

Daily Telegraph illustrated its report of Woolworths� move with photos of a Chinese woman purchasing 10 large cans of formula; she was said to have taken her purchase to her car and returned to the store to buy more, fleeing when she realized another shopper was photographing her.

Make it seem like people are just buying it up as they know they can sell it for double if not triple the price back in China.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 06:47

Cirofren: Jun 13, 2005; Pillbug

Wibbleman posted:

quotes like this make it seem like people are just buying it up as they know they can sell it for double if not triple the price back in China.

Yeah I didn't really see how a lone Chinese shopper in Australia related to PRC stockpiles. The metals and rice is still interesting however.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 06:50

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Just remember that all politics is domestic politics. These comments are for domestic consumption. 99% of Colonel Liu's don't know jack poo poo about Australia, nor do they care to.

Baby formula is ridiculously expensive in China. That's all the reason you need to have Chinese people buying out all the formula in a store. (And it can very easily reach the point of export without a license, a point that Western expats in China flirt with almost as much as Chinese expats in the West.) Chinese people routinely go, "everything is so much cheaper in America!" which makes Westerners' head spin but for some goods it's true. It's especially true for luxury goods.

I actually told my students (who should now be over the pacific) to explain Chinese luxury taxes to their American friends because they look really loving weird touching down in America and immediately going on shopping sprees for their entire extended family. China has a 100% tax on luxury imports so stuff like brand name clothes are twice as expensive in China.

With regards to Chinese nuclear weapons, China has a "credible response" policy, which requires only a relatively small stockpile. The idea is that if a some state nukes China, China can credibly blow up a few of their major cities. China doesn't physically have the capability for a nuclear first strike. At least not one that would make any sense.

Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jan 23, 2013

# ? Jan 23, 2013 17:48

Wibbleman: Apr 19, 2006; Fluffy doesn't want to be sacrificed

Arglebargle III posted:

Just remember that all politics is domestic politics. These comments are for domestic consumption. 99% of Colonel Liu's don't know jack poo poo about Australia, nor do they care to.

Except those comments were for Australian's as he said he was directly warning them, and wanted the comments to be passed on to Julia Gillard (the Aussie Prime Minister), which shows remarkable arrogance for a Colonel. Which is also why they should be ignored, if Generals started spouting stuff like that it would be worrying. You can't claim that it is only for internal consumption when your trying to tell another country what to do. I mean you can try, but it doesn't really work like that.

The Nuclear comments are simply worrying because they are there, everyone knows China has them, but by bringing them up frequently it looks like they are starting to use the "mad dog" Nixon school of thought in making your opposition think your insane enough to use them, so they back off. And that really only works if your the strongest party.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:26

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

I don't think the problem is that the upper echelon is itching to go to war. By all rational views of statecraft, the people in charge of China and Japan both don't want to go to war. The problem is that the points of friction--these aircraft patrols and naval patrols in which they are given free reign to fire warning shots are played out by lower level soldiers.

Something crazy may be done by either side on the level of individual pilot or captain that drags both parties into a conflict that the upper echelon can't politically get out of. That's why I don't think that talk of war is that overstated. The politicians don't want it, but they don't have control over every facet of world events. If something like what happened when a Chinese fighter collided with the US surveillance plane happens between China and Japan, they may very realistically be headed for a shooting war.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:25

flatbus: Sep 19, 2012

Wibbleman posted:

You can't claim that it is only for internal consumption when your trying to tell another country what to do. I mean you can try, but it doesn't really work like that.

Sure it does. Mitt Romney telling the American public he'll go hard on China's 'currency manipulation,' for example, is just pandering with no force or will of implementation behind it. And Romney was, at the time he said it, far more important than some colonel in an army. Fox News talking heads are another example. They have some rank in the army (or ex-army) for domestic credibility and they'll say whatever they get paid to. It's understood to be nothing more than that.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:39

Wibbleman: Apr 19, 2006; Fluffy doesn't want to be sacrificed

flatbus posted:

Sure it does. Mitt Romney telling the American public he'll go hard on China's 'currency manipulation,' for example, is just pandering with no force or will of implementation behind it. And Romney was, at the time he said it, far more important than some colonel in an army. Fox News talking heads are another example. They have some rank in the army (or ex-army) for domestic credibility and they'll say whatever they get paid to. It's understood to be nothing more than that.

Sure, if the comments were for America then it would be fair play. But I can't remember anything coming out of the aussie camp to trigger this, so it's some dude coming out of nowhere telling them what to do. And that doesn't really work with the aussie psyche. So the point I'm making is that when you are playing to a audience that understands who the real audience is, it works. But when it's a third party who hasn't so far participated then you need to expect some fallout and it not being so easy to brush off.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 23:36

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

Vladimir Putin posted:

I don't think the problem is that the upper echelon is itching to go to war. By all rational views of statecraft, the people in charge of China and Japan both don't want to go to war. The problem is that the points of friction--these aircraft patrols and naval patrols in which they are given free reign to fire warning shots are played out by lower level soldiers.

Something crazy may be done by either side on the level of individual pilot or captain that drags both parties into a conflict that the upper echelon can't politically get out of. That's why I don't think that talk of war is that overstated. The politicians don't want it, but they don't have control over every facet of world events. If something like what happened when a Chinese fighter collided with the US surveillance plane happens between China and Japan, they may very realistically be headed for a shooting war.

Just because it's a bunch of colonels spouting nationalist garbage, doesn't mean it's not dangerous anyways.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 00:30

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

I wonder how the 24/7 News media will deal with World War 3. Like, what's Wolf Blitzer going to say about mushroom clouds in the Pacific? Is it possible for the pundits to sit in stunned silence? (Personally I'd be going to a recruiting office, and hopefully in the dust-up the failures of the baby boomers can be erased and the lessons of the Greatest Generation can be built upon)

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:14

Deep State of Mind: Jul 30, 2006; "It was a busy day. I do not remember it all. In the morning, I thought I had lost my wallet. Then we went swimming and either overthrew a government or started a pro-American radio station. I can't really remember."; Fun Shoe

Arglebargle III posted:

Baby formula is ridiculously expensive in China. That's all the reason you need to have Chinese people buying out all the formula in a store. (And it can very easily reach the point of export without a license, a point that Western expats in China flirt with almost as much as Chinese expats in the West.) Chinese people routinely go, "everything is so much cheaper in America!" which makes Westerners' head spin but for some goods it's true. It's especially true for luxury goods.

Are you sure? How much is a tin of baby formula? I thought it was about melamine scares and a general idea of 'quality.'

SCMP posted:

[Mead Johnson Nutrition] moved to meet mainland demand last year by opening a factory in Guangdong.

"The quality of our product in China is exactly the same as in Hong Kong," Urbain said.

"What is different is that the packaging is in simplified Chinese characters on the mainland." He said Hong Kong would continue to receive its supply from the Netherlands.

Still, mainland parents prefer the Hong Kong packaging, making it popular with parallel traders, who buy tins of formula in Hong Kong and then sell them across the border, avoiding the payment of import taxes.

Are the taxes on formula that significant? I have asked Chinese friends why they pay so loving much for American luxury clothes, even when they're making like 4000 RMB a month. The answer is always a nebulous 'quality,' either in English or Chinese. "The quality is much higher."

# ? Jan 24, 2013 02:11

caberham: Mar 18, 2009; by Smythe; Grimey Drawer

Bloodnose posted:

Are you sure? How much is a tin of baby formula? I thought it was about melamine scares and a general idea of 'quality.'

Are the taxes on formula that significant? I have asked Chinese friends why they pay so loving much for American luxury clothes, even when they're making like 4000 RMB a month. The answer is always a nebulous 'quality,' either in English or Chinese. "The quality is much higher."

People in China don't have confidence in retail because they are scared of fakes. And some people actually buy into the marketing hype that all western products are better quality. Even though Levi's have factories in China :suicide:

# ? Jan 24, 2013 02:18

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Sure Globalization is turning us into consumer zombie ghouls, but trade will prevent another World War and produce a utopian global society :shepface:

# ? Jan 24, 2013 02:26

Wibbleman: Apr 19, 2006; Fluffy doesn't want to be sacrificed

Vladimir Putin posted:

I don't think the problem is that the upper echelon is itching to go to war. By all rational views of statecraft, the people in charge of China and Japan both don't want to go to war. The problem is that the points of friction--these aircraft patrols and naval patrols in which they are given free reign to fire warning shots are played out by lower level soldiers.

Something crazy may be done by either side on the level of individual pilot or captain that drags both parties into a conflict that the upper echelon can't politically get out of. That's why I don't think that talk of war is that overstated. The politicians don't want it, but they don't have control over every facet of world events. If something like what happened when a Chinese fighter collided with the US surveillance plane happens between China and Japan, they may very realistically be headed for a shooting war.

Well said, it calls to mind the telegram from Chairman N. Khrushchev to President Kennedy on Oct 26 1962.

http://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct26/doc4.html posted:

...

I see, Mr. President, that you too are not devoid of a sense of anxiety for the fate of the world understanding, and of what war entails. What would a war give you? You are threatening us with war. But you well know that the very least which you would receive in reply would be that you would experience the same consequences as those which you sent us. And that must be clear to us, people invested with authority, trust, and responsibility. We must not succumb to intoxication and petty passions, regardless of whether elections are impending in this or that country, or not impending. These are all transient things, but if indeed war should break out, then it would not be in our power to stop it, for such is the logic of war. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction.

...

If you did this as the first step towards the unleashing of war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge of yours. If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose.

Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this.

...

Cooler heads need to prevail.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 02:47

Suntory BOSS: Apr 17, 2006

I read an article suggesting that these hard-line retired generals may be more motivated by money than ideology; making incendiary crowd-pleasing remarks generates publicity and headlines, which means they're invited to give more paid lectures and can sell more books. Not that I doubt there are those in the PLA who earnestly believe they can get away with 'short sharp wars', but I suspect most Chinese policymakers recognize that they're simply not a match for the JMSDF/USN at this point and would stand to lose far more than they could expect to gain.

McDowell posted:

I wonder how the 24/7 News media will deal with World War 3. Like, what's Wolf Blitzer going to say about mushroom clouds in the Pacific? Is it possible for the pundits to sit in stunned silence?

With cool graphics and intro music and talking heads discussing the effects of a nuclear blast. Isn't that more or less how it went with the invasion of Iraq? WWIII would be the best thing to happen to cable news since 9/11.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 06:15

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

I see it as an outgrowth of going dissent among the populace and the Chinese economy continues to require additional stimulus. Also, the continued crunch as wages don't meet additional costs and what I would assume would be the loss of international and domestic credibility of the government from growing environmental catastrophes such as Beijing's atmosphere on any random day.

The saber rattling is getting louder because they need it louder, but I think the leadership is made up of selfish enough plutocrats to know that actual shooting wars with little chance for success aren't going to be great for their bottom line or keeping the public in line. They want a situation they can control and a real war isn't one of those options.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 07:26

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Ardennes posted:

I see it as an outgrowth of going dissent among the populace and the Chinese economy continues to require additional stimulus. Also, the continued crunch as wages don't meet additional costs and what I would assume would be the loss of international and domestic credibility of the government from growing environmental catastrophes such as Beijing's atmosphere on any random day.

The saber rattling is getting louder because they need it louder, but I think the leadership is made up of selfish enough plutocrats to know that actual shooting wars with little chance for success aren't going to be great for their bottom line or keeping the public in line. They want a situation they can control and a real war isn't one of those options.

I mean, you say that plutocrats know that wars are against their long term interest, but when do they ever act in favor of long term interest if a short term benefit is available?

# ? Jan 24, 2013 09:32

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Ardennes posted:

The saber rattling is getting louder because they need it louder, but I think the leadership is made up of selfish enough plutocrats to know that actual shooting wars with little chance for success aren't going to be great for their bottom line or keeping the public in line. They want a situation they can control and a real war isn't one of those options.

If the saber rattling gets loud enough they run the risk of true believers below them in the hierarchy doing something reckless that will force their hand.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 13:17

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Bloodnose posted:

Are you sure? How much is a tin of baby formula? I thought it was about melamine scares and a general idea of 'quality.'

Are the taxes on formula that significant? I have asked Chinese friends why they pay so loving much for American luxury clothes, even when they're making like 4000 RMB a month. The answer is always a nebulous 'quality,' either in English or Chinese. "The quality is much higher."

I forget the numbers, but I expressed exactly the same skepticism as you when a Chinese friend told me that formula is much more expensive in China, and then he came up with a surprisingly high number for how much a can of formula costs. I dunno, maybe he's wrong, but I believe him. And yeah, the Chinese middle class pays way too much for designer clothes. You should know everything is better in the West. Have you ever seen how incredibly disappointed a Shanghainese person gets on actually arriving in America? They have this fantasy of the West being all glamor all the time. And Western advertising agencies aren't eager to disabuse them of this notion.

Wibbleman posted:

The Nuclear comments are simply worrying because they are there, everyone knows China has them, but by bringing them up frequently it looks like they are starting to use the "mad dog" Nixon school of thought in making your opposition think your insane enough to use them, so they back off. And that really only works if your the strongest party.

Careful with the "they" here, nobody with any access to nuclear weapons has made any comments like that. That's very different from your head of state acting crazy on purpose. When Xi Jinping or someone on the senior PLA committee says something about nuclear weapons I'll get worried. That won't happen though. China has a lot of nationalist idiots and if you want to worry every time one of them says something phenomenally stupid and provocative you'll be worrying a lot.

Some idiot Colonel has delusions of importance and wants to send a message (or more accurately wants to be seen sending a message) to Australia about not interfering with whatever Great China happens to plan or not plan to do. This is not a big deal. Australia accepted a deal for a U.S. Marine base last year, which is small enough to be more symbolic than anything. That's probably what it's about. This is actually not that uncommon; China bigwigs frequently lose perspective on their own importance in the world and make ridiculous proclamations and demands. I think it comes from the kiss-rear end leadership culture and the unaccountable power these guys have at home. It goes to their heads. Bo Xilai had this bizarre idea that he could induce Sylvester Stallone to come tour his city just by ordering some Party underling to make it happen.

Charlz Guybon posted:

If the saber rattling gets loud enough they run the risk of true believers below them in the hierarchy doing something reckless that will force their hand.

This is correct; the real danger is idiots who buy the propaganda and aren't in on the joke doing something stupid. Lord knows China has a lot of them. On the other hand, the Chinese central government has shown that it has no qualms about shutting this kind of people down.

Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jan 24, 2013

# ? Jan 24, 2013 16:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 22:33

Pro-PRC Laowai: Sep 30, 2004; by toby

Arglebargle III posted:

Careful with the "they" here, nobody with any access to nuclear weapons has made any comments like that. That's very different from your head of state acting crazy on purpose. When Xi Jinping or someone on the senior PLA committee says something about nuclear weapons I'll get worried. That won't happen though. China has a lot of nationalist idiots and if you want to worry every time one of them says something phenomenally stupid and provocative you'll be worrying a lot.

Speaking as someone who lies stupidly close to the 2nd Artillery Corps headquarters and officer residence complex, I'd say that the people who actually have control over China's red button are far more interested in staying alive in their villas and driving around in their A8Ls than they are saying anything about nuclear hypotheticals. Then again.. they do have instant access from within the compound to the tunnel complex.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 16:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > China Megathread - Their navy can be taken seriously or taken littorally

«‹›781 »