Hyperwarp
Captain
a summary would be nice.
China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread
- Thread starter swimmerXC
- Start date
- Status
a summary would be nice.
I think China bluffed over the air defence zone, and the bluff was called. It was better for China to have the US call the bluff than for Japan to call the bluff. Popular sentiment in China probably imagined China to be a match for Japan, and would have exacted a heavy price from the influence and credibility of the new Xi administration if Xi did not follow up a Japanese incursion with something even more destabilizing and bring the region even closer to war.
Most people in China probably realize China is no match for the US, and most would probably have swallowed backing down before US posture as a necessary step. So the fact that it was the US calling China's bluff actually gives Xi administration a relatively face saving way to back down.
I think the air defence zone was a badly misjudged step on the part of China. I think China should take advantage of the fact that it was the US, and not Japan, that called the bluff, and use it to find a way out.
In some ways, the current blow up over Senkaku islands as an unfortunate legacy left by the previous Wen/Hu administration. The Wen/Hu administration should have anticipated that the next administration, at the beginning of its term, would have had much less latitude to maneuver in any nationalistic confrontation with Japan, and dialed down the temperature before they left their offices as fulfillment of the duty of the departing administration to give the succeeding administration the greatest possible latitude and maneuvering room at the beginning of its term.
Most people in China probably realize China is no match for the US, and most would probably have swallowed backing down before US posture as a necessary step. So the fact that it was the US calling China's bluff actually gives Xi administration a relatively face saving way to back down.
I think the air defence zone was a badly misjudged step on the part of China. I think China should take advantage of the fact that it was the US, and not Japan, that called the bluff, and use it to find a way out.
In some ways, the current blow up over Senkaku islands as an unfortunate legacy left by the previous Wen/Hu administration. The Wen/Hu administration should have anticipated that the next administration, at the beginning of its term, would have had much less latitude to maneuver in any nationalistic confrontation with Japan, and dialed down the temperature before they left their offices as fulfillment of the duty of the departing administration to give the succeeding administration the greatest possible latitude and maneuvering room at the beginning of its term.
Last edited:
An ADIZ is not a NFZ. I've already outlined that in the other thread.
There is no "bluff" to call. China can still intercept those B-52s if it wants. The USAF doesn't have to turn on transponders or give flight paths
I don't see why they need to back down, it's not like a couple of B-52s invalidates the ADIZ. Russian Bears operate in the US ADIZ all the time near alaska. Chinese Y-8 and Tu-154Ms operate through the Japanese ADIZ as well. By your logic Russia and China are both calling the US and Japan's bluffs as well then are they?
This dispute raised its ugly head again because of the Japanese arrest of the Chinese fisherman in 2010 and the Japanese government purchase of the islands in 2012.
Nationalistic sentiment on both sides are providing the fuel, but this entire thing could have been avoided if the escalations in 2010 and 2012 were avoided.
Trying to pin this dispute on excessive Chinese nationalism is frankly a little bit disgusting and ignoring the entire history of the dispute and ignoring the Japanese actions in the last few years which prompted a Chinese reaction.
The Chinese said foreign planes ought to do this or else China will do that. Foreign planes very ostentatiously didn't do this, and still the Chinese didn't do that. It speaks to everyone that China can say things, but if you don't chose to listen, the consequences implied by China for your not listening won't actually materialize.
This is a bluff called. This is a loss of credibility and hit taken to regional standing, made worse by the fact the intruding US B-52s didn't just breach the ADIZ at a random place, but specifically close to the focal point of this whole spectacle at Senkakus. Exactly why this spectacle arose in the first place back in 2012 is now much less significant to regional view of China than the new perception "China can say things and you don't have to listen so long as the US is on your side."
>>>THIS PORTION OF THE POST REMOVED<<< - No personal attacks, no attempts to insult various countries and governments, no posts that are offensive, etc. -
This is a bluff called. This is a loss of credibility and hit taken to regional standing, made worse by the fact the intruding US B-52s didn't just breach the ADIZ at a random place, but specifically close to the focal point of this whole spectacle at Senkakus. Exactly why this spectacle arose in the first place back in 2012 is now much less significant to regional view of China than the new perception "China can say things and you don't have to listen so long as the US is on your side."
>>>THIS PORTION OF THE POST REMOVED<<< - No personal attacks, no attempts to insult various countries and governments, no posts that are offensive, etc. -
Last edited by a moderator:
Trying to shift all the blame to Chinese side is wrongly accusation. Then may I know when shall China implement this measure? Remember Japan been doing this since the late 60s. Or you want to come in with the mentality that anything Japan can do it , China can't?
Of you want to claim Pacific Ocean belongs to Japan and US and this status quota is not going to change?
Or US still has the Washington treaty mentality that US and Japan can build a massive navy fleet while China can only keep a inferior ratio to them?
There is no blame, there is only strategy and tactics, and Chinese tactic appeared to have backfired.
No one can predict how long current status quo will last. But one could predict easily that China does not have the strength to break this status quo now. So to attempt to break it when it lacks the strength to do so is a blunder.
In so far as any blame is applicable, blame whatever factors that caused Chinese to embark upon this damaging jumping of the gun. One factor is undoubtedly nationalist ferver.
Ok guys...this is getting too heated.
No more name calling, tit for tat arguments about China vs the US, US vs China, or Japan vs China and vice versa. This is getting heated and violations of forum rules will not be tolerated. If it continues, the thread will be suspended and members given a vacation from SD.
Thanks in advance. Sit back, cool off, and then carry on without the rancor and accusations and counter accusations.
No more name calling, tit for tat arguments about China vs the US, US vs China, or Japan vs China and vice versa. This is getting heated and violations of forum rules will not be tolerated. If it continues, the thread will be suspended and members given a vacation from SD.
Thanks in advance. Sit back, cool off, and then carry on without the rancor and accusations and counter accusations.
I will not say its a bad move by Chinese side. Remember CMA ship enter diayutai and conduct patrolling and Japan coast guard can do nothing about it rather than screaming and make a few announcement. They dare not ram or forcefully chase off the CMA ship.
Then came Japan threaten to shoot down Chinese drone only to back down after China calling it an act of war. If you think China IFF zone is bluffing and China lack will to enforce. I will say Japan is even more bluffing after so many threat make but both countries now still co exist peacefully.
(I've also posted this entry in the European armed forces topic.)
I just read in a Dutch newspaper that the Dutch units that will be deployed to Mali next year will be protected by units of the PLA.
Here's a short translation:
It says that in the last week, the Dutch commander of the armed forces had a meeting with its counterpart Fang Fenghui in which they talked about cooperation in medical, logistical areas and also talked about "force protection". The article points out that the Chinese are new to combat duties as past deployments of the PLA mainly consisted of engineers and other support personel.
The Dutch will share a camp with the Chinese in Gao where the Dutch will deploy 4 Apache gunships.
The article also says that the Dutch will exchange personel with China with regards to training and already are cooperating with China on maritime field to combat piracy in the Indian Ocean.
Source:
Question:
Is there any news about this deployment published by the Ministry of Defence in China? For example, what units will they be sending?
I just read in a Dutch newspaper that the Dutch units that will be deployed to Mali next year will be protected by units of the PLA.
Here's a short translation:
It says that in the last week, the Dutch commander of the armed forces had a meeting with its counterpart Fang Fenghui in which they talked about cooperation in medical, logistical areas and also talked about "force protection". The article points out that the Chinese are new to combat duties as past deployments of the PLA mainly consisted of engineers and other support personel.
The Dutch will share a camp with the Chinese in Gao where the Dutch will deploy 4 Apache gunships.
The article also says that the Dutch will exchange personel with China with regards to training and already are cooperating with China on maritime field to combat piracy in the Indian Ocean.
Source:
Question:
Is there any news about this deployment published by the Ministry of Defence in China? For example, what units will they be sending?
- Status