China s extremely dependent on the US to keep it's citizens employed and happy. I doubt they would initiate an armed confrontation with the US but then again, now would be the time to do it.
We've already seen, in Cuba in 1962, what one nuclear power did in a confrontation with another nuclear power that had roughly ten times as many weapons. The U.S. advantage over China in that department is more like twenty to one. Going up against six thousand hydrogen bombs is likely to cause second thoughts. And what's worse for the nation going up against them, many of those weapons are in missile submarines whose locations are unknown. That means they might be launched from only a hundred miles or so off the coast, reducing the time to react almost to nothing. As far as I've heard, China does not yet have subs like that. But the U.S. has quite a few of them, each one carrying as many as two dozen missiles loaded with maybe one hundred or more nuclear weapons.
I'd be worried once the first nuke went off, it'd pretty much be the end of things.
IIRC, China kicked our butts during practice "War Games" not too long ago.
Kinda scary.
Of course the purpose of having a very strong force like the U.S. has is to make sure no other nation ever even thinks about sending one of the things our way. As someone who lived through the Cuban Crisis in October, 1962, nothing like that bothers me much. What's remarkable, in hindsight, is how determined most people were to stand behind President Kennedy in whatever he might need to do--and the Soviet leadership knew that. But that was in those hokey old days when it was hard to find Americans who weren't proud of the United States. If we faced something like that now, probably about a third of the country would be pulling for the enemy. Now, though, we would have President Pinprick at the helm--and we all know Kennedy had nothing on him when it comes to guts.
If China feels threatened, it could be because they have threatened others. Challenging others in international airspace or waters usually results in some push back. Maybe they should consider that, and STFU. If they want to resolve the issues surrounding the various islands peacefully, there are accepted ways to do just that, and they don't involve unilaterally constructing military bases on the very islands in dispute.
Obviously you're unaware that there are six nations with overlapping claims to those islands and that five of them have built military type infrastructure on various islands in the group, despite their disputed status!!! But don't let me stand in the way of your bias against China.
Of course the purpose of having a very strong force like the U.S. has is to make sure no other nation ever even thinks about sending one of the things our way. As someone who lived through the Cuban Crisis in October, 1962, nothing like that bothers me much. What's remarkable, in hindsight, is how determined most people were to stand behind President Kennedy in whatever he might need to do--and the Soviet leadership knew that. But that was in those hokey old days when it was hard to find Americans who weren't proud of the United States. If we faced something like that now, probably about a third of the country would be pulling for the enemy. Now, though, we would have President Pinprick at the helm--and we all know Kennedy had nothing on him when it comes to guts.
Obviously you're unaware that there are six nations with overlapping claims to those islands and that five of them have built military type infrastructure on various islands in the group, despite their disputed status!!! But don't let me stand in the way of your bias against China.
I'd like to see a link about the other five nations' military infrastructure. You realize I hope that if the infrastructure is on islands incorporated into states' territories then it's a different matter altogether.
Stop being coy Jack, you know what "disputed" means. Taiwan and China claim all the islands in the Spratly archipelago while others claim various numbers and Brunei just one.
The intractable and contentious nature of jurisdictional disputes over the Spratlys has prompted claimant states to take efforts to enforce their claims by stationing a permanent military presence in the archipelago. By 1999, nearly 1650 troops of five claimant governments had occupiedatleastforty-sixoffifty-onelandformationsintheSpratlyarchipelago.42 Intheprocess, the two principal antagonists, China and Vietnam, have each increased naval patrols and established new military outposts on previously unoccupied islets in the region (See Table 1).43
Link?
I'm completely aware of the various claims. Note that none of the other nations with claims are building a military installation, and none of them are threatening free use of international territory. Only China. If you would apply the same metric in that area you consistently apply to the US, you might come to a reasonable position. I have no bias against China. You do have a bias against the US however, and you show it here every day Monte.
Post 16 dude!!!
Excuse me but the US isn't a party to this dispute! There are six nations with overlapping claims to these islands, none of them are the US. Brush up on the Spratly history before posting.
Excuse me but the US isn't a party to this dispute! There are six nations with overlapping claims to these islands, none of them are the US. Brush up on the Spratly history before posting.
US interest is in freedom of navigation in recognized international waters.
Ah. I see that you added the link. Article from around 1999? Problem is not China's participation in the atoll derby, but rather China's threats against freedom of navigation. That is unlike any of the other derby participants.
Those hokey days when information was far harder to come by. The third you refer to just aren't buying everything anymore.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?