Chinese Geopolitics

TerraN_EmpirE said:

should have? Perhaps. Could have? Another story. The PRC has had a rule, if you officially recognized the ROC then the PRC doesn't recognize you. Remember the PRC considers the ROC a rouge regime. in order to keep relations between the US or any nation and the PRC and ROC the US has to play fast and loose. The Roc embassy is operated as a think tank well the PRC embassy is a full embassy. Dealings are done in a near official capacity with out official recognition. Through this the US can sell arms and supply support. But handing over territory demands Official recognition. If the US government did that The PRC would consider it as a sign the US wanted to break relations and the PRC who officially considers the ROC it's property would be doing the same thing its doing now. Only without the SDF there. The Smaller ROC navy would be out of its league, and the PRC would have total control of not only the islands but also the seas around them allowing them to isolate the ROC. The US Could also not give them to the PRC as that would have been a green light to them for the invasion of Taiwan. Japan was more or less given administration as a form of safe keeping. A way of allowing the islands to be maintained for a day when relationships in the Pacific allow for peaceful development with out the looming threat of invasion.

Click to expand...

Equation said:

So..I'm just curious as to what gives the US the right to dictate who has the right to muscle in peace in the Pacific? Heck China could do that too, definitely not Japan, we've already seen her imperial past before. The bottom line is it's back to who has the bigger guns and the mean to use it, not out of morality or peace sake but rather "interests". NO.. I'm NOT accusing the US forces as imperial or anything. Just want to know why is it so important to protect the elite Japanese rulers and their status quo and when times and circumstances are changing all around them?

Click to expand...

port_08 said:

...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Marshall Islands is suing the nine known nations with nuclear weapons at the international court of justice at The Hague, over charges they have violated their legal obligation to disarm under the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT)
...


China does not ratify such treaty, why should China be in the lawsuit?

Click to expand...

port_08 said:

Again, it's NOT the quantity that matters but the delivery. Even a tiny country like Israel, having 1 nuclear bomb but capable of delivering them would be a threat but they would not survive a counter blow. You need to able to survive them (is your country large enough? some nook or cranies where you can hide from the fallout?), are you able to deliver to their face where it hurts? Therefore only a handful of countries fit this criteria.Making a lot of nukes and maintaining them would be a hassle, because the point is not to use them. Really, who in the right mind want to pollute the Earth where sum of the matter is fix. Is like your radioactive shitting in an aquarium just for the fun of it.

Waste of money spend time guarding, maintaining and secure these nukes. You only need certain amount until strategic value is a diminishing return for you.

Click to expand...

bajingan said:

The value of nuclear deterrent lies not only to deter potential adversary from launching a preemptive nuclear strike on you but also to deter potential adversary to initiate any conventional military action on you, a real effective nuclear deterrent force will force potential enemy to think that any military conflict with you is unthinkable for fear it will escalate into nuclear war in which MAD is assured. This is what Russia has achieved in Ukraine, deterring other major powers to interfere militarily.

Does China possess the same deterrence capability that will deter the US from interfering militarily in say south China sea? with the US expanding missile defense system and China minimal nuclear force I would say no.

Click to expand...

bajingan said:

The value of nuclear deterrent lies not only to deter potential adversary from launching a preemptive nuclear strike on you but also to deter potential adversary to initiate any conventional military action on you, a real effective nuclear deterrent force will force potential enemy to think that any military conflict with you is unthinkable for fear it will escalate into nuclear war in which MAD is assured. This is what Russia has achieved in Ukraine, deterring other major powers to interfere militarily.

Does China possess the same deterrence capability that will deter the US from interfering militarily in say south China sea? with the US expanding missile defense system and China minimal nuclear force I would say no.

Click to expand...

bajingan said:

The value of nuclear deterrent lies not only to deter potential adversary from launching a preemptive nuclear strike on you but also to deter potential adversary to initiate any conventional military action on you, a real effective nuclear deterrent force will force potential enemy to think that any military conflict with you is unthinkable for fear it will escalate into nuclear war in which MAD is assured. This is what Russia has achieved in Ukraine, deterring other major powers to interfere militarily.

Does China possess the same deterrence capability that will deter the US from interfering militarily in say south China sea? with the US expanding missile defense system and China minimal nuclear force I would say no.

Click to expand...

Mearsheimer, who is not modest, believes it is a reliance on theory that invigorates his thinking. Returning to his principal passion, China, he tells me: “I have people all the time telling me that they’ve just returned from China and met with all these Chinese who want a peaceful relationship. I tell them that these Chinese will not be in power in 20 or 30 years, when circumstances may be very different. Because we cannot know the future, all we have to rely upon is theory. If a theory can explain the past in many instances, as my theory of offensive realism can, it might be able to say something useful about the future.”

Click to expand...

shen said:

To the OP, China doesn't have geoplitical theories. Chinese are too busy worrying about and solving real world problems like how to feed and create more jobs for its people. Chinese leaders don't have the luxury of creating and putting national resources behind theories that invent conflicts and make self-fulfilling prophecy. Chinese are practical people who live in reality not theories.

in contrast to this. forget reality, just follow my theory. sounds like what was tried and failed under Mao.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...