Rising Tensions Between Japan and China

http://www.businessinsider.com/china...

Unless one backs down soon, I fail to see how this won't end up in war.

I for one would be interesting to see how Su30s stack up against F-15s.

They also have their F-16 variant. Of course our 15s, 16s, and 18s (not sure if any 22s have made it to our Japanese bases yet) would likely play a role if anything beyond minor skirmishes were to take place.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but it doesn't sound great.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but it doesn't sound great.

NK must be happy.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-fighter-jet-flights-diaoyu-senkaku-...

Unless one backs down soon, I fail to see how this won't end up in war.

Be a pretty short war. Doesn't really matter whether China's planes are better, they still have a sh*t ton more of them than Japan. And since Japan basically instigated all this, they're probably going to be the ones who have to grudgingly make concessions.

I'm not a huge fan of Business Insider, either. Their CEO has been banned from the Securities and Exchange commission, which is quite an accomplishment considering all the shady crap that goes on in the financial industry.

I didn't know some of the stuff in this background post of the history of the islands. Basically Japan considered them spoils of war from China in 1895, but then post WW2 they were required to surrender territories gained from war to pre-1895 status. I am not usually one to side with China on much but it seems pretty clear cut based on this that they should be Chinese islands, if we 1. believe this and 2. care about WW2 agreements.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I didn't know some of the stuff in this background post of the history of the islands. Basically Japan considered them spoils of war from China in 1895, but then post WW2 they were required to surrender territories gained from war to pre-1895 status. I am not usually one to side with China on much but it seems pretty clear cut based on this that they should be Chinese islands, if we 1. believe this and 2. care about WW2 agreements.

It's my understanding that the guy who's actually driving all this is some sort of ultra-nationalist mayor. It's the equivalent of letting Sheriff Joe Arapeio set our foreign policy with Mexico. If Mexico was much bigger than us, had a bigger military and was somewhat unpredictably nationalistic.

kazooka wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-fighter-jet-flights-diaoyu-senkaku-...

Unless one backs down soon, I fail to see how this won't end up in war.

Be a pretty short war. Doesn't really matter whether China's planes are better, they still have a sh*t ton more of them than Japan. And since Japan basically instigated all this, they're probably going to be the ones who have to grudgingly make concessions.

The island were moved from private ownership to public and afterwards, China began entering Japan's waters and air space; how does that make Japan the instigator?

As for aircraft inventory, China may have twice as many combat aircraft but that doesn't mean as much since much of China's air to air fleet is antiquated. China's best hope would be a significant naval push to exploit the weaknesses in Japan's navy. Of course it doesn't really matter due to the defense treaty that the US brings up whenever the base closure issue comes up.

As for the ownership of the islands in the eyes of the US:
www.globalsecurity.org/military/worl...

The 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and Security applies to
territories under the administration of Japan, including the Senkaku Islands . In November 1996, Assistant Secretary of Defense Campbell stated that the basic position of the US is that the Japan-US security treaty
would cover the Senkaku Islands. Secretary of Defense William Perry reconfirmed this fact on 03 December 1996.

On March 24, 2004, Adam Ereli, Deputy
Spokesman at the US State Deparment said "The Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the Government of Japan since having been returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972. Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and Security states that the
treaty applies to the territories under the
administration of Japan; thus, Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands. Sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands is disputed. The U.S. does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Diaoyu Islands. This has been our longstanding view. We expect the claimants will resolve this issue through peaceful means and we urge all claimants to exercise restraint."

*Dear mobile site: you're a pain*

I'm falling on the side of continued angry saber rattling. Japan just re-elected the LDP, China just changed leadership. I don't think either side wants war, but one can't discout anything when talking about moronic brinksmanship.

We already had enough to worry about, but tensions between India and Pakistan are growing massively as well.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/in...

Prederick wrote:

I'm falling on the side of continued angry saber rattling. Japan just re-elected the LDP, China just changed leadership. I don't think either side wants war, but one can't discout anything when talking about moronic brinksmanship.

Sadly, I think irrationality will prevail as it usually does.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
kazooka wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-fighter-jet-flights-diaoyu-senkaku-...

Unless one backs down soon, I fail to see how this won't end up in war.

Be a pretty short war. Doesn't really matter whether China's planes are better, they still have a sh*t ton more of them than Japan. And since Japan basically instigated all this, they're probably going to be the ones who have to grudgingly make concessions.

The island were moved from private ownership to public and afterwards, China began entering Japan's waters and air space; how does that make Japan the instigator?

As for aircraft inventory, China may have twice as many combat aircraft but that doesn't mean as much since much of China's air to air fleet is antiquated. China's best hope would be a significant naval push to exploit the weaknesses in Japan's navy. Of course it doesn't really matter due to the defense treaty that the US brings up whenever the base closure issue comes up.

As for the ownership of the islands in the eyes of the US:
www.globalsecurity.org/military/worl...

The 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and Security applies to
territories under the administration of Japan, including the Senkaku Islands . In November 1996, Assistant Secretary of Defense Campbell stated that the basic position of the US is that the Japan-US security treaty
would cover the Senkaku Islands. Secretary of Defense William Perry reconfirmed this fact on 03 December 1996.

On March 24, 2004, Adam Ereli, Deputy
Spokesman at the US State Deparment said "The Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the Government of Japan since having been returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972. Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and Security states that the
treaty applies to the territories under the
administration of Japan; thus, Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands. Sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands is disputed. The U.S. does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Diaoyu Islands. This has been our longstanding view. We expect the claimants will resolve this issue through peaceful means and we urge all claimants to exercise restraint."

This is the version of the story that I'm familiar with:

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/26/161812...

Basically, the islands have belonged to Japan for a long time by rule of possession, but Japan hasn't actually pressed the claim, knowing that it would cause major problems with China. Enter douchebag politician, who messes with the status quo right when China's government has changed and does not want to appear weak.

It sounds bad, but I'm with Prederick. There's 380 billion dollars of trade between those two countries. Stupidity is a powerful force, but not as powerful as greed. They'll come to some peaceful resolution, probably quietly, after all the fervor has died down.

Eh, who knows. There might be a few ships shooting at each other, or a platoon level conflict on the islands. (There's hardly room for more...)

If you look at previous India/Pakistan skirmishes, they've gone for years shooting at each other in the past, but it's been limited to specific provinces. I don't see it going beyond that.

I'm falling on the side of continued angry saber rattling.

It appears that China's economic bubble is starting to pop, and that means things will get quite unpleasant in that country for a number of years. Bubbles are terribly destructive, and there is no good solution once you've had one. The only good way of dealing with them is to prevent them, which they have most emphatically failed to do.

I anticipate a fair bit of social unrest, and it strikes me that a war with Japan might be just the thing to distract an angry populace from replacing the Communist government.

I can't imagine the US military bases in Japan would be thrilled about Chinese aircraft and ships attacking Japan.

The islands are not exactly proximal to Japan proper. They are about 600 miles from Okinawa, as I read the map. Both sides could swarm the area without a single civilian threatened... It's about the distance from Miami to Puerto Rico.

Kind of like India and Pakistan attacking each other on a remote glacier.

Having lived in Japan, Korea and China for several years, I'm guessing this is a number of things. As others have said, China's economy is slowing down and it's also not roses in Japan's economy either. So there's probably a bit of pressure on the leaders of both countries to look tough in international affairs when domestic affairs aren't going well. Also, one thing that I think Westerners don't get is that WW II is still a big factor in East Asia and there is still a lot of hate against Japan for stuff like the rape of Nanking.

However, I guarantee you that an all out assault on Japan from China would also mean war with the US and quite possibly American allies like the UK, South Korea and Australia. It would almost be the equivalent of Russia invading modern day Germany.

Fianl thought - this is a perfect example of why America needs to pay down its debt and not owe billions of dollars to China.

Robear wrote:

The islands are not exactly proximal to Japan proper. They are about 600 miles from Okinawa, as I read the map. Both sides could swarm the area without a single civilian threatened... It's about the distance from Miami to Puerto Rico.

Kind of like India and Pakistan attacking each other on a remote glacier.

I was more referring to inference that an all out war being referenced by some here. I don't see it happening. I also don't see incentive for the Japanese government to engage the Chinese in any sort of war from a domestic view. The Japanese just don't seem to care*.

*I live in a small city in central Japan. My experiences should not be taken as the norm.

Vector wrote:

*I live in a small city in central Japan. My experiences should not be taken as the norm.

It is good to have input from someone in Japan. I hope your sentiments are true.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
Vector wrote:

*I live in a small city in central Japan. My experiences should not be taken as the norm.

It is good to have input from someone in Japan. I hope your sentiments are true.

If its any consolation, a lot worse has happened not too long ago between North and South Korea. Those two countries havrwhole divisions facing of against each other along the DMZ, and torpedoing a ship and killing dozens of sailors is a far worse international incident than flying into another country's airspace. Yet the Korea peninsula is still overall at peace:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10129703

Also, this kind of stuff used to happen all the time between the USSR and USA during the cold war. I'm not saying things couldn't go pear shaped but at this juncture I doubt it's any more than saber rattling.

Final thought - this is a perfect example of why America needs to pay down its debt and not owe billions of dollars to China.

That's worth emphasizing. If we get into a war with China, we might win the immediate conflict, but they can f*ck us up bad. If they're angry enough, they can crash our economy anytime they want to. All they have to do is start dumping dollars and dollar assets. They have such enormous quantities that any coordinated action by other central banks to try to buoy the dollar would be doomed. Even if the other countries succeeded in temporarily holding the dollar up, the huge amount of money they'd have to print to do this would set off huge inflation and economic distress in their home economies.

This will hurt China plenty, but if they're angry enough, they may not care. They are the bosses of the relationship, whether we've internalized it or not. And we were the ones who made ourselves subservient, ignoring the people yelling about the trade deficit for twenty years. Doesn't matter how rich and powerful you are, you can put yourself in the poorhouse if you are dumb enough, for long enough.

Malor wrote:

This will hurt China plenty, but if they're angry enough, they may not care.

If the Chinese Communist Party wants to stay in power--which they most definitely do--they won't do anything that jeopardizes their position at the top of China's political and economic food chain. They aren't going to win any brownie points by crashing their economy and pissing off the 500 million members of the Chinese middle class.

I think the danger for the Party is that as the economy grows, the rich gain more power, and that power inevitably crosses into the political realm. If the economy came unglued in some way, I'd expect it to look like the early 20th century all over again, literally with warlord armies fighting each other over cities and provinces. The Party is in a way hostage to the economy in a way that Western governments don't face.

Malor wrote:
Final thought - this is a perfect example of why America needs to pay down its debt and not owe billions of dollars to China.

That's worth emphasizing. If we get into a war with China, we might win the immediate conflict, but they can f*ck us up bad. If they're angry enough, they can crash our economy anytime they want to. All they have to do is start dumping dollars and dollar assets. They have such enormous quantities that any coordinated action by other central banks to try to buoy the dollar would be doomed. Even if the other countries succeeded in temporarily holding the dollar up, the huge amount of money they'd have to print to do this would set off huge inflation and economic distress in their home economies.

This will hurt China plenty, but if they're angry enough, they may not care. They are the bosses of the relationship, whether we've internalized it or not. And we were the ones who made ourselves subservient, ignoring the people yelling about the trade deficit for twenty years. Doesn't matter how rich and powerful you are, you can put yourself in the poorhouse if you are dumb enough, for long enough.

what if we just change currencies after we win "the war." might seem like a dumb question but it seems like it would avoid a lot power china has on the US. Also, didn't the Germans do this in a way after WWII?

Amero time?

FiveIron wrote:

what if we just change currencies after we win "the war." might seem like a dumb question but it seems like it would avoid a lot power china has on the US. Also, didn't the Germans do this in a way after WWII?

That's like defaulting on all the government loans(the USA never defaulted on a loan). I'm not sure what the German did after WWII but after WWI they printed money to pay the war reparations they were forced to pay . The hyper inflation devastated their economy and may have caused WWII.

Well, we can default on our government debts anytime we want to. (The Republicans seem intent on forcing such a default, even when we don't yet need to.) But China holds a lot more than just government debt, they hold a huge number of other assets, and a whole bunch of actual dollars, which are a different form of debt that we don't usually think about.

We could declare that dollars are no good anymore, and that we now issue only rupees, but that would have the effect of disrupting most of the debt relationships in the entire world. Is it a 1:1 conversion? Can people with dollars get rupees? And if they can, then China still has just as many dollars to trade in, and they can then sell off those rupee holdings the same as they can sell dollars. If we refuse to let China swap its dollars for rupees, but everyone else can, then China will just sell its dollars to people that are allowed to trade them in.

But none of this really helps. Why? Because we are running enormous deficits, both fiscal and economic. We are absolutely dependent on huge flows of lending coming into this country to keep the economy functioning. This means we are slaves to our creditors, or, more accurately, to our living standards that are so much higher than we can actually afford. If we start mucking around in this way, the world's creditors will cut us off, and those huge flows of free money will stop.

This would be the economic equivalent of driving into a wall at about 60mph. And there ain't nobody that can bail us out.

Oh, and note: this would still be better than continuing what we're doing, because the problem only gets worse with each year that passes, running such insane deficits. The economy becomes more and more dependent on those fake money flows, and the pain involved in shedding them becomes more extreme with each passing month.

But make no mistake, the pain in the sudden stop will be severe. Finite, but severe. Continued living beyond our means, and then trying to keep up that pretense by printing money, can inflict an unlimited amount of pain, just slower. Deflation stops. Inflation doesn't.

Malor wrote:

This means we are slaves to our creditors, or, more accurately, to our living standards that are so much higher than we can actually afford.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Half of our trade deficit comes from importing oil, which we dramatically need to scale back anyway. And it is something we will be able to sustain ourselves with using our own production as long as we cut consumption. From my own experience with living a very low oil consumption lifestyle, I know it is entirely possible. Beyond that, we have massively bloated systems, like our war machine, that function as a significant drag on our economy and contribute greatly to our inability to balance the budget. I don't think it is so much that Americans are living beyond the standards that they should have, but that the institutions of America (finance, real estate, and insurance + military) are overwhelming us. Those things take out such a big cut from us wherever we go and the benefit, if any, yielded to us is not proportionate to the cost.

Niseg wrote:

That's like defaulting on all the government loans(the USA never defaulted on a loan). I'm not sure what the German did after WWII but after WWI they printed money to pay the war reparations they were forced to pay . The hyper inflation devastated their economy and may have caused WWII.

There was far more to the Weimar Republic's hyperinflation than just printing money. They lost all of their overseas territories, significant amounts of highly productive land at home, exports were significantly cut off by a number of measures, some of their most productions regions were occupied, and they major demographic issues as a result of the war killing or maiming a significant portion of working age men.