• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China warplanes tail U.S. and Japan fighter jets; How Far Will China Go?

That is why I say America should redo the treaties.

Most of these agreements were a) when the Cold War was still on and b) when America was (outside of the U.S.S.R.) by FAR the most powerful country in the world AND by miles the largest economy. She could afford such luxuries as policing the free world.

Now, America is massively in debt, the economy is being propped up by smoke and mirrors (QE/artificially low interest rates) and is practically stagnant.
And China is fast gaining on America's economic supremacy.

America helped the world massively during the generation after WW2. Now it's time the world looked after itself and stop looking to Americans to clean up their messes whenever they get into trouble.

As for losing credibility?

IMO, between Gitmo, the NSA spying on almost EVERYONE and the drone strikes (which are technical acts of war in many cases), America is losing a TON of credibility by butting in to everyone else's business.

It's time America looked after itself and let other countries fix their own local/regional messes.

And if they don't like it - I could care less.

I actually don't have issue with pretty much anything you said. We're a far cry from the Cold War Warrior that was the defenders of Freedom across the world. Not only in terms of military and economic might, but as well it terms of credibility due to the issues you mentioned, plus the invasion of Iraq and nearly dozen other reasons.

Where I take objection with your assertion though about the world's police force is that, in most situations, there is a tangible benefit to us being involved in these issues. In the case of the issue involving control over the disputed areas in the east china sea, a large portion of our imports must come through that areas on their way to US Ports. If a conflict were to breakout, you could expect prices of all those products we get from china, to skyrocket. This is to say nothing of the fact of what it would do to worldwide markets that would again, affect us.

The world is a more interconnected place today than it ever has been. We rely on free access of goods across the world's oceans. Anything that could threaten that access (pirating in yemen, uprising in Egypt, or even the dispute in the east and south china seas) inevitably can and would have an effect if something should go awry in any of those situations.. And part of the way of exerting influence in these areas, is by use of allies in those areas that are such due to treaties and agreements that have lasted for over half a century. The best example is NATO, which has backed us up on several occasions, and remains an important partner with us in issues in the middle east.

My point being, like it or not, we have to be some level of the world's police force. Does that mean jumping in on every humanitarian crisis? No. But, those treaties that you would rewrite would severely hamper our capabilities in to deal with all these issues that popup.
 
The 'decent' ships I was referring to were the newer Chinese ones, not the Japanese ones. As I said, the newest Japanese destroyers are Arleigh Burke class copies...top notch destroyers (IMO).

I concur, the Japanese new destroyers are top of the line.

When you look at the tonnage, it's actually a cruiser but for political reasons they classified them as destroyers.
 
I actually don't have issue with pretty much anything you said. We're a far cry from the Cold War Warrior that was the defenders of Freedom across the world. Not only in terms of military and economic might, but as well it terms of credibility due to the issues you mentioned, plus the invasion of Iraq and nearly dozen other reasons.

Where I take objection with your assertion though about the world's police force is that, in most situations, there is a tangible benefit to us being involved in these issues. In the case of the issue involving control over the disputed areas in the east china sea, a large portion of our imports must come through that areas on their way to US Ports. If a conflict were to breakout, you could expect prices of all those products we get from china, to skyrocket. This is to say nothing of the fact of what it would do to worldwide markets that would again, affect us.

The world is a more interconnected place today than it ever has been. We rely on free access of goods across the world's oceans. Anything that could threaten that access (pirating in yemen, uprising in Egypt, or even the dispute in the east and south china seas) inevitably can and would have an effect if something should go awry in any of those situations.. And part of the way of exerting influence in these areas, is by use of allies in those areas that are such due to treaties and agreements that have lasted for over half a century. The best example is NATO, which has backed us up on several occasions, and remains an important partner with us in issues in the middle east.

My point being, like it or not, we have to be some level of the world's police force. Does that mean jumping in on every humanitarian crisis? No. But, those treaties that you would rewrite would severely hamper our capabilities in to deal with all these issues that popup.

I see your points and obviously they have merit, but I believe that it is not up to America to keep the sea lanes open to China. Since America runs a huge trade deficit to that country, it benefits China more then America to make sure their goods get through. So I think it should be up to China to keep their sea lanes open.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


I enjoyed debating with you on this.

Cheers.
 
I concur, the Japanese new destroyers are top of the line.

When you look at the tonnage, it's actually a cruiser but for political reasons they classified them as destroyers.

Really.

Who ever heard of a 9,800 ton destroyer?

Arleigh Burke's are - to me - newer, slightly smaller Ticonderoga class cruisers.
 
Really.

Who ever heard of a 9,800 ton destroyer?

Arleigh Burke's are - to me - newer, slightly smaller Ticonderoga class cruisers.

At full load, Japan's Kongo class destroyer is 9,485 tons.

The (flight llA) Arleigh Burke's class destroyers at full load are 9,238 tons.

The Ticonderoga class cruiser at full load is 9,589 tons.

The classification of todays warships, especially the U.S. Navy don't even make any sense, at least that's what "Janes" has said.

A cruiser is suppose to be fast with long range endurance and able to operate indecently and be heavily armed and with armor protection. Able to conduct surface warfare missions. The U.S. Navy's Ticonderoga class cruisers were built as escorts for our super carriers.

Look at the U.S. Navy's biggest boondoggle of the 21st century, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) aka "Little Crappy Ship"

I have no ###### idea how to classify that ship. It's nothing more than an oversize 3,000 ton coastal patrol boat that can't fight and the only thing it could blow out of the water would be a ski boat as long as it's only gun, the Bofor 57 MM works which it doesn't. A 1,000 ton corvette has more armament than the LCS.
 
cpwill said:
If they had a plan I bet it would look like this:

Raise tensions to the point where Japan finally shoots down a Chinese UAV. Declare that to be an Act of War, and take some posturing moves. Then declare that you're willing to start talks over the issue, thereby placing Japan in a no-win situation. Either they can refuse, in which case China appears to be de-escalating and Japan looks like the aggressor (which is easy for her to do in that region of the world) thus degrading her ability to form closer defense relationships with the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, et. al., or Japan has to admit the disputed nature of the Senkakus (which - I would bet - would be what China is after).​


Well, woops.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) agreed at a summit in Tokyo on the need for freedom of the high seas and skies and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

The chair of ASEAN next year goes to Cambodia. We'll see the extent to which they feel obligated to show distance between themselves and the PRC.
 
At full load, Japan's Kongo class destroyer is 9,485 tons.

The (flight llA) Arleigh Burke's class destroyers at full load are 9,238 tons.

The Ticonderoga class cruiser at full load is 9,589 tons.

The classification of todays warships, especially the U.S. Navy don't even make any sense, at least that's what "Janes" has said.

A cruiser is suppose to be fast with long range endurance and able to operate indecently and be heavily armed and with armor protection. Able to conduct surface warfare missions. The U.S. Navy's Ticonderoga class cruisers were built as escorts for our super carriers.

Look at the U.S. Navy's biggest boondoggle of the 21st century, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) aka "Little Crappy Ship"

I have no ###### idea how to classify that ship. It's nothing more than an oversize 3,000 ton coastal patrol boat that can't fight and the only thing it could blow out of the water would be a ski boat as long as it's only gun, the Bofor 57 MM works which it doesn't. A 1,000 ton corvette has more armament than the LCS.

Really? I just assumed it was some kind of Military Deception Plan - a cover for something else. I mean, it's a Littoral Combat Ship that can't engage in Combat and can't effectively patrol the Littorals.
 
While this may simply be posturing, it still is very dangerous to have war planes in such proximity to each other. My question: How likely is this to cause a conflict in the East China Sea? How serious should we take China's procolomation of "unspecified defensive measures against those that don't comply."

Given the stakes, China needs to be taken very serious. Good observation on opposing military plane proximities. As I heard one politician recently state, sooner or later someone's lible to bump into someone else.
 
It depends on China.

It seems we're going to continue to fly through there, as we should, and the Japan will as well.

If China doesn't do anything other than come up and take a look, we should be fine.

If China tries to force on of our aircraft to land (as they did with the Navy P3 a few years back) or divert to out of the area, then we could have some trouble.

And of course, if they take a shot? The it could go ugly early.

Hope for the best; that China reverses their provocative and aggressive move to claim that area. But given that they would lose face internationally, who knows if they'll back down.

My guess would be that plenty of analysis occurred before deciding to extend their reach, and that saving face wasn't a concern. Remember, it's not bragging if you can do it. I'm not suggesting that the Chinese are above making a political/diplomatic mistake, but they aren't stupid. Is there truly great harm done to anyone by this airspace extension? Something more than these tiny island/rocks are at play here. And, Obama's trip to Australia two years ago, his symbolic deployment of the Marines there and his message to Asia about China in his speech given while there, the "super base" we are building in Guam, the Chinese presidents statement to his military commanders in response and Panetta's declaration that the Pentagon will be moving 60% of its assets to the WestPac (all in Nov-Dec 2011) have something to do with what we're seeing now.
 
While this may simply be posturing, it still is very dangerous to have war planes in such proximity to each other. My question: How likely is this to cause a conflict in the East China Sea? How serious should we take China's procolomation of "unspecified defensive measures against those that don't comply."

They will go as far as they want. America and china are so codependent that we will never go to war unless the rest of the world has done it first, and unfortunately, they need us to fuel their freaking planes, screw full blown war.
 
The danger of the U.S. being drawn into lethal conflict with China over the Japan-China Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute has just risen. That the Obama administration has not done more to push the disputants—and particularly Japan—to de-escalate the crisis and to begin negotiating a resolution, is egregious negligence and incompetence in foreign policy that is already damaging and could be disastrous.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephen...the-obama-administration-dangerously-dithers/
 
While this may simply be posturing, it still is very dangerous to have war planes in such proximity to each other. My question:
How likely is this to cause a conflict in the East China Sea?
How serious should we take China's procolomation of "unspecified defensive measures against those that don't comply."




I find it mighty hard to believe that China would ever want to go to war with a good customer like the USA over something like this.
 
It's too obvious that it must be much more than something like this. (The tiny island/rocks)
 
While this may simply be posturing, it still is very dangerous to have war planes in such proximity to each other. My question: How likely is this to cause a conflict in the East China Sea? How serious should we take China's procolomation of "unspecified defensive measures against those that don't comply."

"We" don't have a say in this issue. Only the US and Chinese govt's are involved.
 
"We" don't have a say in this issue. Only the US and Chinese govt's are involved.

We are supposed to control our government. The Chinese people have no such mandate.

Whatever happened to our willingness to participate in government by the people?
 
Calm down people, nothing is going to happen. China has no ability to defeat us.
 
Calm down people, nothing is going to happen. China has no ability to defeat us.

In 17 pages have you spotted a post where anybody suggested that China could defeat us?
 
I have spotted, in 17 pages, where people are worried about China attacking.

One thing a good fighter learns quickly, you don't start a fight you can't finish.

'Nuff said.
 
If you read all the posts you'd see its not just contributors to this board that are expressing concerns, I don't believe fear or hyperventilation, as you made it sound, is what has been expressed.
 
My guess would be that plenty of analysis occurred before deciding to extend their reach, and that saving face wasn't a concern. Remember, it's not bragging if you can do it. I'm not suggesting that the Chinese are above making a political/diplomatic mistake, but they aren't stupid. Is there truly great harm done to anyone by this airspace extension? Something more than these tiny island/rocks are at play here. And, Obama's trip to Australia two years ago, his symbolic deployment of the Marines there and his message to Asia about China in his speech given while there, the "super base" we are building in Guam, the Chinese presidents statement to his military commanders in response and Panetta's declaration that the Pentagon will be moving 60% of its assets to the WestPac (all in Nov-Dec 2011) have something to do with what we're seeing now.

All very true.

The only problem is not the islands, but the airspace above them, and the potential for an "accidental" encounter between the US Navy and the Chinese PLA Navy, as has almost already occurred with the USS Cowpens on December 5th.

The Chinese claiming this area as part of their ADIZ, or at least creating a new extended ADIZ, would be like the US claiming all of the Brazilian coastal waters as part of our ADIZ since the US Virgin Islands are close to them.

This is nothing but a power play on the part of China. It's both a protective measure, as you pointed out in you post, in response to US policy, as well as an aggressive move to posture for the US and send a message. Additionally, there is oil in that region around those islands, and China's economy and infrastructure are growing faster than their current resource availability can support.
 
All very true.

The only problem is not the islands, but the airspace above them, and the potential for an "accidental" encounter between the US Navy and the Chinese PLA Navy, as has almost already occurred with the USS Cowpens on December 5th.

The Chinese claiming this area as part of their ADIZ, or at least creating a new extended ADIZ, would be like the US claiming all of the Brazilian coastal waters as part of our ADIZ since the US Virgin Islands are close to them.

This is nothing but a power play on the part of China. It's both a protective measure, as you pointed out in you post, in response to US policy, as well as an aggressive move to posture for the US and send a message. Additionally, there is oil in that region around those islands, and China's economy and infrastructure are growing faster than their current resource availability can support.

I completely agree that oil is a factor for China. I only hope China gets what they need and nobody gets hurt. It's a question of whether the "pivot" is to provoke China as they claim, or to respond to China's overtures as the US claims.
 
I completely agree that oil is a factor for China. I only hope China gets what they need and nobody gets hurt. It's a question of whether the "pivot" is to provoke China as they claim, or to respond to China's overtures as the US claims.

I feel it's the latter; to respond to China's overtures, and overtly aggressive moves over the last decade or so.
 
I feel it's the latter; to respond to China's overtures, and overtly aggressive moves over the last decade or so.

Well that's certainly what were getting from Washington.
 
An interesting side note: it just so happened that the Chinese have chosen to go ahead with sea trials of their first carrier, the Liaoning, that will be sailing through the East China Sea and into the South China Sea where they also have disputes with the Philippines over some islands. The George Washington is also in the area, assisting with humanitarian efforts with the recent Philippine earthquake. I wonder if the US will attempt to show the flag in the area, and if the Chinese would (i believe inevitably) flex it's muscles with it's own aircraft carrier. Food for thought.

Obama is a chump and they know it.
 
Obama doesn't have the balls of a neutered dog. EVERYONE knows that.
 
Back
Top Bottom