Why do you people think China holding US debt would matter at all during any kind of conflict with a US ally? Who would buy the bonds after every financial market crashes and there are suddenly a trillion dollars of additional bonds on the market? Nobody seems to understand how government debt works. The US public is also the largest holder of govt debt.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Majority in China expect war with Japan by 2020
- Thread starter Blablurn
- Start date
- Status
Forgotten_Taco
Member
No it's not. China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, They actually only hold about 8% of American debt, America itself hold the majority of its debt. I'm really sick of the talking point that China owns the majority of US debt.
Uh, how exactly do you interpret this:
"“Our commitment to Japan’s security is absolute and article five [of the security treaty] covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku islands,” Obama said during a joint press conference with Abe."
You can make all the excuses you want but any future administration is going to do the same. If it's Hilary Clinton, defintely. If it's a GOP candidate I shouldn't even have to tell you what the chances are.
Like hell we won't.
Because he likes to equivocate:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...security-treaty-covers-senkakus/#.VBHKLdoayK0
You want to know what that means? "If Japan and China come to a diplomatic solution over the islands, fine. If China tries to use force, NOT fine"
You're being extremely naive if you think any other administrations are going to interpret Japan going to war with China whether over some disputed rocks or whatever as not an attack on the US as well. I think you are reaching for any signs of wavering to prove your point that the US may not come to the defense of Japan in case of an attack from China but it is really lacking in any concrete statements.
More Fun To Compute
Member
I don't think that there is equivalence.
Wanting war in the future is worse than not being perceived as being sufficiently humble about war in the past.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Eh the JDF will easily sink China's rotten wooden carriers easily.
Except that's the opposite of what is happening for both parties :|
Japan for all of it's economic woes hasn't been as dramatically impacted by the world wide recession and for decades have been pushing the boundaries on what counts as defensive fighting force it is currently laughable for China to try and contest them in a naval/air battle. They should win but it would be pyrrhic.
China itself has been gaining power economically and they have been asserting more cultural influence on what they perceive as their sphere of influence similar to how the ancient dynasties used to deal with their neighbors.
Great insight chief.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Wait, people here are actually thinking the US wouldn't be involved if the two countries went to war?
Da fuq?
Da fuq?
Keep in mind that China isn't a democracy. What the public expects or even wants has no real impact on their strategies. China is perfectly fine with inflaming anti-Japanese sentiment since it's always useful to have an external enemy but this is no real indication of what its leaders actually plan.
As it stands, China is decades away from being able to take on the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Forces (JMSDF) without basically risking losing their entire fleet. The JMSDF is more than capable of taking them on even without the US 7th Fleet. And if by some unholy miracle the JMSDF somehow ends up on the losing side, there's absolutely no chance in hell that the US would sit it out.
As for the fact that China outnumbers Japan in raw troop numbers, that is inconsequential unless the know how to walk on water. The Chinese Navy lacks any credible amphibious capabilities. As of right now, the entirety of the Chinese landing capabilities add up to no more than 6,500 troops at a time. As a comparison the US can match that with no more than 4 Wasp class LHDs - and unlike their Chinese counterpart, the Wasp's carry a small air force for support.
China is not considered to be able to invade Taiwan through a conventional amphibious assault yet, let alone Japan. If they actually are stupid enough to start a war this decade the only way they could win is by using their ballistic missile advantage to bombard mainland Japan and even then most likely only if they go nuclear, which is obviously not on the table.
As it stands, China is decades away from being able to take on the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Forces (JMSDF) without basically risking losing their entire fleet. The JMSDF is more than capable of taking them on even without the US 7th Fleet. And if by some unholy miracle the JMSDF somehow ends up on the losing side, there's absolutely no chance in hell that the US would sit it out.
As for the fact that China outnumbers Japan in raw troop numbers, that is inconsequential unless the know how to walk on water. The Chinese Navy lacks any credible amphibious capabilities. As of right now, the entirety of the Chinese landing capabilities add up to no more than 6,500 troops at a time. As a comparison the US can match that with no more than 4 Wasp class LHDs - and unlike their Chinese counterpart, the Wasp's carry a small air force for support.
China is not considered to be able to invade Taiwan through a conventional amphibious assault yet, let alone Japan. If they actually are stupid enough to start a war this decade the only way they could win is by using their ballistic missile advantage to bombard mainland Japan and even then most likely only if they go nuclear, which is obviously not on the table.
If you look at the actions in the South China Sea, you would know that they can act in the grey area outside of an actual use of force.
If you put your forces in another territory anywhere else, it would be considered an invasion under international law.
China has entered the territorial waters of those rocks hundreds of times:
Is the US Navy coming to defend against these invasions?
What happens when the invasions increase to a 24 hour presence?
If fishermen land on the rocks and Chinese ships continually block access to remove them, without actual weaponry like in the Scarborough Shoal or even the oil rig by Vietnam (where China just surrounded a rig with 70 ships), what military action would be taken to remove them?
juicyfruitas
Member
lol the military alliance and treaty between the US and Japan is ironclad. If the 'softest' US President since Carter says that the Senkakus are covered under the security umbrella then we're all good here.
Besides, if any signs of weakness shows up in the treaty Japan will quickly go nuclear. Obviously that opens up a whole new can of worms which is why the US would rather continue its role as guarantor of Japan's security as opposed to seeing them fully re-militarize once again.
Besides, if any signs of weakness shows up in the treaty Japan will quickly go nuclear. Obviously that opens up a whole new can of worms which is why the US would rather continue its role as guarantor of Japan's security as opposed to seeing them fully re-militarize once again.
If you look at the actions in the South a China Sea, you would know that they can act in the grey area outside of an actual use of force.
If you put your forces in another territory anywhere else, it would be considered an invasion under international law.
China has entered the territorial waters of those rocks hundreds of times:
Is the US Navy coming to defend against these invasions?
What happens when the invasions increase to a 24 hour presence?
If fishermen land on the rocks and Chinese ships continually block access to remove them, without like in the Scarborough Shoal or even the oil rig by Vietnam (where China just surrounded a rig with 70 ships), what military action would be taken to remove them?
If it's the Japanese islands, yes.
China won't even go into a navy dispute, because that's the place the U.S. REALLY has an advantage. Even the Japanese navy is a match for the Chinese navy, but by all means keep clinging to anything you can to try and fit your narative.
Dreams-Visions
Member
LOL?
Yes we fucking will. I'm gonna assume you didn't think that reply through at all.
They're killing our gaming industry by only supporting 3DS and cellphones. I say let Japan go at it themselves, they're not that valuable anyway
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I wonder how North and South Korea would react if a war did break out between China and Japan. They'd be caught in the middle.
When has the US Navy defended against any of those invasions listed in the chart?
If you follow the events in the South China Sea, you will see that the Chinese have been operating by using civilian vessels and actions to plausibly deny that they are employing the use of force. This is why you don't see the US Navy defending The Philippines when civilian Chinese vessels don't budge from an island.
The use of civilian vessels gives both China and the US the ability to deny that China is using force to change the status quo, that's why the US always says China is taking "provocative" actions instead of saying China is using the use of force.
Russia follows a less veiled playbook with the false flag operations of "civilian rebels," but in those cases they have weaponry.
Pseudonumb
Banned
North wouldn't do anything, South probably wouldn't get involved either unless they saw an easy way to gain from it.
Yoda
Member
War between super-economy nations is not a thing anymore. If there is any form of military conflict between these two nations it will be by proxy. If China declared war formally on Japan or vice-versa both of their economies would collapse. China's economy is what gives the CP its legitimacy, if that goes so does it's only claim to power.
questionmark
Member
Discussing the outcome of a confrontation between Japan and China means you expect WW3 any time and international incident occurs. You heard it here first guys.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I dunno, I can see some boneheaded decisions coming from the North.
That's my biggest surprise with this thread. They think the US is going to throw their hands up and claim "not my battle"? Wow.
Veritigo_X
Member
50,000 US troops in Japan sit back and watch. Yup...
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
USA is contractually obligated to protect japan
At least one senior US official believed the same, which is why US didn't do anything about civilian vessels taking over Scarborough Shoal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...6832c0-fff3-11e1-b916-7b5c8ce012c8_story.html
Pseudonumb
Banned
US, UK, France and Russia are contractually obligated to defend Ukraine's borders including Crimea.
Your chart means nothing since China's not going to slip by in taking the islands on some technicality. Anybody would see right through that. First you say the U.S. won't respond to force, now you say well they'll sneak by. You can't make up your mind.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
War with Japan means threatening a massive US ally of economic influence and interest, and considering how tied world economies have gotten, why would they destroy all that economic growth for.
What would war even achieve? Yeah, you maybe won! Now your economy is possibly broken...victory!
What would war even achieve? Yeah, you maybe won! Now your economy is possibly broken...victory!
I'm saying that they are already technically invasions under international law. If Russia sends forces to Ukrainian territory, it is an invasion. If China sends ships to Japanese territory, it should also be an invasion.
I'm saying US is not defending against the current invasions by calling these actions "provocations" and distinguishing them from the "use of force." But that is a technicality in form but not substance, and one that China is happy to live with, as it signals that they can act within the context of "non-military" vessels and not be considered "using force."
If US is obligated to defend The Philippines from the "use of force" against it, and they characterize the takeover of a shoal as a "provocation" and not a "use of force," just because China didn't technically use military vessels, then China can continue to operate as it does.
Once again that shoal was never a clear cut case for the Philippines. The U.S. has already come out and said "China taking the islands by force is NOT going to happen!". You can try and get around that by sayng "Yeah but Obama said this so....." It aint happening! The way this has played out and the interest it has recieved means the U.S. would have no choice but to respond, not to mention the Japanese are defintely going to repsond to any Chinese aggression. The U.S. will not leave them out to dry. The only way the U.S. would stay out of it is if Japan handily defeats China and there is no reason to respond.
juicyfruitas
Member
The flaw with your Scarborough Shoals example is that the region is not covered in the US-PI treaty.
That's a marked difference from the Senkakus which the POTUS has recently gone on record stating is covered under the security umbrella.
They don't count as invasions until someone calls them that and no-one has. There isn't some international referee sitting on the sidelines going "yep, that's clearly an invasion". Japan would have to call it an invasion, make a case for it in the UN and respond as if it is an invasion which means militarily. They have done no such thing. They refer to the incidents as incursions precisely because they don't actually want to start a shooting war over this at the moment.
The US has an obligation to defend their allies but it is contingent on those allies actually asking for help first. The Philippines didn't and Japan hasn't. The US can't start a war on their behalf, that would be lunacy.
The Purple Pill
Member
people seem to forget that the US economy will crash the second China goes to war with Japan, because both countries are the biggest holders of US' debt. And if either dumped all their holdings, the US market would crash instantly.
China is also perceived to become the world's economic super power by 2016, currently at #2.
There's a reason why almost EVERY country wants to go in a trade with China.
It would be in US' interest to make sure a war between Japan and China never happens.
also:
China is also perceived to become the world's economic super power by 2016, currently at #2.
There's a reason why almost EVERY country wants to go in a trade with China.
It would be in US' interest to make sure a war between Japan and China never happens.
also:
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
The US isn't directly doing anything, no. But they just forged a strengthen military alliance with the Philippines, and the Philippines is organizing $1.7 Billion of spending on naval assets by 2017. In the past 3 years the US has given them over $100M in money for naval spending, and it's ramped up each year. They will probably GREATLY increase that spending and finance significant portions of the $1.7B in planned spending. The US is setting up a proxy instead of getting its hands dirty directly.
exmachina64
Banned
Hideo Kojima will rise for his people.
That's awesome.
My reaction to the thread title.
This would be terrible, but I could see things coming to a head.
Who has said it's not covered by the treaty? The Philippines certainly believe that it's covered. The US has only been equivocal as always, but has not denied that it's not covered by the treaty.
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/04/29/1317422/obama-us-committed-defend-philippines
Your statements only give further support to China's playbook of using civilian vessels to assert their claims in the region. I don't think Japan would make a case to the UN, by the way. I think someone would veto it.
Escape Goat
Member
What are you going on about? please pay attention.
So? If Japan wants to interpret this as an invasion and respond like it is no-one's stopping them. They can have a shooting war over this any time they want. So what if China wants to test that and send civilian vessels first? That wouldn't change anything. That's not stopping Japan from starting an actual fight over this if they want to -and as has been pointed out in this thread, the US has already stated that they will stand beside them in that case. And even if for some reason they do opt to stay out of it initially, the US will never allow Japan to lose and the Japanese know this.
Finally, regarding the UN: I'm not talking about Japan appealing to the UNSC for an intervention (which would obviously be blocked by both China and Russia, no argument there) I'm talking about just addressing the General Assembly as a matter of principle and getting the international consensus on their side. It's really a matter of form anyway, they already have all the support they need to enforce whatever military response they prefer. .
I'm pretty sure US would discourage Japan from using force against weaponless civilian vessels. The US has not stated that they would back Japan in a war instigated by Japan. They say they will defend Japan against the use of force against it, and they have not called these non-military acts anywhere, even in non-treaty situations like Vietnam, as the use of force. I am pretty confident that the US would not be bombing these civilian vessels just because Japan told the US to do so.
Look at the statements about defending the Philippines--"we will defend you against armed attack." No action against non-military unarmed Chinese vessels that just spray water and occupy with numbers. And it is clear that Philippines has been requesting US help in this area.
- Status