There's another article in the BBC today about the artificial islands under construction by China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32234448

Ponderously, China keeps rolling towards making their assertions of territory a reality. They doubtless see their expectations of the subservience of other local nations not too far behind. At some point in the next thirty to forty years, assuming current trends are maintained, America will be forced to make a decision; namely that they relinquish their dominance in that part of the world to China, or they stand up and draw a line in the sand using their fleet.

Which do you think will occur and why?

You do realise that the rest of Asia has fleets too right? We're the ones far more likely to protest about this.

Sining wrote:
You do realise that the rest of Asia has fleets too right? We're the ones far more likely to protest about this.

Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Phillipines will not declare war on China. They are not suicidal.

Japan and South Korea? They won't move to draw that line without US support. At least, not unless they kick up their own rearmament to the point whereby they don't need US support. In which case, the US has a problem, because then there are three heavily armed powers contesting for the area, and America loses dominance in that part of the world by default.

 Ketara wrote:

Sining wrote:
You do realise that the rest of Asia has fleets too right? We're the ones far more likely to protest about this.

Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Phillipines will not declare war on China. They are not suicidal.

Japan and South Korea? They won't move to draw that line without US support. At least, not unless they kick up their own rearmament to the point whereby they don't need US support. In which case, the US has a problem, because then there are three heavily armed powers contesting for the area, and America loses dominance in that part of the world by default.

Doubtful. US calls on UN to help support them. Stalemate occurs unless China makes a violent move, then WW3 breaks out.

 Ketara wrote:

Sining wrote:
You do realise that the rest of Asia has fleets too right? We're the ones far more likely to protest about this.

Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Phillipines will not declare war on China. They are not suicidal.

Japan and South Korea? They won't move to draw that line without US support. At least, not unless they kick up their own rearmament to the point whereby they don't need US support. In which case, the US has a problem, because then there are three heavily armed powers contesting for the area, and America loses dominance in that part of the world by default.

And you think America will declare war on China?

I mean, out of curiousity, what is your definition of Americas dominance in this party of the world.

The South China see belongs to the PRC. The "the nine point line" clearly shows Chinese waters and has done so since imperial times. Claims by Taiwan are void since it's not a UN recognised state and Japan's should be even more void since their mainland ends well before the " nine point line". America would not dare declare full war on China but I could see them fuelling a war with Japan.

I don't see Japan initiating a war anytime soon

Sining wrote:


And you think America will declare war on China?

I haven't posited an opinion as of yet. I'm curious to hear what my fellow Dakkaites opinion is on the matter.

I mean, out of curiousity, what is your definition of Americas dominance in this party of the world.

America is the dominant military power. She has the power to sail and dethrone more or less any government she chooses, including China, as of this point in time. That is one part of her dominance.

The second part of the term 'dominance' is that all other countries defer to America diplomatically to a greater or lesser extent as a result of that military power. That deferral can range from simply not interfering with any major US interests, to actively considering themselves military allies of.

I'm not using the word in an economic context here, just to specify.

 tau tse tung wrote:
The South China see belongs to the PRC. The "the nine point line" clearly shows Chinese waters and has done so since imperial times. Claims by Taiwan are void since it's not a UN recognised state and Japan's should be even more void since their mainland ends well before the " nine point line". America would not dare declare full war on China but I could see them fuelling a war with Japan.

So just to clarify:-



You believe that the entire area within the green line belongs to China? Even though it's within what is commonly considered to be international waters? And even though large sections of it are far closer to other nations, geographically speaking?

On what basis does this claim originate from beyond, 'A Chinese person drew it on a map a long time ago'? I'm genuinely curious if there's an actual claim I haven't heard of, or if it's just another Falklands style situation.

It is the best interests of the USA that China take on regional leadership in NE Asia. Bullying Japan does not count as leadership.

In short, yes I do. China has controlled that area since Zhang he's voyages during the Ming dynasty. Plus China's large population needs the area for fishing. Although I will agree that it is a very Falklands like scenario. The usa would would have a very hard time dethroning China also. The PLA is a much more coherent fighting force than it was in the 1950s. I doubt a war will break out though. It's not in anyone's interests.

 tau tse tung wrote:
In short, yes I do. China has controlled that area since Zhang he's voyages during the Ming dynasty.

I'm afraid China has not controlled that area in a very long time. They might have claimed it belonged to them for a long time, I wouldn't know. I do know however, that the Royal Navy put paid to any claims of control an exceptionally long time ago, followed by the Japanese, and more recently the Americans.

I'm not entirely certain that just saying, 'That belongs to us' necessarily confers legitimacy. If it were that easy, I'd be able to point at Buckingham Palace and claim it, Tom Kirby would be able to point at all our wallets to grab our cash, and Frazzled would be able to point at the wiener dog museum.

Plus China's large population needs the area for fishing. Although I will agree that it is a very Falklands like scenario. The usa would would have a very hard time dethroning China also. The PLA is a much more coherent fighting force than it was in the 1950s. I doubt a war will break out though. It's not in anyone's interests.

Just to wheel out the professional opinion right now, America would find breaking the ground forces a challenge. The Chinese Navy and Airforce, on the other hand, would only last about three days as a coherent force, and the better part of a month as a disparate one. Which is more or less all America would need, the second trade stops, China has massive economic problems, let alone what the American airforce is capable of doing on top. But that's all somewhat off topic.

I can't imagine any credible scenario in which the USA and PRC would come to blows. IME, Americans who think this is possible tend to underestimate the responsibility and rationality of Chinese leaders and people while Chinese who think this possible tend to be spouting nationalistic nonsense, often highly colored by anti-Japanese sentiment.

China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold their own.

I'm away from my source (my best books are in my dorm back in the UK) but I'm sure I could find a few passages laying to the claim in my texts. I know the earliest would have been Zhang He.

But in all honesty why is that America's jurisdiction in the first place? How far away is the South China Sea too Hawaii or California?

China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing. Like Manchu said, there's no real scenario they would come too blows. But the new strong China won't let itself be bullied by the west like it was in the 19th century. The laying down of limits and patrolling of its sea borders I feel shows this new China that it won't be messed with weather the west likes it or not.

 Manchu wrote:
I can't imagine any credible scenario in which the USA and PRC would come to blows.

The problem is that a lot of people thought exactly the same thing before WW1. They cited how interlinked trade was, the inherent rationality of their governments, etcetc. And then it happened.

I see a number of unfortunate parallels all starting to slide into place, and it worries me. I'm not convinced it'll necessarily affect me on this island over here, but slowly but surely, every year that passes seems to ratchet up the tension in that part of the world by another imperceptible notch. Just about everyone else there is happy to live and let live under American naval and free trade hegemony, but China keeps pushing against that. I fear for where it could end.

 Manchu wrote:
I can't imagine any credible scenario in which the USA and PRC would come to blows.

The problem is that a lot of people thought exactly the same thing before WW1. They cited how interlinked trade was, the inherent rationality of their governments, etcetc. And then it happened.

I see a number of unfortunate parallels all starting to slide into place, and it worries me. I'm not convinced it'll necessarily affect me on this island over here, but slowly but surely, every year that passes seems to ratchet up the tension in that part of the world by another imperceptible notch. Just about everyone else there is happy to live and let live under American naval and free trade hegemony, but China keeps pushing against that. I fear for where it could end.

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold their own.

If America blockades China, America has access to outside resources through shipping whilst China does not. The production facilities are useless without the raw materials, whilst the Americans would pump their economy with tremendous amounts of defence spending to prime their industrial/economic growth. In the short term, the American economy would possibly boom in a war-time setting. I can't say the same for China, especially if America starts conducting bombing.

I'm away from my source (my best books are in my dorm back in the UK) but I'm sure I could find a few passages laying to the claim in my texts. I know the earliest would have been Zhang He.

But in all honesty why is that America's jurisdiction in the first place? How far away is the South China Sea too Hawaii or California?

America's jurisdiction is might makes right. It's not a good claim to anything in general, but it's simple and easily grasped. Hence the Chinese attempts to emulate them.

China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing. Like Manchu said, there's no real scenario they would come too blows. But the new strong China won't let itself be bullied by the west like it was in the 19th century. The laying down of limits and patrolling of its sea borders I feel shows this new China that it won't be messed with weather the west likes it or not.

This is exactly the sort of thing which worries me. It's colonialism, pure and simple, if of a more aquatic variety. I can understand where it originates from in the Chinese psyche, God only knows they've been screwed enough times by others in the last few centuries. But change a few specific words, and it turns into the Kaiser declaring Germany's right to 'take her place in the sun.'

Terrible American oppressors are bad and should leave. Terrible Chinese oppressors are much closer.

^ The worst argument I've seen in a long time.

I think in the west so many people are paranoid but if people to live out here or even see the real China then people would soon understand that most chinese (government included) don't want trouble, its bit like the USA before manifest destiny.

Just because America says it's right does not mean the world should follow. Why should China with its long culture, strong economy and deep want of peace listen when America (a nation on the other side of the world) tell it what to do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Terrible American oppressors are bad and should leave. Terrible Chinese oppressors are much closer.

^ The worst argument I've seen in a long time.

True, I don't see this being solved


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also why is it colonialism when China does it but not America in taking military bases in Okinawa or using Taiwan as a giant airstrip. As a fellow poster from the UK was Hong Kong not colonialism?

It's totally colonialism (or at least neo-colonialism).

but two wrongs don't make a right.

 tau tse tung wrote:
I think in the west so many people are paranoid but if people to live out here or even see the real China then people would soon understand that most chinese (government included) don't want trouble, its bit like the USA before manifest destiny.

All I can perceive from here is China claiming that it should rule foreign waters because it says it should. And then backing that up by building islands, imposing new flight zones, and so on. These seem like very strange ways of 'not wanting trouble'. Perhaps you could explain to me how these seemingly militaristic actions are indicative of not wanting trouble? (being serious, not sarcasm).

Because it would seem from my perspective, that the best course of action anyone could take, is to just get on with things. Nobody is trying to invade China anymore, or dictate it's economic or foreign policy. Free trade brings prosperity to all at the moment. Why disrupt or risk that?

Just because America says it's right does not mean the world should follow. Why should China with its long culture, strong economy and deep want of peace listen when America (a nation on the other side of the world) tell it what to do?

The world usually doesn't follow America. In fact, it usually berates it heavily, ever since Vietnam.

But how does claiming other people's territorial waters and sending in the navy to secure it represent a 'deep want of peace'? I just don't understand this seeming contradiction.

Also why is it colonialism when China does it but not America in taking military bases in Okinawa or using Taiwan as a giant airstrip. As a fellow poster from the UK was Hong Kong not colonialism?

Okinawa is a legacy of a past conflict, as opposed to a deliberate desire to expand territory. Taiwan, in a similar vein, is not hosting American forces because America wants to rule Taiwan particularly (although that one is could be considered a form of neo-colonialism). Hong Kong was never originally intended as colonialism, although it gradually became it. Britain did give that one back though, making it somewhat irrelevant here.

Regardless, China deliberately expanding into international or foreign territory with the goal of making it theirs is colonialism is its absolute, most purest form. Which is a strange route to take for a nation so immersed in opposing it.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's totally colonialism (or at least neo-colonialism).

but two wrongs don't make a right.

I do see where you coming from, personally I don't want the status quo to change, but that's my stance. Nothing would be solved in war, I think both the White House and the great hall of the people are well aware. Ukraine and the Middle East are far bigger fish for the superpowers to fry right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not chinese nor was born in China, but I can say that from my observations (which I see are right) that China was decimated after the colonial action of Britain and the boxer rebellion. KMT rule was dreadful in what we would call the interwar period. Read "China revisited after 42 years" a for our kmt party member tells about the awful times in China during the 20s, it honestly sounded like Somalia and was at the hands of British and American interests.

I bring this up because if China did not push these zones it could happen again to them. As Lord of hats said, it's bad when anyone des it but to the chinese they are recovering lost land (or in this case sea) that's there's. They see history like a mirror, in the wests eyes it's annexation to them it's land cruelly taken away. 200 years ago is nothing in chinese history so colonialism was only yesterday.

 tau tse tung wrote:
China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing.

I disagree with both points. To the first, China has certainly expanded greatly,although this mostly happened long ago. To the second, one of Mao's greatest accomplishments was establishing the current borders of the PRC, which largely corresponds to the territory claimed by the Qing emperors. But I think I agree with the spirit of your post, if I understand it correctly, that Chinese foreign policy is not really motivated by aggressive expansion unlike, for example, Russia. On this point, the USA and the PRC are alike -- and the importance of sharing a broad foreign policy assumption like this should not be underestimated.

 Ketara wrote:
The problem is that a lot of people thought exactly the same thing before WW1. They cited how interlinked trade was, the inherent rationality of their governments, etcetc. And then it happened.

I don't believe pre-WW1 European realpolitik shares much in common with contemporary Sino-American partnership. The USA has never opposed Chinese nationalism, which is easy enough to do because the USA has virtually no interest in territories where that might be problematic (e.g., Tibet, Xinjiang) except regarding Taiwan, which question is not only gradually working itself out but might also eventually help ease Sino-Japanese relations. For the Chinese, it is easy to see why easing that tension would not be profitable currently: (1) saber rattling is popular at home (for both sides) and (2) none of the issues between the nations are substantive in themselves.

 tau tse tung wrote:
it honestly sounded like Somalia

That honestly sounds like propaganda.

I swear Hong Kong was named "a colony" in official papers. How you can say it wasn't meant as colonialism is utter rubbish as we tried to take Shanghai too. The Germans took qingdao and the Portuguese has Macao. Don't even try and say it was ever intended. By defending that how isn't it being nostalgic to that period. China's got no need to expand land wise or any other way. Your over blowing this whole minor news story in my opinion.

China is simply developing land it owns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chang Yee lived in Britain and America most of his life, he wasn't a communist at all. But you are right about China's expansionism. It will expand its economy, not force wise at all.

Read the book, roving gangs of all types of political extremists lived and pillaged during this time. I remember in the book texaco hired a private army to chase farmers off land they needed. "Rice armies" I think he named them due to them being paid in food rather than money.

 Ketara wrote:


All I can perceive from here is China claiming that it should rule foreign waters because it says it should. And then backing that up by building islands, imposing new flight zones, and so on. These seem like very strange ways of 'not wanting trouble'. Perhaps you could explain to me how these seemingly militaristic actions are indicative of not wanting trouble? (being serious, not sarcasm).

Honestly, I find modern Chinese policy is best understood through the same lens at Cold War Soviet policy. They don't want war, but there exists an engrained fear that if they do not display strength (and no just military strength, but social strength as well) that the great powers of the world will dictate to them their own fate. This is not entirely untrue. Think of much the US (though dictate would be a strong word) influences global events via its military and political prestige? China's history in the Colonial era is not pretty and it is still very much alive in their modern cultural mindset.

However, to those who think China can't possible be belligerent, keep in mind. The above as I described, is the mentality that began to Cold War (US and Russia). It is the mentality that the Japanese used to justify their own Imperial agenda in the first half of the 20th Century. The mentality that you must project strength, or you are weak, starts wars. It does take two to tango, but someone has to tell the band to get going. China's ludicrous territorial claims in Asian seas is frightenly similar to Japan's own grab for Manchuria a century ago.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


All I can perceive from here is China claiming that it should rule foreign waters because it says it should. And then backing that up by building islands, imposing new flight zones, and so on. These seem like very strange ways of 'not wanting trouble'. Perhaps you could explain to me how these seemingly militaristic actions are indicative of not wanting trouble? (being serious, not sarcasm).

Honestly, I find modern Chinese policy is best understood through the same lens at Cold War Soviet policy. They don't want war, but there exists an engrained fear that if they do not display strength (and no just military strength, but social strength as well) that the great powers of the world will dictate to them their own fate. This is not entirely untrue. Think of much the US (though dictate would be a strong word) influences global events via its military and political prestige? China's history in the Colonial era is not pretty and it is still very much alive in their modern cultural mindset.

However, to those who think China can't possible be belligerent, keep in mind. The above as I described, is the mentality that began to Cold War (US and Russia). It is the mentality that the Japanese used to justify their own Imperial agenda in the first half of the 20th Century. The mentality that you must project strength, or you are weak, starts wars. It does take two to tango, but someone has to tell the band to get going. China's ludicrous territorial claims in Asian seas is frightenly similar to Japan's own grab for Manchuria a century ago.

Although I don't agree with the last part, it was well thought out. You hit the mindset on the head. Remember the idea of saving face is huge to both countries, they will sabre rattle but no war will occur. A Taiwan strait scenario maybe but not a full scale war.

tau tse tung wrote:
I'm not chinese nor was born in China, but I can say that from my observations (which I see are right) that China was decimated after the colonial action of Britain and the boxer rebellion. KMT rule was dreadful in what we would call the interwar period. Read "China revisited after 42 years" a for our kmt party member tells about the awful times in China during the 20s, it honestly sounded like Somalia and was at the hands of British and American interests.

Quite frankly, Mao outdid anything any foreign power ever managed. And the Taiping Rebellion wasn't exactly small, neither was the various revenges of the Emperor's family. I say this not to justify past British actions, but merely to point out that China, like most of the world, has been through many horrible things, some at the hands of foreigners, and some at the hands of their own people. I don't believe it makes sense to base current policy off of those bad times.

bring this up because if China did not push these zones it could happen again to them.

So you believe that having say, 600 miles of empty ocean instead of 200 increases the protection of China so greatly that a power that could destroy China could no longer do so? Howso? I don't quite follow.

As Lord of hats said, it's bad when anyone des it but to the chinese they are recovering lost land (or in this case sea) that's there's. They see history like a mirror, in the wests eyes it's annexation to them it's land cruelly taken away. 200 years ago is nothing in chinese history so colonialism was only yesterday.

The only reason it's land cruelly taken away is because the government tells them so. If I recall my Chinese history right, the Chinese Government actually forbade any more voyages overseas, and lost interest in the world outside. I'm convinced your average Chinese citizen wouldn't give a damn if China's territorial waters stretch out 200 or 300km unless he's constantly being told he should.

I mean, let's face it, everyone get's that 200km right now. If it was 100km for China and 300 for everyone else, it would make sense. But otherwise? It's literally just solidifying that sense of, 'those evil foreigners are trying to oppress us' for no real reason.

@tau tse tung

It is vastly oversimplistic to lay the chaos of early twentieth-century China at the feet of Chiang Kai-shek or the KMT. It is good to keep in mind that things were not so smooth after 1949, either.

@LoH

China is certainly self-conscious about it's colonial past and third world status. OTOH the 20th century is the exception to the rule of Chinese history. China's recent past represents a return to the larger status quo of regional dominance. Recovering the cultural attitude corresponding to that status will naturally involve a certain amount of nationalism, especially regarding Japan.

 tau tse tung wrote:
I think in the west so many people are paranoid but if people to live out here or even see the real China then people would soon understand that most chinese (government included) don't want trouble, its bit like the USA before manifest destiny.

Not just the west. Even in SEA, there are a lot of people perturbed by China's belligerent actions. Unfortunately, there's not much they can do now unless China pushes too far. But as it is, China is trying to test the water so to speak, seeing how far it can go before protests start coming.

Quick note:I'm aware of over simplistic terms and posts but writing from an iPad to React to quick posts is quite hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

tau tse tung wrote:
I'm not chinese nor was born in China, but I can say that from my observations (which I see are right) that China was decimated after the colonial action of Britain and the boxer rebellion. KMT rule was dreadful in what we would call the interwar period. Read "China revisited after 42 years" a for our kmt party member tells about the awful times in China during the 20s, it honestly sounded like Somalia and was at the hands of British and American interests.

Quite frankly, Mao outdid anything any foreign power ever managed. And the Taiping Rebellion wasn't exactly small, neither was the various revenges of the Emperor's family. I say this not to justify past British actions, but merely to point out that China, like most of the world, has been through many horrible things, some at the hands of foreigners, and some at the hands of their own people. I don't believe it makes sense to base current policy off of those bad times.

bring this up because if China did not push these zones it could happen again to them.

So you believe that having say, 600 miles of empty ocean instead of 200 increases the protection of China so greatly that a power that could destroy China could no longer do so? Howso? I don't quite follow.

As Lord of hats said, it's bad when anyone des it but to the chinese they are recovering lost land (or in this case sea) that's there's. They see history like a mirror, in the wests eyes it's annexation to them it's land cruelly taken away. 200 years ago is nothing in chinese history so colonialism was only yesterday.

The only reason it's land cruelly taken away is because the government tells them so. If I recall my Chinese history right, the Chinese Government actually forbade any more voyages overseas, and lost interest in the world outside. I'm convinced your average Chinese citizen wouldn't give a damn if China's territorial waters stretch out 200 or 300km unless he's constantly being told he should.

I mean, let's face it, everyone get's that 200km right now. If it was 100km for China and 300 for everyone else, it would make sense. But otherwise? It's literally just solidifying that sense of, 'those evil foreigners are trying to oppress us' for no real reason.

Treasure ships were to expensive to keep running and invasions from the Qing made it hard to keep the sea going empire. But a chinese could easily say that's same argument about the Falklands.

tau tse tung wrote:I swear Hong Kong was named "a colony" in official papers. How you can say it wasn't meant as colonialism is utter rubbish as we tried to take Shanghai too. The Germans took qingdao and the Portuguese has Macao. Don't even try and say it was ever intended. By defending that how isn't it being nostalgic to that period. China's got no need to expand land wise or any other way. Your over blowing this whole minor news story in my opinion.

IIRC (please correct me if wrong), we seized Hong Kong after forcing the Chinese Emperor to surrender because his officials confiscated a large amount of property, locked up citizens, and halted trade?

I'm not saying that the opium trade was a good one. But Hong Kong was originally negotiated for (at gunpoint, admittedly) because of a desire for a safe place to trade from, as opposed to any real desire to claim bits of China for Britain.

Honestly, I find modern Chinese policy is best understood through the same lens at Cold War Soviet policy........ China's ludicrous territorial claims in Asian seas is frightenly similar to Japan's own grab for Manchuria a century ago.

This is what worries me. There are too many historical examples of these sorts of aggressive grabs for territory and escalating militarism eventually leading somewhere nobody wanted it to go.

When the argument is 'because others did this in the past that's why it's ok in the present', that's a horrible argument

 Ketara wrote:

tau tse tung wrote:I swear Hong Kong was named "a colony" in official papers. How you can say it wasn't meant as colonialism is utter rubbish as we tried to take Shanghai too. The Germans took qingdao and the Portuguese has Macao. Don't even try and say it was ever intended. By defending that how isn't it being nostalgic to that period. China's got no need to expand land wise or any other way. Your over blowing this whole minor news story in my opinion.

IIRC (please correct me if wrong), we seized Hong Kong after forcing the Chinese Emperor to surrender because his officials confiscated a large amount of property, locked up citizens, and halted trade?

I'm not saying that the opium trade was a good one. But Hong Kong was originally negotiated for (at gunpoint, admittedly) because of a desire for a safe place to trade from, as opposed to any real desire to claim bits of China for Britain.

Honestly, I find modern Chinese policy is best understood through the same lens at Cold War Soviet policy........ China's ludicrous territorial claims in Asian seas is frightenly similar to Japan's own grab for Manchuria a century ago.

This is what worries me. There are too many historical examples of these sorts of aggressive grabs for territory and escalating militarism eventually leading somewhere nobody wanted it to go.

I apologise in advance for a simple answer, I'm a bit busy and as I said, iPads are horrible to type on.

Your right, but given the chance it would have been used as a staging point for an invasion. Why did it have to be taken at gunpoint and why didn't we follow their trade rules? Like America today why did we have a different set of rules being a nation so far away? I recommend lazlow Montgomery's history of China podcast on this, it's very detailed on the matter and is a better source than me at this moment. I feel that after the boxer revolt and if WW1 failed to ignite, China would of been dived up like Africa. Although that's opinion admittedly.

 Manchu wrote:
China is certainly self-conscious about it's colonial past and third world status. OTOH the 20th century is the exception to the rule of Chinese history. China's recent past represents a return to the larger status quo of regional dominance. Recovering the cultural attitude corresponding to that status will naturally involve a certain amount of nationalism, especially regarding Japan.

Agreed. I'm sure some of us remember the "Smog is Good" thread. That entire bit was nationalist (the wacky crazy nationalism that is mind jarring to anyone on the outside... or who likes healthy lungs). Nationalism is part of what I touched on when talking about strength not just as military power, but social strength. China's smog problems are particularly famous around the world, and I'm sure many Chinese are very unhappy with it. Can't have that. Being unhappy with the state of urban areas? Gotta nip that in the bud!

There was a "smog is good thread?"

 Ketara wrote:


This is what worries me. There are too many historical examples of these sorts of aggressive grabs for territory and escalating militarism eventually leading somewhere nobody wanted it to go.

Indeed. The creepy part even, is that from a certain perspective, the mentality is perfectly rational. Even logical. But it's a mentality that once you're locked into it, the more dangerous it becomes. It gets even more complicated when you consider that it's not just about international politics but domestic politics as well. No leader, even in a one party system without direct elections, wants to be remembered or seen as the person who showed weakness. It is a very dangerous mentality. One that by its own nature, becomes inherently self destructive.

I'm glad you brought that up. The PRC recently banned a homegrown documentary critical of air pollution called Under The Dome, which had become a kind of overnight sensation. Now the interesting thing is not that the government banned the movie (which was not even anti-government) but rather that it resonated with so many Chinese so immediately. In other words, nationalism is not tantamount to insanity. The Chinese people know smog is not good.

 tau tse tung wrote:
There was a "smog is good thread?"

The original news article that sparked the thread

The thread we had about it.

Thanks for the links.

Right now where I live there's little smog but I'm in the boondocks of the place, like anywhere I guess it depends where you are. Seeing a lot of the comments though on that new story i see nationalist western comments. I'm by no means defending pollution but I take more concern about comments people make about the place.

A friend of mine who also wants to move here said "China is definitely a place that some people can cope with and others can't at all." And I can't agree with this more. You have to adapt a certain mindset and realise that it's not the west. It's because of that foreigners move here. Those who go expecting the same won't find it a nice place to live.

I find we strayed off topic a bit.

My prediction, personally, is that nothing will come of any of this. The plans and counter plans are all stretched on to happen 5 & 10 years from now, and by then something else will have come out of left field to make everyone forget all about this. Economic or political chaos in some country in the region is probably the most likely thing.

The key point about China is that the government is trying to deal with a number of serious problems that upset the social order. One way they are trying to defuse the internal tension is by deflecting the people's attention to foreign policy situations.

 tau tse tung wrote:


Your right, but given the chance it would have been used as a staging point for an invasion.

I disagree there, at least. Britain never really had much of a desire for an Empire, which is why it didn't try to hang on to it for very long. It often just sort of...well, happened. You set up a trade post, and the locals massacre a few people. So you have to conquer the surrounding area to provide security. But then another bunch of natives start charging over the new border, so you have to deal with them too, etc etc. Other bits of land were acquired because we wanted a spot locally to recoal our ships. In other places still, we grabbed it just because it was a strategic location, we had shipping going through it, and the French/Russians/Germans were looking like they were about to grab it. So we grabbed it to stop them doing so.

Somehow or another, it kind of turned into an empire though.

It was something of a slightly different mentality in most cases from say, the two intended German Empires, the Romans, the Ottoman's and so forth. You did occasionally get a bit of land snapped up because it looked good, but we were usually there for the trade or another reason.

Why did it have to be taken at gunpoint and why didn't we follow their trade rules? Like America today why did we have a different set of rules being a nation so far away?

Because this was the nineteenth century, where Johnny Klatchian had to be shown the error of their ways. China was in exactly the same place mentally, and would probably have done it to us if the situation had been in reverse.

I'm not justifying, but I'm saying you need to view nineteenth century events through a nineteenth century eye.

I recommend lazlow Montgomery's history of China podcast on this, it's very detailed on the matter and is a better source than me at this moment. I feel that after the boxer revolt and if WW1 failed to ignite, China would of been dived up like Africa. Although that's opinion admittedly.

If anyone would have been moving in on China at that point, it would most likely have been Germany or America. Although we probably would have joined in, like in the Scramble for Africa, just to secure our own assets.

 sebster wrote:
My prediction, personally, is that nothing will come of any of this. The plans and counter plans are all stretched on to happen 5 & 10 years from now, and by then something else will have come out of left field to make everyone forget all about this. Economic or political chaos in some country in the region is probably the most likely thing.

Possibly. You do often tend to note however, certain behaviours which historically lead to conflict and strife, and whilst there's always the possibility for something to come out of the left field to change everything, there's an equally good possibility that it won't.

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold their own.

I'm away from my source (my best books are in my dorm back in the UK) but I'm sure I could find a few passages laying to the claim in my texts. I know the earliest would have been Zhang He.

But in all honesty why is that America's jurisdiction in the first place? How far away is the South China Sea too Hawaii or California?

China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing. Like Manchu said, there's no real scenario they would come too blows. But the new strong China won't let itself be bullied by the west like it was in the 19th century. The laying down of limits and patrolling of its sea borders I feel shows this new China that it won't be messed with weather the west likes it or not.

I think you are absolutely correct here. No one benefits when these 2 powers clash. US might hold a military edge but china would ramp up production to a such a high rate if a war started it would be to most devastating war this world has ever seen. Lets hope this can be settled diplomatically.

Its all fun and games till a missile comes off a rack

 tau tse tung wrote:
The South China see belongs to the PRC. The "the nine point line" clearly shows Chinese waters and has done so since imperial times. Claims by Taiwan are void since it's not a UN recognised state and Japan's should be even more void since their mainland ends well before the " nine point line". America would not dare declare full war on China but I could see them fuelling a war with Japan.

Taiwan's claims are as good as their ability, and the ability of other interested parties, to back them up.The UN is a failed organization with a corrupt agenda and no balls - their opinion carries zero weight.

That said, I think that you're right in saying that we will probably not see a direct armed confrontation between the US and China - neither party wants it.

The USA also does not recognize the sovereignty of RoC.

Britain never really had much of a desire for an Empire,

Ketara, with all due respect, that is complete hogwash!

Like I mentioned in the UK political thread, the Cape to Cairo railway was a Victorian dream and obviously required the acquisition of large chunks of Africa during the scramble in the 19th century. The Victorian thirst for Empire was legendary.

Anyway, back OT

In my view, the problems will arise when North Korea collapses and China is faced with a Pro America, united Korea on its doorstep. China would push for American withdrawal if that happened, but Washington might be tempted at leaving troops on China's doorstep.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain never really had much of a desire for an Empire,

Ketara, with all due respect, that is complete hogwash!

Like I mentioned in the UK political thread, the Cape to Cairo railway was a Victorian dream and obviously required the acquisition of large chunks of Africa during the scramble in the 19th century. The Victorian thirst for Empire was legendary.

There can be a 'Victorian dream' by pure virtue of being a dream had by a Victorian. That does not necessarily translate into a deliberate policy of conquest, colonisation, and annexation. The British didn't join in the 'Scramble for Africa' until the Belgians, Germans, and Italians started eyeing it up. We took the Cape in 1806, but Africa wasn't really divvied up until eighty years later! We acquired India, Hong Kong, Burma, America and more long before we ever looked at Africa with an eye to incorporating it.

The fact is, we only participated in the 'scramble for Africa' because Bismarck and various other European powers were suddenly eyeing it up, and we felt our interests to be threatened if we didn't participate. So as a result, we more or less 'fell into' administering far more territory than we ever actually wanted or needed. Here's a good and cheap book on the affair if you want to read into it more closely:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Scramble-Africa-Thomas-Pakenham/dp/0349104492

Think the US troops will stay below the 38th. Also two more brigades from 2ID are coming back to the US of A. So that would leave like a ordinary division instead a plus up 10% over strength division like it was back in the day. So 8th Army will stay in Soeul and down south. The remainder of 2ID will stay in western corrigedor

British Imperialism was different from, for example, French Imperialism, in that the British were not interested in turning their colonial subjects into Britishers. But that doesn't mean the British did not desire an empire.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain never really had much of a desire for an Empire,

Ketara, with all due respect, that is complete hogwash!

Like I mentioned in the UK political thread, the Cape to Cairo railway was a Victorian dream and obviously required the acquisition of large chunks of Africa during the scramble in the 19th century. The Victorian thirst for Empire was legendary.

There can be a 'Victorian dream' by pure virtue of being a dream had by a Victorian. That does not necessarily translate into a deliberate policy of conquest, colonisation, and annexation. The British didn't join in the 'Scramble for Africa' until the Belgians, Germans, and Italians started eyeing it up. We took the Cape in 1806, but Africa wasn't really divvied up until eighty years later! We acquired India, Hong Kong, Burma, America and more long before we ever looked at Africa with an eye to incorporating it.

The fact is, we only participated in the 'scramble for Africa' because Bismarck and various other European powers were suddenly eyeing it up, and we felt our interests to be threatened if we didn't participate. So as a result, we more or less 'fell into' administering far more territory than we ever actually wanted or needed. Here's a good and cheap book on the affair if you want to read into it more closely:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Scramble-Africa-Thomas-Pakenham/dp/0349104492

I think we should start a new thread on this sometime - as I've got books of my own to counter this. Plus, we don't want to derail this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Think the US troops will stay below the 38th. Also two more brigades from 2ID are coming back to the US of A. So that would leave like a ordinary division instead a plus up 10% over strength division like it was back in the day. So 8th Army will stay in Soeul and down south. The remainder of 2ID will stay in western corrigedor

It may be a token force, but as you know better than me, it could be rapidly reinforced at any time.

During the Cold War, America aimed to get troops over to Europe within 48-72hrs if the Soviets crossed into West Germany.

Is this a similar response time in Korea if there's trouble, or is it even quicker in this day and age?

Guam about to have a sudden population boost

Edit

America Samoa also

Also a agreement was reached with the Phillappines to base US troops/naval/air force units

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key point about China is that the government is trying to deal with a number of serious problems that upset the social order. One way they are trying to defuse the internal tension is by deflecting the people's attention to foreign policy situations.

Totally agree. They don't have the ballot box to help siphon off descent and internal tension the way the U.S. does. That means they are an internal powder keg of labor, nationalism, and other disputes.

I think that when your every action builds an empire, it's really had to say "but I never wanted an empire!" with a straight face. The US certainly liked to pretend it wasn't an Imperial power (what I dub Anti-Imperial Imperialism ), But Cuba, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands we went around taking and then bragging about how we 'liberated' them, certainly seems a lot like Empire building. Especially the poor Philippines. Man did we just not give a gak about Philippine independence

 LordofHats wrote:
I think that when your every action builds an empire, it's really had to say "but I never wanted an empire!" with a straight face.

I'm not saying they 'never wanted it' necessarily. I'm saying that when you look at the motivations behind the various annexations, it was usually in the defence of British trade/interests, as opposed to a desire to expand. The motivation was not 'Let's go out and conquer the natives' so much as it was, 'Let's stop the natives attacking our trade outpost (by conquering them)'. Desire for conquering/annexation/subjugation itself was rarely the actual motivating driving force, it was usually a byproduct of other more complex motivations relating to commercial/diplomatic/military interests.

In other words, there was no grand campaign or great strategy to increase the size of the Empire. Instead you had hundreds of little incidents spread across the better part of two centuries, each one adding a small territory here, an island there, and so forth, for various manifold reasons, until the Empire was far bigger than anyone had ever forseen. In other words, the Empire was something that gradually evolved, nobody had actually planned for it quite to occur the way it did.

 Ketara wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think that when your every action builds an empire, it's really had to say "but I never wanted an empire!" with a straight face.

I'm not saying they 'never wanted it' necessarily. I'm saying that when you look at the motivations behind the various annexations, it was usually in the defence of British trade/interests, as opposed to a desire to expand. The motivation was not 'Let's go out and conquer the natives' so much as it was, 'Let's stop the natives attacking our trade outpost (by conquering them)'. Desire for conquering/annexation/subjugation itself was rarely the actual motivating driving force, it was usually a byproduct of other more complex motivations relating to commercial/diplomatic/military interests.

In other words, there was no grand campaign or great strategy to increase the size of the Empire. Instead you had hundreds of little incidents spread across the better part of two centuries, each one adding a small territory here, an island there, and so forth, for various manifold reasons, until the Empire was far bigger than anyone had ever forseen.

Okay yeah. This seems much less odd than the what the previous statement came off sounding like

 LordofHats wrote:
The US certainly liked to pretend it wasn't an Imperial power (what I dub Anti-Imperial Imperialism ), But Cuba, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands we went around taking and then bragging about how we 'liberated' them, certainly seems a lot like Empire building.

And Panama, and the attempted re-coup in Nicaragua.

Yes the list does go on

 Ketara wrote:
The motivation was not 'Let's go out and conquer the natives' so much as it was, 'Let's stop the natives attacking our trade outpost (by conquering them)'.

And what about that trade outpost? And why are the "natives" attacking it?

This is a really bizarre distinction you are attempting to make here ... Sure, Britain did not just want "more land" but it did want the land, for its resources, for its location relative to other colonial possessions, for the sake of dominating other powers, etc.

History is full of bizarre distinctions (but they're often useful so *shrug*). The distinction Ketara is drawing is that Britain did not set out to claim a massive swathe of Colonial possessions, but rather targeted specific locations for their <insert Manchu's list of desires>. The massive swathe of Colonial possessions came not because they wanted them, but from a successive series of minor armed and political fights to protect specific interests leaving the British controlling a much larger stake in the world than they initially intended or desired.

That collection of controlled interests you mention is called an empire. The distinction in this case is merely bizarre, not useful.

I agree that Ketara's first attempt at this distinction was weird and made no sense. I choose however to look at the actual distinction being made now that he has explained his position rather than get caught up on the word Empire.

To go full circle, the original point I was responding to was this:-

Your right, but given the chance it would have been used as a staging point for an invasion.

Namely the concept that Hong Kong would be used as a staging point for an invasion of China by the British Empire, presumably to incorporate it into the British Empire. I was also responding to a query as to why when China asserts it owns something it is colonialism, but Hong Kong was not. I then asserted that we didn't originally want Hong Kong out of a desire for colonialism, that is, to create a colony. Although it later became one, it was just meant to be a place we could unload our wares safely until the situation settled down-hence the hundred year contract.

In other words, I was drawing distinction between the Chinese desire to control this territory purely to incorporate it (it serves little useful purpose after all, being mostly empty water), or the acquisition of land of many other empires in history for similar reasons, and that of the British, who rarely set out to add land purely for jingoistic/nationalist/outright acquisitive purposes. Their motivations usually lay in more commercial roots, and desires to safeguard pre-existing interests.

That is the distinction that was being made. I'm not saying one is necessarily morally better than the other, I'm merely noting the difference in motivation for expansion between the two.

The fact remains that Britain certainly did have a great desire for empire and fulfilled that desire with great success.

 Manchu wrote:
The fact remains that Britain certainly did have a great desire for empire and fulfilled that desire with great success.

Define 'desire for Empire'.

I agree that they believed their Empire was a good thing. Often quite passionately. I would agree that they took actions to continue the existence of that Empire.

I would disagree that the expansion of their Empire was in and of itself a goal.

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold t.

I agree with this. Our economies are too intertwined to commit to war. It would be lose-lose for both of us. Unfortunately, there are probably some people in Washington who are too nationalistic,...err....I mean patriotic.......to rationalize this.

 Strombones wrote:

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold t.

I agree with this. Our economies are too intertwined to commit to war. It would be lose-lose for both of us. Unfortunately, there are probably some people in Washington who are too nationalistic,...err....I mean patriotic.......to rationalize this.

Of the two sides, China is in the weaker position actually in the event of war. The US would only lose credibility, and much of the National debt, if they were to refuse payment of the debt. China would be left out in the cold, and without a buyer for their product.

China is very much utterly dependent on people buying their stuff. If that dries up, even just for a little bit, they will shrivel up and feel repercussions quickly. The Chinese economy is growing fast, but its also far too dependent on external trade. They would have likely irrevocable economic damage if they lost the US as a trading partner, enough to shatter their economy for decades. And their population would starve on top of it as they are so dependent on imports for food.

The US would hurt, but only for a little time. China would take decades to recover.

Well the chinese economy is actually slowing down a bit.

Yeah, but relative to other economies they're still growing at insane speeds(possibly out of control).

China also has infrastructure problems, particularly outside the cities and in agricultural areas. They'll have insanely modern facilities, but transportation networks that are straight out of the 1920s.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but relative to other economies they're still growing at insane speeds(possibly out of control).

China also has infrastructure problems, particularly outside the cities and in agricultural areas. They'll have insanely modern facilities, but transportation networks that are straight out of the 1920s.

I remember reading somewhere not too long ago that a lot of chinese factories are sitting idle and the demand for steel is going down.

Yeah, but "a lot" is of course relative. China is "only" growing by about 7% right now as opposed to 15-20% that it was in the past, but that type of growth would be insane in the US or any other European country where 2-3% is more the norm.

So yeah, China is slowing down, but slow is only relative to themselves.

Our subs positioned in the pacific routinely have ten minute drills where they practice destroying China to ashes with roughly20-30 warheads. Granted, this was twenty five years ago when I was stationed on such a sub so I don't know if they still do this, but I really don't think we have anything to worry about.

Certainly, as long as any war is fought only to keep China isolated and no invasion is undertaken.

We can easily defeat any power they try to project beyond their immediate borders and then just let them rot from the inside. Their population and economy wouldn't survive any period of isolation for long, and they'd start running out of food. And this would be especially dangerous when they have a population that has recently become addicted to imports of all kinds, plus that population would also run out of money if the economy dried up on top of it.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Our subs positioned in the pacific routinely have ten minute drills where they practice destroying China to ashes with roughly20-30 warheads. Granted, this was twenty five years ago when I was stationed on such a sub so I don't know if they still do this, but I really don't think we have anything to worry about.

I'd say that's still quite a bit to worry about.

You know, that whole Nuclear War thing is pretty...worrisome.

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today.

Nice to know this myth exists beyond US borders as well.

 streamdragon wrote:

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today.

Nice to know this myth exists beyond US borders as well.

Even if it was 100% true, that would mean the situation is that we have China's money and all they have is a promise to pay it back. And they're desperately in need for us to pay it back because if we don't they're in serious trouble.

Yeah that china owning the debt thing is wrong. If I am right it might be japan not china that owns our debt.

They own some of our debt though as I recall, not all of it. That would be silly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They own some of our debt though as I recall, not all of it. That would be silly.

Don't we actually owe most of our debt to ourselves?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but "a lot" is of course relative. China is "only" growing by about 7% right now as opposed to 15-20% that it was in the past, but that type of growth would be insane in the US or any other European country where 2-3% is more the norm.

So yeah, China is slowing down, but slow is only relative to themselves.

It's going to get even worse this year with one of their major trade partners (Europe) being hit by the disaster that is the euro. I don't really have that much faith in the chinese economy

Sining wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but "a lot" is of course relative. China is "only" growing by about 7% right now as opposed to 15-20% that it was in the past, but that type of growth would be insane in the US or any other European country where 2-3% is more the norm.

So yeah, China is slowing down, but slow is only relative to themselves.

It's going to get even worse this year with one of their major trade partners (Europe) being hit by the disaster that is the euro. I don't really have that much faith in the chinese economy

I guess I have a little more faith, but not a ton.

At best, I think China might have 20-30 years of prosperity before their bubble bursts, and its going to be messy when it does. They just don't have the strong foundational and sustainable middle class and basic economic characteristics of a successful modern economy. They're going to have major population problems in the future and that will absolutely sink them. Japan's going to have the same problem except Japan actually has a balanced Male/Female ratio.

My guess is you think the bubble will burst much sooner.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They own some of our debt though as I recall, not all of it. That would be silly.

Don't we actually owe most of our debt to ourselves?

Yes but don't let that get in the way of shouting "the end is nigh!"

For the record, despite certain claims, the concept of the 9 point line has only existed since somewhere about 1945. To say that China has claimed the region since Imperial times is somewhat tenuous at best. To say China controlled those waters is laughable.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sining wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but "a lot" is of course relative. China is "only" growing by about 7% right now as opposed to 15-20% that it was in the past, but that type of growth would be insane in the US or any other European country where 2-3% is more the norm.

So yeah, China is slowing down, but slow is only relative to themselves.

It's going to get even worse this year with one of their major trade partners (Europe) being hit by the disaster that is the euro. I don't really have that much faith in the chinese economy

I guess I have a little more faith, but not a ton.

At best, I think China might have 20-30 years of prosperity before their bubble bursts, and its going to be messy when it does. They just don't have the strong foundational and sustainable middle class and basic economic characteristics of a successful modern economy. They're going to have major population problems in the future and that will absolutely sink them. Japan's going to have the same problem except Japan actually has a balanced Male/Female ratio.

My guess is you think the bubble will burst much sooner.

Pretty much. Just too much corruption within the system. Too many people depending on bank loans and export rebates to keep them afloat in my particular industry. But the banks are constantly tightening the amount they are willing to loan due to scandals while exports are steadily getting worse because of their own rapid increase in costs as well as worsening trade currencies. I think China will probably have some Enron like company collapse within the next few years the way things are going now because it's inevitable one of their large companies is going to be called out on their BS

chaos0xomega wrote:
For the record, despite certain claims, the concept of the 9 point line has only existed since somewhere about 1945. To say that China has claimed the region since Imperial times is somewhat tenuous at best. To say China controlled those waters is laughable.

Yeah, China has never had very many designs on foreign soil until very recently, and even less ability to act on those designs. And certainly even less desire and ability on water.

Asherian Command wrote:Yeah that china owning the debt thing is wrong. If I am right it might be japan not china that owns our debt.

China does, in fact, own the largest part of our foreign debt. Key word there is foreign. About 8% of total US debt is to China. Which is weird, because China actually owes the US money also. I'm not sure how that works out, or why it doesn't cancel. According to some estimates, China actually owes US investors more than we owe the Chinese government. The situations are obviously slightly different, since one is government to government and the other is government to private group.

d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They own some of our debt though as I recall, not all of it. That would be silly.

Don't we actually owe most of our debt to ourselves?

Yup.

Foreign debt is definitely a slightly more concerning area of the debt because one of the main goals of debt, on the national debt level, is to ensure you maintain a pool of borrowers. Domestic borrowing is pretty stable, although borrowing from yourself is just wrong . Foreign borrowers can lose confidence more easily and thus you lose a pool of borrowing.

 Ketara wrote:
There's another article in the BBC today about the artificial islands under construction by China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32234448

Ponderously, China keeps rolling towards making their assertions of territory a reality. They doubtless see their expectations of the subservience of other local nations not too far behind. At some point in the next thirty to forty years, assuming current trends are maintained, America will be forced to make a decision; namely that they relinquish their dominance in that part of the world to China, or they stand up and draw a line in the sand using their fleet.

Which do you think will occur and why?

This might be slightly off of the current topic, but isn't the obvious answer to wait till a particularly nasty monsoon rolls by?

tau tse tung wrote:

I do see where you coming from, personally I don't want the status quo to change, but that's my stance. Nothing would be solved in war, I think both the White House and the great hall of the people are well aware. Ukraine and the Middle East are far bigger fish for the superpowers to fry right now.

No one really cares about Ukraine.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In my view, the problems will arise when North Korea collapses and China is faced with a Pro America, united Korea on its doorstep. China would push for American withdrawal if that happened, but Washington might be tempted at leaving troops on China's doorstep.

That's not going to happen, South Korea would never agree to reunite with North Korea.

You be surprise that South Korea would absorb North Korea. China though will prop up the North Korean government just to keep the North Korean masses out of China

I think that if it came to N.Korea collapsing, S.Korea would probably absorb N.Korea but China would rather take over N.Korea than let that happen

Sining wrote:
I think that if it came to N.Korea collapsing, S.Korea would probably absorb N.Korea but China would rather take over N.Korea than let that happen

I think its the opposite.

China wants NK as a buffer state. They do NOT want to deal with the mess themselves. They'll let NK get reabsorbed before they take control of that territory and its clusterfeth of problems.

North Korea is a lot like Interwar Italy. They have a bigger, much more capable neighbor (China) who desperately wants a regional ally too feel less alone, and who ignores (or just doesn't care) that their alley is pathetically weak, ill tempered, and laughably too high on its own koolaid.

Godwin achieved.

China won't absord NK, because none of their neighbors will view it favorably, because they don't want to absorb it because the country is a mess, and because it suits their foreign policy to keep NK around more than anything.

You'd be surprised at China's attitude towards a united Korea, from what I've read on the subject.

They won't say it in public, but behind the scenes, a united Korea is not a problem for China, so long as US troops get the hell out of there.

The rebuilding work that the South would have to do with regard to the North, would be an economic boom not only for South Korean industry, but for China as well.

South Korea isn't going to absorb North Korea because they don't want to deal with the mess is North Korea. South Korea has a first world economy and living standards. North Korea makes the third world look like first world in comparison.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sining wrote:
I think that if it came to N.Korea collapsing, S.Korea would probably absorb N.Korea but China would rather take over N.Korea than let that happen

I think its the opposite.

China wants NK as a buffer state. They do NOT want to deal with the mess themselves. They'll let NK get reabsorbed before they take control of that territory and its clusterfeth of problems.

China wants Korea, they had a war about it before (China vs Japan for Korea as a buffer from the other).
If NK collapses it'll become a part of China more likely. Just more land for them to use.

Believe me, they do NOT want North Korea. They don't want the starving uneducated masses who are living in squalor there, and they don't want them coming into mainland China.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The rebuilding work that the South would have to do with regard to the North, would be an economic boom not only for South Korean industry, but for China as well.

It isn't just the rebuilding work, it's also the integration of North Korean citizens into the South Korean state...and cleaning up all those land mines in and around the DMZ.

Really the best thing for everyone, except the North Korean leadership*, would be for the North Korean leadership to stop being crazy. It should acknowledge the legitimacy of South Korea (South Korea would need to follow suit), stop making threats that no one really takes seriously, and start engaging in international commerce.


*And possibly China. I'm sure a fair number of PRC officials and citizens enjoy the fact that NK annoys the West.

Indeed. North Korea is a convenient distraction, but not one they're willing to take responsibility for.

They'd sooner lose their puppet state than actually absorb it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Believe me, they do NOT want North Korea. They don't want the starving uneducated masses who are living in squalor there, and they don't want them coming into mainland China.

I was thinking more of the land than the people. The only ones it'd be a good thing to are the north Koreans.

 Tyran wrote:
South Korea isn't going to absorb North Korea because they don't want to deal with the mess is North Korea. South Korea has a first world economy and living standards. North Korea makes the third world look like first world in comparison.

Similar sentiments were expressed with the fall of the Berlin wall and German re-unification. If there's a will, there's a way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The rebuilding work that the South would have to do with regard to the North, would be an economic boom not only for South Korean industry, but for China as well.

It isn't just the rebuilding work, it's also the integration of North Korean citizens into the South Korean state...and cleaning up all those land mines in and around the DMZ.

Really the best thing for everyone, except the North Korean leadership*, would be for the North Korean leadership to stop being crazy. It should acknowledge the legitimacy of South Korea (South Korea would need to follow suit), stop making threats that no one really takes seriously, and start engaging in international commerce.


*And possibly China. I'm sure a fair number of PRC officials and citizens enjoy the fact that NK annoys the West.

The North Koreans could never acknowledge the south - it goes against their entire raison d'etre

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The North Koreans could never acknowledge the south - it goes against their entire raison d'etre

The raison d'etre of the North Korean leadership is to stay in power, largely because they're afraid of what would happen if they lost power.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
South Korea isn't going to absorb North Korea because they don't want to deal with the mess is North Korea. South Korea has a first world economy and living standards. North Korea makes the third world look like first world in comparison.

Similar sentiments were expressed with the fall of the Berlin wall and German re-unification. If there's a will, there's a way.

The economic difference between NK and SK is far larger than the difference between East and West Germany. Also both West and East were in favor of reunification and there never was a war between them.

If we want to reunify them Germany way, we need to convince the North Koreans (have fun trying to negotiate with their Glorious Leader).

The other way would be wait for NK to collapse, but then they will be even worse economically speaking, and that's considering there isn't a war.

 n0t_u wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Believe me, they do NOT want North Korea. They don't want the starving uneducated masses who are living in squalor there, and they don't want them coming into mainland China.

I was thinking more of the land than the people. The only ones it'd be a good thing to are the north Koreans.

The land isn't worth much, especially when it comes with a destitute and uneducated population and has almost no modern infrastructure.

North Korea also doesn't have a ton of notable natural resources either.

A ghetto makes a nice buffer zone, but it doesn't make a nice new state.

 Ketara wrote:
I would disagree that the expansion of their Empire was in and of itself a goal.

You seem to be committing yourself to mincing words, apparently for the sake of revisionism. (What is the motivation, I wonder?) British leaders were committed to extending the influence and security of British interests, which inherently entailed territorial expansion -- this is the essence of empire. Whether the acquiring land itself was the goal (I agree it was not) is immaterial to the point of the British desire for British empire.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold their own.

I'm away from my source (my best books are in my dorm back in the UK) but I'm sure I could find a few passages laying to the claim in my texts. I know the earliest would have been Zhang He.

But in all honesty why is that America's jurisdiction in the first place? How far away is the South China Sea too Hawaii or California?

China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing. Like Manchu said, there's no real scenario they would come too blows. But the new strong China won't let itself be bullied by the west like it was in the 19th century. The laying down of limits and patrolling of its sea borders I feel shows this new China that it won't be messed with weather the west likes it or not.

I think you are absolutely correct here. No one benefits when these 2 powers clash. US might hold a military edge but china would ramp up production to a such a high rate if a war started it would be to most devastating war this world has ever seen. Lets hope this can be settled diplomatically.

Unlikely. WWII will remain the worse unless gak really hits the fan, and as China lacks the ability to invade America (it simply doesn't have ships or planes to do so), and America could only control the coastal cities (which while would do severe economic damage, there's no way in hell they can take the Chinese mainland with its nightmarish terrain)... that's probably as far as the war would go. I doubt nukes would be involved, and more likely it would just be a redux of the Korean War with America and China trading blows through proxy.

China is limited to being a local tyrant. They do have a lot of industrial capacity, but they wouldn't be able to mimic what the US did in WW2. The US would be able to take out any attempts to ramp up the production of a navy before China was able to make one capable of facing the US.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I would disagree that the expansion of their Empire was in and of itself a goal.

You seem to be committing yourself to mincing words, apparently for the sake of revisionism. (What is the motivation, I wonder?) British leaders were committed to extending the influence and security of British interests, which inherently entailed territorial expansion -- this is the essence of empire. Whether the acquiring land itself was the goal (I agree it was not) is immaterial to the point of the British desire for British empire.

Agreed!

And if I didn't know better, I'd say this was some sort of Troll Thread and/or Long Game involving the Ultimate English Revenge on The Colonies?!?

 Ketara wrote:
There's another article in the BBC today about the artificial islands under construction by China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32234448

Ponderously, China keeps rolling towards making their assertions of territory a reality. They doubtless see their expectations of the subservience of other local nations not too far behind. At some point in the next thirty to forty years, assuming current trends are maintained, America will be forced to make a decision; namely that they relinquish their dominance in that part of the world to China, or they stand up and draw a line in the sand using their fleet.

Which do you think will occur and why?

honestly, we won't have to do much more then what we are doing now. Creating strong alliances and arming them. No one in Chinas vicinity really likes them too much.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There's another article in the BBC today about the artificial islands under construction by China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32234448

Ponderously, China keeps rolling towards making their assertions of territory a reality. They doubtless see their expectations of the subservience of other local nations not too far behind. At some point in the next thirty to forty years, assuming current trends are maintained, America will be forced to make a decision; namely that they relinquish their dominance in that part of the world to China, or they stand up and draw a line in the sand using their fleet.

Which do you think will occur and why?

honestly, we won't have to do much more then what we are doing now. Creating strong alliances and arming them. No one in Chinas vicinity really likes them too much.

No one in that part of the world likes the neighbors too much, SK hates Japan even more than China.

Interestingly some of the smaller players in the region are forging ties with Japan, and are expressing positive interests in Japanese remilitarization. Considering several of these players were crushed under the cruel boot heel of Imperial Japan within living memory... it speaks to Chinese popularity in the region to say the least.

I do find it interesting when the PRC uses old maps from the Imperial days of China to justify annexation be it of land or sea/air space. Throw down all vestiges of the old Imperial order in the name of the people... except when politically convenient or expedient.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Interestingly some of the smaller players in the region are forging ties with Japan, and are expressing positive interests in Japanese remilitarization. Considering several of these players were crushed under the cruel boot heel of Imperial Japan within living memory... it speaks to Chinese popularity in the region to say the least.

I do find it interesting when the PRC uses old maps from the Imperial days of China to justify annexation be it of land or sea/air space. Throw down all vestiges of the old Imperial order in the name of the people... except when politically convenient or expedient.

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

 Manchu wrote:
[ British leaders were committed to extending the influence and security of British interests, which inherently entailed territorial expansion -- this is the essence of empire.

Just to clarify, did you actually just claim that maintaining/extending a nation's interests, and providing security for them inherently entails territorial expansionism? Because using that logic, every government currently existing, or that has ever existed is committed to territorial expansionism. Which would be silly. So I can't help but think that I must be misunderstanding your statement somehow.

Regardless, the original point (far, far back now) was to differentiate between the current Chinese motivations with regards to territorial acquisition in the South China Sea, and the motivations for the acquisition of territory under the British Empire(as it was pointed at as if it was some sort of excuse for contemporary Chinese actions). And I personally have no dog in the historical fight beyond that which anyone else has (arguing with strangers on the internet for fun ), I'm primarily a naval historian of the period, not an Empire one. But if you want to get into Christopher Bell v Nicholas Lambert on Fisher's reform policies, I'm your man!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

As long as they label everything as 'self-defence' equipment, they can more or less do anything they like. And the only reason they need do that is for domestic political purposes, beyond the immediate headlines, the Japanese renaming their military would have little effect on it's current composition.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Interestingly some of the smaller players in the region are forging ties with Japan, and are expressing positive interests in Japanese remilitarization. Considering several of these players were crushed under the cruel boot heel of Imperial Japan within living memory... it speaks to Chinese popularity in the region to say the least.

I do find it interesting when the PRC uses old maps from the Imperial days of China to justify annexation be it of land or sea/air space. Throw down all vestiges of the old Imperial order in the name of the people... except when politically convenient or expedient.

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

It does, but most people are in favor of rearming. And the US imposed limitations expired a long time ago.

Basically anybody who cared or had the power to prevent Japanese militarization is dead or no longer cares.

 Ketara wrote:
Just to clarify, did you actually just claim that maintaining/extending a nation's interests, and providing security for them inherently entails territorial expansionism? Because using that logic, every government currently existing, or that has ever existed is committed to territorial expansionism. Which would be silly. So I can't help but think that I must be misunderstanding your statement somehow.

You did misunderstand. Specifically, you decontextualized my point from our conversation. In context, the interests at issue are resources and markets outside of the British isles in the Americas, Asia, Africa. Securing them meant claiming territory on the basis of economic and military might. How again is this not empire?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Interestingly some of the smaller players in the region are forging ties with Japan, and are expressing positive interests in Japanese remilitarization. Considering several of these players were crushed under the cruel boot heel of Imperial Japan within living memory... it speaks to Chinese popularity in the region to say the least.

I do find it interesting when the PRC uses old maps from the Imperial days of China to justify annexation be it of land or sea/air space. Throw down all vestiges of the old Imperial order in the name of the people... except when politically convenient or expedient.

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

It does, but most people are in favor of rearming. And the US imposed limitations expired a long time ago.

Basically anybody who cared or had the power to prevent Japanese militarization is dead or no longer cares.

I think Japan should have a referendum on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
[ British leaders were committed to extending the influence and security of British interests, which inherently entailed territorial expansion -- this is the essence of empire.

Just to clarify, did you actually just claim that maintaining/extending a nation's interests, and providing security for them inherently entails territorial expansionism? Because using that logic, every government currently existing, or that has ever existed is committed to territorial expansionism. Which would be silly. So I can't help but think that I must be misunderstanding your statement somehow.

Regardless, the original point (far, far back now) was to differentiate between the current Chinese motivations with regards to territorial acquisition in the South China Sea, and the motivations for the acquisition of territory under the British Empire(as it was pointed at as if it was some sort of excuse for contemporary Chinese actions). And I personally have no dog in the historical fight beyond that which anyone else has (arguing with strangers on the internet for fun ), I'm primarily a naval historian of the period, not an Empire one. But if you want to get into Christopher Bell v Nicholas Lambert on Fisher's reform policies, I'm your man!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The same could be said of most countries. My country, the UK, was digging out old records of the Falklands to prove that Britain occupied them years before Argentina.

Regarding the Japanese situation - doesn't their constitution forbid them from re-arming. Will they have to tear up their constitution?

MacArthur must be spinning in his grave.

As long as they label everything as 'self-defence' equipment, they can more or less do anything they like. And the only reason they need do that is for domestic political purposes, beyond the immediate headlines, the Japanese renaming their military would have little effect on it's current composition.

The self-defence argument can only stretch so far. The last thing we need is a Far East arms race. Things are bad enough with a Middle East arms race, without adding Far East to the mix.

A lot of you guys are making the point that that re-unification would be incredibly difficult, and that’s true. West Germany pretty much lost a decade in re-integrating East Germany, and North Korea is far more of a mess than East Germany ever was, and South Korea for all its modern qualities is still a long way from having the resources and capabilities of West Germany.

So yeah, it’d be a mess that’d set back South Korea a long way. But what you have to remember is that if unification ever became an option, there’s no alternative where South Korea won’t be piling in a load of cash and manpower. Even ignoring the historic, cultural and familial ties, having a collapsing state on your border is going to cause all kinds of problems, not least to security. Facing that, South Korea will no choice but to deploy troops. Once troops are there, South Korea will inevitably take a lead in establishing stability in North Korea, and then in rebuilding North Korea. From there, it’s clear that South Korea will be sinking vast resources in to North Korea no matter what.

Whether economic integration is still a step too far is an interesting question, but one that’s far from clear once you consider that no matter what, North Korean collapse will ask a hell of a lot of South Korea.

 sebster wrote:
A lot of you guys are making the point that that re-unification would be incredibly difficult, and that’s true. West Germany pretty much lost a decade in re-integrating East Germany, and North Korea is far more of a mess than East Germany ever was, and South Korea for all its modern qualities is still a long way from having the resources and capabilities of West Germany.

So yeah, it’d be a mess that’d set back South Korea a long way. But what you have to remember is that if unification ever became an option, there’s no alternative where South Korea won’t be piling in a load of cash and manpower. Even ignoring the historic, cultural and familial ties, having a collapsing state on your border is going to cause all kinds of problems, not least to security. Facing that, South Korea will no choice but to deploy troops. Once troops are there, South Korea will inevitably take a lead in establishing stability in North Korea, and then in rebuilding North Korea. From there, it’s clear that South Korea will be sinking vast resources in to North Korea no matter what.

Whether economic integration is still a step too far is an interesting question, but one that’s far from clear once you consider that no matter what, North Korean collapse will ask a hell of a lot of South Korea.

Well, what you said will also apply to China. There is going to be a lot of negotiations between China and SK when NK collapses.

 Ketara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The fact remains that Britain certainly did have a great desire for empire and fulfilled that desire with great success.

Define 'desire for Empire'.

I agree that they believed their Empire was a good thing. Often quite passionately. I would agree that they took actions to continue the existence of that Empire.

I would disagree that the expansion of their Empire was in and of itself a goal.

Sorry that is just stupid, Yes the Empire may not been the goal, but in those days the empire had a lot of enemies, and to keep the mighty sea fleet and army running they needed resources and make sure they had their hand in contested area's but to say great brittain had no interest in enlarging its area of influence is just naive IMHO (might have a little over reacted there )

On another point, don't underestimate the Vietnamese, The Americans and Chinese have experienced that in ancient and recent times.

Just to add to the thread.

China would be a horrid foe to fight. This isn't the Boxer Rebellion anymore. China had involvement in the Korean Conflict and we saw how that went. Somewhere though, I am sure the U.S would draw a line in the sand.

I echo the sentiment above about MacArthur, and I am sure the U.S Marines that fought in the Pacific would roll in their graves too if they saw how the world was today.

D-USA nailed the thread in one sentence.

USA vs China is a war that no one wants (aside of the usual crazies). It wouldn't be nice for anyone, it would be a lose-lose scenario and there is always the risk of nuclear apocalypse.

 Tyran wrote:
Well, what you said will also apply to China. There is going to be a lot of negotiations between China and SK when NK collapses.

Definitely, even if they didn’t want to have a major say in a remodelled North Korea (which I doubt), they’d have no choice. The border to China is already quite porous, and so if North Korea collapsed there would be vast numbers of refugees pouring in to China. China would have no choice but to play a part to stabilise the situation.

I would think most refugees from DPRK would flee south rather than across the Yalu. Except maybe those responsible for atrocities.

 Manchu wrote:
I would think most refugees from DPRK would flee south rather than across the Yalu. Except maybe those responsible for atrocities.

I'd forgotten about that, and yeah, China would probably shelter them.

Like I said earlier, and adding to Seb's comment, China has privately said that it doesn't mind Korean unification because:

1) Better market for its goods, and the South will need a lot of goods and cheap labour to rebuild-the North

2) Part of any re-unification deal will involve the Americans getting told to get the hell out, in the politest diplomatic terms of course.

A Korean peninsular free of Uncle Sam will make China happy.

Why would US withdrawl have to be part of the deal? I thought SK and USA were total chums.

 Manchu wrote:
I would think most refugees from DPRK would flee south rather than across the Yalu. Except maybe those responsible for atrocities.

North Korea side of the border is heavily mined, have good killing fields, and are under orders to shoot anyone heading to South Korea. 1996 a North Korean family was killed on the North Korean side of the border. Touched off a fire fight with South Korean ground forces that did not go any heavier then small arms and mortar fire. The entire DMZ went on a war footing (it happens a bit). The border with China is more porous.

 feeder wrote:
Why would US withdrawl have to be part of the deal? I thought SK and USA were total chums.

I think it was some idea that North Korea would be a partner in the deal, which assumes the government was still cohesive enough to demand such a thing. Which is unrealistic.

If the Koreas reunite, it will mean that North Korea has totally collapsed. And so nobody will be in place to demand the US leaves.

South Korea would likely want aid from the US to help in the reconstruction, at least on the side of maintaining order with military troops. But the US would maintain a military presence because of China.

China would probably demand it.

As much as they'd like to have a say in that, they wouldn't have any leverage in that event to demand that.

Depends on how fast they can move troops in to keep North Korea "stable"

They are going to move troops there fast.

 Manchu wrote:
I would think most refugees from DPRK would flee south rather than across the Yalu. Except maybe those responsible for atrocities.

As Jihadin says, the border to the South is pretty hot. Whereas the border to China is patrolled, but it is nowhere near the intensity. As a result there’s established smugglers and routes that could be used by North Koreans making the decision to get out.

Anybody who thinks that the Americans won't be told where to go if Korea is re-united, has no understanding of Korean history.

They have been occupied numerous times in their history. The current situation is a continuation of that.

The Americans are in South Korea for obvious historical reasons.

If the North goes, that threat is removed. A united Korea, looking to establish friendly nations with a massive country on it's border, will seek to remove the US military, by friendly means of course.

US Military will agree - they have plenty of bases nearby - Guam, Okinawa etc etc

Publicly, this will be the story. Privately, Korea will have secret contingency plans drawn up for US forces to assist in the event of any trouble with China.

It's pragmatic, and entirely keeping with US/South Korean relations.

 Tyran wrote:
USA vs China is a war that no one wants (aside of the usual crazies). It wouldn't be nice for anyone, it would be a lose-lose scenario and there is always the risk of nuclear apocalypse.

Agreed. There is no logical reason for the US to be involved in another Pacific War. Frankly we didn't want to be involved in the last Pacific War...

Except we are "Pivoting towards Asia" strategically, so it looks like we are at least posturing for another Pacific War.

I don't think the pivot is supposed to be about starting wars.

I'm sure it isn't about starting wars as well. But it sure is a good way to get involved in them.

However, to be fair, any war in that region would probably get us involved anyway, so you might as well be ready for it.

You rationalized it better than I could have.

 Manchu wrote:
British Imperialism was different from, for example, French Imperialism, in that the British were not interested in turning their colonial subjects into Britishers.

Neither did the French. Or at the very least, the “colonial subjects” were to be kept second-class citizens indefinitely. Hence why the decolonization.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
USA vs China is a war that no one wants (aside of the usual crazies). It wouldn't be nice for anyone, it would be a lose-lose scenario and there is always the risk of nuclear apocalypse.

Agreed. There is no logical reason for the US to be involved in another Pacific War. Frankly we didn't want to be involved in the last Pacific War...

We don't want to be involved in any war. Doesn't mean there won't be logical reasons for it. If another pacific war comes about, it'll be for much the same reasons the last one did. One country gaining to much control of a space we can't have one power having control over.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
British Imperialism was different from, for example, French Imperialism, in that the British were not interested in turning their colonial subjects into Britishers.

Neither did the French. Or at the very least, the “colonial subjects” were to be kept second-class citizens indefinitely. Hence why the decolonization.

No argument as to the reality. But in terms of idealism, the French wanted to integrate colonial peoples into the greater metropole of French culture. You can read a fair summary on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#Civilising_mission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_%28French_colonialism%29

I have already learned about it in my history lessons at school, but your links only confirm that this was bs. A blatantly hypocrite excuse at best.

The largest problem with a US vs China war is nukes. I believe that any US vs China war would be a quick naval war. The US wouldn't dare to invade China.

Probebly goes for both sides.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Probebly goes for both sides.

China doesn't has any real capacity to threaten the USA. Invading the USA is practically impossible.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have already learned about it in my history lessons at school, but your links only confirm that this was bs. A blatantly hypocrite excuse at best.

Well, the point of the links was not to justify French imperialism, but to show that it was pursued according to integrationalist ideals. Those ideals resulted in a different structure than British imperialism.

I still believe the proportion of French people that actually wanted the people from the colony to become full French citizen was absolutely negligible.

Both the US and China are countries that anyone would be suicidal to invade by land. China's geography plays fantastically into a defensive war and wars of attrition are what armies like the PLA are best at. Meanwhile the US is utterly GIGANTIC and, which this hasn't been tested since the 18th century, I have a feeling any portion of this country would be equally hellish to occupy.

Meanwhile, our respective nations have every incentive to cooperate. For every war-crazy nationalist there are ten people who want to take home a bigger paycheck, buy cheaper goods, and not get shot at the end of the day. I think a better question would be, why does the US need continued "dominance" in the region? For good or for ill, much of East Asia's fate depends very heavily on internal developments within China. The US isn't going to be, or need to be, such a world power forever. This isn't because the US is doomed to collapse; it's because many countries that were once utterly dependent on one of two imperialistic superpowers for survival are now finally having time to come into their own.