# China's south china sea adventure **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594 "2015-05-22T15:19:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/61 "2015-05-25T18:19:33Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Leaving aside the spin on this, what does the fact that the Okinawans are protesting US military basing (something, as you noted, they have been doing for a long time…over a decade now) have to do with China being ‘encircled’ or afraid of the US military?? Okinawan opposition has additional weight because the Cold War (and perhaps the early weakness of the JSDF), which ostensibly provided justification for this deployment, is long over. What can it possibly be about, except for confronting China, which is not too far away? What other rationale can there be, except perhaps the inertia of the military-industrial complex? > [@](#): > > But you are shifting the goal posts. First you posted about US/Japanese exercises in the Sea of Japan. When I pointed out that the Sea of Japan isn’t close to China nor does it share a border with it you like this, which doesn’t show what you originally seemed to be claiming, which is that the US is operating in Chinese waters (or close to Chinese waters…or something). It’s immaterial. That _particular_ exercise was in the Sea of Japan, but any naval force operating out there in a non-exercise deployment could easily travel towards China and put those exercises to the test. If the US and Japan don’t think they might soon confront someone on the high seas, why have the exercises? Whom might they plan to confront, exept for China and perhaps Russia? In either case, the JSDF can handle it, and if not, it’s their responsibility to gain that ability. > [@](#): > > About building up relationships with other democratic nations in the region? Are we allowed to still do that or do we need to stop because China doesn’t like it? Relationships are one thing, entangling alliances are another, and such deployments increase the risk of an incident spiraling into conflict, not to mention all the other grievous costs associated with this sort of thing, for both the US and the host. It also removes the moral hazard (see below). > [@](#): > > This has nothing to do with the cold war. As long as North Korea threatens the south and continues to build up and harass the South (as well as Japan) and as long as we have treaty obligations to the South we will continue to station the few troops we have there. If China is seriously worried about a few 10’s of thousands of mean old US troop that are stationed in a country that doesn’t even border them and are stationed there simply because of their ally, well…that’s really a shame. There’s no need for a treaty obligation to the South. They can protect themselves. I think Beijing sees the US forces in Korea as more like a vanguard, and, in principle, they don’t want that on their border. I’m not saying it’s sensible (but consider a Chinese deployment in Mexico), but why tempt fate? > [@](#): > > As to North Korea acting as a buffer to the US forces, what a freaking joke. China has 2-3 orders of magnitude more troops than the entire US commitment in South Korea and many times the military force and power of the South (and this isn’t even counting nukes). You are living in a fantasy world where China is threatened by shadows. The facts on the ground have certainly changed, but the fact is that the Chinese still have the stance that I’ve mentioned, and there’s no upside to playing into those concerns. In the extremely unlikely event of a war between China and the South, that’s all the more reason not to have US forces in the line of fire! > [@](#): > > So, you just pulled Diego Garcia out for no reason. Ok, got it. As to Afghanistan, yeah, it does share a very small and pretty inaccessible border with China. No, I do not believe that anyone, including the Chinese (but obviously excluding you) thinks that the American presence there is any sort of threat to China in any sort of way. Even assuming we could pacify the entire country AND build up a major military presence there it’s like 4000 kilometers between the useable parts of Afghanistan and any targets in China that we might want to do something for reasons…and it’s even further to the South China Sea (something close to 8-10k kilometers, looking at a map). We’d be closer using our bases in Hawaii. 😛 No, I pointed out why Diego Garcia could be very relevant to any confrontation (plus, it’s important to tell the tale of the Chagossians). As for Afghanistan, of course it’s not close to the South China Sea, but in the event of hostilities, surely you’re acquainted with the strategy of opening up a second front? > [@](#): > > Spin for all you like, but only someone who hasn’t been paying attention thinks any of this is directed at China…it’s all about the North Koreans constantly pushing things to destabilize the situation, constantly firing new missiles and constantly making threats against South Korea, Japan and the US. You are relying on the supposed ignorance of your audience to spin some narrative that has no connection to reality, which makes this next part pretty ironic… The article points out that THAAD, assuming it works at all, has little to do with any of North Korea’s equipment, but is far more relevant regarding China, and many in the region realize that. > [@](#): > > 😛 Right. I’m being disingenuous by pointing out that you and others are excluding the middle. All the while, you are relying on folks to be ignorant of current and not so current events, to be ignorant of those map thingies and be able to Google distances and read the articles you post which don’t show what you claim in your drive by links. Gotcha. These things have a way of not staying in the middle, and I’ve already explained the relevance of my links. > [@](#): > > And it’s not all out nuclear war if we do what we are doing, either. THAT’S the excluded middle. And it is worth resisting China’s obvious land grab and attempt to assert sovereignty over a large international trade area. It would set a bad precedence for ANY country to be allowed to do this on this sort of scale, and frankly the US doing nothing here would, IMHO, increase the likelihood of a conventional conflict that could spin out of control. As you’ve ignored, there have already been military clashes in the area between China and various other powers, and this latest round of China attempting to grab the region has got the other powers even more on edge. So, the US being there calms things down to everyone but China, who is taking offense and acting all hurt because they want to be allowed to do what they want. Any confrontation between nuclear powers is extremely hazardous. If the regional powers want to resist China’s actions, then they can do so on their own. If there is a conflict, one way to make it less likely to spread is to not have the US involved. Also, having some sort of US involvement removes any moral hazard preventing local recklessness. See Georgia, 2008. As for a precedent, I think it set a bad precedent when (among other things) the Israelis repeatedly laid waste to Gaza, and when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, and when the Obama administration recognized the Honduran coup regime, and, worst of all, when the Clinton administration tortured Iraq with sanctions and bombing. I don’t trust DC to have good intentions, or that there will be good results even if they do. Suppose someone else didn’t like those precedents either, and tried to do something about it. How would you like that? I’d be leery too. Humanitarian intervention is best left to locals, and things can still go very wrong. > [@](#): > > And the unintended consequences of allowing China to have it’s way in this? What about those? I’m sorry, but I don’t see the US doing anything here that it shouldn’t, and I see China clearly escalating this situation and throwing gasoline on what’s already a hot situation. Those consequences, whatever they may be, are not as bad as a conflict which is no business of the US. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/62 "2015-05-25T22:46:03Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > I oppose China’s actions in principle, **but it’s not worth risking a war** , especially considering all the other (far from imaginary) actions that have left the Chinese feeling rather threatened. If the Chinese are going to expand like this, let them. It’s their loss Thats what a lot of countries said back in 1936, had Germany been slapped down then, the Euro war probably would not have gotten as large as it did. Japan may have tried another solution or a smaller war in scope, than what actually did happen. So far, opposing China is in the Jaw Jaw stage and it would be better to slap them down now, rather than later. Later means they put anti ship and AA missiles on those settlements, and state that they now represent to China, what Hawaii means to the States, pre statehood. Its very much worth risking a war. Declan ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/63 "2015-05-25T23:42:07Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Thats what a lot of countries said back in 1936, had Germany been slapped down then, the Euro war probably would not have gotten as large as it did. First of all, Germany did not have the hydrogen bomb. Secondly, Xi Jinping is far more cautious than Hitler. He, and his colleagues on the politboro standing committee (the self-perpetuating oligarchy that rules China) genuinely wish to achieve their goals peacefully. Thirdly, what China is doing is milder compared to Putin. We have to be careful how many enemies we make at once. While I don’t want to make an enemy of Russia, I do want China to know we appreciate that they haven’t invaded any neighboring countries, or Taiwan. One good thing about passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: China can be offered membership as a reward for not expanding eastward. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2015, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/64 "2015-05-25T23:51:08Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Its very much worth risking a war. This will remind any patriotic PRC citizen lurking here of something I find hard to deny: The United States is a more warlike nation than China. I like the US’s foreign policy goals better than the PRC’s. But talking about war (or waging it!) is no way to manage the relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/65 "2015-05-26T02:23:02Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > First of all, Germany did not have the hydrogen bomb. No, they did not. But China does. A point though, China has always had a modest nuclear arsenal for political reasons, rather than military. The thing about nukes, is that you are in a different league with regards to actually using them. Do you think that China is going to trade one of its major cities for Portland or Vancouver. Short of an actual land mass invasion by foreign forces, it won’t use nukes. I will not garuntee that the US wont use them, just that I am far more confident that China won’t. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Secondly, Xi Jinping is far more cautious than Hitler. He, and his colleagues on the politboro standing committee (the self-perpetuating oligarchy that rules China) genuinely wish to achieve their goals peacefully. Yeah, I get that China plays the long game. It’s had to, vis a vis its position in the world to date. But sooner or later for them, there has to be an end game, so that the goal posts can be moved to the next stage. China’s play works as long as everyone moves to its dance card, its when something happens, they are not so agile. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Thirdly, what China is doing is milder compared to Putin. We have to be careful how many enemies we make at once. While I don’t want to make an enemy of Russia, I do want China to know we appreciate that they haven’t invaded any neighboring countries, or Taiwan. Russia, old way of thinking. They are a regional power, thats had quite a bit of history behind them, but they are not the soviet union of old. The old soviet union would not have tolerated the sanctions we have put on them. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > One good thing about passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: China can be offered membership as a reward for not expanding eastward. It will be one of the causes of major contention going into the next ten years. It does nothing for North America, and will simply trade wealth eastwards, though I remain interested in the actual documentation, I’d like to be wrong. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/66 "2015-05-26T02:31:34Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Thats what a lot of countries said back in 1936, had Germany been slapped down then, the Euro war probably would not have gotten as large as it did. Japan may have tried another solution or a smaller war in scope, than what actually did happen. > > So far, opposing China is in the Jaw Jaw stage and it would be better to slap them down now, rather than later. Later means they put anti ship and AA missiles on those settlements, and state that they now represent to China, what Hawaii means to the States, pre statehood. > > Its very much worth risking a war. > > Declan First of all, I invoke Godwin. Second, without getting sidetracked into a discussion about smacking down Germany, the comparison is ludicrous. For one thing, even if the Chinese do all that you describe, that’s nothing like the actions of the Axis powers. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/67 "2015-05-26T02:58:35Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > This will remind any patriotic PRC citizen lurking here of something I find hard to deny: The United States is a more warlike nation than China. I think China and most of its citizens are aware of that, I’d take issue with war like, but it would only be a matter of semantics > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I like the US’s foreign policy goals better than the PRC’s. \*\*But talking about war (or waging it!) \*\*is no way to manage the relationship. Its why they have a foreign ministry and the US has a state department, they just do it more politely. Sometimes an ambassador like James Baker or John Kerry needs to be sent, and other times an ambassador like Roosevelt, Nimitz, or Eisenhower needs to be sent. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/68 "2015-05-26T03:10:27Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > First of all, I invoke Godwin. I think that got old about five years ago. > [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > Second, without getting sidetracked into a discussion about smacking down Germany, the comparison is ludicrous. For one thing, even if the Chinese do all that you describe, that’s nothing like the actions of the Axis powers. I would say that the German reference is relevant. Its about fear, fear of repeating WW1 held back France from stomping Germany. I would actually sympathise more , with people’s arguments here, if they were simply about caution. That military options were not the first goto , we have other tools, but from what I have seen and read on the boards, most people have surgically removed the military option as an option. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/69 "2015-05-26T03:57:55Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > First of all, I invoke Godwin. Second, without getting sidetracked into a discussion about smacking down Germany, the comparison is ludicrous. For one thing, even if the Chinese do all that you describe, that’s nothing like the actions of the Axis powers. China’s looking to expand into and take control over new territory. That’s something like the actions of the Axis powers. I’m not saying every country that seeks territorial expansion is Nazi Germany or should be treated as such. But it’s not a reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy if a person is presenting an appropriate comparison to Nazi Germany. ---
**Author:** ![iLemming](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90db22/32.png) [@iLemming](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iLemming)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/70 "2015-05-26T10:05:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I won’t be surprised if a war breaks out between China and the United States. But the South China Sea would be the wrong place for the United States to draw a line. If we wanted to make a stand there we should have started ten years ago. > > My prediction is we’ll fight a war with China within the next twenty to thirty years. Probably over resources in Africa. And that’s why I think we should be working with India and building that country up as a counterweight to China. The more China modernise and the more India are seemingly left to languish in Third World -esque - struggling to even tackle the issue of rape and misogyny endemic in their caste-centric culture; to say nothing of half of the subcontinent’s population still defecating on the streets instead of toilets(!) - the more I get the feeling that Obama put his eggs in the wrong Asiatic basket. Having said that, the U.S. could hardly have been seen to be cozying up to ‘Pinko’ pseudo capitalists who hold trillions of their debt. The biggest problem I see in this area is the West’s tendency to view China through a Western prism and the inherent misinterpretations and misguided prefiguring that this can lead to. I myself adduced this subject matter, at these very fora, a few years ago; only to be drowned out by ‘_U.S.A. is teh superpowers!.. RAR! RAR! YEE HAA!_’ -like drivel. Since then, through mainstream media attention, people have begun to (perhaps) realise that, in the age of the Internet, the technological gap between the U.S. and China is closing a lot faster than many lay onlookers inculcated by jingoistic, military reverence propaganda might have anticipated (see: J-31’s remarkable similarity to the U.S.'s, problem-plagued F-35’s) and that China cannot simply be ‘subdued’ or placated, as other nations themselves might be. Then when one considers how farcically the Middle Eastern wars have panned out - far less formidable aggressors than a current day or future China would certainly be - with even the ragtag ISIS barbarians proving to be stubborn roadblocks to regional stability - the economic tentacles of China embedded in virtually every facet of every nation - an interpolation of a Sino-U.S. conflict can only arrive at something very serious indeed. After all, if Putin can sabre rattle ‘nuclear modernisation’ in the face of _mere_ economic sanctions, one can only imagine how a paranoid communist state who literally wrote the book on war, have a history to back this up, have designs on much land ‘re-acquisition’ _and_ who have less than amicable relationships with many of its regional neighbours, would react… Some interesting addenda to this issue and China in general: [A Game of Shark and Minnow, New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/) [Two Men In China, ABC TV (AU)](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1x2uyk_two-men-in-china-s1e1-beijing-abc-tv_news) ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/71 "2015-05-26T18:31:18Z")
To me it comes down to this: are we, or anybody, going to use military might to fight back? No? Then lets do a combination of sticks and carrots. Such a plan does tend to piss off certain people who want to rattle their sabers whenever some country is pissing us off, but I’m not going to start WWIII over it ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/72 "2015-05-26T19:03:42Z")
> [@iLemming](#): > > The more China modernise and the more India are seemingly left to languish in Third World -esque - struggling to even tackle the issue of rape and misogyny endemic in their caste-centric culture; to say nothing of half of the subcontinent’s population still defecating on the streets instead of toilets(!) - the more I get the feeling that Obama put his eggs in the wrong Asiatic basket. Having said that, the U.S. could hardly have been seen to be cozying up to ‘Pinko’ pseudo capitalists who hold trillions of their debt. > > The biggest problem I see in this area is the West’s tendency to view China through a Western prism and the inherent misinterpretations and misguided prefiguring that this can lead to. I myself adduced this subject matter, at these very fora, a few years ago; only to be drowned out by ‘_U.S.A. is teh superpowers!.. RAR! RAR! YEE HAA!_’ -like drivel. Since then, through mainstream media attention, people have begun to (perhaps) realise that, in the age of the Internet, the technological gap between the U.S. and China is closing a lot faster than many lay onlookers inculcated by jingoistic, military reverence propaganda might have anticipated (see: J-31’s remarkable similarity to the U.S.'s, problem-plagued F-35’s) and that China cannot simply be ‘subdued’ or placated, as other nations themselves might be. Then when one considers how farcically the Middle Eastern wars have panned out - far less formidable aggressors than a current day or future China would certainly be - with even the ragtag ISIS barbarians proving to be stubborn roadblocks to regional stability - the economic tentacles of China embedded in virtually every facet of every nation - an interpolation of a Sino-U.S. conflict can only arrive at something very serious indeed. India is a modern country. They have toilets and everything. I’ll grant that India’s economy isn’t as large as China’s but I feel India’s development rate is more sustainable. India went for long-term growth rather than China’s short-term programs. China’s programs allowed it to take the lead but at some point it’s going to have to address the long-term problems it’s been avoiding; environmental damage, demographic imbalance, economic disparity, the militarization of its economy, and the dichotomy between its political and economic systems. And I’m not blind to the faults in the United States and its foreign policy fiascoes. But I’m not a liberal arts professor either. I don’t simply assume that anytime anything happens in the world, it must be America’s fault. I give credit to other countries for having their own agency. They can actually do things for reasons that don’t involve the United States. And I try to take an objective look at the facts rather than just swallowing the ideology. If a country invades another country, I see that as an act of aggression even if the invader claims it has nothing but peaceful intentions. It’s great that you’re able to see that the American invasion of Iraq involved a lot of lies and self-interest. But now apply that same cynicism to Russian claims about Ukraine and Chinese claims about the South China Sea. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/73 "2015-05-27T00:03:32Z")
[QUOTE=iLemming] I myself adduced this subject matter, at these very fora, a few years ago; only to be drowned out by ‘U.S.A. is teh superpowers!.. RAR! RAR! YEE HAA!’ -like drivel. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I remember some of those threads. As always, your interpretation is, um, interesting, even if it’s a bit far from reality. I note you didn’t link to any of these discussions to allow posters not familiar with your arguments to judge for themselves how ‘RAR! RAR! YEEHAA!’ this board is towards American jingoism. 😛 > [@](#): > > Okinawan opposition has additional weight because the Cold War (and perhaps the early weakness of the JSDF), which ostensibly provided justification for this deployment, is long over. What can it possibly be about, except for confronting China, which is not too far away? What other rationale can there be, except perhaps the inertia of the military-industrial complex? I’d say that, off the top of my head and besides the obvious (which is we have heavy trade and alliance commitments in the area), that North Korea would be a more realistic target. But you will spin this as you please and as you normally do. The fact that the US has drawn down it’s military commitments pretty much everywhere will, I’m sure, be spun somehow to our over weening ‘military-industrial complex’ in your mind at least. > [@](#): > > It’s immaterial. That particular exercise was in the Sea of Japan, but any naval force operating out there in a non-exercise deployment could easily travel towards China and put those exercises to the test. If the US and Japan don’t think they might soon confront someone on the high seas, why have the exercises? Whom might they plan to confront, exept for China and perhaps Russia? In either case, the JSDF can handle it, and if not, it’s their responsibility to gain that ability. And yet, that’s what your cite was about. If you have others, feel free to provide them showing what you claimed. Again, you make a claim, fail to back it up and then make your own conclusion as to what it means, spun to make your crazy world view look like it adds up. And, again, you decided, by fiat, that the JSDF can just take care of itself and thus we should just wash our hands, presumably, of the whole thing, even though we obviously have our own interests in the region. But, since the US isn’t in Asia I guess we don’t have any interests because reasons! China! Military-Industrial Complex! Stuff! > [@](#): > > There’s no need for a treaty obligation to the South. They can protect themselves. I think Beijing sees the US forces in Korea as more like a vanguard, and, in principle, they don’t want that on their border. I’m not saying it’s sensible (but consider a Chinese deployment in Mexico), but why tempt fate? Oh…well, if by fiat you have decided unilaterally that we have no more need to assist South Korea and they and Japan are perfectly able to defend themselves and don’t want or need us anymore I guess that’s it then. Ok boys, pack it in…let’s get out of there because we don’t have any interests, aren’t needed and the US isn’t in Asia! Glad you cleared that up. As to China deploying to Mexico, it’s hard to see how that makes any sense even as an off the wall supposed counter. > [@](#): > > The facts on the ground have certainly changed, but the fact is that the Chinese still have the stance that I’ve mentioned, and there’s no upside to playing into those concerns. In the extremely unlikely event of a war between China and the South, that’s all the more reason not to have US forces in the line of fire! Bummer that their stance has changed. I mean that sincerely, from the bottom of my top and all. But OUR stance wrt South Korea and North Korea hasn’t changed at all, which is more to the point. We aren’t there to keep China from invading South Korea, we are there to prevent the mad fuckers in the North from doing anything crazy and stupid. When and if China ever reins them in and replaced the loonies in charge with some sane humans things might change. In the mean time, not so much. I get that you want to just let China have free rein in the region, and that the US is the biggest stumbling block to that. I really do. But I’m not seeing how it benefits us to cave in and abandon allies we have supported literally for half a century. Yeah, China wants to change the status quo wrt the balance of power in the region…got it. But why should we just let them? What’s in it for us to do so except the disillusionment of our allies in the region at a time when China is trying to intimidate them and expand it’s territorial claims by fiat?? > [@](#): > > No, I pointed out why Diego Garcia could be very relevant to any confrontation (plus, it’s important to tell the tale of the Chagossians). As for Afghanistan, of course it’s not close to the South China Sea, but in the event of hostilities, surely you’re acquainted with the strategy of opening up a second front? Oh horseshit. Are you seriously proposing that the US could or would open a second front in Afghanistan against China?? Good grief, that’s one of the 5 silliest things I’ve read this week, and I’m following the freaking king of clads thread on geyser powered pyramid building machines. 😛 > [@](#): > > The article points out that THAAD, assuming it works at all, has little to do with any of North Korea’s equipment, but is far more relevant regarding China, and many in the region realize that. For anyone curious, this is [THAAD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense). Your claim that it’s only relevant regarding China and not North Korea is either hopelessly out of date (by a decade or so at least) or you once again relying on the ignorance of your supposed target audience. Also: > [@](#): > > However, South Korea decided it will develop its own indigenous long-range surface-to-air missile instead of buying the THAAD.[35] South Korean Defense Ministry officials previously requested information on the THAAD, as well as other missile interceptors like the Israeli Arrow 3, with the intention of researching systems for domestic technology development rather than for purchase. Also also…bummer that the South Koreans want a missile defense system that will allow them some protection from the mad nutters to the North, and that this would also lessen the ability of China to have a potential club over their head if they get frisky with defying China’s land grab. That really sucks, no doubt. Cutting to the chase (sorry, my eyes started to water after a while with all your rhetoric): > [@](#): > > Those consequences, whatever they may be, are not as bad as a conflict which is no business of the US. As noted, there is a middle ground between caving in and total war. You seem to think that all the bending has to be on the US’s part in this, and I disagree. China is the ones who are pushing this issue and the US is doing the right thing, IMHO, by calmly saying no, we don’t accept this. Secondly, this is directly our business, whether you accept reality or not. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/74 "2015-05-27T03:26:25Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > I think that got old about five years ago. I know. I’m tired of people making inappropriate comparisons to Nazi Germany. > [@](#): > > I would say that the German reference is relevant. Its about fear, fear of repeating WW1 held back France from stomping Germany. I would actually sympathise more , with people’s arguments here, if they were simply about caution. That military options were not the first goto , we have other tools, but from what I have seen and read on the boards, most people have surgically removed the military option as an option. > > Declan No, the Western Allies were hoping that Hitler would live up to many years of his written and spoken words and attempt to destroy the USSR, consequences for Soviet civilians (and others) be damned. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > China’s looking to expand into and take control over new territory. That’s something like the actions of the Axis powers. > > I’m not saying every country that seeks territorial expansion is Nazi Germany or should be treated as such. But it’s not a reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy if a person is presenting an appropriate comparison to Nazi Germany. Does anyone live out there permanently? If any islanders do get displaced, that’s comparable to the occupation of Diego Garcia, but not the Anschluss, let alone the invasion of Poland! > [@XT](#): > > I’d say that, off the top of my head and besides the obvious (which is we have heavy trade and alliance commitments in the area), that North Korea would be a more realistic target. But you will spin this as you please and as you normally do. The fact that the US has drawn down it’s military commitments pretty much everywhere will, I’m sure, be spun somehow to our over weening ‘military-industrial complex’ in your mind at least. The trade commitments should continue, but entangling alliances are bad news, to say the least. I’ve already invoked WWI, which should suffice, but I’ve already mentioned the close calls of recent years. To the extent that the US has reduced these commitments, there’s a lot more work to do! The larger strategic picture remains the same, unfortunately. As for North Korea, they’re vastly weaker than anyone around, and if war does break out, I certainly don’t want US forces there, getting entangled. > [@](#): > > And yet, that’s what your cite was about. If you have others, feel free to provide them showing what you claimed. Again, you make a claim, fail to back it up and then make your own conclusion as to what it means, spun to make your crazy world view look like it adds up. I didn’t think it made a difference, because even if the Sea of Japan doesn’t border China, it seems obvious that such exercises have China (if not solely China) in mind, because it seems far-fetched to go to all that maritime effort regarding only North Korea. Since you raised the issue, [I posted a link pointing to similar exercises happening much closer to China, along with other military moves](http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/u-s-arms-fuel-asian-tension/). It happens [in the air](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-china-usa-spy-idUSTRE76Q3YK20110727?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews) too, despite the 2001 incident. From the article: “China is unhappy with U.S. reconnaissance patrols near its coast and is suspicious of U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan.” > [@](#): > > And, again, you decided, by fiat, that the JSDF can just take care of itself and thus we should just wash our hands, presumably, of the whole thing, even though we obviously have our own interests in the region. But, since the US isn’t in Asia I guess we don’t have any interests because reasons! China! Military-Industrial Complex! Stuff! I didn’t decide that by fiat. The facts decided it. The JSDF can defend Japan, and if they can’t, they can gain the strength. It’s their responsibility. American interests in the region do not include getting involved in border/maritime disputes. > [@](#): > > Oh…well, if by fiat you have decided unilaterally that we have no more need to assist South Korea and they and Japan are perfectly able to defend themselves and don’t want or need us anymore I guess that’s it then. Ok boys, pack it in…let’s get out of there because we don’t have any interests, aren’t needed and the US isn’t in Asia! Yes, absolutely. All the money (and opportunity costs!) spent on this sort of thing (I know the Japanese cover some of it) would be immeasurably better spent on innumerable other things. This isn’t just a question of squandered resources, as it has potentially grievous consequences. Either you get rid of your empire (UK, France, Portugal) or it gets rid of you (USSR). > [@](#): > > Glad you cleared that up. As to China deploying to Mexico, it’s hard to see how that makes any sense even as an off the wall supposed counter. How would Americans feel about foreign surveillance flights coming close to the US, or some sort of large scale nearby foreign military deployment? Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa said that the US could keep its base in his country if his forces could have a base in the US. There is no longer a US base in Ecuador. > [@](#): > > Bummer that their stance has changed. I mean that sincerely, from the bottom of my top and all. But OUR stance wrt South Korea and North Korea hasn’t changed at all, which is more to the point. We aren’t there to keep China from invading South Korea, we are there to prevent the mad fuckers in the North from doing anything crazy and stupid. When and if China ever reins them in and replaced the loonies in charge with some sane humans things might change. In the mean time, not so much. There’s no reason for US forces to be involved in the standoff with said mad fuckers. [The people of Korea can reunite their peninsula, if only the US government would let them.](https://books.google.com/books?id=klPThXptjs0C&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=John+Feffer+North+Korea+South+Korea&source=bl&ots=hqXGIgZ4Ng&sig=LTWd04cMvnKGrl9v09GHEnYVa8o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oDJlVf-pHozVsAW76oHYCQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=John%20Feffer%20North%20Korea%20South%20Korea&f=false) Besides, it’s their responsibility. > [@](#): > > I get that you want to just let China have free rein in the region, and that the US is the biggest stumbling block to that. I really do. But I’m not seeing how it benefits us to cave in and abandon allies we have supported literally for half a century. Yeah, China wants to change the status quo wrt the balance of power in the region…got it. But why should we just let them? What’s in it for us to do so except the disillusionment of our allies in the region at a time when China is trying to intimidate them and expand it’s territorial claims by fiat?? Getting out of entangling alliances would benefit the US greatly. If the Chinese wish to expand, it’s their loss, and they are welcome to it. If other countries in the region have objections, they can take it up with the Chinese, and with one another. It’s no business of the US. As **even sven** noted, the Chinese government is not a Bond villain. > [@](#): > > Oh horseshit. Are you seriously proposing that the US could or would open a second front in Afghanistan against China?? Good grief, that’s one of the 5 silliest things I’ve read this week, and I’m following the freaking king of clads thread on geyser powered pyramid building machines. 😛 In the event of war, would you put it past them? Why not? The Pakistanis tried it, to no avail, when it looked like they were going to lose the Bangladesh Liberation War. > [@](#): > > For anyone curious, this is [THAAD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense). Your claim that it’s only relevant regarding China and not North Korea is either hopelessly out of date (by a decade or so at least) or you once again relying on the ignorance of your supposed target audience. Also: > > Also also…bummer that the South Koreans want a missile defense system that will allow them some protection from the mad nutters to the North, and that this would also lessen the ability of China to have a potential club over their head if they get frisky with defying China’s land grab. That really sucks, no doubt. A high-altitude system is far more relevant regarding China’s capabilities than North Korea’s. In addition, missile defense just results in the opposition building more missiles to overwhelm said defense, which was widely understood when the ABM Treaty was crafted and signed. > [@](#): > > Cutting to the chase (sorry, my eyes started to water after a while with all your rhetoric): > > As noted, there is a middle ground between caving in and total war. You seem to think that all the bending has to be on the US’s part in this, and I disagree. China is the ones who are pushing this issue and the US is doing the right thing, IMHO, by calmly saying no, we don’t accept this. Secondly, this is directly our business, whether you accept reality or not. It’s not a matter of bending, it’s a matter of recognizing that not every problem has a military solution, if there’s even a problem in the first place. It’s a matter of recognizing what is the business of the US and what isn’t. Disputes like this are no business of the United States. Any negative impact on trade would impact China as well. Any conflict would cause even more disruption of trade, especially if the US was involved. Worse than that, such conflicts have a way of spreading, especially in an environment of entangling alliances, and the consequences could be literally apocalyptic. [Deborah Brautigam has amply demonstrated](https://books.google.com/books?id=klPThXptjs0C&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=John+Feffer+North+Korea+South+Korea&source=bl&ots=hqXGIgZ4Ng&sig=LTWd04cMvnKGrl9v09GHEnYVa8o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oDJlVf-pHozVsAW76oHYCQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=John%20Feffer%20North%20Korea%20South%20Korea&f=false) that China’s largely non-interventionist agenda abroad demonstrates that they’ve learned from the empires of the recent past. If anything’s threatening, it’s all the paranoia regarding China. I don’t know if it’s a Cold War hangover or what, but there’s no reason for a bellicose reaction. Even if the Chinese do something untoward (and their actions in this dispute may well constitute that) it’s no business of the US, and no reason to risk war involving the US. That holds true all around China’s periphery, and indeed all around the world. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/75 "2015-05-27T04:23:30Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > Does anyone live out there permanently? Seriously? ---
**Author:** ![iLemming](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90db22/32.png) [@iLemming](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iLemming)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/76 "2015-05-27T04:50:41Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > Does anyone live out there permanently? Only these guys - [The Thin Pinoy Line](http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/) And as if right on cue: > [@](#): > > \*China outlined a strategy to boost its naval reach on Tuesday and announced plans for the construction of two lighthouses in disputed waters, developments likely to escalate tensions in a region already jittery about Beijing’s maritime ambitions. > > In a policy document issued by the State Council, the Communist-ruled country’s cabinet, China vowed to increase its “open seas protection”, switching from air defence to both offence and defence, and criticised neighbours who take “provocative actions” on its reefs and islands.\* [Reuters (May 26, 2015)](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/26/us-china-defence-idUSKBN0OB0CA20150526) A university professor in political and military studies (AU) today spoke of the “high risk” of a conflict between the U.S. and China and that a “nuclear exchange” is also a danger. That governments need to stop pussy-footing around China’s intentions in order to placate economic interests and take clearer and more definitive political steps to address this issue before it spirals out of control. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/77 "2015-05-27T05:06:05Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > There’s no reason for US forces to be involved in the standoff with said mad fuckers. [The people of Korea can reunite their peninsula, if only the US government would let them.](https://books.google.com/books?id=klPThXptjs0C&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=John+Feffer+North+Korea+South+Korea&source=bl&ots=hqXGIgZ4Ng&sig=LTWd04cMvnKGrl9v09GHEnYVa8o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oDJlVf-pHozVsAW76oHYCQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=John%20Feffer%20North%20Korea%20South%20Korea&f=false) Besides, it’s their responsibility. Ok, it’s their problem but: Are you saying with this part that South Korea could unilaterally unify Korea through military means?. I do agree with your implied roll-eyes about Hitler references. Building islands to lay claim to ocean resources/rights doesn’t come close to Lebensraum policies ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/78 "2015-05-27T05:20:18Z")
> [@iLemming](#): > > Only these guys - [The Thin Pinoy Line](http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/) So how long do I have to watch your blind linked video before I get to your point? Cuz the first minute or so is just a guy in a boat. I assume it’s a story about the very weak garrisons some of the other countries have plopped down to stake their claim. Feel like saying something about that? Or whatver you might have meant? Like tell me how dumping an ill equipped platoon on a rock to claim it is somehow more justified than building up a reef and doing same. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/79 "2015-05-27T05:45:32Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > The JSDF can defend Japan, and if they can’t, they can gain the strength. It’s their responsibility. American interests in the region do not include getting involved in border/maritime disputes. The JSDF are constitutionally for self-defense and not for power projection. Or did you miss that little bit of fact along with all the other facts you’re [del]pissing on[/del] ignoring? The current government in Japan is facing some rather severe criticism in Japan for reinterpreting the constitution to allow what the government’s calling “collective self-defense.” > [@](#): > > How would Americans feel about foreign surveillance flights coming close to the US, or some sort of large scale nearby foreign military deployment? The US government, specifically its military, would continue to do what it currently does now and has done for many years in such a situation: observe. The US recognizes international waters as such. > [@](#): > > Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa said that the US could keep its base in his country if his forces could have a base in the US. There is no longer a US base in Ecuador. And we no longer have a base in the Philippines. It’s up to the country to decide if it will benefit from having a foreign military base. What benefit would there be to the US to have an Ecuadorean base in the US? As it is now, there are foreign military units stationed in the US, benefitting both the US and the foreign country concerned. > [@](#): > > There’s no reason for US forces to be involved in the standoff with said mad fuckers. Have you never heard of treaty obligations? The government of the Republic of Korea requested that the US maintain bases in their country and, whether you like it or not, that very same government has requested that the US command the combined forces of the US and ROK in the event of active hostilities (“hot war”); the ROK government has even delayed transfer of “command and control” to the ROK Armed Forces. > [@](#): > > The people of Korea can reunite their peninsula, if only the US government would let them. Oh, you mean if the US would only let the DPRK sink more ROK ships, kill more civilians on small islands, and the like? Why didn’t you say so? > [@](#): > > Besides, it’s their responsibility. And one way the ROK government has exercised its responsibility of defending its citizens and territory from attack from the DPRK is to request via treaty help with such protection from the UN and specifically the US. > [@](#): > > Getting out of entangling alliances would benefit the US greatly. That’s quite debatable as evidence by this thread and many others. I see having alliances as a good thing and isolationism as a bad thing. YMMV. > [@](#): > > If the Chinese wish to expand, it’s their loss, and they are welcome to it. They are not welcome to unilaterally turning international shipping lanes into their territory. > [@](#): > > If other countries in the region have objections, they can take it up with the Chinese, and with one another. It’s no business of the US. As **even sven** noted, the Chinese government is not a Bond villain. Other countries do have a problem with that. Other countries have taken up the issue with China. And it is the business of the US, a seafaring nation, that one country is attempting to unilaterally turn an international waterway into their territory. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/80 "2015-05-27T07:17:01Z")
Open warfare would be, for lack of a better word, suicide for China, both militarily and economically. China would end up fighting at least four Asian countries, I’m guessing either one of Australia or India and the US, and would lose a large amount of trade. They’ll press the issue until Obama says enough is enough (which I believe he has), then they’ll relent. Of course, weirder things have happened so who knows? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594.md?page=5)