China threatens war, calling Trump's bluff?

[Reheat]

How would the US keep China off the islands without going to war?
China won't let the US blockade the islands, to enforce it the US would have to sink Chinese ships.
It would be a full on war.

And some Trumpsters were claiming Hilary was going to start a war?

Are your panties in a wad? Who has said anything at all about starting a war? Well, you just did. Please cool the rhetoric, it's just talk so far. Are we just supposed to ignore it and hope it will go away? After 8 years of namby pamby diplomacy don't you think it's time for someone to speak up?

The current rhetoric could serve a lot of different purposes. I suggest that everyone should simply stop the BS rhetoric and wait until it starts to get serious before jumping to conclusions. There are more problem in East Asis than just those artificial islands, don't ya know.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Trump wants to grow the military, he's gearing up for war.

 

[Reheat]

Trump wants to grow the military, he's gearing up for war.

So you say. I'm not impressed.

 

[imodium]

So you say. I'm not impressed.

Why is he adding to the armed forces then, are they gonna do armed school crossings or armed refuse collection?
Or is Canada gonna invade? after all Mexico could never destroy a wall.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'd be interested in hearing your take on the S. China Sea. On the one hand, it is a transparent resource grab by China, based on dubious appeals to history. OTOH, it is now a fait accompli that requires acceptance or rejection; ambivalence isn't a long-term strategy.

Whereas I have no doubt that, push coming to shove, in 2017 the US could force China to back down militarily, I wonder if that isn't a huge mistake. Such an action might actually be "fair," and retain precedent in not allowing territorial expansion by military means in international affairs. OTOH, this would solidify an enmity that already threatens as China rises and the US relatively declines. Longer term, it might engender a strong regional pushback to rid the region of US assets once China is stronger. What I do not doubt is that China is a rising conventional military power who will reach rough parity with the US within 20 years, at least in the region. In the world until Trump, maintaining some semblance of respect for international norms was a driving motif for action. Any actions by Trumpistas, however, may come dressed in brown shirts and be seen as completely illegitimate, regardless. Taiwan, Tibet, East China Sea -- all these are far more important than the S. China Sea, so I wonder if the status quo China has created in the latter isn't something we simply have to accept and live with.

Beyond that, I'd greatly appreciate any insights you might have as a resident denizen of the greater region.

My point isn't that China IS going to be going to war over this, but that the comments (by an Aussie politician in the Aussie press) were not inaccurate. The combination of comments amounts to returning the serve of the Secretary-designate and reminding them that they don't actually get to make policy in China's backyard. It's saber-rattling. Normally, I'd say that cooler heads will prevail and that they'll reach a settlement satisfactory to all, but right now the egos of those posturing to lead-up the discussions of the settlement is dangerous. Duterte is an idiot. A calculating idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. I don't consider Malaysia and Indonesia as serious players in the discussion, but Viet Nam with its history of enmity towards China is in there. The Chinese want to broker the final divvying up of the spoils - those spoils being oil. It'll be extracted and marketed through some sort of multi-national venture, with the Americans probably leading the way.

As to "rights". I don't agree that China has a right to the area. Their historical claims are dubious, at best.... particularly the Spratly Islands which are really down south in the South China Sea. Depending on which one you're measuring from, they're all about equidistant from the Philippines, Malaysia and Viet Nam but remote areas of the first two.

But what I think is "right" is not what's going to be at play, here. It's China vs the USA for spheres of influence. Duterte is milking the China angle to offset the USA but how he gets along with Trump could be a game changer. The Vietnamese? If they can play the USA and China against each other, they will.

It's more about the oil than the hegemony, although the hegemony - naturally - gets you the oil. China's wildest dreams would be to get all of it; that's not going to happen. If they can get the lion's share, they'll be happy. It won't do away with their dependence on foreign supply but it will certainly cut into it.

I don't disagree that this is minor saber rattling, as I said. I just disagree with the assault on SG for spreading false news. It's news. It's in one of the formal organs of China. And the tone is certainly belligerent enough to match the idiots in Trumpville.

 

[Giz]

Yeah, how'd that work out for them?

There are a couple things to consider here.
One, China's leaders are hell of a lot smarter than Trump. They're good at bluffing too, and Trump's BS about deal making, pshaw, try, he's good at cheating people for his own benefit. Trump thinks he just got elected King, not POTUS in a checks and balance government.

So the checks and balance will get in Trump's way, the public will be outraged at the senseless threat of war with China. And the Chinese will trump Trump laughing all the way.

Then there is the culture. So many Westerners think everyone in the world thinks like they do, have the same values. When the SARS epidemic occurred, I followed the cases in China where it originated. More than one mayor of a large city covered up cases to "save face", even while covering up cases meant continued spread. In unusual action by the central government to override the face-saving mayors, the epidemic was eventually brought under control. But one could see the old Chinese culture at its classic self.

Bottom line, China is going to push the Trump envelope. And Trump and his 'advisors' are incompetent is an understatement.

And don't forget, all the while Putin will be taking advantage of the situation. Think Trump can walk and chew gum at the same time?

Great stuff. First you postulate that China is more rational and smarter than trump. Then, you tell us how Chinese leadership can be incredibly stupid and irrational.

Cognative dissonance much?

 

[casebro]

Biggest trading partner? You mean China that owns so much of our debt they could crash the value of the dollar should they choose too?
...

No, I mean that crashing the value of American currency will cost them their huuuuuge investment in our debt. They ain't gonna do that.

 

[Giz]

My point isn't that China IS going to be going to war over this, but that the comments (by an Aussie politician in the Aussie press) were not inaccurate. The combination of comments amounts to returning the serve of the Secretary-designate and reminding them that they don't actually get to make policy in China's backyard. It's saber-rattling. Normally, I'd say that cooler heads will prevail and that they'll reach a settlement satisfactory to all, but right now the egos of those posturing to lead-up the discussions of the settlement is dangerous. Duterte is an idiot. A calculating idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. I don't consider Malaysia and Indonesia as serious players in the discussion, but Viet Nam with its history of enmity towards China is in there. The Chinese want to broker the final divvying up of the spoils - those spoils being oil. It'll be extracted and marketed through some sort of multi-national venture, with the Americans probably leading the way.

As to "rights". I don't agree that China has a right to the area. Their historical claims are dubious, at best.... particularly the Spratly Islands which are really down south in the South China Sea. Depending on which one you're measuring from, they're all about equidistant from the Philippines, Malaysia and Viet Nam but remote areas of the first two.

But what I think is "right" is not what's going to be at play, here. It's China vs the USA for spheres of influence. Duterte is milking the China angle to offset the USA but how he gets along with Trump could be a game changer. The Vietnamese? If they can play the USA and China against each other, they will.

It's more about the oil than the hegemony, although the hegemony - naturally - gets you the oil. China's wildest dreams would be to get all of it; that's not going to happen. If they can get the lion's share, they'll be happy. It won't do away with their dependence on foreign supply but it will certainly cut into it.

I don't disagree that this is minor saber rattling, as I said. I just disagree with the assault on SG for spreading false news. It's news. It's in one of the formal organs of China. And the tone is certainly belligerent enough to match the idiots in Trumpville.

This leads into an interesting point about the post USA world. Putin apparently wants the world to go back to great power politics instead of ideals based alliances. It sounds like in Asia, we are already there. Pity the small powers and the world in general, it's had it good for a few decades, but it's back to business as usual now.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Great stuff. First you postulate that China is more rational and smarter than trump. Then, you tell us how Chinese leadership can be incredibly stupid and irrational.

Cognative dissonance much?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[beren]

Great stuff. First you postulate that China is more rational and smarter than trump. Then, you tell us how Chinese leadership can be incredibly stupid and irrational.

Cognative dissonance much?

I don't see the problem.. The two things can easily both be true.

 

[sunmaster14]

of course it is: It has massively expanded its arsenal of anti-ship missiles on its shores and has enough smaller ships and submarines to make US intervention a costly nightmare. Air-power and defences will making strategic bombings also very costly in terms of shot-down planes.
Its huge population and army make a US invasion a ludicrous proposition.

And all for what? For US control of a stretch of Ocean on the other side of the Pacific?

No, it's really the US who's bluffing, not China.

What nonsense. China's navy (or any country's actually) is pathetic in comparison to the US's. We're not talking about invading the Chinese mainland. We're talking about blockading the disputed islands in the South China Sea. Easy peasy. The only catch is that you need a US President with a spine. And we haven't had one of those in roughly 8 years.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What nonsense. China's navy (or any country's actually) is pathetic in comparison to the US's. We're not talking about invading the Chinese mainland. We're talking about blockading the disputed islands in the South China Sea. Easy peasy. The only catch is that you need a US President with a spine. And we haven't had one of those in roughly 8 years.

And then what?
As I said, China has enough missiles and planes to sink a couple of US ships. Then you have dead Americans.
What in your mind should we do then?

 

[Toontown]

What nonsense. China's navy (or any country's actually) is pathetic in comparison to the US's. We're not talking about invading the Chinese mainland. We're talking about blockading the disputed islands in the South China Sea. Easy peasy. The only catch is that you need a US President with a spine. And we haven't had one of those in roughly 8 years.

A few aspects of your bold statement here bothers me.

1. I know you're not talking about yourself when you say "we". You want others to to the big Exxon Mobile hog's dirty work for him, and secure his coveted oil patch for him. While you watch from afar and feel proud ta be un Amerikin.

2. I remember when pathetic little Argentina nailed that British aircraft carrier in a dispute over an island.

3. I'm tired of you people wanting the U.S. to be the world's policeman so you can maintain an illusion of proud safety. I'll be happy to see the U.S. participate in enforcing the sea laws, just as soon as I see the navies of several other countries lining up to do their part. Short of that, I don't give a dead rat's ass about the Exxon Mobile hog's coveted oil patch, which he hopes to use the U.S. Navy to seize from China.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Don't forget that the first victim of a US blockades in the South China Sea would be Taiwan.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I got your point. You don't understand China. The China Daily published a more diplomatic version. The other paper (same publishers) printed the version for the home country hawks. If you don't see those words as threats then you haven't paid much attention to the Chinese. The watered down version is the official version. The saber-rattling version is the shot across our bow.

That insight is very helpful. I wouldn't have known that without you or Wolfman with your experiences.


CNN panel with Brian Stelter is discussing Trump's war on the media. It's the enemy he needs the same way leaders use the political opposition to demonize which then serves to manipulate followers.

So of course they had a Trump minion on the panel who they barely rebutted, repeating the lie that the 35 page dossier was leaked by US intelligence sources. If that's true, I want to see the two page addendum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

China is not ready for a war with America yet.

For the record, I said they are calling Trump's bluff, not getting ready for war.

As Aepervius said, what is the US going to do? Tillerson made a stupid poorly thought out comment in his nomination hearing.

 

[Foolmewunz]

What nonsense. China's navy (or any country's actually) is pathetic in comparison to the US's. We're not talking about invading the Chinese mainland. We're talking about blockading the disputed islands in the South China Sea. Easy peasy. The only catch is that you need a US President with a spine. And we haven't had one of those in roughly 8 years.

Gasp! This is clinically insane.

On what basis other than "Cuz we said so!" is the US going to blockade those islands? What treaty? What UN resolution? On whose behalf? The world's? Donald Trump is now going to tell the world that we're acting in their interest in doing this? And how many countries are going to support him in doing so? Belize and Guatemala?

And when the Chinese then send in their piddling little fleet, what happens to the commercial sea lanes? The entire area is disrupted so Trump and his buddies can play swingdickery with the Chinese, and billions of dollars worth of trade get disrupted. 80% of the traffic between Asia and Europe transit that area.

Further, what's a blockade going to effect unless it includes shooting down planes? You think they should go that route, too? Count on the Chinese to send over a flight with nurses and monks.

This is the dumbest idea I've heard this month.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is he adding to the armed forces then, are they gonna do armed school crossings or armed refuse collection?
Or is Canada gonna invade? after all Mexico could never destroy a wall.

Why is who adding to the armed forces? Are you going by Trump's bluster?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Great stuff. First you postulate that China is more rational and smarter than trump. Then, you tell us how Chinese leadership can be incredibly stupid and irrational.

Cognative dissonance much?

Your version of reality that China is stupid and irrational is unsupportable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I mean that crashing the value of American currency will cost them their huuuuuge investment in our debt. They ain't gonna do that.

Of course it will. Doesn't mean they can't bluff. I answered how that would work:

"So the checks and balance will get in Trump's way, the public will be outraged at the senseless threat of war with China. And the Chinese will trump Trump laughing all the way."