View Full Version : A War Between Japan And China In The Next Year?
What next?
Don't Be Surprised If There's A War Between Japan And China In The Next Year
Chinese planes flew near Japanese airspace Monday to assert its claims to Japan's Senkaku islands (China calls them the Diaoyu islands).
The move came just as Japan announced its new prime minister.
Hugh White, a professor at Australian National University and a former Australian defense official, believes this is the latest sign the two countries are heading to war.
And the U.S. will be dragged in.
Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, White says we are now witnessing the types of conditions that have historically led to war — despite conflict being in no one's interest.
THIS is how wars usually start: with a steadily escalating stand-off over something intrinsically worthless. So don't be too surprised if the US and Japan go to war with China next year over the uninhabited rocks that Japan calls the Senkakus and China calls the Diaoyu islands. And don't assume the war would be contained and short.
It seems almost laughably unthinkable that the world's three richest countries - two of them nuclear-armed - would go to war over something so trivial. But that is to confuse what starts a war with what causes it.
The conflict is really about China challenging the U.S. in the Pacific, White says. President Obama has vowed a Pentagon "pivot to Asia," itself a response to China's growing strength.
Claiming the Senkaku islands, a series of small outcroppings in the East China Sea, is China's way of testing America's new posture, White says.
And it's this kind of tit-for-tat that inevitably causes someone to open fire.
The risk is that, without a clear circuit-breaker, the escalation will continue until at some point shots are exchanged, and a spiral to war begins that no one can stop. Neither side could win such a war, and it would be devastating not just for them but for the rest of us.
No one wants this, but the crisis will not stop by itself.
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-japan-senkaku-diaoyu-war-2012-12#ixzz2GSIh0PgM
US will not stand firm (signaled back channel) behind Japan and China gets the Islands.
No War - the left is too busy working to ban guns.
China has a history of thinking in 100's if not thousands of years. WW2 is very recent history and the anger over Japanese invasion is not lost on today's generation nor the Communist Govt.
Our assistance to them is also remembered.
We are in a position to negotiate differences if we take the lead.
China has a history of thinking in 100's if not thousands of years. WW2 is very recent history and the anger over Japanese invasion is not lost on today's generation nor the Communist Govt.
Our assistance to them is also remembered.
We are in a position to negotiate differences if we take the lead.
Oh well...
mark46th
12-29-2012, 15:19
The last thing this president will be known for is taking the lead on foreign policy....
Red Flag 1
12-29-2012, 15:51
The last thing this president will be known for is taking the lead on foreign policy....
Somewhere during his run up to 2008, obama said about his lack of international experience that, "that is why he has biden on the ticket as VP". I know that I go to sleep wrapped up, all nice and cozy with the thought of "good old joe" taking care of these little international thingies :mad:.
RF 1
I was in a similar brief....there was another major factor...economics.
The stronger the economic ties between the US and China the less the chances for war...the stronger the Chinese economy was ... particularly in the growing middle class and stronger wages across the board would also diminish the percentages for classic warfare.
All of those economic equations have come about.
Does China want to lose all of it's US debt holdings? Does China want to lose its largest market for goods and for production?
Maybe, I'm no seer but I doubt it.
China has never had it so good for the Government or it's average worker.
GratefulCitizen
12-30-2012, 11:47
I was in a similar brief....there was another major factor...economics.
The stronger the economic ties between the US and China the less the chances for war...the stronger the Chinese economy was ... particularly in the growing middle class and stronger wages across the board would also diminish the percentages for classic warfare.
All of those economic equations have come about.
Does China want to lose all of it's US debt holdings? Does China want to lose its largest market for goods and for production?
Maybe, I'm no seer but I doubt it.
China has never had it so good for the Government or it's average worker.
Not all trade is equal in importance.
China has a significant net surplus in exporting toys to the US.
The US has a significant net surplus in exporting food to China.
Who is really dependent upon whom?
Badger52
12-30-2012, 20:37
Somewhere during his run up to 2008, obama said about his lack of international experience that, "that is why he has biden on the ticket as VP". I know that I go to sleep wrapped up, all nice and cozy with the thought of "good old joe" taking care of these little international thingies :mad:.
RF 1Deep kimchi on the horizon; the VP is busy with that pesky guns matter Pete talked about.
Not all trade is equal in importance.
China has a significant net surplus in exporting toys to the US.
The US has a significant net surplus in exporting food to China.
Who is really dependent upon whom?
It isn't just the cheap crap, it's the expensive technology as well. China currently has the monopoly on rare earth (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/06/21/behind-chinas-rare-earth-controversy/), which puts a lot at stake here in the US until we get our own production up to speed.
OTOH, the with the Japanese economy in a recession[1], nationalism[2] is on the rise, someone in the moment may decide there isn't much to lose.
MOO: Russia is going to watch this with great interest, I can see them publicly supporting China and covertly supporting Japan at the same time. They can benefit from prolonging the conflict, keeping China engaged and away from their southern border, as well as trying to engage the US in the conflict which will keep us from scrutinizing them as well. As far as the US is concerned, circumstance[3] more than diplomacy will probably drive how we approach this, I don't think the public has an appetite for another intervention and/or war, and we have enough issues to deal with at home, I believe as serious as this may be, we will probably be hands off.
My .02, YMMV
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/news/economy/japan-gdp-recession/index.html
[2] http://www.economist.com/node/21564263
[3] http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/state-world-explaining-us-strategy
GratefulCitizen
01-01-2013, 15:49
It isn't just the cheap crap, it's the expensive technology as well. China currently has the monopoly on rare earth (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/06/21/behind-chinas-rare-earth-controversy/), which puts a lot at stake here in the US until we get our own production up to speed.
"Reserves" are an economic measure not a physical one.
China's advantage comes from cheap labor and lax safety regulations.
Our production will never get up to speed so long as Chinese are producing it more cheaply.
There are plenty of sub-economic rare earth deposits elsewhere (including the US).
Many nations have a massive "reserve" of rare earths in disposed consumer-electronics.
If China attempts to restrict supply they will only be cutting their own throat.
A rise in price would make recycling economic and would enable other countries to develop their own resources.
Commodity markets are generally way ahead of this stuff.
In 2007, rhodium was way out there on the risk matrix
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=165
Markets were aware and were priced accordingly.
http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/rh1825lnb.html
Increased risk causes increased prices which ultimately causes increased supply, decreased risk, and decreased prices.
Mineral availability is limited more by economics than it is by technology or physical deposits.
Don't need to look any further than the oil and natural gas boom in this country see this in action.
mark46th
01-01-2013, 19:05
Obama chose Joe Biden because of his foreign policy expertise and now it looks like John Kerry will be the next Secretary of State. Geezus, Joseph and Mary, we are fxxxed....
Obama chose Joe Biden because of his foreeign policy expertise and now it looks like John Kerry will be the next Secretary of State. Geezus, Joseph and Mary, we are fxxxed....
Translation: Obama, Biden, and Kerry. Yup, you got that right!
Basenshukai
01-01-2013, 23:59
With this administration I don't think that we would enter any other war.
Too busy fighting a class war...
Trapper John
01-02-2013, 17:24
With this administration I don't think that we would enter any other war.
Absolutely agree. But to understand the problem and see the potential for disaster we need look no further than Bengazi. IMO the O administration is addressing foreign policy much in the same way that Carter did. We will not see any direct action on the part of the US. However, we will continue to see DoS F'ups like we see in Bengazhi, a continued communication of the wrong message by down-sizing our Navy and its ability to project power as a preventive strategy. Rather, the O administration is thinking that a reactionary force capability is all that is needed. O will look for another "yes" man at DoD and CIA. O will avoid direct confrontation and will rely on DoS/CIA to manage covert ops to protect US interests and influence outcomes in unstable theaters that are believed to be in the strategic interest of the US. This approach has been tried before and the outcome is predictable.
Japan defence white paper warns of China 'force'
BBC 9 July 2013 Last updated at 02:13 ET
Japan has warned that China is engaging in "dangerous actions" and attempting to change the status quo in the East China Sea "by force".
The comments were made in Japan's annual defence white paper - the first since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office late last year.
<snip>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23177540
Japan Ministry of Defense Publication
DEFENSE OF JAPAN 2013 (Provisional Translation)
http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2013.html
CONTENTS
Foreword
Digest Part Ⅰ Figure Part Ⅰ
Digest Part Ⅱ Figure Part Ⅱ
Digest Part Ⅲ Figure Part Ⅲ
Column
Part Ⅰ: Security Environment Surrounding Japan
Overview
Section 1 Trends in the International Community
Section 2 Security Environment in the Vicinity of Japan
Section 3 Major Security Issues in the International Community
Chapter 1 Defense Policies of Countries
Section 1 The United States
Section 2 Korean Peninsula
Section 3 China
Section 4 Russia
Section 5 Southeast Asia
Section 6 South Asia
Section 7 Australia
Section 8 Europe
Chapter 2 Issues in the International Community
Section 1 Trends Concerning Cyberspace
Section 2 Transfer and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Section 3 International Terrorism
Section 4 Complex and Diverse Regional Conflicts and Approaches of the International Community
Part Ⅱ: Japan's Defense Policy and the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements
Chapter 1 The Basic Concepts of Japan's Security and Defense Policy
Section 1 Measures to Ensure Japan's Security
Section 2 The Constitution and the Right of Self-Defense
Section 3 The Basis of Defense Policy
Section 4 Establishment of National Security Council
Chapter 2 The National Defense Program Guidelines and the Build-Up of Defense Capability
Section 1 The National Defense Program Guidelines and the Mid-Term Defense Program
Section 2 Status of Deliberations Concerning the Revision of the 2010 Guidelines
Section 3 Build-Up of Defense Capability in FY2013
Section 4 Defense-Related Expenditures (First Increase in 11 Years)
Section 5 Stable Use of Global Commons (Outer Space, Cyberspace, and the Oceans)
Chapter 3 Strengthening of the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements
Section 1 The Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements
Section 2 For the Deeper and Broader Japan-U.S. Alliance
Section 3 MV-22 Osprey Deployment in Okinawa
Section 4 Efforts to Strengthen Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation
Section 5 Measures Relating to the Stationing of U.S. Forces in Japan, including their Realignment
Part Ⅲ: Measures for Defense of Japan
Chapter 1 Systems to Protect Citizens' Lives and Property and Defend Japanese Territorial Land, Waters and Airspace
Section 1 Effective Deterrence and Response
Section 2 Frameworks for Responses to Armed Attack Situations
Chapter 2 Initiatives to Further Stabilize the International Security Environment
Section 1 Promoting Multilateral Security Cooperation and Dialogue in Areas Including the Asia-Pacific Region
Section 2 Promotion of Defense Cooperation and Exchanges
Section 3 Counter-piracy Initiatives
Section 4 Efforts to Support International Peace Cooperation Activities
Section 5 Efforts for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-proliferation
Chapter 3 The Maintenance and Strengthening of Defense Production and Technological Bases, and the Effective, Efficient Acquisition of Defense Equipment
Section 1 Defense Production and Technological Bases, and the Current Status of Defense Equipment Acquisition
Section 2 Initiatives for Increasing the Efficiency of Procurement and Improving its Fairness and Transparency
Section 3 Research and Development
Section 4 Initiatives Aimed at Maintaining, and Strengthening Defense Production and Technological Bases
Chapter 4 The Relationship between the Japanese People and the Ministry of Defense and the SDF
Section 1 The Human Foundation and Organization That Supports the Defense Force
Section 2 Reform of the Ministry of Defense
Section 3 Interaction between the Ministry of Defense and the SDF, and the Local Community and Japanese Citizens
below is but one small incomplete section...
<snip>
Part I Security Environment Surrounding Japan
Chapter 1 Defense Policies of Countries
Section 1 The United States
1 Security and Defense Policies
Even as the comparative influence of the United States changes, the country continues to play the greatest role in the peace and stability of the world and the trends of its security and defense policy have a great impact on many states including Japan. In January 2012, the Obama administration released a new defense strategic guidance1 which clearly articulated that the emphasis of its national security strategy is on the Asia-Pacific region. Reelected in the presidential election in November of the same year, President Obama visited Thailand, Myanmar and Cambodia as his first travel destinations abroad after the reelection, thus shows a stance to continue to emphasize the region in his second term.
Meanwhile, as the deepening budget deficit of the U.S. government in recent years calls for a deep cut in its spending, in January 2012, the Department of Defense announced that the reduction in defense spending will amount to approximately 487 billion dollars in 10 years from FY2012 to FY20212. The need for such reduction in defense spending is one of the factors for the development of the defense strategic guidance. In addition, mandatory reduction in government spending3, including defense spending, was initiated in March 2013. Senior officials of the Department of Defense including U.S. Secretary of Defense Hagel frequently expressed their concerns about the impact of mandatory budget reduction, and the Department of Defense announced in the same month that Secretary of Defense Hagel had ordered to carry out studies within the department regarding the impact of mandatory budget reduction on the defense strategies. How the mandatory reduction of defense spending will impact the options related to the U.S. defense strategies and security policies attracts attention.
1 Defense Strategic Guidance
In January 2012, the Obama administration released a new defense strategic guidance. Based on the understanding that the U.S. is at an inflection point due to factors both inside and outside the country, that is, the U.S. forces’ drawing down from Iraq and Afghanistan4 after a decade of war and the demand for deep cuts in government spending including defense spending under the serious fiscal circumstances of the government, the guidance was developed to review the defense priorities and present a blueprint for the Joint Force in 2020. In a briefing after the announcement of the guidance, President Obama stated that the future U.S. forces will be smaller and leaner, but at the same time will be agile, flexible, ready, and technologically advanced.
(1) Assessment of the Security Environment
The defense strategic guidance indicates that the global security environment presents an increasingly complex set of challenges (e.g. the threat of violent extremists, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), infringement on the global commons—sea, air, space, and cyberspace) and opportunities (e.g. development of the Asia-Pacific region, the Arab Awakening in the Middle East) to which all elements of U.S. national power must be applied.
As for the Asia-Pacific region, in particular, the guidance indicates that because U.S. economic and security interests are inextricably linked to developments in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia, the U.S. will rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region, and emphasize its existing alliances in the region and expand its networks of cooperation with partners.
In respect to China’s emergence as a regional power, it states that it will have the potential to affect the U.S. economy and our security in a long term and that the two countries have a strong stake in peace and stability in East Asia and an interest in building a cooperative bilateral relationship. On the other hand, it also points out that the growth of China’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region. Then it states that the United States will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that we maintain regional access and the ability to operate freely in keeping with our treaty obligations and with international law and that, working closely with our network of allies and partners, the U.S. will continue to promote a rules-based international order that ensures underlying stability and encourages the peaceful rise of new powers, economic dynamism, and constructive defense co-operation.
Concerning the Middle East, after stating the particular concern about the diffusion of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, it states that U.S. policy will strengthen Gulf security, in collaboration with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)5 countries when appropriate, to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon capability and others.
Regarding Europe, it states that the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan has created a strategic opportunity to rebalance the U.S. military investment in Europe, moving from a focus on current conflicts toward a focus on future capabilities. In keeping with this evolving strategic landscape, the U.S. forces’ posture in Europe must also evolve6.
<snip>