It was just a rhetorical question that's not meant to be answered anyway...The military/industrial/political complex in the U.S determined it's not possible to do so.
East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
- Thread starter joshuatree
- Start date
- Status
It was just a rhetorical question that's not meant to be answered anyway...The military/industrial/political complex in the U.S determined it's not possible to do so.
Another Foreign Policy disappointment for Japan.
Spin and wishful thinking seems to be the mainstay for this whole saga to date and this story is definitely no exception.
I think that Tokyo will be very disappointed that the most ASEAN would agree to, is a vague commitment to the principle of over-flight. Even the BBC could only describe it as a “possible mild rebuke” to the PRC.
It is not the first disappointment suffered by Tokyo in this affair. Despite the heralding, America’s intrusion on Nov 26th came far short of Japanese hopes. No doubt Mr Abe was looking for something like a mass flight of US Strike Aircraft in to the CADIZ or fully armed B2’s flying all the way through and loitering along the border of Chinese National Airspace. What they got of course was just two unarmed B52’s that briefly entered the far end of the zone, circled the Diayou Islands and left again. The whole episode was over in a matter of minutes. For the record, I think the US actually played a cleverly nuanced blinder, that did all that was necessary to show Japan it cared, but without doing over much to comprise its strategic ambiguity. As an act it was Symbolic but ultimately meaningless.
The ASEAN meeting was largely of the same mould, only lacking the symbolism. Mr Abe was undoubtedly looking for a communicate that would enable headlines such as “ASEAN condemns China for reckless Air Zone Provocation….” Etc, but it got nothing of the sort.
The commitment to the principle of over flight was the next step up from nothing and given that afaik, no plane in the CADIZ has yet been told to leave the zone, land at a Chinese Airport, otherwise change course or be otherwise intercepted, might just as well have been nothing, given that over flight through the zone is not being denied.
I can think of three non exclusive reasons why ASEAN members were so unexcited.
1) They simply do not care as it not their problem
2) They value their other ties and relations with the PRC to much to risk over a minor matter.
3) None of them wanted to tie their own hands with a precedent that could limit their own options in this regard in the not too distant future.
I can easily imagine several ASEAN members that might wish to establish their own ADIZ along sensitive borders. Indonesia being top of the list.
Spin and wishful thinking seems to be the mainstay for this whole saga to date and this story is definitely no exception.
I think that Tokyo will be very disappointed that the most ASEAN would agree to, is a vague commitment to the principle of over-flight. Even the BBC could only describe it as a “possible mild rebuke” to the PRC.
It is not the first disappointment suffered by Tokyo in this affair. Despite the heralding, America’s intrusion on Nov 26th came far short of Japanese hopes. No doubt Mr Abe was looking for something like a mass flight of US Strike Aircraft in to the CADIZ or fully armed B2’s flying all the way through and loitering along the border of Chinese National Airspace. What they got of course was just two unarmed B52’s that briefly entered the far end of the zone, circled the Diayou Islands and left again. The whole episode was over in a matter of minutes. For the record, I think the US actually played a cleverly nuanced blinder, that did all that was necessary to show Japan it cared, but without doing over much to comprise its strategic ambiguity. As an act it was Symbolic but ultimately meaningless.
The ASEAN meeting was largely of the same mould, only lacking the symbolism. Mr Abe was undoubtedly looking for a communicate that would enable headlines such as “ASEAN condemns China for reckless Air Zone Provocation….” Etc, but it got nothing of the sort.
The commitment to the principle of over flight was the next step up from nothing and given that afaik, no plane in the CADIZ has yet been told to leave the zone, land at a Chinese Airport, otherwise change course or be otherwise intercepted, might just as well have been nothing, given that over flight through the zone is not being denied.
I can think of three non exclusive reasons why ASEAN members were so unexcited.
1) They simply do not care as it not their problem
2) They value their other ties and relations with the PRC to much to risk over a minor matter.
3) None of them wanted to tie their own hands with a precedent that could limit their own options in this regard in the not too distant future.
I can easily imagine several ASEAN members that might wish to establish their own ADIZ along sensitive borders. Indonesia being top of the list.
solarz
Brigadier
Sampan, I really admire your ability to read between the lines and pick out the salient points of an issue. I completely agree with your analysis.
Thank you, its nice to have the effort appreciated.
I'm fairly certain that Mr Xu should make the first flight off the ramp, tell him to take his rubber ducky and life jacket, unless they use RATO, the ole mig 21 ain't gonna make it off the ramp, not enough wing, and not enough thrust.
Jh-7 is not the old mig-21. It is a much larger twin engined strike fighter. But I doubt Jh-7 can make it off a carrier deck within reasonable length without assist from catapults, or has approach speed low enough for safe carrier landing.
bajingan
Senior Member
I wonder is there any internal conflict within the CCP or between civilian leadership and the military?
because all of this disputes will multiple countries at the same time, it does not make sense. it is not good for China image internationally, and it will only invites for more US military bases surrounding you.
and its against China stated peaceful development policy.
For me if you are trying to convince everybody that you will rise peacefully, and to diminish US influence in East Asia.
this will not be the way I would behave. Behaving aggressively will only inviting the opposite.
The only way to do it is to continue on the economic development path, play nice with your neighbors, even if they annoy you a bit bite the bullet and bide your time, economically and demographically japan is on a death bed, it wont be long until they fade away, but time is on China side.
and when China become no 1 economy on the planet everything else will come into place.
because all of this disputes will multiple countries at the same time, it does not make sense. it is not good for China image internationally, and it will only invites for more US military bases surrounding you.
and its against China stated peaceful development policy.
For me if you are trying to convince everybody that you will rise peacefully, and to diminish US influence in East Asia.
this will not be the way I would behave. Behaving aggressively will only inviting the opposite.
The only way to do it is to continue on the economic development path, play nice with your neighbors, even if they annoy you a bit bite the bullet and bide your time, economically and demographically japan is on a death bed, it wont be long until they fade away, but time is on China side.
and when China become no 1 economy on the planet everything else will come into place.
Last edited:
I doubt it. Certainly all the actions at this point seem consistent with existing PRC policy, and even the ADIZ itself isn't the belligerent act media makes it out to be.
Geography and history is a pain in the butt, which is why China has so many territorial disputes. China is possibly the biggest country with the most land borders with her neighbours in the world, apart from maybe Russia. Its ocean boundaries also cross with the very crowded ECS and SCS.
There is no single act China can do which will diminish the US presence in Asia while also maintaining China's national interests in the various territorial disputes. While a peaceful solution is definitely sought, if various boundaries are crossed by other parties, China will definitely respond, with the disputed islands with Japan as a perfect example.
And unfortunately, Simply putting hands up and not responding while hoping that that will prove to the world that China is "friendly" is a presumptuous idea as such a stance may easily be interpreted as weakness.
Not to mention, "convincing" the world that China will rise "peacefully" probably won't change the US military presence in asia at all, given the US has an interest to maintain a potent forward deployed military presence in virtually every major region of the globe regardless of threat.
Given asia's increasing economic importance, even if China's military modernization was put on the back burner and if China didn't respond to territorial provocations, the US presence will likely only increase.
The problem is, if China doesn't stand up for its disputed territories and lets others nibble away at them, then by the time China is the most powerful country in the world, it may have lost a good portion of the territory originally under dispute.
Instead, they're playing a game of carrot and stick with its neighbours -- if their neighbours are obliging to China's requests, then they will reap the benefits of better political and economic relations. If they are not, then China will still do some business with them, but have the option of imposing economic restrictions at times of choosing, while also retaining the military muscle to back up its words. This is all with the long term projection that China's economy and military will soon reach a point where its influence means its neighbours will soon have to start to acquise to talks.
Indeed, some have speculated that the disputes are only rising in the last few years because some countries realize if the disputes aren't incited to public attention, then in a few decades when China is more powerful, they will lose more than if they make a big fuss now.
The question, as always, is whether appeasement or confrontation works better. At this point China is playing both sides simultaneously.
By then everything would be too late. Actually it's already quite late.
China, is by no means being "aggressive" or "impulsive" or "coercing other countries", as some in Japan and the West would like to portray China as.
Did China launch an attack on any of her neighbours? No.
Did China refuse to admit there's a dispute over Diaoyu islands? No (I think we all know who's doing this).
Did China cut diplomatic ties with her neighbours, or, use her economic might to start a trade war of anything of the sort with her neighbours? No.
Did China force Japan to acknowledge the island is China's like what Japan did to force China? No.
Did China use ANY military assault or employ ANY military vessels/aircrafts in the conflicts with her smaller neighbours such as The Philippines or Vietnam? No.
Did China's setting up of her own ADIZ violate ANY International Law or, for that matter, in ANY way different from Korea or Japan's own ADIZ? No (Yet some stubborn country is still claiming they would request China to dismiss her own ADIZ).
Or, did China try to "nationalize" the islands and arrest some of her neighbouring country's fishermen and stubbornly refuse there's a dispute no matter what? No, and that's exactly some "peaceful nation" did under their so called "Peace Constitution" and the so called " Self-Defense Force".
What else do you expect from her? Give up on all her claims, dismantle the ADIZ, or disarm her defense forces so that the West and Japan can finally be contended and what happened in the 19th and first half of 20th century repeat itself?
In my opinion, China is doing nothing particularly "aggressive" by any means. What China has done over the past few years is but a peaceful way to firmly express her concern and claims, at the same time taking necessary steps and measure to ensure her own national security (such as the ADIZ). China is not being aggressive, but she's definitely not appeasing any nation as well. We have our own claims, our own interests, and if that clashes with yours, that's fine--we can always talk our way through as long as you sincerely want to.
China is not starting a war, that's something nobody wants to see.
But China will not keep backing down as well. The message should be very clear by now, and that is, if you want to keep being stubborn and escalate the matters, we will keep you company. It's that simple.
FarkTypeSoldier
Junior Member
The guest did make a comment that with a folding wing and catapult assisted carrier, it could go up the future carrier.
The JH-7A certainly has enough thrust. Again with a catapult assisted carrier in the indigenous carrier. The JH-7A is a reasonably matured airframe with twin engine certainly has the prospect of going up the future carrier, not Liaoning.
- Status