US Flys B-52s Into China's Expanded Air Defense Zone

[jdmack79]

I'll take your word that they think we're trying to hinder their growth. But in China especially, how do they reconcile that thought with the fact we've basically relocated a large percentage of our manufacturing capability to their country?

The growing manufacturing sector is primarily how they see their nations growth occurring. They see the new factories, improving infrastructure, and higher wages as the future of their nation. At the same time, they see our president promising a "pacific focus" to our military as future plans to stop their nation. Right now China isn't doing too much at all to prove that they are a threat to other nations. (other than Taiwan) A lot of these people just want the USA to continue investing money and moving manufacturing to their nation.

 

[Stickfight]

China claims they are sending a carrier group into the zone.

The US is obligated by treaty and payment to defend Japan....

 

[jdmack79]

China claims they are sending a carrier group into the zone.

The US is obligated by treaty and payment to defend Japan....

And we have carrier groups off the cost of China, India, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Iran frequently. Does that mean that we are planning to attack each one of those nations? No, it does not. What makes you think that China is going to attack the home islands?

 

[DragonGunner]

I don't think you understand my point. Why should we care if China reclaims Taiwan? It shouldn't be our concern. Instead of trying to box China in we should mind our own business.

Why should we care if Germany takes over Poland......ya, we are really trying to box China in, having a military presence is destroying their economic growth. Soon they will be trying to get obamacare and foodstamps.

 

[Stickfight]

And we have carrier groups off the cost of China, India, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Iran frequently. Does that mean that we are planning to attack each one of those nations? No, it does not. What makes you think that China is going to attack the home islands?

Nothing makes me think that. But those islands China is trying to claim so they can claim the ocean around them belong to Japan.

 

[jdmack79]

Nothing makes me think that. But those islands China is trying to claim so they can claim the ocean around them belong to Japan.

Fine. Let the UN or some other international body handle the dispute, not us. Thailand and Cambodia have had a dispute over their border for decades. How are they handling it? An international court.

Cambodian?Thai border dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SeaCaptain49]

Why should we care if Germany takes over Poland..

I know you were being facetious, but in all seriousness, why did anyone care if Germany took over Poland?

Also, it's usually overlooked, but Germany split Poland with the USSR. The USSR invaded Poland as well. Both "Empires" were just reclaiming territory they had occupied since the 18th century, that was taken from them at Versailles.

I'm not saying it was a good thing, or arguing the point either way, I'm just asking what was our interest in the issue. So why did we care?

 

[88GT]

Fine. Let the UN or some other international body handle the dispute, not us. Thailand and Cambodia have had a dispute over their border for decades. How are they handling it? An international court.

Cambodian?Thai border dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the difference between the U.N. and us?

 

[88GT]

I know you were being facetious, but in all seriousness, why did anyone care if Germany took over Poland?

Also, it's usually overlooked, but Germany split Poland with the USSR. The USSR invaded Poland as well. Both "Empires" were just reclaiming territory they had occupied since the 18th century, that was taken from them at Versailles.

I'm not saying it was a good thing, or arguing the point either way, I'm just asking what was our interest in the issue. So why did we care?

Because Poland had a treaty with Britain at the time, IIRC.

 

[Stickfight]

Fine. Let the UN or some other international body handle the dispute, not us. Thailand and Cambodia have had a dispute over their border for decades. How are they handling it? An international court.

Cambodian?Thai border dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we shouldn't honor the treaty? Should we give Japan back the money they've paid us to defend them? The US specifically stated a year ago that these islands are covered by the treaty.

 

[cobber]

Taiwan isn't Poland. It isn't even a nation. We made that clear when we adopted a one-China policy and extended recognition to Beijing. Since we recognize the mainland, how can we view Taiwan as anything other than a breakaway Chinese territory?

That being said, as long as the US keeps the 7th Fleet in place, China won't move on Taiwan.

I question the premise frequently voiced here that China is expansionist in the sense of Nazi Germany. Unless we're agreeing that Iceland was expansionist when it fought the Cod Wars with the UK. Iceland won that one, but didn't advance on Greenland or Scotland, oddly enough.

Finally, it appears to have gone unmarked here that some of the most militant actions with respect to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands have been between the Taiwanese and Japanese, with the mainland getting in the game late.

Should we be concerned about Taiwanese expansionism too?

 

[SeaCaptain49]

Because Poland had a treaty with Britain at the time, IIRC.

True, they did. But the gist of the question is why did they, or we, care? I suppose the argument would be that Germany needed to be contained etc., and maybe the UK had an interest in that, hence the treaty.

The funny thing is though, the UK-Polish treaty was a guarantee of the territorial integrity of Poland. The Potsdam conference made a mockery of that by giving the Soviets the eastern half of Poland as a concession.

So, in effect, Britain plunged itself into WWII to protect the integrity of Poland against Germany, only to sacrifice said integrity to the Soviets.

It seems like they could have saved themselves the trouble and not have gotten involved at all.

If Germany hadn't been foolish enough to declare war on the US (Dec 8th) in support of their ally Japan, I wonder if we would have had an interest in declaring war on Germany. I'm not convinced we would have.

 

[jdmack79]

So we shouldn't honor the treaty? Should we give Japan back the money they've paid us to defend them? The US specifically stated a year ago that these islands are covered by the treaty.

We have absolute no business defending Japan, Korea, or Germany. The last thing our nation needs is to begin a war we cannot win with the PRC.

 

[88GT]

True, they did. But the gist of the question is why did they, or we, care? I suppose the argument would be that Germany needed to be contained etc., and maybe the UK had an interest in that, hence the treaty.

The funny thing is though, the UK-Polish treaty was a guarantee of the territorial integrity of Poland. The Potsdam conference made a mockery of that by giving the Soviets the eastern half of Poland as a concession.

So, in effect, Britain plunged itself into WWII to protect the integrity of Poland against Germany, only to sacrifice said integrity to the Soviets.

It seems like they could have saved themselves the trouble and not have gotten involved at all.

If Germany hadn't been foolish enough to declare war on the US (Dec 8th) in support of their ally Japan, I wonder if we would have had an interest in declaring war on Germany. I'm not convinced we would have.

The question--and I have it quoted so you can check --was why did/should ANYONE care? I simply answered the question. Promises aren't worth the paper they're written on, I guess. We would do well to remember that lesson in our dealings with Iran, wouldn't we?

 

[88GT]

We have absolute no business defending Japan, Korea, or Germany.

That's debatable. Or I suppose, more precisely, a matter of opinion. I know the whole "alliances with none" meme is popular, but it's unrealistic. But that doesn't really matter since we DO have obligations, whether or not we want them. Which brings me to the next point...

The last thing our nation needs is to begin a war we cannot win with the PRC.

Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of picking and choosing the enemies of our friends, unless we want to look like even more of a fool on the world stage. "Not only does that big, bad USA want to control everything about every nation, but it won't even honor it's promises."

It's a pickle to be sure. But we've made it and now we're stuck eating it.

 

[jdmack79]

It's a pickle to be sure. But we've made it and now we're stuck eating it.

No. We can alter the inevitable and avoid a war with China by changing our foreign policy. We don't stand a chance against the Chinese and we should do everything possible to avoid a conflict.

 

[Stickfight]

We have absolute no business defending Japan, Korea, or Germany. The last thing our nation needs is to begin a war we cannot win with the PRC.

We have business defending Japan because we have a treaty in place where we agree to so do, and they pay us (~$2 billion so far this year). Walking away from a treaty doesn't exactly put the US in a strong position to negotiate anything with anyone again for a long time.

 

[88GT]

No. We can alter the inevitable and avoid a war with China by changing our foreign policy. We don't stand a chance against the Chinese and we should do everything possible to avoid a conflict.

And by alter our foreign policy you mean renege on our promises? Okay. So you don't really care that other nations dislike us for our policy decisions, you only care that other nations dislike us for certain policy decisions. Did I get it right?

 

[jdmack79]

And by alter our foreign policy you mean renege on our promises? Okay. So you don't really care that other nations dislike us for our policy decisions, you only care that other nations dislike us for certain policy decisions. Did I get it right?

We are always going to have enemies. It is preferable that our enemies are not nations with massive armed forces.

 

[Mackey]

No. We can alter the inevitable and avoid a war with China by changing our foreign policy. We don't stand a chance against the Chinese and we should do everything possible to avoid a conflict.

We more than "stand a chance" against the Chinese. As soon as we do not, you can expect the Chinese to invade. It is long-standing Chinese policy (dogma?) that they will eventually dominate the world. They are very patient. These expansion claims of the Chinese are surely intended to test our resolve. I wonder what will happen if the Chinese call our bluff. Makes me wonder what current plan/policy is in place if the Chinese do not back down. I suspect we will blink.

Regarding the B-52s - wondering if Chinese fighters were scrambled against them. It is not uncommon for the Chinese to react against our surveilance flights, even to the point of being able to visualize the pilot. I have heard US pilots report exchanging obscene jestures, some times just waving, etc, and one related holding up pornographic pictures for the Chinese pilots. Can you imagine how close these planes were?

However, as tensions increase, I'm suspecting there may be changes in reaction to scrambling of fighters (go home, turn away?). The report says we went into the zone, but the Chinese response is probably classified. (We'd surely be listening to these voice comms, checking their radar response, and maybe seeing if their SAM sites lit up our planes if any are in range). Also we'd surely be trying to gauge internal, that is, internal political response.