• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

China threatens war, calling Trump's bluff?

Toontown said:
... the Exxon Mobile hog's coveted oil patch, which he hopes to use the U.S. Navy to seize from China.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

But also, yikes!

China expert: Tillerson's plan for the South China Sea would 'certainly end up in a shooting war with China'
"He was not speaking with notes in front of him, and this is not an issue I think he is very well versed in. He may know oil in the South China Sea, but I'm hearing from some people on the transition team that he misspoke," said Glaser, alluding to Tillerson's time as CEO of the energy giant Exxon Mobil.

Glaser pointed to the more measured statements on the South China Sea before the Senate Armed Services Committee from retired Gen. James Mattis, Trump's defense secretary nominee, as evidence that Tillerson went too far.
Click to expand...

He may have gone too far, but it also shows how disorganized and reckless the Trump ship is.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What? Post the quote. Oh that's right, you can't. It was your imagination and/or misreading of my post(s).
Click to expand...

Giz mistook your comments about them covering up SARS evidence to save face as you saying they were acting stupidly or irrationally. They were,.... by our standards. By Chinese standards those actions are totally explicable.

Listening to all the chest-thumping, you'd think Tom Clancy was running the country. Same admiration of the Rooskis and hatred of the Yellow Peril. Only thing, they should pay attention to the only thing Tom got right in his Bear vs Dragon story. "The west needs to understand that for the first time in history we are dealing with someone whose finger is on the button and who will push it... just to save face."

To East Asians, this is very logical. To westerners, e.g. Giz, it's describing crazy/irrational behavior.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
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.
Click to expand...

They never 'nailed an aircraft carrier' Thry 'nailed' a cargo ship bringing extra aircraft and supplies, they also nailed a destroyer and frigates that were operating in restricted waters.
 
xjx388 said:
What link? What goods?

You fooled me to get me to click your thread. Good job, I guess.
Click to expand...

Read my comments. No one fooled you. It was a series of articles in the Aussie press, quoting and actual person and quoting actual articles written in the Chinese press.

Shiner seems to think it's fake news because China hasn't declared war. The OP didn't say that nor does the thread title.

"Fake News" does not mean "News I would rather not discuss." It means news that is made-up. This wasn't made up. Various people reacting in various ways and the press reporting on it.
 
Trump doesn't have the guts or intent to follow through with any threats: just check how often he actually sues after declaring he will.
All this Taiwan/SCS talk is, in his mind, a way to soften up China and gain a negotiation advantage.

All it does is piss them off and invite some very personal retaliation against him: never mind not getting a gangway: when he lands in China he will have to walk to his hotel.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
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?
Click to expand...

People have argued in this thread that "saving face" is an important part of Chinese culture. It isn't actually (no more so than in ours), but it is certainly a part of the Communist government's culture, since the government relies on China's perceived strength for its legitimacy.

It is precisely because of the importance of not being humiliated that China will do whatever it takes to avoid a shooting war with the US in the open ocean. The Chinese navy would have its ass handed to it. They know it. We know it. And they know that we know that they know it. Etc. We have the same situation with Taiwan. China doesn't have the strength to invade and will do whatever it can to maintain the pretense that it could without actually having to do it (and thereby prove its weakness).

The bottom line is that China wouldn't have had the audacity for these provocations if Obama hadn't telegraphed so much weakness. Boy, has that guy been a bad President. Way beyond what I thought was possible.
 
Last edited:
That is why no one except you is talking about ship-to-ship combat, sun.


The Chinese have massive shore batteries full of new anti-ship missiles. And they have enough good planes.

US ships would not be safe.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
That is why no one except you is talking about ship-to-ship combat, sun.


The Chinese have massive shore batteries full of new anti-ship missiles. And they have enough good planes.

US ships would not be safe.
Click to expand...

China cannot project military power to the South China Sea, which is precisely why it is trying to build up artificial islands there. Still, they're pretty paltry. No match for even a single aircraft carrier group.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Giz mistook your comments about them covering up SARS evidence to save face as you saying they were acting stupidly or irrationally. They were,.... by our standards. By Chinese standards those actions are totally explicable.
Click to expand...
Explicable, yes. But foolish, yes, because even the mayors covering up cases could have ended up infected. I think it showed ignorance of infectious disease on the part of the mayors. However, China doesn't have a monopoly on ignorance of infectious diseases. I was impressed that the central government stepped in.

I do hope your "will push it" is actually "might push it". :)
 
Hmmm, guess not:

Chinese Scholar: World War III Will Probably Be Result Of Maritime Disputes (Ignore the unrelated video.)
China is currently embroiled in disputes involving sea rights, particularly in the South China Sea. China lays claim to maritime areas that Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia all also lay claim to. In the East China Sea, China insists that its maritime borders include a cluster of resource-rich islands called the Diaoyu in Chinese. Japan, on the other hand, says that the islands — which it refers to as Senkaku — lie in Japanese waters. With China’s increasing military presence and political rhetoric over these and other islands, some observers predict that maritime claims are something over which China is willing to go to war.
Click to expand...

China Is Preparing For "Short And Sharp" War With Japan Over Disputed East China Sea Islands: US Officer


Is the South China Sea the Stage for the Next World War?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
That is why no one except you is talking about ship-to-ship combat, sun.


The Chinese have massive shore batteries full of new anti-ship missiles. And they have enough good planes.

US ships would not be safe.
Click to expand...

In 2010, China spent $120 billion on defense. We spent over $600 billion. We've learned hard lessons from being involved in continuous conflict for over a decade. When's the last time a Chinese soldier fired a shot in anger?

China isn't even close to parity with the U.S. A fight with us would be the stupidest thing they could do. They could hurt us, but their defeat would be so lopsided, the Chinese government couldn't possibly survive it. Their hold on power is already tenuous at best. We hold all the cards in this one. China will avoid conflict at all costs.
 
Can I just say what a thrill it is that this thread is so chock-full of experts in Chinese character, foreign policy, etc? The confidence with which each totally neutral participant explains the situation, the options and likely outcomes is a breath of fresh air in this skeptics' forum.

It is a little surprising that those who support Trump tend to find Tillerson's statements a breath of fresh air, a necessary impetus to push the Chinese out of their comfort zone, while those who oppose Trump find the comments reckless and likely to lead to a needless war over a bit of unnecessary sea.

Still, I'm sure that each party has the evidence, know-how and keen insight to justify their deep thoughts on these matters and I'm just privileged to watch such wonderful experts lay their cases out without any hint of bias. Truly, a joy to see in a skeptics' forum.
 
phiwum said:
Can I just say what a thrill it is that this thread is so chock-full of experts in Chinese character, foreign policy, etc? The confidence with which each totally neutral participant explains the situation, the options and likely outcomes is a breath of fresh air in this skeptics' forum.

It is a little surprising that those who support Trump tend to find Tillerson's statements a breath of fresh air, a necessary impetus to push the Chinese out of their comfort zone, while those who oppose Trump find the comments reckless and likely to lead to a needless war over a bit of unnecessary sea.

Still, I'm sure that each party has the evidence, know-how and keen insight to justify their deep thoughts on these matters and I'm just privileged to watch such wonderful experts lay their cases out without any hint of bias. Truly, a joy to see in a skeptics' forum.
Click to expand...

A few things are obvious, though. Even a cursory glace at the two powers shows China would lose badly in any military conflict (short of us attempting some kind of invasion, which we would never do). China's government has been clamping down on basic rights recently. Usually, when a regime does that, it's coming from a position of weakness.

What worries me is that the Chinese leadership might see their situation as so brittle, they can't survive politically without calling our bluff. It wouldn't be the first time a war got started because each side was incapable of backing down.
 
sunmaster14 said:
China cannot project military power to the South China Sea, which is precisely why it is trying to build up artificial islands there. Still, they're pretty paltry. No match for even a single aircraft carrier group.
Click to expand...

I see your carrier group and raise you a YJ-100 cruise missile equipped with a 50kt warhead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom