BBC News - US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone
Two B-52 bonbers have challenged Chinas new air defence rules by flying over the disputed islands in the south china sea. This comes after Japan have refused to acknowledge China's new "air defence identification zone", US claim that normal procedures but China have warned that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
I feel that both sides have valid points here but from a neutral standpoint I don't understand why the US would risk antagonising China or risk a possible mis-communication which could result in shots being fired.
BBC News - US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone
Two B-52 bonbers have challenged Chinas new air defence rules by flying over the disputed islands in the south china sea. This comes after Japan have refused to acknowledge China's new "air defence identification zone", US claim that normal procedures but China have warned that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
I feel that both sides have valid points here but from a neutral standpoint I don't understand why the US would risk antagonising China or risk a possible mis-communication which could result in shots being fired.
Gotta draw the line somewhere. Otherwise they just keep pushing the limit.
I agree but these islands are an on going issue and have been a issue for a few years now, personally would like to see the US sitting both parties down and trying to talk this out. Just seem's very agressive to fly two b-52's the day after they announce their new air defence.
BBC News - US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone
Two B-52 bonbers have challenged Chinas new air defence rules by flying over the disputed islands in the south china sea. This comes after Japan have refused to acknowledge China's new "air defence identification zone", US claim that normal procedures but China have warned that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
I feel that both sides have valid points here but from a neutral standpoint I don't understand why the US would risk antagonising China or risk a possible mis-communication which could result in shots being fired.
I agree but these islands are an on going issue and have been a issue for a few years now, personally would like to see the US sitting both parties down and trying to talk this out. Just seem's very agressive to fly two b-52's the day after they announce their new air defence.
I don't see any reason why we should give a **** about those islands.
Personally, I think declaring Japan our ally and China our enemy immediately after WWII - even declaring China doesn't exist for decades - was among the worst foreign policy decisions in USA history.
If you don't understand why the US would do this, then you don't understand how China and "creep" work. US is protecting it's own and Japan's interests in the area and seems unwilling to simply cede to a Chinese expansion of territorial influence.
No one does, the issue is Chinese expansion and aggressiveness.
I don't see any reason why we should give a **** about those islands.
Personally, I think declaring Japan our ally and China our enemy immediately after WWII - even declaring China doesn't exist for decades - was among the worst foreign policy decisions in USA history.
Both, well said.
This is the reason. If we don't stand now, then when and where? When they decide that Guam should be Chinese? Or Hawaii?
It's not for me, as a Canadian, to say when or if the US should use force, but I can comment on the why or the what ifs. I would say as well that usually in life when bullies are faced with resistance, they generally back down - bullies like to test the limits of their prey - in this case, the US is indicating where those limits may lie. It may be different next time, as China gets militarily stronger, but it's good to set limits while you can.
BBC News - US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone
Two B-52 bonbers have challenged Chinas new air defence rules by flying over the disputed islands in the south china sea. This comes after Japan have refused to acknowledge China's new "air defence identification zone", US claim that normal procedures but China have warned that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
I feel that both sides have valid points here but from a neutral standpoint I don't understand why the US would risk antagonising China or risk a possible mis-communication which could result in shots being fired.
Both, well said.
This is the reason. If we don't stand now, then when and where? When they decide that Guam should be Chinese? Or Hawaii?
As a Canadian, you have every right to be concerned with the action of China that may impact the entire world. And, you have every right to voice your opinion regarding the actions of any other country, including the US. Whether I agree with you or not is my right. On this particular topic, and many others I have read you opine on, we agree.
BBC News - US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone
Two B-52 bonbers have challenged Chinas new air defence rules by flying over the disputed islands in the south china sea. This comes after Japan have refused to acknowledge China's new "air defence identification zone", US claim that normal procedures but China have warned that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
I feel that both sides have valid points here but from a neutral standpoint I don't understand why the US would risk antagonising China or risk a possible mis-communication which could result in shots being fired.
Why does it not even occur to you to wonder why China is risking antagonizing us?
Because this feud has gone on for centuries and is much bigger than a simple powerplay from China and it is on their doorstep not yours.
It's on Japan's "doorstep," too, and they agree with us. As the story said, flying through there is business as usual and has been since the end of WWII. It's China who's suddenly making the aggressive moves here and claiming things they haven't before.
So one day when China is feeling froggy and tells us they own the Pacific up to within 3 miles of Cali.BBC News - US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone
Two B-52 bonbers have challenged Chinas new air defence rules by flying over the disputed islands in the south china sea. This comes after Japan have refused to acknowledge China's new "air defence identification zone", US claim that normal procedures but China have warned that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
I feel that both sides have valid points here but from a neutral standpoint I don't understand why the US would risk antagonising China or risk a possible mis-communication which could result in shots being fired.
Oh no they have claimed these Islands on a number of occasions.
You could argue that Japn have been equally aggressive with the purchuse of three of the disputed islands from their private owner.
Because this feud has gone on for centuries and is much bigger than a simple powerplay from China and it is on their doorstep not yours.
They've never threatened any action before.
Who'd they threaten by doing so?
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?