Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

China - and the dangerous drift to war in Asia

The locals were the ones signing up as tributary and allied nations, generation after generation and dynasty after dynasty. Don't confuse natural with popular: the natural shape of a region is one where the most economically productive and powerful nation is the one the others look to.

It can be temporarily bent out of that shape by interventions of outside players but once those interventions fade it will revert to that same model. There's a possibility that could be prevented by the complete destruction of the dominant economic power as a single entity but that didn't happen during any of the large-scale fragmentations in China's history so I think there's at least an argument this wouldn't make any long term difference.
Similar to the relationship between the US and Latin America?
 
Say that to any Vietnamese or Korean. I dare you.
I have done. I've also heard Korean and Vietnamese officials say similar things.

It's no different from saying that the US dominates the Americas or that Germany dominates Europe. Regardless of whether or not people like it, it's a fact.
 
But they don't. Not in the way you think China should 'naturally shape' Asia.
What you are describing are vassals. Or slaves.

China seems to think that it's right and proper to claim seas right up to the beach the board, 'inspect', beat up or shoot at anyone who has the temerity to dispute that. (So long, so far, as they can't shoot back). The law of the seas case was fine until they lost - then it has no relevance?

If America walked away from South East Asia, how long do you think it would be before we would see a major flare up between China and one (or several) of its neighbours?

The world has changed - for the better I think, 19th century landgrabs (or the ocean equivalent) don't really work any more.
 
But they don't. Not in the way you think China should 'naturally shape' Asia.

You clearly have no idea what I think. It’s not that an expansionist Chinese Empire is on the march, certainly.

What you are describing are vassals. Or slaves.

No I’m not. I’m describing the historic tendency for economically less-powerful nations to cling to the coat-tails of economically more-powerful neighbours. Tell me it doesn't routinely happen, I dare you.

China seems to think that it's right and proper to claim seas right up to the beach the board, 'inspect', beat up or shoot at anyone who has the temerity to dispute that. (So long, so far, as they can't shoot back).

No, they don’t. Read up on any of their claims or the counter-arguments made against them. You won’t find that in any of the PRC’s arguments or their competitors’ rebuttals.

If America walked away from South East Asia, how long do you think it would be before we would see a major flare up between China and one (or several) of its neighbours?

I doubt a major war will happen in Asia at all. For that matter, I doubt a minor war will happen, but if it does a contributory factor will be the actions of external players – notably the US – in trying to shape Asia for their own benefit.

The world has changed - for the better I think, 19th century landgrabs (or the ocean equivalent) don't really work any more.

They’ve worked for Japan, who’ve just unilaterally overturned the terms of their unconditional surrender without a peep from our side.
 
It’s not that an expansionist Chinese Empire is on the march
Tell that to Tibet and to the Uighur people.

I’m describing the historic tendency for economically less-powerful nations to cling to the coat-tails of economically more-powerful neighbours.
No you're not. China issues orders and makes demands/threats.

Read up on any of their claims or the counter-arguments made against them. You won’t find that in any of the PRC’s arguments or their competitors’ rebuttals.
Three words: nine dash line. The Law of the Sea tribunal decision, once it went against them, suddenly didn't apply.

the actions of external players – notably the US – in trying to shape Asia for their own benefit.
They will be involved if for no other reason than they have mutual defence treaties in the region. Also, the area they (the Chinese) want to control is one of the worlds major shipping lanes.

They’ve worked for Japan, who’ve just unilaterally overturned the terms of their unconditional surrender without a peep from our side.
I'm sorry I don't see any landgrab from Japan? They are expanding their military (after much discussion in the Diet) due to the threats from NK and China.

The only supporters the Chinese appear to have at the moment are the Chinese. The Americans have lifted the arms embargo and Vietnamese involvement in Rimpac has been seriously mooted. Why do you think that is?
 
Tell that to Tibet and to the Uighur people.

Xinjiang has been part of China a) since long before the PRC was founded and b) longer than most of the continental states have been united. Tibet is more complicated, I grant you, but since Lamaic rule was overthrown in the 1950s and most nations recognised the area of Xizang Province as part of the PRC, I can’t see how you expect it to prove a current land/sea grab by the PRC.

How is it a land-grab to govern territory that’s already been internationally recognised as yours for decades?

No you're not. China issues orders and makes demands/threats.

Really. How fascinating, do go on.

On second thoughts, please don't.

Three words: nine dash line. The Law of the Sea tribunal decision, once it went against them, suddenly didn't apply.

They refused to recognise the tribunal long before it made any ruling, not suddenly afterwards. Please try to keep to what has actually happened, will you?

They will be involved if for no other reason than they have mutual defence treaties in the region. Also, the area they (the Chinese) want to control is one of the worlds major shipping lanes.

The major shipping lanes which connect the world to China and vice versa. Whose interest would it be in to close them and why?

I'm sorry I don't see any landgrab from Japan? They are expanding their military (after much discussion in the Diet) due to the threats from NK and China.

Then, again, you haven’t been paying attention. Japan has formally absorbed several areas of territory (Okinawa, Takeshima, and Minami Chishima and Diaoyu) into the Japanese state, even though the terms of their surrender explicitly forbid them from unilaterally changing their national boundaries.

The Koreans certainly see Dokdo as an attempt at a land grab by the Japanese.

The only supporters the Chinese appear to have at the moment are the Chinese. The Americans have lifted the arms embargo and Vietnamese involvement in Rimpac has been seriously mooted. Why do you think that is?

The PRC has been invited to participate in RIMPAC. Why do you think that is?
 
Tibet is more complicated, I grant you, but since Lamaic rule was overthrown in the 1950s and most nations recognised the area of Xizang
Realpolitic, no more. Much like non-recognition of Taiwan. If they are so sure, how do they throw a fit any time the Dalai Lama pays a visit any where, or the US sells arms to Taiwan?

Really. How fascinating, do go on.
No need to. Hysterical demands to leave airspace claimed, building islands and claining that gives them legal control of the seas around them.

QUOTE="smartascarrots, post: 7489912, member: 20853"]They refused to recognise the tribunal long before it made any ruling[/QUOTE]
My apologies. So they decided that the one arbritation organisation for sea disputes has never applied to them. That's much better.

Whose interest would it be in to close them and why?
Not close - control. A small quote from the WSJ.
"Total annual trade through the South China Sea amounts to $5.3 trillion, with U.S. trade accounting for $1.2 trillion. A third of the world's liquefied natural gas passes through the Straits of Malacca and into the South China Sea, much of it bound for Japan and South Korea."
That's quite a lever against two of their major regional opponents.

Japan has formally absorbed several areas of territory (Okinawa, Takeshima, and Minami Chishima and Diaoyu)
Dokdo is an ongoing dispute with Korea.
Minami Chisihima, that would be the Kurils that Japan lost at the end of the war to Soviet occupation. Their status has been disputed from that time.
Diaoyu (Senkaku) are claimed by three nations. Taiwan, China and Japan. Although I suppose you will only recognise two.
Okinawa has a small independence movement it is true. But the main pressure (as ever) seem to come from China that has suddenly 'rediscovered' a claim to the island.

The PRC has been invited to participate in RIMPAC. Why do you think that is?
To try and keep them onside and part of the system. They only allowed tours to Japanese naval personnel after being publicly shamed into it.
The point I was trying to make (badly!) was that two recent bitter enemies (the US and VietNam) are now starting to look at military cooperation (minor for the moment). Port visitation, VietNam joing Rimpac, etc.
There is one driver for this.
 
Xinjiang has been part of China a) since long before the PRC was founded and b) longer than most of the continental states have been united. Tibet is more complicated, I grant you, but since Lamaic rule was overthrown in the 1950s and most nations recognised the area of Xizang Province as part of the PRC, I can’t see how you expect it to prove a current land/sea grab by the PRC.

How is it a land-grab to govern territory that’s already been internationally recognised as yours for decades?
The UK recognised Tibet as being part of China in the 19th century, if not before. Indeed, British complaints then tended to centre around the ineffectualness of Beijing's governance in Tibet.
 
China berates visiting New Zealand defence minister over South China Sea stance
China berating apparently, not just rebuking NZs defence minister for saying:
"We oppose actions that undermine peace and erode trust and would like to see all parties actively take steps to reduce those tensions," Brownlee said.

"As a small maritime trading nation, international law and, in particular, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is important for New Zealand. We support the arbitral process and believe that countries have the right to seek that international resolution," he said.
 
China plans to sell portable nuclear reactor based on ‘fundamentally unsafe’ Soviet design

This was in the DM & the DT as well 2 days ago, I only picked up on it in yesterday's Times.

The point being that this neat portable nuke jenny will enable China to power up the artificial islands it is building on coral atolls in the S China Sea.

The whole S China Sea think shows the usual Chinese total disregard for its neighbours, the environment, and international law. The gamble is that nobody will want to start a war and therefore China can go on doing whatever it likes. Same idea as Putin's Ukraine land-grab - thrice armed is he who gets his blow in first.
 
China plans to sell portable nuclear reactor based on ‘fundamentally unsafe’ Soviet design

This was in the DM & the DT as well 2 days ago, I only picked up on it in yesterday's Times.

The point being that this neat portable nuke jenny will enable China to power up the artificial islands it is building on coral atolls in the S China Sea.

The whole S China Sea think shows the usual Chinese total disregard for its neighbours, the environment, and international law. The gamble is that nobody will want to start a war and therefore China can go on doing whatever it likes. Same idea as Putin's Ukraine land-grab - thrice armed is he who gets his blow in first.
Let me see, an article is making the rounds among British papers saying the Chinese have developed a reactor which they will use to take over the South China Sea.
China has developed a nuclear power plant so small it can fit inside a shipping container – to help Beijing’s efforts to take control of disputed islands in the South China Sea.
Note the phrase I have highlighted above - "has developed".

The Independent cites the South China Morning Post as a source. When I look at the actual South China Morning Post however, the story turns out to be entirely different.
A top mainland research institute is developing the world’s smallest nuclear power plant, which could fit inside a shipping container and might be installed on an island in the disputed South China Sea within five years.
Note the SCMP says "is developing". I would take the "five year" time line with a very large grain of salt. That is probably their research funding horizon at the end of which they are supposed to show results. Quite possibly this aligns with the official "five year plan", which the Chinese take very seriously.

This is a very significant difference. If you want to do research on new types of nuclear power plant, the place to go is China, because they are putting lots of money into every conceivable sort of nuclear reactor. Few of them have much hope of success, but the Chinese government seems to be throwing money at all of them, hoping for a breakthrough. For example I know of several different Canadian nuclear power companies who are doing joint research with China on advanced reactor designs, including various thorium power projects. All of those projects that I have read about promise tangible results on unrealistically short time lines - most sound like overly optimistic promises made to qualify for research funding grants.

If a news story has suddenly elevated something from a research project to working reality and an imminent threat to peace in the South China Sea, then I really have to wonder about who is putting this story out there and for what purpose.
 
I never said it was arriving on a ship right now. It is however quite a reasonable idea if the science can be got right.
 
I never said it was arriving on a ship right now. It is however quite a reasonable idea if the science can be got right.
The science is well established. It's the engineering that is a major headache. Solving all the problems required to make it into a practical and economical power plant is non-trivial.

There are also existing research projects to create lead-cooled nuclear reactors in Europe and the US. As mentioned in the story, the Russians had them working decades ago. The problem is they are very complex and difficult to operate. There are much simpler and cheaper ways of building reactors.

I will not be surprised if the Chinese project is terminated after their research funding runs out.
 

New posts

Top