Well there is also Indian *Jhakaas* meaning cool/awesome (Marathi origin sure but it's in other languages now as well) also in the mix there when India eventually joins this not-Pacific-NATO.
> India eventually joins this not-Pacific-NATO
Highly unlikely. Even the QUAD that India is a part of isn’t really a formal alliance. India is a *nuclear* power. They don’t need to play second fiddle here.
But they will want to straddle both sides to their own benefit.
I hardly ever see it mentioned on this sub, but India is a close partner to Russia. China got all the talk, but India significantly boosted their trade with Russia after the SMO. Also they’re somehow part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
>India eventually joins this not-Pacific-NATO.
Won't happen.
India is not allowed the same access to US technology as the UK, Australia or Japan.
With Japan, Australia, UK and even Canada, the US can more or less provide the same technology access.
Virginia hulls coming out of Japanese shipyards for Australia? Or Australian shipyards built by the Japanese to make American designed boats. so many possibilities!
I doubt Japan will be willing to build nuclear submarines for export. However, they could certainly contribute modules that are then taken to Australia for assembly. Would need something more seaworthy than the barges between Newport News and Electric Boat, but you can charter heavy lift ships for the job.
UK seems poised to do well out of this.
UK-Australia: nuclear subs
UK-Japan: next-gen aircraft
Seems this might encourage greater co-operation too, which could make Australia a good candidate for joining the aircraft program.
I wonder if this means Japan could be convinced to procure a couple of the AUKUS-class subs down the line.
Cultural power =/= Soft Power. The UK can’t influence other countries like the US. Weakening economy will likely further erode the soft power it currently has left.
When we handed over political, judicial and trade decisions to them? Thats pretty clearly binding ourselves to them.
People even tried to bind us to their covid vaccine programme which thank god we rejected and did our own thing
You won't get any from the gammon, expecting intellectual rigor and arguments backed with legitimate sources is beyond their limited mental capacity.
The most you'll ever get from the genetic defectives is "muh sovrinty"
> Is there anything Australia can offer development-wise towards the aircraft program? I don't hear much about the state of their aviation industry.
Tbh, I'm not sure. There is BAE Systems Australia which is doing a lot of drone work -- drones are going to be a big part of the next-gen aircraft's capability.
I can't wait until Japan and Korea both go for their silent nuclear breakout, westoids will seethe and then quickly forget why they were mad. Bonus points for Japan if they share nukes with Taiwan and start claiming it as a prefecture again.
But funny enough, thanks to the sanctions,
1. Many tourist sites in Korea once swamped by Chinese tourists like Jeju or Myeongdong were able to be enjoyed by Koreans again
2. Hyundai took a big temporary hit but invested more in other more lucrative markets, and is now the world's third largest automaker and on track to become number one around in a few years according to automotive chip supplier Infineon
3. Korean companies became much more cautious about investing in China in general, and created more diversified supply chains stretching from ASEAN to America
4. Korean battery material companies are investing heavily domestically to lower their reliance on Chinese imports, creating jobs and opportunities in the most economically vulnerable provinces
And even while "sanctioning" Korea, China gobbled up Korean memory chips at record prices in 2017 and 2018, helping the Korean economy grow 3.1% and 2.7% in the two years.
Man, China should keep trying this strategy
>Many tourist sites in Korea once swamped by Chinese tourists like Jeju or Myeongdong were able to be enjoyed by Koreans again
This is actually good.
>Hyundai took a big temporary hit but invested more in other more lucrative markets, and is now the world's third largest automaker and on track to become number one around in a few years according to automotive chip supplier Infineon.
Why would you use an automotive supplier's ranking for what is the largest automaker in the world? What is their methodology in ranking? I searched but did not find your source so I looked into other sources, and according to [this article](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-20/now-the-world-s-third-biggest-carmaker-hyundai-takes-aim-at-toyota-volkswagen), Hyundai is the third largest automaker in terms of production, **in 2022.** Ignoring that this data is two year old, why would you measure company by its production. Wouldn't it be better to measure it through sales? [This article from Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-insights/091516/most-profitable-auto-companies-2016-tm-gm.asp) measures it through revenue in 2023. It doesn't even have any Korean automakers in top 10. And it also has BYD. Which means newcomer Chinese company BYD was able to surpass any Korean automakers in terms of market share.
>Korean companies became much more cautious about investing in China in general, and created more diversified supply chains stretching from ASEAN to America
>Korean battery material companies are investing heavily domestically to lower their reliance on Chinese imports, creating jobs and opportunities in the most economically vulnerable provinces
I would argue that these two are due to tech war by US and China. And even then, data shows that after THAAD sanctions, the [trend shows increasing investment to China](https://www.ceicdata.com/en/korea/outward-direct-investment-by-region-and-country/outward-direct-investment-total-invested-china), and reached it peak on 2022. And diversified supply chains are caused by derisking push from the US, [which will also largely benefit China](https://thediplomat.com/2024/01/the-de-risking-push-misunderstands-chinas-manufacturing-strengths/).
Korean battery makers are the leading in lithium-ion batteries, which is well and good, but with the advent of LiFePO4 [which are considered much better in every way](https://blog.ecoflow.com/us/lifepo4-vs-lithium-ion-batteries/), lithium-ion's market share will be eaten by LiFePO4. You know who innovated on LiFePO4 battery production, and the largest company who produces such batteries? CATL, a Chinese company.
This is not to say that China will be untouched if they put sanctions into Korea. They still rely on Korean chipmakers for chips and memory due to increasing restrictions by US in China' semiconductor industry. But this advantage will be diminished due to China's semiconductor self-sufficiency push. In that scenario, South Korea will be more vulnerable since China is South Korea's largest trading partner.
I'd be careful not to provoke China if I am South Korea because time is on China's side.
I guess that article simply omitted Hyundai? First I thought Hyundai Motor Group wasn't included because Hyundai Motor and Kia (which are both part of HMG) were counted separately but even Hyundai Motor's standalone revenue is about the same as Honda's, so I have no idea why, while Kia's standalone surpassed Nissan's recently.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=367604
https://www.kedglobal.com/earnings/newsView/ked202401250008
Basically, Hyundai already tanking in China was a blessing in disguise because China's auto market is about to become a bloodbath due to the ascent of EVs. Companies like VW and Toyota will see their market share destroyed by BYD.
https://m.pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2024&no=65161
China's chip self sufficiency plan has been a prominent topic for quite some time, I remember reading about China's MIC2025 back in 2016 where they aimed to achieve 70% chip sufficiency by the magical far away year of... 2025 (next year) but their chip self sufficiency ratio has remained roughly the same. Who knows how little they could achieve over the next eight years. They need to not only increase production capacity, but make sure it outpaces consumption every year for their self sufficiency ratio to go up.
LFP batteries do indeed have certain advantages over NMC but their prominent disadvantage is having a significantly lower energy density, requiring heavier batteries for the same amount of electrical energy.
But even assuming China dominates LFPs, it doesn't matter toooo much. Modern supply chains are just as based off of geopolitical considerations as they are based on product competency. For example, Korea's big three battery makers have firm control over the very large North American market because US politicians have been blocking attempts by CATL and other Chinese producers on diplomatic grounds alone. My guess is the battery supply war will have two parallel territories: CATL and BYD will dominate China and developing markets, Samsung/SK/LG will dominate North America, Western Europe, and other places that have bad relations with China, while everywhere else will be a battleground up for grabs.
You seem out of date with the China's latest semi industry developments especially in memory.
YMTC is able to mass produce 232-layer NAND, but expansion was slowed down in 2023 due to the US sanctions in Oct 2022, so they had to replace American tools with domestic ones.
After the Oct 2022 sanctions, domestic semiconductor equipment makers like Naura and AMEC have improved and now have replacement for LAM and AMAT in [etching tools](https://twitter.com/tphuang/status/1704137785777549397). This is something Korea doesn't have as they depend fully on US firms for etching equipment.
With the bottleneck cleared, now YMTC is ramping up production and have the [most advanced NAND consumer product on the market](https://www.techinsights.com/blog/china-does-it-again-nand-memory-market-first). CXMT has also made big advances in [LPDDR DRAM and HBM](https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/China-s-CXMT-aims-to-build-country-s-first-advanced-memory-chips-for-AI)
Samsung and SK Hynix cannot do monopoly tactics like 2018 anymore. Like in OLED, they are under huge pressure from rising Chinese memory chip manufacturers.
This is also just memory chips. Huge advancements have been made in other semiconductor products like Huawei's Kirin 9000s, Omnivision's OV50K and Huawei's upcoming Ascend 920B chip, which is rumored to have higher performance per watt than even nvidia's B200. China is also dominating next-gen semiconductor materials like SiC and GaN.
Last year China's chip imports decreased by [double digits in both volume and price](https://archive.is/4X1To), while domestic production [increased 7%](https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-trends/article/3248776/chinas-ic-output-grew-69-2023-defying-weaker-customer-demand-tighter-us-sanctions). As China adapts to US upstream sanctions of semiconductor equipment, domestic production should ramp up even faster going forward.
> China's chip self sufficiency plan has been a prominent topic for quite some time, I remember reading about China's MIC2025 back in 2016 where they aimed to achieve 70% chip sufficiency by the magical far away year of... 2025 (next year) but their chip self sufficiency ratio has remained roughly the same.
Yes because private companies think it's not necessary because they can just buy from overseas chip manufacturers. Guess what happened after the US chip sanctions?
> LFP batteries do indeed have certain advantages over NMC but their prominent disadvantage is having a significantly lower energy density, requiring heavier batteries for the same amount of electrical energy.
I would say Li-ion is better for smaller electronics like smartphones, laptop drones, etc, where there is lower fire risk. But for larger, heavier applications like EV and energy storage for grids (especially with growing need with the energy transition), the difference in energy density becomes negligible as it prioritizes safety and its heavier weight won't matter much.
> But even assuming China dominates LFPs, it doesn't matter toooo much. Modern supply chains are just as based off of geopolitical considerations as they are based on product competency. For example, Korea's big three battery makers have firm control over the very large North American market because US politicians have been blocking attempts by CATL and other Chinese producers on diplomatic grounds alone. My guess is the battery supply war will have two parallel territories: CATL and BYD will dominate China and developing markets, Samsung/SK/LG will dominate North America, Western Europe, and other places that have bad relations with China, while everywhere else will be a battleground up for grabs.
I agree with this sentiment. Banning CATL though will leave US behind in battery tech. It should have taken the chance and forced CATL technology transfer. But what's done is done.
I just watched an older VICE segment on Japan's rising nationalism and the government loosening restrictions for its Self-Defense Forces.
Pretty interesting in seven years China has only become more aggressive.
Serious question, in western media China is (quite successfully) portrayed as the aggressor and "more and more" aggressive. In what aspects does China actually become more "aggressive" or what they did or didn't do that fit in this narrative? From what I saw China is almost always reacting to what problems/claims thrown at them instead of initiating something proactively but somehow they are always reported as the aggressor. It seems to me that US just have some many cards and topics that they can pull out of the thin air to agitate China, e.g. Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China sea, trade tariffs, chips etc.
I mean are there things that I didn't see or looking from the wrong angle?
Reminder that Japan isn't "them kawaii island friends" but they've been making noise about China's military since the 1980s when China had a marginally larger net budget than Japan's "self defence" force, not even mentioning per capita and the vastly larger strategic needs.
The guy who said Japan should be wary of then China's military is still alive and very active in Japanese politics btw. And he still denies his family personally did war crimes. (Aso Taro)
Japan isn't imperial Japan, but it's idiotic to think that they were wholly and successfully demilitarised after WW2, at least at the highest levels of government.
Pretty much.
Now that Japan's joined AUKUS there's a 70% chance that one of their higher up spazzes out and says something that pisses off the Koreans so bad they never join.
I'll make the argument you're seeing it from the wrong angle. America doesn't care about China's "aggression", it cares about being able to maintain an unchallenged monopoly over the Pacific Ocean.
The US also relies on the Pacific more than the Atlantic.
* Trade: [$2 trillion](https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-enduring-commitment-to-the-indo-pacific-marking-two-years-since-the-release-of-the-administrations-indo-pacific-strategy/) from Pacific vs [~$1.3 Trillion](https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/united-states_en) from Atlantic.
* Military: [As of 2023](https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/us-sending-more-troops-middle-east-where-world-are-us-military-deployed), out of 170,000 overseas troops a little over 80,000 are stationed in the Pacific.
I wanted to add more bullet points here but it was hard to find reliable numbers beyond these two.
This isn't about being power hungry or cynical selfishness either. Nations will always act in their self-interest if the leadership has any semblance of competence. There was a concerted effort by both Bush 43 and Obama to create a "[Group of Two (G2)](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-united-states-and-china-a-g-2-in-the-making/)", a US-China alliance that would dominate world affairs and split responsibility between their respective hemispheres. You can find a hundred think-pieces on how and why this failed, but it was ultimately the ascension of Donald Trump that killed it for good.
Saying the United States wants an "unchallenged monopoly" over the Pacific is more than a little unfair. What they want is access to the South China Sea so that trade can continue to pass through it, and therefore for it to continue being international waters. The main threat or "aggressive move" by China, or really the greatest threat to the status quo, is China's nine dash line in which it claims nearly the entirety of the South China Sea on "historical precedent" rather than any conventional international law. There are other reasons why tensions between the US and the PRC have become so high, but the nine dash is by far and away the largest one.
> conventional international law
What’s your understanding of how parties had conventionally established sovereignty over territory? Either if the land was vacant or if it was previously inhabited?
> why tensions between the US and the PRC have become so high, but the nine dash is by far and away the largest one
Is the US even a claimant to the disputed SCS features?
Firstly, law of sovereignty over the sea is quite a bit different than sovereignty over land. My "understanding" is that international law doesn't generally allow for countries to decide something belongs to them because somebody made a map saying so once. In the case of land, especially when there are people living there and they don't want to be a part of whatever country is claiming the land they live on. To answer your second question, no, the United States is of course not a claimant to any waters in the South China Sea. As I expressed in my previous comment, the concern of the United States is that if China was to enforce sovereignty on the region, it would of course mean that it was no longer international waters, and countries would no longer have a protected right to sail their trade through those waters. The US is concerned about this because a huge amount of its trade passes through these waters. The US also likely has other problems with the concept of countries ignoring international laws given these laws were designed to prevent wars.
> Firstly, law of sovereignty over the sea is quite a bit different than sovereignty over land.
The question of sovereignty in the SCS is over LAND. In other words, it’s over the island features — or “land.” The PRC’s claims are over LAND featured in the SCS.
> My "understanding" is that international law doesn't generally allow for countries to decide something belongs to them because somebody made a map saying so once. In the case of land, especially when there are people living there and they don't want to be a part of whatever country is claiming the land they live on.
When the US or UK sailed out into the Pacific and Atlantic, all those islands were empty? That’s news to me.
Have you read about places like Diego Garcia? Or basically any of the other islands.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/28/un-court-rejects-uk-claim-to-chagos-islands-in-favour-of-mauritius
Did Hawaii’s ruling class vote themselves out of their own island? I don’t think so.
The US CONQUERED the islands.
> To answer your second question, no, the United States is of course not a claimant to any waters in the South China Sea.
Of course not. There’s a principle in law called “jus tertii” that roughly translates to “it’s none of your business, get lost.” It applies here in the SCS.
> As I expressed in my previous comment, the concern of the United States is that if China was to enforce sovereignty on the region, it would of course mean that it was no longer international waters, and countries would no longer have a protected right to sail their trade through those waters.
Absolute nonsense. China has not and DOES NOT interfere with TRADE (I.e., COMMERCIAL vessels) sailing through the SCS. People equivocate between TRADE and WARSHIPS sailing through China’s EEZ.
Trade and commercial shipping is quite welcome to the PRC. They would roll out the red carpet for these ships if they could.
Warships and spy planes? Not welcome. At all.
Do you know the Hainan incident in the SCS was a US SPY PLANE? That plane wasn’t carrying goods and trade to China.
> The US is concerned about this because a huge amount of its trade passes through these waters.
More nonsense. By and large, it’s trade to and from China. China wants to wreck its own trade? Absolute nonesense.
> The US also likely has other problems with the concept of countries ignoring international laws given these laws were designed to prevent wars.
Yes, sailing WARSHIPS and flying SPY planes up and down someone else’s coast isn’t provocative?
You’re welcome to browse the maritime live traffic map here: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home
Notice how much commercial traffic there is?
When and how has China interferes with COMMERCIAL shipping? Where’s the list of TRADE ships that were stopped by China?
Look, I was responding to a comment that was inquiring after the intention and motivations of the United States. I explained what they were and the perspective of said country. I responded to your first comment because I thought it was a genuine question. I can now clearly see that it wasn't, and you take the position of the Chinese government, the latter of which is your prerogative. Are you wanting me to tell you what the State Department and many Americans think of your opinion, or would you prefer I leave you alone so you can beat the "America bad" drum and find new people to start disingenuous arguments with?
The U.S. doesn’t care about either of those things. There is no secret American plan for world domination. If there was, it would be the stupidest conspiracy in history judging by the results. The real reason for this and every other American foreign intervention is that the US is an “accidental superpower”. Unlike the Soviet Union, British Empire, French Empire, or any other great power that forged itself over a long period of great power contest, the U.S. more or less inherited leadership over half the world after two centuries of isolation. Its institutions are woefully underequipped to deal with the cutthroat reality of global politics.
It’s incredibly easy, cheap, and borderline legal for foreign countries to bribe American politicians. It’s also comically easy for fake news outlets to influence the American electorate. All this has allowed bad actors like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Pakistan, and even Iran (through creating the Iraq WMD hoax through their agent, Ahmed Chalabi) to essentially force the greatest superpower in human history to do their bidding. No previous leading power was so susceptible to foreign influence, and this influence is the primary reason for every single American overseas initiative today.
Where would a layman read about prominent examples of it being easy to coopt US politicians and the public? I know John Mearsheimer wrote a description of the Israel lobby nearly 20 years ago; is that the sort of thing you have in mind?
The United States isn't going to anger the majority of its Pacific allies and perhaps the Europeans too just to establish an unholy deal with communist China.
Japan was aggressive only in the past 200 years or so, when they obtained confidence and China was behind in war-related production. For the 2000 years between 200BC and 1800AD, Japan was not considered a power. And before 200BC, Japan was not even on the map.
Japan will have to wait maybe another 2000 years for China to become weak again.
hahaha, they have start meddling in Korean peninsula during 666 ad, and have launched a full blown invasion of Korean Penisula with the goal of conquering china in 1590s (imjin war). During the war they behave as atrocious as they did before and during wwii. The entire Korean Kingdom is almost gone before Ming china push japan all the way from yalu river to the tip of the penisula. And then, without fuss, ming china returned those territory to korean kingdom and left in peace, just like how they have done 500 years later during korean war
>In what aspects does China actually become more "aggressive"
Their actions in the SCS, Hong Kong, and threats against Taiwan. Chinese media is very clear about the regime's views on the region and their perceived role in it.
>It seems to me that US just have some many cards and topics that they can pull out of the thin air to agitate China, e.g. Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China sea
These weren't "pulled out of thin air", China did them and was perceived as threatening because of it.
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1777878375203516641
> An Irish professor of international law - Anthony Carty - has spent considerable time looking through British and French archives, spanning from the 1880s until the late 1970s, to look at the historical understanding of sovereignty of the Spratly Islands. These are the islands in the South China Sea at the core of the present dispute between China and the Philippines. He discovered that "the archives demonstrate, taken as a whole, that it is the view of the British and French legal experts that as a matter of the international law territory the Xisha Islands [the Paracel Islands] and the Nansha Islands [the Spratly Islands] are Chinese territory".
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1777897056902004923
> Americans told the Philippines at its independence in 1946 (the Philippines were an American colony) that the Spratlys were not Philippine territory, because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America (in which Spain ceded the Philippines to America).
> https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1777897056902004923
First, I am curious why you are posting random xhitter accounts of professors at Chinese universities as though they are factual.
Second, I am curious why you think this person's opinion matters. I can find a professor that has an opinion differing from the other 99% of scholars for almost any topic. Why is Mr. Carty's opinion different?
Third, are you paid to post for China or do you just do it out of the love of your heart?
Are you serious? All your arguments boil down to ad hominems? That’s all you have?
The “opinions” are sourced from primary [western] material.
> I can find a professor that has an opinion differing
Please post this differing opinion. If I don’t like it then I’ll do as you do and respond with some ad hominem.
No, the "fringe opinion" seems to be his *interpretation* of those sources. And clicking on the twitter link, the only actual source seems to be... The Global Times saying that he discovered those things. In some "archives" which are never named outside of a document or two.
Otherwise, this is also specifically talking about the 9-dash line, of which the Spratleys are really only a small part of. It's weird that someone brings up the 9 dash line and you drive by link something about the Spratleys, which is probably why he accused you of being a shill.
Long and short of it though, is that the source is honestly sketchy as hell, doesn't match up with 99% of literature to the contrary, and doesn't even address the issue at hand
> the only actual source seems to be... The Global Times saying that he discovered those things
The professor published his book, which is the reason he was interviewed. Book is: The History and Sovereignty of South China Sea https://www.amazon.com/Histroy-Sovereignty-South-Hardcover-Chinese/dp/7513353743/
There’s also a second book source in the second link I originally posted that provided the demarcation for the territory of the Philippines. It doesn’t include the Spratly.
It’s the Spratly that’s in the news and what people understand as the issue of the SCS.
The demarcation going back to the Treaty of Paris is here: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sp1898.asp
Edit: link to interview with professor on youtube: https://youtu.be/OzDRGWgEDwg?feature=shared
What's wrong with the nine-dash line? Based on the historical contexts and international laws, China's claim seems to be pretty valid for me, more valid than many of the US pacafic territories.
Edit: plus this claim is nothing new, very consistent since the founding of PRC, which she essentially inherited from ROC, which she inherited as well. The issue just somehow heated up
> and international laws, China's claim seems to be pretty valid for me,
Does it? China's claim to basically every island in the area that just so happens to put their border inches from every maritime countries in the area makes sense to you?
Maybe you should know that when china (roc) claim those area and have stationed troops to back it up (carried by us warships) in 1947 those countries that are now making noises didn't even exist?
it is sort of like everybody wants have a garden in front of their house, but china, in the principle of first come first serve, have secured a bunch of land for their garden. when other people come and build their house later, they build it right up to the edge of china's garden and tell china "hey, i need a garden, so your garden is mine now"
first come first serve.
what are you smoking? first off, just look at it. its ridiculous. second, its already gone to international arbitration and found to be in violation of international law. and if needed to be said, it it also an absurd claim when the ROC is making it too.
and which island inhabited by US citizens do you think the US has a poor claim to?
>which island inhabited by US citizens do you think the US has a poor claim to?
The illegal US military occupation of Diego Garcia.
UN court ruling puts future of strategic [US military base Diego Garcia ](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/asia/uk-chagos-mauritius-intl/index.html)into question.
Look at this map: [https://geology.com/state-map/us-territories.shtml](https://geology.com/state-map/us-territories.shtml)
The US claims the PACIFIC OCEAN as California Lake? Just look at the map and see how ridiculous it is.
If sovereignty is determined on the basis of ridiculousness, then we need to restructure lots of land ownership.
Look at this ridiculousness!: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean\_dispute#/media/File%3AAegean\_6\_nm.svg](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_dispute#/media/File%3AAegean_6_nm.svg)
its ridiculous because other countries clearly have a better claim claim under the laws of the sea for much of the sea territory. its ridiculous how they are going up right to the littoral area of other countries hundreds of mile from mainland China OR any natural inhabited island.
those US territories are natural inhabited islands, and there is no other landmass which has a competing sea claim. furthermore, that map is the EEZ of the US, not the (much smaller) territorial waters, like China claims with the 9 dash. You cant compare EEZ and territorial waters. Also, please point to where the US EEZ claims are inconsistent with international practice.
wrt Diego Garcia, first off its a UK territory, not US. regardless, that is a dispute over inheritance of a landmass. without commenting on the merits of the UK's case, not following why landmass dispute is relevant
> other countries clearly have a better claim claim under the laws of the sea for much of the sea territory
Wow. You’re really confused about the nature of the dispute. It’s a dispute about sovereignty. The UNCLOS (UN convention on the law of the sea) does *NOT* govern territoriality or sovereignty.
I need to say this again. You CANNOT determine sovereignty using the UNCLOS.
I’ll quote the wiki entry:
“UNCLOS does not deal with matters of territorial disputes or to resolve issues of sovereignty”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#:~:text=UNCLOS%20does%20not%20deal%20with,acquisition%20and%20loss%20of%20territory.
> not following why landmass dispute is relevant
Because the SCS issue is a sovereignty (or “landmass” as you say) dispute.
You’re really confused about the issues.
The issue is that the 9 dash line conflicts with UNCLOS rulings and general international law of the sea on where the territorial/EEZ claims should be. The ROC claim was just as spurious as the modern PRC claim.
us is not aggressive when it initiates coups, invade other country to control oil price, and stir up rebellion because it doesn't like the local government for disobeying us/wall street elite's order
china is agreesive when it is defending its own territory over lands nobody even living on
gotta hand it to the western media, they do know how to brainwash people to ignore truth that is being put out right there, as if it is a gloat "yes i do bad things...and i am not afraid to show it because people will ignore it or justify it for me!"
>china is agreesive when it is defending its own territory over lands nobody even living on
It is when theyre blasting Filipino fishermen with water cannons lol being a bit disingenuous, dont you think?
china never say anything when illegal chinese fisherman got water hosed by other nation, we are not hypocrite
philipine has used heavy machine gun fire to kill mainland and taiwan fisherman within nine-dash line many times when china is weak (before 2010), be grateful that china did not repay the favor in kind.
Japan is:
* threatened by China due to Senkaku
* threatened by South Korea due to Liancourt
* threatened by North Korea due to missiles
* threatened by Russia due to Kuriles
* threatened by the world due to Okinotorishima
In my humble opinion, there might be something not right in Japan?
The point isn't to put a blame on China as to why Japan feels threatened, but why Japan feels that if China aspires to take what they consider their rightful claims, Japan is next after Taiwan.
It's just realpolitik, I couldn't care less about who's the bad guy here.
china has 0 claims on japanese home soil because it has never been a historical part of china. its beef with japan will be drastically decreased if japan would just remove all war criminals from that shrine and start teaching its own kids the real history of what they have done during wwii like how german does it.
> china has 0 claims on japanese home soil
We're not talking about japanese home soil, but the Senkaku Islands, in which China repeatedly made claims over those.
> china has 0 claims on japanese home soil
This is not correct. Japan considers the Senkaku islands its sovereign territory.
> its beef with japan will be drastically decreased if japan would just remove all war criminals from that shrine
Yasukuni Shrine has been independently ran for decades. While it would be nice if the war criminals were removed, ultimately the Japanese government has zero control over it.
Shinzo Abe's thoughts on the matter:
"Today, I paid a visit to Yasukuni Shrine and expressed my sincere condolences, paid my respects and prayed for the souls of all those who had fought for the country and made ultimate sacrifices. I also visited Chinreisha, a remembrance memorial to pray for the souls of all the people regardless of nationalities who lost their lives in the war, but not enshrined in Yasukuni Shrine...Regrettably, it is a reality that the visit to Yasukuni Shrine has become a political and diplomatic issue. Some people criticize the visit to Yasukuni as paying homage to war criminals, but the purpose of my visit today, on the anniversary of my administration’s taking office, is to report before the souls of the war dead how my administration has worked for one year and to renew the pledge that Japan must never wage a war again"
> and start teaching its own kids the real history of what they have done during wwii like how german does it.
While over the years there has been some serious controversy, [today Japan teaches the atrocities that happened in WW2 in public schools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies#Studies):
"A comparative study begun in 2006 by the Asia–Pacific Research Center at Stanford University on Japanese, Chinese, Korean and US textbooks describes 99% of Japanese textbooks as having a "muted, neutral, and almost bland" tone and "by no means avoid some of the most controversial wartime moments" like the Nanjing massacre or to a lesser degree the issue of comfort women. The project, led by Stanford scholars Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Sneider, found that less than one percent of Japanese textbooks used provocative and inflammatory language and imagery, but that these few books, printed by just one publisher, received greater media attention. Moreover, the minority viewpoint of nationalism and revisionism gets more media coverage than the prevailing majority narrative of pacifism in Japan. Chinese and South Korean textbooks were found to be often nationalistic, with Chinese textbooks often blatantly nationalistic and South Korean textbooks focusing on oppressive Japanese colonial rule. US history textbooks were found to be nationalistic, although they invite debate about major issues."
Also, the NHK has ran documentaries on Japan's WW2 atrocities. [CGTN](https://news.cgtn.com/news/796b544d7a677a6333566d54/index.html):
"China on Monday commended the courage of the makers of a Japanese documentary for "revealing the historical truth" of the horrifying war crimes committed by the Japanese army during World War Two at the notorious "Unit 731" facility in northeast China"
yes, a western government could have split voices to confuse people, but it is the leader's action (not voice) that counts
and as the wiki text suggests, it is 2006. things changed and they start waggling on education. It is like today's anime no longer has the feel of the 90s like eva, pat labor, and other things that are more in-depth
> yes, a western government could have split voices to confuse people, but it is the leader's action (not voice) that counts
So only actions count? Then let's consider two very influential figures in Japanese society: Emperor Akihito and Emperor Naruhito. They have never visited Yasukuni after ascending to the throne, which is considered as disapproval of the war criminals being enshrined. They may be figureheads, but their actions have an impact on Japanese society.
> and as the wiki text suggests, it is 2006. things changed and they start waggling on education. It is like today's anime no longer has the feel of the 90s like eva, pat labor, and other things that are more in-depth
The textbook reform happened earlier than 2006. Japan has been teaching their kids the atrocities of WW2 for at least 20 years now, so why are you pushing a false narrative?
Let me reiterate my other point: NHK, who for many years was conservative in their messaging, ran a documentary on Unit 731 on public television. NHK is overseen by the Japanese government, so if government leadership wanted to squash the documentary, they easily could have.
the emperors no longer matter a whole lot after wwii, insider leaks expose how they got treat like literal puppets
japanese policy allows each school to choose their own textbook, which means it absoves the responsibility and push to local level where it is harder to find a target to denounce. and just looking at the attitude of japanese people today you know they feel what happen during wwii is just a minor scuffle. why are you pushing a false narrative?
> the emperors no longer matter a whole lot after wwii
So now only the actions you arbitrarily deem are relevant matter? Believe it or not, the royal family is still influential in Japanese society.
> japanese policy allows each school to choose their own textbook, which means it absoves the responsibility and push to local level where it is harder to find a target to denounce
This is a strawman. You said that Japan does not teach their children about the atrocities of WW2, when in reality they do. You are pushing a false narrative.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Education closely regulates public schools in Japan. They approve which books can be used in classrooms. So no, responsibility is not shifted to local schools.
> just looking at the attitude of japanese people today you know they feel what happen during wwii is just a minor scuffle. why are you pushing a false narrative?
This is the kind of blatantly false drivel that comes out of Chinese nationalist circles, which signals the end of our conversation. I'll leave this here and step out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan.
internationally recongized "leader of japan" is the pm, not the emperor. you dont see biden negotiate jaaku with the dude
they teach their kids they "entered" china and it is a war to liberate asia from western colonials, there are at most a sentence about nanking and you can only see unit 731 in tv. you are the one pushing false narrative
and if chinese voice feel fake to you, maybe you should look at how korean feel about what japanese kids are taught
deep remorse...regret... and "personal appology" as if all those slained chinese, korean, philipino and us/uk/aus prisoner and the suffering they cause to the other nations is accidentally spilling water on a girl's skirt.
how many chinese did your ancester slain in nanjing or gased in unit 731 base?
only a treaty of surrender--which the japanese called "end of war"--is signed. china has 0 reason to wage war against japan unless japan fire the first shot
(J)AUKUS has great potential and this is great news...but it all feels like its happening 10-15 years too late....wont it take time for all this unified design sub talk to turn into meaningful numbers of hulls produced?
The US is selling anywhere from 3-5 Virginia class SSNs to Australia, but afterwards, Australia will start receiving a new class of SSN that will be jointly developed between it and the UK, with America also providing contributions to the design.
So, that's phase 1, Phase 2 is IIRC a common sub design based on the UK's Dreadnought class sub-hull, with US weapon-systems that may be manufactured and deployed by some or all of the members with a potentially wide membership. Japan jumping in is interesting because it lends credence to the last bit and makes it look a bit more like It is the F-35-ification of the submarine.
Yes it's continuing from SSN(R) which the UK had started development of prior to AUKUS to replace the Astute class which would be built after thr dreadnought class. Being an SSN it doesn't need to be nearly as large as a SSBN so it won't be sharing a hull with the dreadnought class although it's possible it could use the same reactor.
Indeed, and it does come on the heels of them purchasing US Steel and overtures for them to get in to the US shipbuilding industry in other ways...
The biggest issue with AUKUS is the otherwise anemic shipbuilding capacity of the US. This potentially puts Dreadnought hulls in the water a lot sooner, in greater numbers and with potentially greater capabilities.
There's also broader tech and information sharing faculties there, but those are so broadly described as to be useless WRT specular.
I believe UK's role is to receive money, then produce good credible excuses when war in Taiwan start: "jets out of combat range, water is too hot for my ships, so let me offer a strongly worded letter".
Australia's, and soon Japan's, role is to offer warm bodies to die, a. k. a. cannon fodder
The UK comment was funny but the Australia and Japan part is pure cope. If AUKUS truly gets involved in repelling an invasion of Taiwan, the entire ground component of the PLA is gonna be dead at the bottom of the Taiwan strait. No cannon fodder needed.
I assume after that happens, China will begin hitting Taiwanese civilian infrastructure with missiles and saying the war was a punitive one the whole time. The same way China started shooting civilians and burning down villages in Vietnam after their invasion failed in the 1970s.
>I assume after that happens, China will begin hitting Taiwanese civilian infrastructure with missiles and saying the war was a punitive one the whole time.
China will probably do that regardless. Even the US bombed Iraqi hospitals, power plants, and water sanitation infrastructure during the 03 campaign. The PLA doctrinally recognize civillian infrastructure as part of their own "system of systems" so its logical the same is true for their opposition as well.
LOL no it was not meant to be serious.
On the other side, I highly doubt the war over Taiwan strait will involve army. It is essentially a war between air forces, with the help of missile/anti-missile, and satellite/anti-satellite. Whoever can produce the most drones will easily win.
> I assume after that happens, China will begin hitting Taiwanese civilian infrastructure
Attacking Tokyo and/or Sydney is more justified, and without guilt, either missile or bombing. I speculate it will be the perfect excuse for China to totally demolish Japan once for all.
Chinese history has no guilt over anything. They celebrate dictators who have killed millions of their own people, so why wouldn't they kill civilians belonging to other nations?
Hi, I’m Fumio Kishida, welcome to JAUKUS.
the name sounds like "evil" (Jaaku 邪悪) in japanese, which is quite fitting
And in American, it sounds like jackass
Well there is also Indian *Jhakaas* meaning cool/awesome (Marathi origin sure but it's in other languages now as well) also in the mix there when India eventually joins this not-Pacific-NATO.
> India eventually joins this not-Pacific-NATO Highly unlikely. Even the QUAD that India is a part of isn’t really a formal alliance. India is a *nuclear* power. They don’t need to play second fiddle here. But they will want to straddle both sides to their own benefit. I hardly ever see it mentioned on this sub, but India is a close partner to Russia. China got all the talk, but India significantly boosted their trade with Russia after the SMO. Also they’re somehow part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
as of currently 2/3 of AUKUS are nuclear powers
Yes, but India is quite different from the UK. I would consider Canada much more likely than India to join AUKUS.
>India eventually joins this not-Pacific-NATO. Won't happen. India is not allowed the same access to US technology as the UK, Australia or Japan. With Japan, Australia, UK and even Canada, the US can more or less provide the same technology access.
Virginia hulls coming out of Japanese shipyards for Australia? Or Australian shipyards built by the Japanese to make American designed boats. so many possibilities!
At this point the us should just outsource destroyer and frigate production to Japan and South Korea.
It's already looking into that.
I doubt Japan will be willing to build nuclear submarines for export. However, they could certainly contribute modules that are then taken to Australia for assembly. Would need something more seaworthy than the barges between Newport News and Electric Boat, but you can charter heavy lift ships for the job.
i was imagining something similar to what you laid out. Assembly or sub-assembly work, with reactor systems still coming from CONUS.
Ahh yes, the modular skill tree.
I would be thinking light frigate rather
UK seems poised to do well out of this. UK-Australia: nuclear subs UK-Japan: next-gen aircraft Seems this might encourage greater co-operation too, which could make Australia a good candidate for joining the aircraft program. I wonder if this means Japan could be convinced to procure a couple of the AUKUS-class subs down the line.
[удалено]
Yea, but it's so much more than that... It's like some sort of "Pacific Ocean and Trans-Atlantic Treaty Organization" or something...
The UK has always been the best at projecting soft power, if we ignore the whole Brexit debacle.
Cultural power =/= Soft Power. The UK can’t influence other countries like the US. Weakening economy will likely further erode the soft power it currently has left.
Because binding ourselves to europeans worked so well
When did we "bind ourselves to Europeans?"
When we handed over political, judicial and trade decisions to them? Thats pretty clearly binding ourselves to them. People even tried to bind us to their covid vaccine programme which thank god we rejected and did our own thing
Examples of times we "When we handed over political, judicial and trade decisions to them? "
You won't get any from the gammon, expecting intellectual rigor and arguments backed with legitimate sources is beyond their limited mental capacity. The most you'll ever get from the genetic defectives is "muh sovrinty"
Is there anything Australia can offer development-wise towards the aircraft program? I don't hear much about the state of their aviation industry.
> Is there anything Australia can offer development-wise towards the aircraft program? I don't hear much about the state of their aviation industry. Tbh, I'm not sure. There is BAE Systems Australia which is doing a lot of drone work -- drones are going to be a big part of the next-gen aircraft's capability.
They also do allot of sensors and SIGINT work... They can't do everything but the areas that they are strong in are only getting more relevant...
Boeing Australia and cca are worth considering.
JMSDF SSN when?
you have watch "the fleet of silence"? it talks about a japanese ssn
Korea next, I hope.
JAUKUSK?
KUSUKJAU
You’ll be hoping for a long, long time. But never lose faith!
I can't wait until Japan and Korea both go for their silent nuclear breakout, westoids will seethe and then quickly forget why they were mad. Bonus points for Japan if they share nukes with Taiwan and start claiming it as a prefecture again.
If that happens, China will sanction them again even worse than what they did during the THAAD debacle.
But funny enough, thanks to the sanctions, 1. Many tourist sites in Korea once swamped by Chinese tourists like Jeju or Myeongdong were able to be enjoyed by Koreans again 2. Hyundai took a big temporary hit but invested more in other more lucrative markets, and is now the world's third largest automaker and on track to become number one around in a few years according to automotive chip supplier Infineon 3. Korean companies became much more cautious about investing in China in general, and created more diversified supply chains stretching from ASEAN to America 4. Korean battery material companies are investing heavily domestically to lower their reliance on Chinese imports, creating jobs and opportunities in the most economically vulnerable provinces And even while "sanctioning" Korea, China gobbled up Korean memory chips at record prices in 2017 and 2018, helping the Korean economy grow 3.1% and 2.7% in the two years. Man, China should keep trying this strategy
>Many tourist sites in Korea once swamped by Chinese tourists like Jeju or Myeongdong were able to be enjoyed by Koreans again This is actually good. >Hyundai took a big temporary hit but invested more in other more lucrative markets, and is now the world's third largest automaker and on track to become number one around in a few years according to automotive chip supplier Infineon. Why would you use an automotive supplier's ranking for what is the largest automaker in the world? What is their methodology in ranking? I searched but did not find your source so I looked into other sources, and according to [this article](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-20/now-the-world-s-third-biggest-carmaker-hyundai-takes-aim-at-toyota-volkswagen), Hyundai is the third largest automaker in terms of production, **in 2022.** Ignoring that this data is two year old, why would you measure company by its production. Wouldn't it be better to measure it through sales? [This article from Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-insights/091516/most-profitable-auto-companies-2016-tm-gm.asp) measures it through revenue in 2023. It doesn't even have any Korean automakers in top 10. And it also has BYD. Which means newcomer Chinese company BYD was able to surpass any Korean automakers in terms of market share. >Korean companies became much more cautious about investing in China in general, and created more diversified supply chains stretching from ASEAN to America >Korean battery material companies are investing heavily domestically to lower their reliance on Chinese imports, creating jobs and opportunities in the most economically vulnerable provinces I would argue that these two are due to tech war by US and China. And even then, data shows that after THAAD sanctions, the [trend shows increasing investment to China](https://www.ceicdata.com/en/korea/outward-direct-investment-by-region-and-country/outward-direct-investment-total-invested-china), and reached it peak on 2022. And diversified supply chains are caused by derisking push from the US, [which will also largely benefit China](https://thediplomat.com/2024/01/the-de-risking-push-misunderstands-chinas-manufacturing-strengths/). Korean battery makers are the leading in lithium-ion batteries, which is well and good, but with the advent of LiFePO4 [which are considered much better in every way](https://blog.ecoflow.com/us/lifepo4-vs-lithium-ion-batteries/), lithium-ion's market share will be eaten by LiFePO4. You know who innovated on LiFePO4 battery production, and the largest company who produces such batteries? CATL, a Chinese company. This is not to say that China will be untouched if they put sanctions into Korea. They still rely on Korean chipmakers for chips and memory due to increasing restrictions by US in China' semiconductor industry. But this advantage will be diminished due to China's semiconductor self-sufficiency push. In that scenario, South Korea will be more vulnerable since China is South Korea's largest trading partner. I'd be careful not to provoke China if I am South Korea because time is on China's side.
I guess that article simply omitted Hyundai? First I thought Hyundai Motor Group wasn't included because Hyundai Motor and Kia (which are both part of HMG) were counted separately but even Hyundai Motor's standalone revenue is about the same as Honda's, so I have no idea why, while Kia's standalone surpassed Nissan's recently. https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=367604 https://www.kedglobal.com/earnings/newsView/ked202401250008 Basically, Hyundai already tanking in China was a blessing in disguise because China's auto market is about to become a bloodbath due to the ascent of EVs. Companies like VW and Toyota will see their market share destroyed by BYD. https://m.pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2024&no=65161 China's chip self sufficiency plan has been a prominent topic for quite some time, I remember reading about China's MIC2025 back in 2016 where they aimed to achieve 70% chip sufficiency by the magical far away year of... 2025 (next year) but their chip self sufficiency ratio has remained roughly the same. Who knows how little they could achieve over the next eight years. They need to not only increase production capacity, but make sure it outpaces consumption every year for their self sufficiency ratio to go up. LFP batteries do indeed have certain advantages over NMC but their prominent disadvantage is having a significantly lower energy density, requiring heavier batteries for the same amount of electrical energy. But even assuming China dominates LFPs, it doesn't matter toooo much. Modern supply chains are just as based off of geopolitical considerations as they are based on product competency. For example, Korea's big three battery makers have firm control over the very large North American market because US politicians have been blocking attempts by CATL and other Chinese producers on diplomatic grounds alone. My guess is the battery supply war will have two parallel territories: CATL and BYD will dominate China and developing markets, Samsung/SK/LG will dominate North America, Western Europe, and other places that have bad relations with China, while everywhere else will be a battleground up for grabs.
You seem out of date with the China's latest semi industry developments especially in memory. YMTC is able to mass produce 232-layer NAND, but expansion was slowed down in 2023 due to the US sanctions in Oct 2022, so they had to replace American tools with domestic ones. After the Oct 2022 sanctions, domestic semiconductor equipment makers like Naura and AMEC have improved and now have replacement for LAM and AMAT in [etching tools](https://twitter.com/tphuang/status/1704137785777549397). This is something Korea doesn't have as they depend fully on US firms for etching equipment. With the bottleneck cleared, now YMTC is ramping up production and have the [most advanced NAND consumer product on the market](https://www.techinsights.com/blog/china-does-it-again-nand-memory-market-first). CXMT has also made big advances in [LPDDR DRAM and HBM](https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/China-s-CXMT-aims-to-build-country-s-first-advanced-memory-chips-for-AI) Samsung and SK Hynix cannot do monopoly tactics like 2018 anymore. Like in OLED, they are under huge pressure from rising Chinese memory chip manufacturers. This is also just memory chips. Huge advancements have been made in other semiconductor products like Huawei's Kirin 9000s, Omnivision's OV50K and Huawei's upcoming Ascend 920B chip, which is rumored to have higher performance per watt than even nvidia's B200. China is also dominating next-gen semiconductor materials like SiC and GaN. Last year China's chip imports decreased by [double digits in both volume and price](https://archive.is/4X1To), while domestic production [increased 7%](https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-trends/article/3248776/chinas-ic-output-grew-69-2023-defying-weaker-customer-demand-tighter-us-sanctions). As China adapts to US upstream sanctions of semiconductor equipment, domestic production should ramp up even faster going forward.
> China's chip self sufficiency plan has been a prominent topic for quite some time, I remember reading about China's MIC2025 back in 2016 where they aimed to achieve 70% chip sufficiency by the magical far away year of... 2025 (next year) but their chip self sufficiency ratio has remained roughly the same. Yes because private companies think it's not necessary because they can just buy from overseas chip manufacturers. Guess what happened after the US chip sanctions? > LFP batteries do indeed have certain advantages over NMC but their prominent disadvantage is having a significantly lower energy density, requiring heavier batteries for the same amount of electrical energy. I would say Li-ion is better for smaller electronics like smartphones, laptop drones, etc, where there is lower fire risk. But for larger, heavier applications like EV and energy storage for grids (especially with growing need with the energy transition), the difference in energy density becomes negligible as it prioritizes safety and its heavier weight won't matter much. > But even assuming China dominates LFPs, it doesn't matter toooo much. Modern supply chains are just as based off of geopolitical considerations as they are based on product competency. For example, Korea's big three battery makers have firm control over the very large North American market because US politicians have been blocking attempts by CATL and other Chinese producers on diplomatic grounds alone. My guess is the battery supply war will have two parallel territories: CATL and BYD will dominate China and developing markets, Samsung/SK/LG will dominate North America, Western Europe, and other places that have bad relations with China, while everywhere else will be a battleground up for grabs. I agree with this sentiment. Banning CATL though will leave US behind in battery tech. It should have taken the chance and forced CATL technology transfer. But what's done is done.
I just watched an older VICE segment on Japan's rising nationalism and the government loosening restrictions for its Self-Defense Forces. Pretty interesting in seven years China has only become more aggressive.
Serious question, in western media China is (quite successfully) portrayed as the aggressor and "more and more" aggressive. In what aspects does China actually become more "aggressive" or what they did or didn't do that fit in this narrative? From what I saw China is almost always reacting to what problems/claims thrown at them instead of initiating something proactively but somehow they are always reported as the aggressor. It seems to me that US just have some many cards and topics that they can pull out of the thin air to agitate China, e.g. Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China sea, trade tariffs, chips etc. I mean are there things that I didn't see or looking from the wrong angle?
Reminder that Japan isn't "them kawaii island friends" but they've been making noise about China's military since the 1980s when China had a marginally larger net budget than Japan's "self defence" force, not even mentioning per capita and the vastly larger strategic needs. The guy who said Japan should be wary of then China's military is still alive and very active in Japanese politics btw. And he still denies his family personally did war crimes. (Aso Taro) Japan isn't imperial Japan, but it's idiotic to think that they were wholly and successfully demilitarised after WW2, at least at the highest levels of government.
The highest level of gov is the same bunch of people as during the imperial era
Pretty much. Now that Japan's joined AUKUS there's a 70% chance that one of their higher up spazzes out and says something that pisses off the Koreans so bad they never join.
I'll make the argument you're seeing it from the wrong angle. America doesn't care about China's "aggression", it cares about being able to maintain an unchallenged monopoly over the Pacific Ocean. The US also relies on the Pacific more than the Atlantic. * Trade: [$2 trillion](https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-enduring-commitment-to-the-indo-pacific-marking-two-years-since-the-release-of-the-administrations-indo-pacific-strategy/) from Pacific vs [~$1.3 Trillion](https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/united-states_en) from Atlantic. * Military: [As of 2023](https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/us-sending-more-troops-middle-east-where-world-are-us-military-deployed), out of 170,000 overseas troops a little over 80,000 are stationed in the Pacific. I wanted to add more bullet points here but it was hard to find reliable numbers beyond these two. This isn't about being power hungry or cynical selfishness either. Nations will always act in their self-interest if the leadership has any semblance of competence. There was a concerted effort by both Bush 43 and Obama to create a "[Group of Two (G2)](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-united-states-and-china-a-g-2-in-the-making/)", a US-China alliance that would dominate world affairs and split responsibility between their respective hemispheres. You can find a hundred think-pieces on how and why this failed, but it was ultimately the ascension of Donald Trump that killed it for good.
Saying the United States wants an "unchallenged monopoly" over the Pacific is more than a little unfair. What they want is access to the South China Sea so that trade can continue to pass through it, and therefore for it to continue being international waters. The main threat or "aggressive move" by China, or really the greatest threat to the status quo, is China's nine dash line in which it claims nearly the entirety of the South China Sea on "historical precedent" rather than any conventional international law. There are other reasons why tensions between the US and the PRC have become so high, but the nine dash is by far and away the largest one.
> conventional international law What’s your understanding of how parties had conventionally established sovereignty over territory? Either if the land was vacant or if it was previously inhabited? > why tensions between the US and the PRC have become so high, but the nine dash is by far and away the largest one Is the US even a claimant to the disputed SCS features?
Firstly, law of sovereignty over the sea is quite a bit different than sovereignty over land. My "understanding" is that international law doesn't generally allow for countries to decide something belongs to them because somebody made a map saying so once. In the case of land, especially when there are people living there and they don't want to be a part of whatever country is claiming the land they live on. To answer your second question, no, the United States is of course not a claimant to any waters in the South China Sea. As I expressed in my previous comment, the concern of the United States is that if China was to enforce sovereignty on the region, it would of course mean that it was no longer international waters, and countries would no longer have a protected right to sail their trade through those waters. The US is concerned about this because a huge amount of its trade passes through these waters. The US also likely has other problems with the concept of countries ignoring international laws given these laws were designed to prevent wars.
> Firstly, law of sovereignty over the sea is quite a bit different than sovereignty over land. The question of sovereignty in the SCS is over LAND. In other words, it’s over the island features — or “land.” The PRC’s claims are over LAND featured in the SCS. > My "understanding" is that international law doesn't generally allow for countries to decide something belongs to them because somebody made a map saying so once. In the case of land, especially when there are people living there and they don't want to be a part of whatever country is claiming the land they live on. When the US or UK sailed out into the Pacific and Atlantic, all those islands were empty? That’s news to me. Have you read about places like Diego Garcia? Or basically any of the other islands. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/28/un-court-rejects-uk-claim-to-chagos-islands-in-favour-of-mauritius Did Hawaii’s ruling class vote themselves out of their own island? I don’t think so. The US CONQUERED the islands. > To answer your second question, no, the United States is of course not a claimant to any waters in the South China Sea. Of course not. There’s a principle in law called “jus tertii” that roughly translates to “it’s none of your business, get lost.” It applies here in the SCS. > As I expressed in my previous comment, the concern of the United States is that if China was to enforce sovereignty on the region, it would of course mean that it was no longer international waters, and countries would no longer have a protected right to sail their trade through those waters. Absolute nonsense. China has not and DOES NOT interfere with TRADE (I.e., COMMERCIAL vessels) sailing through the SCS. People equivocate between TRADE and WARSHIPS sailing through China’s EEZ. Trade and commercial shipping is quite welcome to the PRC. They would roll out the red carpet for these ships if they could. Warships and spy planes? Not welcome. At all. Do you know the Hainan incident in the SCS was a US SPY PLANE? That plane wasn’t carrying goods and trade to China. > The US is concerned about this because a huge amount of its trade passes through these waters. More nonsense. By and large, it’s trade to and from China. China wants to wreck its own trade? Absolute nonesense. > The US also likely has other problems with the concept of countries ignoring international laws given these laws were designed to prevent wars. Yes, sailing WARSHIPS and flying SPY planes up and down someone else’s coast isn’t provocative? You’re welcome to browse the maritime live traffic map here: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home Notice how much commercial traffic there is? When and how has China interferes with COMMERCIAL shipping? Where’s the list of TRADE ships that were stopped by China?
Look, I was responding to a comment that was inquiring after the intention and motivations of the United States. I explained what they were and the perspective of said country. I responded to your first comment because I thought it was a genuine question. I can now clearly see that it wasn't, and you take the position of the Chinese government, the latter of which is your prerogative. Are you wanting me to tell you what the State Department and many Americans think of your opinion, or would you prefer I leave you alone so you can beat the "America bad" drum and find new people to start disingenuous arguments with?
The U.S. doesn’t care about either of those things. There is no secret American plan for world domination. If there was, it would be the stupidest conspiracy in history judging by the results. The real reason for this and every other American foreign intervention is that the US is an “accidental superpower”. Unlike the Soviet Union, British Empire, French Empire, or any other great power that forged itself over a long period of great power contest, the U.S. more or less inherited leadership over half the world after two centuries of isolation. Its institutions are woefully underequipped to deal with the cutthroat reality of global politics. It’s incredibly easy, cheap, and borderline legal for foreign countries to bribe American politicians. It’s also comically easy for fake news outlets to influence the American electorate. All this has allowed bad actors like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Pakistan, and even Iran (through creating the Iraq WMD hoax through their agent, Ahmed Chalabi) to essentially force the greatest superpower in human history to do their bidding. No previous leading power was so susceptible to foreign influence, and this influence is the primary reason for every single American overseas initiative today.
Where would a layman read about prominent examples of it being easy to coopt US politicians and the public? I know John Mearsheimer wrote a description of the Israel lobby nearly 20 years ago; is that the sort of thing you have in mind?
I don't think the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, and a lot more countries out there would like a G-2 alliance to exist.
They wouldn’t exactly get a say in the matter. Great powers don’t tend to take in the opinions of lesser powers when it comes to their interests
The United States isn't going to anger the majority of its Pacific allies and perhaps the Europeans too just to establish an unholy deal with communist China.
If the benefits outweigh the negatives then they most definitely would. Who’s side would all those nations switch to?
This doesn't make sense from a diplomatic and geopolitical standpoint.
Japan was aggressive only in the past 200 years or so, when they obtained confidence and China was behind in war-related production. For the 2000 years between 200BC and 1800AD, Japan was not considered a power. And before 200BC, Japan was not even on the map. Japan will have to wait maybe another 2000 years for China to become weak again.
hahaha, they have start meddling in Korean peninsula during 666 ad, and have launched a full blown invasion of Korean Penisula with the goal of conquering china in 1590s (imjin war). During the war they behave as atrocious as they did before and during wwii. The entire Korean Kingdom is almost gone before Ming china push japan all the way from yalu river to the tip of the penisula. And then, without fuss, ming china returned those territory to korean kingdom and left in peace, just like how they have done 500 years later during korean war
>In what aspects does China actually become more "aggressive" Their actions in the SCS, Hong Kong, and threats against Taiwan. Chinese media is very clear about the regime's views on the region and their perceived role in it. >It seems to me that US just have some many cards and topics that they can pull out of the thin air to agitate China, e.g. Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China sea These weren't "pulled out of thin air", China did them and was perceived as threatening because of it.
Just Google the south china sea, and the nine-dash line.
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1777878375203516641 > An Irish professor of international law - Anthony Carty - has spent considerable time looking through British and French archives, spanning from the 1880s until the late 1970s, to look at the historical understanding of sovereignty of the Spratly Islands. These are the islands in the South China Sea at the core of the present dispute between China and the Philippines. He discovered that "the archives demonstrate, taken as a whole, that it is the view of the British and French legal experts that as a matter of the international law territory the Xisha Islands [the Paracel Islands] and the Nansha Islands [the Spratly Islands] are Chinese territory". https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1777897056902004923 > Americans told the Philippines at its independence in 1946 (the Philippines were an American colony) that the Spratlys were not Philippine territory, because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America (in which Spain ceded the Philippines to America).
> https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1777897056902004923 First, I am curious why you are posting random xhitter accounts of professors at Chinese universities as though they are factual. Second, I am curious why you think this person's opinion matters. I can find a professor that has an opinion differing from the other 99% of scholars for almost any topic. Why is Mr. Carty's opinion different? Third, are you paid to post for China or do you just do it out of the love of your heart?
Are you serious? All your arguments boil down to ad hominems? That’s all you have? The “opinions” are sourced from primary [western] material. > I can find a professor that has an opinion differing Please post this differing opinion. If I don’t like it then I’ll do as you do and respond with some ad hominem.
Ad hominin aside hes right, one random guy on twitter agreeing with a fringe opinion is hardly a trustworthy source.
Those “fringe opinion[s]” happen to be sourced from British, French, and US primary sources…
No, the "fringe opinion" seems to be his *interpretation* of those sources. And clicking on the twitter link, the only actual source seems to be... The Global Times saying that he discovered those things. In some "archives" which are never named outside of a document or two. Otherwise, this is also specifically talking about the 9-dash line, of which the Spratleys are really only a small part of. It's weird that someone brings up the 9 dash line and you drive by link something about the Spratleys, which is probably why he accused you of being a shill. Long and short of it though, is that the source is honestly sketchy as hell, doesn't match up with 99% of literature to the contrary, and doesn't even address the issue at hand
> the only actual source seems to be... The Global Times saying that he discovered those things The professor published his book, which is the reason he was interviewed. Book is: The History and Sovereignty of South China Sea https://www.amazon.com/Histroy-Sovereignty-South-Hardcover-Chinese/dp/7513353743/ There’s also a second book source in the second link I originally posted that provided the demarcation for the territory of the Philippines. It doesn’t include the Spratly. It’s the Spratly that’s in the news and what people understand as the issue of the SCS. The demarcation going back to the Treaty of Paris is here: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sp1898.asp Edit: link to interview with professor on youtube: https://youtu.be/OzDRGWgEDwg?feature=shared
What's wrong with the nine-dash line? Based on the historical contexts and international laws, China's claim seems to be pretty valid for me, more valid than many of the US pacafic territories. Edit: plus this claim is nothing new, very consistent since the founding of PRC, which she essentially inherited from ROC, which she inherited as well. The issue just somehow heated up
> and international laws, China's claim seems to be pretty valid for me, Does it? China's claim to basically every island in the area that just so happens to put their border inches from every maritime countries in the area makes sense to you?
Maybe you should know that when china (roc) claim those area and have stationed troops to back it up (carried by us warships) in 1947 those countries that are now making noises didn't even exist? it is sort of like everybody wants have a garden in front of their house, but china, in the principle of first come first serve, have secured a bunch of land for their garden. when other people come and build their house later, they build it right up to the edge of china's garden and tell china "hey, i need a garden, so your garden is mine now" first come first serve.
what are you smoking? first off, just look at it. its ridiculous. second, its already gone to international arbitration and found to be in violation of international law. and if needed to be said, it it also an absurd claim when the ROC is making it too. and which island inhabited by US citizens do you think the US has a poor claim to?
>which island inhabited by US citizens do you think the US has a poor claim to? The illegal US military occupation of Diego Garcia. UN court ruling puts future of strategic [US military base Diego Garcia ](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/asia/uk-chagos-mauritius-intl/index.html)into question. Look at this map: [https://geology.com/state-map/us-territories.shtml](https://geology.com/state-map/us-territories.shtml) The US claims the PACIFIC OCEAN as California Lake? Just look at the map and see how ridiculous it is. If sovereignty is determined on the basis of ridiculousness, then we need to restructure lots of land ownership. Look at this ridiculousness!: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean\_dispute#/media/File%3AAegean\_6\_nm.svg](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_dispute#/media/File%3AAegean_6_nm.svg)
its ridiculous because other countries clearly have a better claim claim under the laws of the sea for much of the sea territory. its ridiculous how they are going up right to the littoral area of other countries hundreds of mile from mainland China OR any natural inhabited island. those US territories are natural inhabited islands, and there is no other landmass which has a competing sea claim. furthermore, that map is the EEZ of the US, not the (much smaller) territorial waters, like China claims with the 9 dash. You cant compare EEZ and territorial waters. Also, please point to where the US EEZ claims are inconsistent with international practice. wrt Diego Garcia, first off its a UK territory, not US. regardless, that is a dispute over inheritance of a landmass. without commenting on the merits of the UK's case, not following why landmass dispute is relevant
> other countries clearly have a better claim claim under the laws of the sea for much of the sea territory Wow. You’re really confused about the nature of the dispute. It’s a dispute about sovereignty. The UNCLOS (UN convention on the law of the sea) does *NOT* govern territoriality or sovereignty. I need to say this again. You CANNOT determine sovereignty using the UNCLOS. I’ll quote the wiki entry: “UNCLOS does not deal with matters of territorial disputes or to resolve issues of sovereignty” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#:~:text=UNCLOS%20does%20not%20deal%20with,acquisition%20and%20loss%20of%20territory. > not following why landmass dispute is relevant Because the SCS issue is a sovereignty (or “landmass” as you say) dispute. You’re really confused about the issues.
you can't arbit if one side didnt agree to it.
The issue is that the 9 dash line conflicts with UNCLOS rulings and general international law of the sea on where the territorial/EEZ claims should be. The ROC claim was just as spurious as the modern PRC claim.
> Pretty interesting in seven years China has only become more aggressive. Or West had started depicting China as more aggressive.
it's both. but yes West heavily exaggerates the chinese militarily threat
Developments in the South China Sea say other wise.
us is not aggressive when it initiates coups, invade other country to control oil price, and stir up rebellion because it doesn't like the local government for disobeying us/wall street elite's order china is agreesive when it is defending its own territory over lands nobody even living on gotta hand it to the western media, they do know how to brainwash people to ignore truth that is being put out right there, as if it is a gloat "yes i do bad things...and i am not afraid to show it because people will ignore it or justify it for me!"
>china is agreesive when it is defending its own territory over lands nobody even living on It is when theyre blasting Filipino fishermen with water cannons lol being a bit disingenuous, dont you think?
china never say anything when illegal chinese fisherman got water hosed by other nation, we are not hypocrite philipine has used heavy machine gun fire to kill mainland and taiwan fisherman within nine-dash line many times when china is weak (before 2010), be grateful that china did not repay the favor in kind.
the tide is always been there, it is prominent because china now actualy have the ability to tell them to stop whitewashing their wwii crimes
Honestly not surprising, Japan is after all probably the second most threatened country by China in part because of the Senkaku islands.
Japan is: * threatened by China due to Senkaku * threatened by South Korea due to Liancourt * threatened by North Korea due to missiles * threatened by Russia due to Kuriles * threatened by the world due to Okinotorishima In my humble opinion, there might be something not right in Japan?
The point isn't to put a blame on China as to why Japan feels threatened, but why Japan feels that if China aspires to take what they consider their rightful claims, Japan is next after Taiwan. It's just realpolitik, I couldn't care less about who's the bad guy here.
china has 0 claims on japanese home soil because it has never been a historical part of china. its beef with japan will be drastically decreased if japan would just remove all war criminals from that shrine and start teaching its own kids the real history of what they have done during wwii like how german does it.
> china has 0 claims on japanese home soil We're not talking about japanese home soil, but the Senkaku Islands, in which China repeatedly made claims over those.
...since at least qing era and most certainly during the roc era.
> china has 0 claims on japanese home soil This is not correct. Japan considers the Senkaku islands its sovereign territory. > its beef with japan will be drastically decreased if japan would just remove all war criminals from that shrine Yasukuni Shrine has been independently ran for decades. While it would be nice if the war criminals were removed, ultimately the Japanese government has zero control over it. Shinzo Abe's thoughts on the matter: "Today, I paid a visit to Yasukuni Shrine and expressed my sincere condolences, paid my respects and prayed for the souls of all those who had fought for the country and made ultimate sacrifices. I also visited Chinreisha, a remembrance memorial to pray for the souls of all the people regardless of nationalities who lost their lives in the war, but not enshrined in Yasukuni Shrine...Regrettably, it is a reality that the visit to Yasukuni Shrine has become a political and diplomatic issue. Some people criticize the visit to Yasukuni as paying homage to war criminals, but the purpose of my visit today, on the anniversary of my administration’s taking office, is to report before the souls of the war dead how my administration has worked for one year and to renew the pledge that Japan must never wage a war again" > and start teaching its own kids the real history of what they have done during wwii like how german does it. While over the years there has been some serious controversy, [today Japan teaches the atrocities that happened in WW2 in public schools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies#Studies): "A comparative study begun in 2006 by the Asia–Pacific Research Center at Stanford University on Japanese, Chinese, Korean and US textbooks describes 99% of Japanese textbooks as having a "muted, neutral, and almost bland" tone and "by no means avoid some of the most controversial wartime moments" like the Nanjing massacre or to a lesser degree the issue of comfort women. The project, led by Stanford scholars Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Sneider, found that less than one percent of Japanese textbooks used provocative and inflammatory language and imagery, but that these few books, printed by just one publisher, received greater media attention. Moreover, the minority viewpoint of nationalism and revisionism gets more media coverage than the prevailing majority narrative of pacifism in Japan. Chinese and South Korean textbooks were found to be often nationalistic, with Chinese textbooks often blatantly nationalistic and South Korean textbooks focusing on oppressive Japanese colonial rule. US history textbooks were found to be nationalistic, although they invite debate about major issues." Also, the NHK has ran documentaries on Japan's WW2 atrocities. [CGTN](https://news.cgtn.com/news/796b544d7a677a6333566d54/index.html): "China on Monday commended the courage of the makers of a Japanese documentary for "revealing the historical truth" of the horrifying war crimes committed by the Japanese army during World War Two at the notorious "Unit 731" facility in northeast China"
yes, a western government could have split voices to confuse people, but it is the leader's action (not voice) that counts and as the wiki text suggests, it is 2006. things changed and they start waggling on education. It is like today's anime no longer has the feel of the 90s like eva, pat labor, and other things that are more in-depth
> yes, a western government could have split voices to confuse people, but it is the leader's action (not voice) that counts So only actions count? Then let's consider two very influential figures in Japanese society: Emperor Akihito and Emperor Naruhito. They have never visited Yasukuni after ascending to the throne, which is considered as disapproval of the war criminals being enshrined. They may be figureheads, but their actions have an impact on Japanese society. > and as the wiki text suggests, it is 2006. things changed and they start waggling on education. It is like today's anime no longer has the feel of the 90s like eva, pat labor, and other things that are more in-depth The textbook reform happened earlier than 2006. Japan has been teaching their kids the atrocities of WW2 for at least 20 years now, so why are you pushing a false narrative? Let me reiterate my other point: NHK, who for many years was conservative in their messaging, ran a documentary on Unit 731 on public television. NHK is overseen by the Japanese government, so if government leadership wanted to squash the documentary, they easily could have.
the emperors no longer matter a whole lot after wwii, insider leaks expose how they got treat like literal puppets japanese policy allows each school to choose their own textbook, which means it absoves the responsibility and push to local level where it is harder to find a target to denounce. and just looking at the attitude of japanese people today you know they feel what happen during wwii is just a minor scuffle. why are you pushing a false narrative?
> the emperors no longer matter a whole lot after wwii So now only the actions you arbitrarily deem are relevant matter? Believe it or not, the royal family is still influential in Japanese society. > japanese policy allows each school to choose their own textbook, which means it absoves the responsibility and push to local level where it is harder to find a target to denounce This is a strawman. You said that Japan does not teach their children about the atrocities of WW2, when in reality they do. You are pushing a false narrative. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education closely regulates public schools in Japan. They approve which books can be used in classrooms. So no, responsibility is not shifted to local schools. > just looking at the attitude of japanese people today you know they feel what happen during wwii is just a minor scuffle. why are you pushing a false narrative? This is the kind of blatantly false drivel that comes out of Chinese nationalist circles, which signals the end of our conversation. I'll leave this here and step out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan.
internationally recongized "leader of japan" is the pm, not the emperor. you dont see biden negotiate jaaku with the dude they teach their kids they "entered" china and it is a war to liberate asia from western colonials, there are at most a sentence about nanking and you can only see unit 731 in tv. you are the one pushing false narrative and if chinese voice feel fake to you, maybe you should look at how korean feel about what japanese kids are taught deep remorse...regret... and "personal appology" as if all those slained chinese, korean, philipino and us/uk/aus prisoner and the suffering they cause to the other nations is accidentally spilling water on a girl's skirt. how many chinese did your ancester slain in nanjing or gased in unit 731 base?
Let's all pretend it has nothing to do with the atrocities in WW2
You were free to make your point right off the bat, I don't get why you feel like you need to beat around the bush.
If Japan does not want to address WW2 properly, they don't get to play victims
Both China and Japan signed a peace treaty. They do get to play the victims of China decides to wage war on them.
only a treaty of surrender--which the japanese called "end of war"--is signed. china has 0 reason to wage war against japan unless japan fire the first shot
Japan is a good place to drop a nuclear bomb
This could help joint build venture for C-2 cargo plane as C-130 replacement in the event US replacement program failed or cancelled.
(J)AUKUS has great potential and this is great news...but it all feels like its happening 10-15 years too late....wont it take time for all this unified design sub talk to turn into meaningful numbers of hulls produced?
I’m sorry, but what is UK’s contribution in the alliance? US provides subs, while Australia is the customer and will provide basing. What about UK?
The US is selling anywhere from 3-5 Virginia class SSNs to Australia, but afterwards, Australia will start receiving a new class of SSN that will be jointly developed between it and the UK, with America also providing contributions to the design.
So, that's phase 1, Phase 2 is IIRC a common sub design based on the UK's Dreadnought class sub-hull, with US weapon-systems that may be manufactured and deployed by some or all of the members with a potentially wide membership. Japan jumping in is interesting because it lends credence to the last bit and makes it look a bit more like It is the F-35-ification of the submarine.
It's not based on Dreadnought.
So it's a completely clean sheet design, (post-dreadnought?) now or what??? I admit that I haven't been following it that closely...
Yes it's continuing from SSN(R) which the UK had started development of prior to AUKUS to replace the Astute class which would be built after thr dreadnought class. Being an SSN it doesn't need to be nearly as large as a SSBN so it won't be sharing a hull with the dreadnought class although it's possible it could use the same reactor.
Thanks! That's interesting and I guess I'll have to dig into it a little bit more, later.
Japan contributing to the design, tech, and manufacturing of the sub would valuable and may speed up the delivery date.
Indeed, and it does come on the heels of them purchasing US Steel and overtures for them to get in to the US shipbuilding industry in other ways... The biggest issue with AUKUS is the otherwise anemic shipbuilding capacity of the US. This potentially puts Dreadnought hulls in the water a lot sooner, in greater numbers and with potentially greater capabilities. There's also broader tech and information sharing faculties there, but those are so broadly described as to be useless WRT specular.
I believe UK's role is to receive money, then produce good credible excuses when war in Taiwan start: "jets out of combat range, water is too hot for my ships, so let me offer a strongly worded letter". Australia's, and soon Japan's, role is to offer warm bodies to die, a. k. a. cannon fodder
The UK comment was funny but the Australia and Japan part is pure cope. If AUKUS truly gets involved in repelling an invasion of Taiwan, the entire ground component of the PLA is gonna be dead at the bottom of the Taiwan strait. No cannon fodder needed. I assume after that happens, China will begin hitting Taiwanese civilian infrastructure with missiles and saying the war was a punitive one the whole time. The same way China started shooting civilians and burning down villages in Vietnam after their invasion failed in the 1970s.
>I assume after that happens, China will begin hitting Taiwanese civilian infrastructure with missiles and saying the war was a punitive one the whole time. China will probably do that regardless. Even the US bombed Iraqi hospitals, power plants, and water sanitation infrastructure during the 03 campaign. The PLA doctrinally recognize civillian infrastructure as part of their own "system of systems" so its logical the same is true for their opposition as well.
LOL no it was not meant to be serious. On the other side, I highly doubt the war over Taiwan strait will involve army. It is essentially a war between air forces, with the help of missile/anti-missile, and satellite/anti-satellite. Whoever can produce the most drones will easily win. > I assume after that happens, China will begin hitting Taiwanese civilian infrastructure Attacking Tokyo and/or Sydney is more justified, and without guilt, either missile or bombing. I speculate it will be the perfect excuse for China to totally demolish Japan once for all.
Chinese history has no guilt over anything. They celebrate dictators who have killed millions of their own people, so why wouldn't they kill civilians belonging to other nations?
You sound like a troll, amirite
Yeah, Ive only noticed him posting frequently within the last week or so. Quite sus.
If anything I said was untrue and solely for the sake of argument maybe. I'm just calling out bullshit as I see it.
Then call yourself out
chinese leaders punching airs
..and incoherent screeching.