China scrambles jets after US, Japan enter air zone

[jakeXT]

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Voice of Russia, AFP, Xinhua

Chinese fighter jets were scrambled and followed US and Japanese planes that had entered the newly-proclaimed Chinese air defense zone in the disputed area of the East China Sea, Xinhua reports.

Two US surveillance aircraft and 10 Japanese F-15 jets were ‘tailed’ by Chinese pilots on Friday.

China ordered an urgent dispatch of its Su-30 and J-10 fighter jets to an area in the East China Sea after the foreign aircraft “invaded” the air defense zone, they said.




Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_11_29/China-scrambles-jets-after-US-Japan-enter-air-zone-Xinhua-7158/

---

This was the first time China had scrambled fighters to respond to aircraft entering its ADIZ since the zone was announced last Saturday. While China flew jets into the zone on Thursday, that was not in response to any perceived incursion by Japanese or US aircraft.

The apparent growing number of military aircraft entering the contested area highlights the concerns voiced by experts who say the risk of conflict – either accidental or deliberate – is rising quickly.

“This is a dangerous game of chicken,” said Ian Storey, a security expert at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, before the Chinese revealed details of their latest fighter missions. “China is testing the limits of the US-Japanese relationship, and the message from the US and Japan has been loud and clear.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/41e02002-58e7-11e3-a7cb-00144feabdc0.html

[bemildred]

1. "So, you are surprised I speak your language, eh?" nt

[Berlum]

2. It's mine. No, it's mine. I said it's mine. No, I said it's mine. Wait, it's mine.

UN ought to declare those Islands to be a World Peace-Sustainability Heritage Sacred Zone, and everybody chill.

I'm just saying...

[LiberalEsto]

3. That's an excellent idea

but there's probably oil in there somewhere

[Berlum]

5. "Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney K.

[RKP5637]

51. +++ 1,000,000 +++ n/t

[okaawhatever]

138. Bingo. What it's really about. nt

[paleotn]

19. Good idea....

....but to make it stick, can you say carrier battle group(s)? Seems the PRC doesn't want to play nice. We just need to show them that the alternative is far worse than losing a little face by backing off from a ridiculous claim. I hate it as much as anyone, but sometimes certain people need to be reminded that we're serious.

[Scuba]

40. What the fuck? Why is it any of our business?

[cheapdate]

44. Because of our defense pact with Japan. n/t

[Scuba]

45. And why is it Japan's business?

[EX500rider]

47. Why are Japanese islands Japan's business?

Japan controlled the islands from 1895 until its surrender at the end of World War II. The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972, when the islands reverted to Japanese control under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement between the United States and Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands
Also know as the Pinnacle Islands in the west.

[stevenleser]

49. Exactly. Some people are so intent on blaming the US and our allies for things they'll say anything

Much of the airspace and waters the Chinese are claiming are international, the rest are Japanese.

Of course it's the business of the Japanese.

[Scuba]

63. Ah, Mr. Leser, Democratic Strategist. Explains so much.

[stevenleser]

69. No, it doesnt explain anything other than you have nothing besides ad-hominem attacks.

There are progressive democratic strategists, centrist ones, ones that are anti-abortion, ones that are pro choice, etc.

That still doesnt explain why you need it explained to you Japan's interest in Japan's Islands.

[JoeyT]

88. Playing the "Blame America First!!!!!" card, no less.

Turns out you can catch all kinds of nasty shit on Fox.

There's never been a righter wing meme than screaming about how anyone questioning military strategy just hates America.

[Scuba]

99. Yeah, I hate America so much I spent six years serving in our military.

[stevenleser]

104. Yeah, you love the US and the military like Snowden loves the NSA that he served in. nt

[okaawhatever]

139. +100 nt

[stevenleser]

103. Because blaming the US for the Chinese attempting to seize Japanese islands makes so much sense

Amazing, most folks here don't need to be Democratic strategists to figure out that is crazy B.S.

[Ranchemp.]

106. +1000

[MyNameGoesHere]

97. I will give you the "strategist" reference

however I am not convinced on the rest of your comment. I think you could delete the descriptive in front of strategist.

[MADem]

102. That's basic world history. Not terribly political, except perhaps that these

matters were settled by a Democratic president by the name of Truman.

After WW2, security agreements were undertaken with the defeated parties...this isn't any great secret.

Japan doesn't have militaries (see, they were militaristic assholes before the war, and their ambitions in that regard were tamped after their defeat)--they have "Self Defence Forces."

It's a distinction and a difference.

[Scuba]

61. Sounds like China has an older claim (14th century) than Japan (1895).

[EX500rider]

64. "Claims to have discovered" in the 14th century....

...is not quite as good a claim as "has owned them for the last 118 years and still owns them."

This reminds me of Argentinas B.S. claims to the Falklands.

[stevenleser]

71. They're still grasping at straws for ways to blame the US and/or our allies.

None of this can be the fault of the Chinese. It has to be the fault of the US and one of our allies.

That person will twist this and spin it until that is the conclusion.

[FreakinDJ]

152. China also claiming islands of Philippines and Vietnam

ALL of which have rescently discovered Natural Gas reserves

[stevenleser]

48. Geography?

[heaven05]

4. someone sooner or later

WILL make a mistake. And more humans will die needlessly.

[Jesus Malverde]

6. Last time this did not end well with our crew forced to land on Hainan island

and the plane returned in pieces. The Chinese pilot who crashed into the surveillance plane a national hero.

[olddad56]

32. it could have ended worse, the crew landed on Hainan and survived.

On April 16th 1969 (15th in the states, 16th where it happened) a crew of 31 people flying in VQ-1 out of Atsugi Japan ( in the same squadron as the crew that was forced to land on Hainan Island many years later) was shot down by the North Koreans in international waters. No survivors. I was an enlisted flight crewman in that squadron at the time.

The N.K. did it to make a fool out of Richard Nixon. Turns out he, like most Republican Presidents was perfectly capable of making a fool of himself.

[Jesus Malverde]

100. I had never heard about this incident.

Thanks for the history, 31 brave men, hope their families found peace.

[jessie04]

7. I've always said China will start WW3

Just watch.

[carla]

23. The PRC

is, for all the fearmongering, a historically defensive army. Can the same be said of the US Armed Forces? And the US has every reason to start a war, (business) as usual.

[Lurks Often]

24. You're wrong

1950 PRC invades Tibet
October 1962 to November 1962: Sino-Indian War
1969 to 1978: Sino-Soviet border conflict
February 17 to March 16, 1979: Sino-Vietnamese War
1986: Border skirmishes with Vietnam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_People%27s_Liberation_Army#Timeline_of_military_action

[olddad56]

33. which pales in comparison to the wars and illegal invasions that we have started.

[Lurks Often]

39. You mean like Vietnam?

Or the Congo or the Bay of Pigs or the Dominican Republic in 1965?

Presidents with a D after their name have been responsible for quite a few of the conflicts the US has been involved in since 1950.

[Scuba]

41. Yep, both sides of American politics are in love with waging war.

[olddad56]

113. Like Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, those weren't started by Presidents with a D after their names. But, those weren't wars, they were simply illegal invasions based on lies.

[Lurks Often]

116. The difference is I won't be a hypocrite,

if it is wrong for a Republican to do it, it is wrong for a Democrat to do it and Presidents from both parties have had a history of using the military to intervene in other countries.

You might also want to do some research and see how many prominent Democrats in Congress, including Vice President Biden and Hillary Clinton, voted to authorize the use of force in both Iraq & Afghanistan

And I'll remind you we have not "declared" war since WWII

[HoosierCowboy]

8. If we can fool the Chinese

Into setting up a real big MIC we can get our money back while driving them into bankruptcy.

[L0oniX]

9. US retaliates and orders the national guard to block people from Walmart.

[paleotn]

20. Ha! That would probably hurt the PRC

....as much or more than any military action.

[leftyohiolib]

10. we need those seagulls tfrom ce age(i think) mine , mi ne, mine, mine ,mine ,mine

[PeoViejo]

25. Finding Nemo

My son watched it dozens of time on DVD.

[leftyohiolib]

26. that's it thanks i knew ice age wasnt correct

[PeoViejo]

28. My pleasure.

It was burned into my Brain. Might as well find some use for it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

11. Do we still have a CIC?

So the President has used diplomacy to avoid 2 conflicts and now he is escalating this? I don't buy it. I think our military has gone rogue.

"State media on Friday evening said China’s air force deployed Su-30 and J-11 fighters after detecting at least 10 Japanese aircraft that included F-15 fighters, E-767 Awacs (airborne early warning and control) aircraft and P-3 surveillance aircraft. Xinhua said the jets were also responding to US surveillance aeroplanes without making clear whether the American aircraft had also entered the zone."

Command and control plus spy planes. For a few rocks? Something isn't right here.

[bemildred]

12. Yep. They've been doing provocations like this to thwart peace for a long time.

Gulf of Tonkin Incident, to name one, but there are many, and they go way back.

[EX500rider]

58. "Yep. They've been doing provocations like this to thwart peace for a long time."

Yes, China has been doing that.

Invading and conquering Tibet, fighting wars with India and Vietnam, threatening to invade Taiwan, ratcheting up the aggression and escalating tensions in the sea's between China and all its neighbors particularly the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam as China tries to steal territory from all of them.

[bemildred]

70. We do it. We do it a lot.

And that puts us in a poor position to whine about it when others do it too, especially since we claim to be the "indispensible nation" and all that other bullshit about what noble servants of mankind we are. We don't walk our own talk, and that's the problem, for us, our problem.

[stevenleser]

74. We're only tangentially involved. This is about Japan and China. I know some folks can't resist

using this as an opportunity to bash the US but we're only a third party involved because a country we have a treaty with has their territorial sovereignty being threatened.

[bemildred]

75. Oh right, now we're only "tangentially involved", not "bound by treaties".

I'm not bashing the USA, I'm bashing the assholes that run our foreign policy.

[stevenleser]

76. I mentioned the treaty in the message text of my comment. We're not a party to the dispute

We're bound by treaty to help one of the parties if they are threatened.

It's not about us or our foreign policy.

[bemildred]

77. "It's not about us or our foreign policy."

Listen to yourself.

[stevenleser]

78. I think you need to listen to yourself. I know you want to make this about us. It's not.

You: "A dispute between China and Japan about islands... is about US foreign policy!"

Speaking of

[bemildred]

79. That's it, put words in my mouth, then laugh at them. Brilliant repartee. nt

[stevenleser]

108. That is your position in a nutshell. I know, its embarrassing to have it laid out like that. nt

[bemildred]

111. Yes, I've seen your ability to read the minds of people you don't agree with before. nt

[stevenleser]

112. I understand wanting to run away from your position once it is laid out. Blaming me won't help. nt

[bemildred]

114. I'm not blaming you, I'm saying you are projecting like mad. nt

[stevenleser]

122. I'm not the one projecting US fault for a confrontation between China and Japan. nt

[bemildred]

135. You seem to be obsessed with the idea, and assume everyone else must be too?

I don't give a shit who is at fault, if that helps. That is all just divide-and-rule bullshit. I am a loyal american, and i want what is best for my nation, and blathering on about who is at fault is not the way forward, unless you like wars. And you may notice we have not done so well in the war area lately, despite our "most professional force".

[okaawhatever]

140. It's about a legal agreement between US and Japan that was the result of Foreign Policy circa WWII.

Not the same thing. As the article states "China is testing the strength of the US-Japan relationship". In other words, whether we'll back Japan according to the treaty.
This isn't something we're doing to advance our current Foreign policy, it's something we're doing to show that we can keep a treaty.

Japan has right wingers now who want to scrap the treaty and build up their military. They're like the right wingers in the US during a time of economic uncertainty, fearful and nationalistic. I'm sure China is doing this to cause trouble in Japan between the right wingers who want to build up a military, and the others who want the status quo.

Also, China ignored these islands and the various legal agreements attached to them until oil was discovered.

[bemildred]

142. Would you agree it's about us?

Or is it not about us but about keeping old treaties too?

It seems to me that is both about us, our business, the treaty is our business, and about foreign policy, about our relations to foreign powers. But you construe it as you like.

[EX500rider]

143. All it's about is China trying to steal land from Japan n/t

[bemildred]

146. Right, it's really nothing to do with us. nt

[bemildred]

147. That seems to be what is in dispute, isn't it? nt

[MyNameGoesHere]

82. Of course I blame the US

when they act recklessly. Are you sure you want to use that "blame the US" argument here? I mean we can tune into fox news, or any republican to hear that effing shit.

[TwilightGardener]

87. "Reckless"? Last Friday the US, Japan, and every other nation on earth could

fly through that airspace without asking China's permission first--and then they pulled their bullshit. If we start obeying their new rules, it's like we agree with them that the airspace (and the islands and water below, by natural extension) SHOULD be ceded to China. That is exactly what China was counting on--they want everyone to act like it's their territory, and thus it becomes their territory, not a shot fired, nothing negotiated. So we continue to fly through it, same as always. That doesn't meet the definition of "reckless".

[EX500rider]

83. "We do it. We do it a lot.'

Really? We intimidate and or attack our neighbors into giving up their territory? (recently please, say last 50 years)

No we don't, but China sure does.

Was Tibet invaded and conquered? Yes
Have they started wars with neighbors India and Vietnam in the last 50 years? Yes
Is Taiwan rightly afraid of a often threatened Chinese invasion? Yes
Are the Philippines afraid of Chinese encroachment on and seizure of their off shore islands or a war to stop them? Yes...as are S.Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, not to mention Chinese violations of the border with India. The recent Chinese intrusions have taken control of 640 square kilometers of territory on the Indian side of the border.

Do the Bahama's or Canada fear a US invasion or war over stolen land? No.. Even Cuba has no real fear of a US invasion.

[bemildred]

86. Straw man: "We intimidate and or attack our neighbors into giving up their territory?"

Generally we go overseas these days, and we don't annex the place, we just demand the rights of a sovereign, a veto on the local satraps, legal immunity for our actions, and the right to use force as we please. We get to stay longer that way without so much expense.

But otherwise that is an accurate description, we really, really do like to throw our weight around. It makes us feel big and important, we really like that, and it distracts the public from how they are being robbed.

[pangaia]

126. Xinjiang

[hack89]

13. Those rocks mean economic control of a huge swath of the South China Sea

Territorial and economic zone boundaries are drawn using sovereign territory. By claiming those rocks, China is trying to lay claim to a huge area of the South China Sea - an area rich in minerals, oil and fishery resources. This is a huge deal.

[MyNameGoesHere]

14. Yes

Let CHINA AND JAPAN AND KOREA slug it out. Personally I don't give a shit for empire. Not my problem.

[TwilightGardener]

15. We are bound by treaty to help defend both Japan and S. Korea.

So yeah, it is your problem. If we avert our eyes and back down, what will China arbitrarily claim next?

[paleotn]

21. Exactly! nt

[Ranchemp.]

16. We have mutual defense treaties with both S. Korea and Japan,

so, yeah, it is our problem too.

[MyNameGoesHere]

36. Yes

I am prepared to save the Fermented bean sauce and Kobe beef. A couple rocks? Not so much.

[Ranchemp.]

89. Maybe you're not,

but thank god we have adults in charge of foreign policy.
And it's about much more than a couple of rocks, it's about China pretending they can declare an ADIZ on international or others territory.

[hack89]

17. Are you prepared for nuclear armed Japan and South Korea?

One explicit reason for a US military presence in the region is a promise not to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for US protection.

There are many geopolitical issues at play here. America backing out may not make things less dangerous - it could have exactly the opposite effect.

[PeoViejo]

27. Japan has hundreds of Tons of Plutonium

that they have been stockpiling for Decades. It was supposed to be used for MOX fuel, but that could change.

They could build a lot of weapons with what they already have.

[MyNameGoesHere]

35. Oh my the Iran

argument.

[hack89]

38. You might think the world needs another nuclear arms race

I don't.

[MyNameGoesHere]

46. Your

comments are extremely bizarre. To prevent an arms race, you don't join into a mindset that starts an arms race. We are escalatiing this into a conflict by doing exactly what causes a conflict. It is moronic to think that doing the same thing over again is going to lead to a different outcome. This little playbook has been played over and over before. I know the results already.

[stevenleser]

53. I rarely agree with that person but they are right here. Japan would go nuclear if they felt it

necessary. Several Japanese officials have floated the idea in recent years.

If they feel sufficiently threatened by China, and China is certainly threatening them right now, and if the US appears to not be sufficiently supporting them, Japan WILL go nuclear.

[hack89]

54. Japan and South Korea do not have nukes for only one reason

And that is America's promise to defend both countries against aggression. We back away from that promise and what do you think those countries will do, especially with two aggressive nuclear armed neighbors.

China is picking a fight by unilaterally claiming territory that is not theirs. Is that a precedent you support?

[EX500rider]

55. "Your comments are extremely bizarre."

No, he has it right, the only thing keeping S Korea and Japan from going nuclear is mutual defense treaties with the US. If they feel we won't honor our commitment to defend them and their territory then they have to face down a nuclear armed China. To do that they will need MAD in place.

Letting China push Japan off some Japanese islands (that they've had since the late 1800's) just because they are uninhabited sets a very bad precedent, much like "Just let the German house painter have the Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia, he'll be happy with that"

[Ranchemp.]

90. We are not escalating anything,

China is attempting to steal territory that doesn't belong to it by declaring an ADIZ, so far every nation has refused to recognize the attempted grab and it's business as usual in that airspace, IOW, nobody is asking China for permission to fly through the airspace, as China has demanded.

But I get it, you just want to blame the U.S.
Carry on.

[stevenleser]

72. No, that is not "the Iran argument" nt

[paleotn]

22. Our economic interests in the region

...are significant, in addition to our treaty obligations. We do have a dog in this squabble.

[grahamhgreen]

29. With all of our computers and crap being produced in China, they've got us by the short hairs and

they know it.

Time to withdraw PNTR from the PRC.... Or suffer their will, IMHO.

[MyNameGoesHere]

34. So?

You think escalating helps our position? What is that? Beat some sense into China? Yes that will go swimmingly well.

[EX500rider]

57. "Let them have what they want"...

...isn't exactly a winning strategy either. Emboldens China to do it more and more.

Plus Japan is not big on backing down, if we look like we will back them up China is much more likely to back off (or get it's ass kicked) thus making our move one more likely to keep the peace.

[MyNameGoesHere]

81. What do we win?

It ain't a frigging game. I don't need a couple rocks in the middle of Asia, and there are enough air routes around them What to eff are we doing?

[EX500rider]

84. What do we win by making a war less likely?

Do I have to answer that?

Question, is China more likely to start a war with just Japan or a war against Japan AND the US?

That's what we are doing.

[MyNameGoesHere]

85. You don't stop a war by sending more

assets into a conflict zone. How is that winning anything?

[EX500rider]

91. Yes you can..

....in the same way someone picking on you in a bar might walk away when your 3 big friends show up.

China might take on Japan but wants no part of a US/Japan Vs China fight as they would get mauled and lose most of their expensive military assets as the largest, most technological and combat experienced military on the planet turned theirs to scrap. And then tear's up $1.3 trillion in loan papers to boot.

[MyNameGoesHere]

94. Oh good grief

Let me splain something to you my war hawk friend.

Ways to avoid war.

Country has a dispute does something provocative like announcing a illegal ADIZ.


Here are PROPER responses.

1 Immediately impose a 100% tarriff on flights from China to US and Japanese territories. Hell get Korea and the Philippines on board.
2 Impose restrictions on any vessel from China carrying goods through the disputed area. Do not accept them into ports of countries that are opposed to it.
3 Anything other than provocation.
4 probably more, I just have a hard time dealing with responses as to why not start a conflict other than FUCKING PEOPLE DIE.

Things not to do

Send strategic bombers(unarmed) and Strike fighters(possibly armed) and spy planes into the area.

Do you get it my war hawk friend?

[Ranchemp.]

95. The Obama Administration disagrees with you,

and what makes you think that China wouldn't view your "solutions" as provocative?

[MyNameGoesHere]

96. The Obama admin disagrees with me?

Is that the way it works? I work for them?

I hope they would find it provocative, I am sure business people would love it. Especially Americans. Chinese not so much.

[Ranchemp.]

105. Huh? Work for them?

I never said anything close to that.

The bottom line is that we need to send a very powerful message to China that their shenanigans won't be tolerated and I, for one, am very grateful that we have a president in office that doesn't hesitate to send that needed message.

[MyNameGoesHere]

107. No you and people like you

need to thump your chest and walk around posturing. You and people like you make the world less friendly and livable. You and people like you are only happy when there is chaos and uncertainty. You and people like you are always looking for the next little conflict to stroke your utter inability to deal with life.

And yes you said the Obama admin disagrees with me. I don't give a flying eff since they work for me. Their opinion matters very little to me. I am not their yes man or little drone. When they act recklessly and with chicken hawk tendencies they deserve to be called on it as do you.

Also they have directed civilian airlines to comply with the Chinese request. So they do agree with me more than with you. Seems like you're the only one that needs to get your war on.

[Ranchemp.]

109. Civilian airlines, not military.

The military will continue to to fly through the illegal Chinese ADIZ without informing the Chinese, as they should.
But, whatever, you want to blame the USA for all the worlds ill's, I get that, I don't agree, but I get it.
I thank my stars that we have pragmatic president in office who won't bend to a Chinese provocation, and not someone like you, who would go out of their way to appease just to not make another country angry at us.

And, oh, BTW, he's not requiring civilian airlines to notify the Chinese, he's advising them to, to avoid a shootdown of a civilian airliner.

[MyNameGoesHere]

123. yes I do blame the usa

because we have caused most of the problems

[Ranchemp.]

124. Oh course you blame the US for all the world's ill's.

You've made that pretty darn clear.

[MyNameGoesHere]

127. damn right

prove me wrong.

[Ranchemp.]

128. Prove you wrong?

You can't prove a negative, which is what you are demanding I do.

Don't bother, I'm done with you.

[MyNameGoesHere]

129. That's fine

I never wanted another war hawk to respond to anyway. Got chicken with that hawk?

[EX500rider]

120. Right....I want the US to help Japan..

....back down China so there is no war and that somehow makes me a warhawk? If you say so.....lol

[Scuba]

42. Then let WalMart and Exxon fight for their interests if they want.

[amandabeech]

65. How well would we be able to wage a war in the East Pacific if we did not

receive those container ships from China?

Other nations might be able to take up some slack, depending on their own defense needs, but there is no question that China would use its diesel boats to take down those big, fat, slow container ships.

Also, what better way to stimulate the internal Chinese economy than to go to war? It sure helped us get out of the Great Depression, and the guns-n-butter economy during the Vietnam War sure flooded Detroit with lots of dough--and as a native Michigander, I mean lots of dough.

[EX500rider]

117. "China would use its diesel boats to take down those big, fat, slow container ships"

You mean the ones filled with Chinese products? Not sure how that would help them.

China needs it's biggest customer much more then we need them....we can get cheap plastic crap made anywhere but without US trade the Chinese economy does a nose dive into concrete.

And our infinitely superior submarine fleet could bring all Chinese overseas trade to a stop, totally crashing their economy.

[amandabeech]

62. Actually, I think that this is about the East China Sea,

but I believe that the Chinese will do the same in the South China Sea through the Straights of Malacca if they get away with extending their airspace this far east.

Also, the whole thing gives me a whiff of the Imperial Japanese concept of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" from WWII days.

If this wasn't serious, the President wouldn't send Joe Biden and allow rather "frank" talking points for our new ambassador to Japan, The Hon. Caroline Kennedy.

I wonder if this may also be related to Chinese positions with respect to the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership proposed treaty.

[hack89]

68. You are right. Nt

[MADem]

52. What an absurd construct. Everyone in leadership in the military at this point in time,

was promoted to their job by Barack Obama. He personally approves every three and four star promotion. There are no "promotion boards" for those guys.

You don't understand the Japanese at all. This isn't "a few rocks." It's their homeland, that the Chinese are trying to take from them.

Give them an inch, etc....

[amandabeech]

66. Then there is the oil and gas reputedly lying under the water

around the rocks.

That doesn't make it easy to come to some agreement here.

[stevenleser]

73. That is what the Chinese are after. They need more oil and gas for their economic expansion

in addition to various other raw materials.

They are willing to risk a confrontation with Japan and the US to get it.

[amandabeech]

80. Or, the Chinese could offer the highest prices for oil and gas produced in

undisputed territory.

The Chinese seem to be averse to using their money to secure in the market items produced in other countries.

They seem to like to purchase the producing assets--like the land in Africa and Smithfield Hams in the U.S.

Of course, they also won't sell strategic commodities, either--such as the rare earths that they are allegedly hoarding.

Of course, this is all extremely mercantilistic and reflects China's disdain for just about every other country. They are the Middle Kingdom and the rest of us are the Barbarians, or so my history prof opined.

[MADem]

101. They need to learn Spanish and start riding Maduro like a broke-down mule.

They've already got him owing them like they're the loan shark and he's the mark. They just need to get in there fi-serious, and they'll have all the oil they need--they may have to ship it outta there (I would; I sure wouldn't trust that petit-dictator toad not to nationalize any refinery the Chinese built on VZ soil), but there's plenty where that came from.

Much more elegant a solution than fighting with one's neighbors and possibly lighting off WW3...

[stevenleser]

110. True, although I have to say I haven't heard of too many countries nationalizing Chinese assets

in their countries. I think most countries know better than to try such a thing.

People complain about the US being hegemonic or an empire but I think folks are going to get a real lesson on what those words really mean from the Chinese in the coming years.

[MADem]

115. Yes, indeed.

If they didn't invent hegemony, they are certainly perfecting it.

As for nationalizing China's assets, Maduro seems to me like the one guy who might be dumb enough to try! I doubt he'd get very far, I'll wager Beijing will make it clear to him--like the mob makes it clear when you borrow money from them--that crossing them won't go over too well.

[Comrade Grumpy]

118. Nice fantasy post. Betting on weird hypotheticals, are we?

And drifting a bit off topic, but, hey, we're always up for some gratuitous Maduro-bashing.

[MADem]

121. Drifting? Fantasy? You need to read the paper more. Your fantasies are the world's realities.

Apparently, you're the one who is a bit unschooled on where China's been spending their money lately...but DO have a nice day, why don't you?

[bitchkitty]

131. FFS!

Obsess much, MA?

[MADem]

132. I beg your pardon? I'm not the one with the bizarre sig line supporting

a corrupt, power-grabbing despot who rigged the legislature to give him rule by decree, now, am I?

I got a gif of a kitty.

[bitchkitty]

134. You should change your handle

to MADURODem.

[MADem]

145. Well, I'm not a supporter of that idiot, so that wouldn't make sense.

The MA is for the commonwealth where I live.

[Sand Wind]

18. that will become a chicken game.

One must review his game theory to understand.

[grahamhgreen]

30. We owe them money... They make all our stuff... Who's got the upper hand?

[Sand Wind]

43. I don't think that it will come to the point where some will have to play the economic card.

Not at a profund level, as to say.

Until now, in Every slow step of China for the supremacy of china we can see China winning. But now, this is a big and fast step, and that may be one huge mistake from them. We'll see...how we can capitalize on it, if the Obama administration and the Pentagon have the subtility to find a good way.

[stevenleser]

50. We do. We can get stuff other places and we could theoretically cancel the debt. Countries

have been known to do that. If we did those things our economy would be slightly hurt and theirs would be devastated.

Is that likely? No. But the answer to your question is that they need us more than we need them.

[Kaleva]

92. We do. Their economy will collapse if we refuse to pay.

[MADem]

133. We do. We pay our bills, we service our debt.

We keep their country employed. They'd have a tough time without customers, and we haul the world with us, to a large extent, economically speaking.

Who's got the upper hand NOW?

See, trade works that way so long as sellers sell, and the buyers actually pay for the stuff they get. It only gets wobbly if ya stiff the seller!

You could say we both have a gun to the other's head, but that's a rather unkind way of putting it.

[grahamhgreen]

137. Can we still build our war toys without their computers, smart phones, etc?

[MADem]

144. Wow, going a bit far afield there.

Don't stick to the subject if you don't care to, but start another thread if you want to talk about the MIC. The short answer, though, is yes, we could.

[grahamhgreen]

149. Hope you're right: Some U.S. "military parts imported from China"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/some-us-military-parts-imported-from-china/




China fake parts 'used in US military equipment'

More than 70% of an estimated one million suspect parts were traced back to China, the report said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18155293

[MADem]

151. Just because a supplier gets away with providing a substandard part, doesn't mean that this MUST BE.

They need to hold back some of that end strength reduction that is happening as a consequence of the drawdown and apply it towards streamlining, efficiencies and oversight.

It can be done.

[Lint Head]

31. Walmart doesn't want to piss off China. Maybe Walmart could send all the weapons from their

outdoor department to China to help fight the imperial invasion forces.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

37. Compare the size of China to Japan. This is insanity.

Same with Tibet. Why the need to grow?

[stevenleser]

56. They see themselves as the future (if not now) #1 superpower. This is an indication of how they

intend to behave when that is a reality.

I hope everyone has paid attention.

[EX500rider]

60. Exactly...as much as everyone thinks we are the evil empire...

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

.....I don't think Canada or Mexico fear us slowly gobbling up their territory or invading, yet the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and India all currently have territory disputes with China where China is the one trying to grab their land.

[amandabeech]

67. It was reported after the recent Chinese leadership meeting,

that one thing China wanted to do was to improve relations with the US.

Perhaps Xu is not calling all the shots here.

[EX500rider]

93. Smart move for them..

....staying out of fights/wars with your #1 customer is rule one.

If we see some Chinese Peoples Air Force generals heads roll then maybe they were doing this on their own but I doubt it. China is pushing gently most everywhere to try and pick up resource rich areas and more border land. I bet they will back down on this one and try somewhere else.....Philippines most likely as they are the weakest.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

59. They were being tested

To see how quick they can react....

[kristopher]

98. This issue is the rallying cry for the right wing nationalists in all of these countries

This story was from last year, and it was triggered by the shadow of Fukushima that is hovering around so much of the future there. I"m sure you know Japan has long outlawed nuclear weapons in their country. Even though they turn a blind eye to their presence on visiting US warships, the idea that they would build and possess nuclear weapons themselves is strongly rejected by a large majority of the people.
The presence of the US will serve to reassure the Japanese and hopefully it will blunt the strength of the hard right wing in the (so called) "Liberal" Democratic Party.

Nuclear arms advocates get bolder amid energy debate
The contentious debate over atomic energy is also bringing another question out of the shadows: Should Japan retain the possibility of making atomic weapons — even if only as an option?

By YURI KAGEYAMA
AP


Hot zone: The reactor 4 building at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant is in ruins on March 24 last year. AIR PHOTO SERVICE / AP
It may seem surprising in the only country to have ever come under nuclear attack, particularly as it prepares to mark the 67th anniversaries of the Hiroshima A-bombing on Aug. 6 and that of Nagasaki three days later. The government officially renounces nuclear weapons, and the vast majority of citizens oppose them.

But as the nation weighs whether to phase out atomic energy generation, some conservatives, including certain influential politicians and analysts, are becoming more vocal about their belief that Japan should at least not rule out producing a nuclear arsenal in the future.

The two issues are intertwined because nuclear power plants can develop the technology and produce the fuel necessary for such weaponry, as highlighted by concerns that allegedly civilian atomic energy research in Iran is masking a bomb program, as was the case in North Korea.

"Having nuclear plants shows to other nations that Japan can make nuclear arms," ex-Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba told AP...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120803f1.html

Photo with article
Hiroshima:

[Comrade Grumpy]

119. ...including this one. n/t

[stevenleser]

125. No, it hasn't. Not yet at least. nt

[jessie04]

130. I've said it before...China will start WW3.

Just watch.....now they they have power , they're going to use it.

[nolabels]

141. They don't need no stinking war

They can dismantle half of world by just calling their loans in. And stop most of the world by just holding up shipments of spare parts

[harun]

148. WW3 is over. It was fought with debt, financing and means of production... and China won

[grahamhgreen]

150. Classic 'Art of war' teaching:

'The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.'

[fujiyama]

136. I'm blaming China squarely for this

Their bellicosity is the sole cause. This "expanded air defense zone" is complete bullshit and I'm glad the US is calling them on it.

[warrprayer]

153. Fuck China