• 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 threatens nuclear war with U.S.

Montecresto said:
What is it you want to do about vietnams reclamation projects in the Spratly's , and their placement of artillery to assert IT'S claims to the Spratly islands.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a source for Vietnam's placement of artillery? As far as what I'd do about it, probably not much, other than tell all parties that this isn't constructive. But from what I understand Vietnam's efforts pale in comparison to China's.
 
Ahlevah said:
Can you provide a source for Vietnam's placement of artillery? As far as what I'd do about it, probably not much, other than tell all parties that this isn't constructive. But from what I understand Vietnam's efforts pale in comparison to China's.
Click to expand...

If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for both!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://amti.csis.org/vietnam-island-building/
 
Montecresto said:
If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for both!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Maybe. Frankly, I don't know enough about the history of the islands and international law to make an intelligent comment on whose claims are valid and whose aren't. What I will say is it would probably be more constructive if all parties would cease the reclamation efforts and sit down and talk about it, but I'm guessing that won't happen. More likely the guy with the bigger navy will exert control over them. But the principle that we need to enforce is free navigation of the South China Sea. No country should be permitted to unilaterally declare exclusion zones where none previously existed.
 
Ahlevah said:
Maybe. Frankly, I don't know enough about the history of the islands and international law to make an intelligent comment on whose claims are valid and whose aren't. What I will say is it would probably be more constructive if all parties would cease the reclamation efforts and sit down and talk about it, but I'm guessing that won't happen. More likely the guy with the bigger navy will exert control over them. But the principle that we need to enforce is free navigation of the South China Sea. No country should be permitted to unilaterally declare exclusion zones where none previously existed.
Click to expand...

Well that may be true, though a whole other subject than China's solid claims to the Spratly's.
 
Montecresto said:
Well that may be true, though a whole other subject than China's solid claims to the Spratly's.
Click to expand...

If China has a solid claim then maybe it should take it to the appropriate international tribunal set up for that purpose. Why use force?
 
Ahlevah said:
If China has a solid claim then maybe it should take it to the appropriate international tribunal set up for that purpose. Why use force?
Click to expand...

They've had possession of those islands since before the tribunal ever existed. I don't think China feels they need to do that any more than the US feels they need to demonstrate to the tribunal the legality of annexing a different set of islands, ;).
 
Montecresto said:
They've had possession of those islands since before the tribunal ever existed.
Click to expand...

Vietnam inherited its territory from the old Republic of South Vietnam back in the '70s. Plus China's a lot further away from them than the other countries. But if they have a legitimate claim then they should take it to court. I'm guessing it's flimsier than you make it out to be.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, and yes! Maybe they can enlist the help of the Dardanians. Americans are weary of perpetual conflict!
Click to expand...

An isolationist position, I am sure most of your own countrymen disagree with you there, so no point debating with a minority.
 
Ahlevah said:
If China has a solid claim then maybe it should take it to the appropriate international tribunal set up for that purpose. Why use force?
Click to expand...

No such tribunal exists.
 
Ahlevah said:
Vietnam inherited its territory from the old Republic of South Vietnam back in the '70s. Plus China's a lot further away from them than the other countries. But if they have a legitimate claim then they should take it to court. I'm guessing it's flimsier than you make it out to be.
Click to expand...

And I'm guessing that you don't even know what it is.
 
DDD said:
An isolationist position, I am sure most of your own countrymen disagree with you there, so no point debating with a minority.
Click to expand...

Oh you think that you always hold the majority view, lol. Not much on original thought eh?
 
Wandering around the internet, I came across this article. It’s dated, (2006), but provides a comprehensive look into how a war by Russia and/or China, with Iran as an ally, would be fought against America. It’s a long read and don’t be put off by the religious references at the top or bottom, the article itself was really interesting.

Russia and China Striking the United States where it hurts. Parts 1 & 2.
From Asia Times Online Oct 19, 2006:
AMERICA'S ACUPUNCTURE POINTS
 
LeoVlaming said:
In other words, when it comes down to real sovereign issues that countries consider vitally important, this court has no jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that.
 
Ahlevah said:
... which is more than you have, i.e. nada, zippo, nichts, null, ZERO!
Click to expand...

I understand you are frustrated by the fact that you haven't even read the things you've linked to, let alone understood what is written there. But hey, that's your problem, not mine.
 
Chagos said:
Couldn't find anything on "nuclear".

Next please.
Click to expand...

It's "nooklaar" dummy. Ain't you never heard of Nooklaar war with de commies"?
 
John V said:
Sandwiched between the usual banal topics of gay marriage and F to use nuclear weapons. China is not in opposition to a U.S. military presence in places like Japan or South Korea, but like Putin with the Ukraine and now China with the islands dispute, both are increasingly drawing red lines of their own in their own backyards.
Click to expand...

There is nothing new here. If you are more than 20 years old, you will remember that some similar issue pops up with regards to China about once per decade. China has shot down Anerican planes before. This will blow over.

Also, the idea that there are "new kids on the block" is one I disagree with. Russia is hardly a "new kid." We had a Cold War for decades, they were the world's other superpower.

Rather than being a country on the rise, Russia lost the Cold War, and they are substantially weaker today than they were 20 years ago. You think that defying the West on Ukraine makes them strong....just think that 20 years ago Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union and if Russia wanted to march tanks around Kiev, the West would have said nothing.

The situation in Ukraine, therefore, only shows how weak Russia currently is. In the past, the USSR could influence far away countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Chile. Today, they can barely influence Ukraine...located in their back yard and once a part of their own country.


As far as China is concerned, China depends on the West, especially the USA, to buy the stuff they manufacture. If China goes to war with the U.S., all we have to do is halt any imports from China and the Chinese economy is finished.

The cooperation between the USA and China is the most important bilateral relationship in the world, both sides know that. Neither side will allow this to escalate. This is simply another scare, as happens every so often with China.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom