War in the Pacific (Current events, not history)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Ladies and gentlemen! Let's get ready to ruuuuuuuuuuuuuumble!
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-japan-senkaku-diaoyu-war-2012-12

For the link impaired:

Chinese planes flew near Japanese airspace Monday to assert its claims to Japan's Senkaku islands (China calls them the Diaoyu islands).

The move came just as Japan announced its new prime minister.

Hugh White, a professor at Australian National University and a former Australian defense official, believes this is the latest sign the two countries are heading to war.

And the U.S. will be dragged in.

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, White says we are now witnessing the types of conditions that have historically led to war — despite conflict being in no one's interest.

THIS is how wars usually start: with a steadily escalating stand-off over something intrinsically worthless. So don't be too surprised if the US and Japan go to war with China next year over the uninhabited rocks that Japan calls the Senkakus and China calls the Diaoyu islands. And don't assume the war would be contained and short.

It seems almost laughably unthinkable that the world's three richest countries - two of them nuclear-armed - would go to war over something so trivial. But that is to confuse what starts a war with what causes it.

The conflict is really about China challenging the U.S. in the Pacific, White says. President Obama has vowed a Pentagon "pivot to Asia," itself a response to China's growing strength.

Claiming the Senkaku islands, a series of small outcroppings in the East China Sea, is China's way of testing America's new posture, White says.

And it's this kind of tit-for-tat that inevitably causes someone to open fire.

The risk is that, without a clear circuit-breaker, the escalation will continue until at some point shots are exchanged, and a spiral to war begins that no one can stop. Neither side could win such a war, and it would be devastating not just for them but for the rest of us.

No one wants this, but the crisis will not stop by itself.

I like to think that the world's moved past major open conflicts between nations, but then I'm a starry eyed idealist. Thoughts all?

Have some mood music:
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nFKPVfDrgU [/youtube]

**whembly**

Not gonna happen...

Don't we have one of your carrier fleet there? o.O

**KalashnikovMarine**

7th Fleet sails out of Yokosuka, but that's the point. China is specifically challenging the US's sea dominance in the Pacific.

**Themanwiththeplan**

It's posturing, but then again so was all that crap before WWII

**MeanGreenStompa**

That's a steep challenge.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Hah! Finally one of those images that displays ALL the US carriers. Most of those comparison shots only include the super-carriers. We have those little tug boats the rest of you call carriers too.

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hah! Finally one of those images that displays ALL the US carriers. Most of those comparison shots only include the super-carriers. We have those little tug boats the rest of you call carriers too.

Don't forget the subs...

**rubiksnoob**

I don't think it will come to open warfare.

**dogma**

I think Rob Wile wanted to get an article published, and tracked down an academic that wanted to have his name in the press.

One day the sense of China and the US will fail, but it is not this day.

**Ahtman**

Eh, I got nothing going on next weekend, so why not.

**Relapse**

Fun times in Taiwan if a war breaks out. I guess I'll book my "On the Beach" tour of Australia this coming month.

**LordofHats**

Saying that there will be a war within a year is... Bold...

**Ratbarf**

Well, it would be very interesting indeed if the war started and actually was contained. SImilar to how the Falklands War was contained to just the Falklands and didn't spread en masse to Argentina.

That said any military action made by either side would have to be a contained action as once the nukes fly there really isn't any going back.

Though I'm not an expert about these things, but I don't see a war happening between China and the States for at least another 20 maybe 30 years. China I think wants to be sure that it could win a conventional war with the states before they force one.

**Ouze**

If I recall, during some event at sea the US harassed Soviet vessels by flying fighters a few dozen feet over them in full afterburner to break windows. I think this sort of military peen-waving is pretty common and doesn't mean war is inevitable.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
If I recall, during some event at sea the US harassed Soviet vessels by flying fighters a few dozen feet over them in full afterburner to break windows. I think this sort of military peen-waving is pretty common and doesn't mean war is inevitable.

That sounds more than a tad apocryphal.

**Mr. Burning**

These little luke warm episodes should benefit China and their military as they look to establish tactics and evaluate effectiveness of all the new systems that they are going wild about. It keeps their military interested, their populace diverted and the leaders happy without getting too much egg on their faces.

If the USA decided to drop a carrier fleet in between the Chinese and Japanese I wouldn't expect China to do more that sabre rattling and glaring whilst still maintaining their righful claims etc.

**AustonT**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Hah! Finally one of those images that displays ALL the US carriers. Most of those comparison shots only include the super-carriers. We have those little tug boats the rest of you call carriers too.

A 40,000 ton flattop is hardly a tug boat, and yes I detect the tantalizing fragrance of sarcasm. But the LHA/LHD flattop is a maritime legal fiction just as much as Japan's "aircraft carrying" destroyers which are conspicuously absent. Which I'm sure I complained about the last time this graphic was trotted out on Dakka.
As we all know carriers are evil and whoever has the most is bent on global domination.

**Squigsquasher**

Oh, China, what are we going to do with you?

Guys. They're stupid fething rocks. Stop arguing over them.

In any case, what with Japan's abundance of giant robots and digital singing AI, I would say China doesn't stand a chance. Troops are of little use when Unit 01 is stepping on them and Hatsune Miku is vapourizing them with the power of music.

**unmercifulconker**

They can all

off if they want to kill each other, just put the leaders in a gladiatorial arena. I want to play GTA V next year in peace so leave us out of it, not invading our country means no cause for concern, lets keep it that way

Edit: I say this as if it would escalate, more countries would end up getting dragged into it, so err yeah you know lets hope the leaders can grow some balls and stop behaving like little children. With politicians though, I doubt this.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Ouze wrote:
If I recall, during some event at sea the US harassed Soviet vessels by flying fighters a few dozen feet over them in full afterburner to break windows.

Negative, Ghostrider. The pattern is full.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
I think Rob Wile wanted to get an article published, and tracked down an academic that wanted to have his name in the press.

One day the sense of China and the US will fail, but it is not this day.

China will never fight while Japan maintains its dominance in giant uber monsters.

**Cheesecat**

AustonT wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Hah! Finally one of those images that displays ALL the US carriers. Most of those comparison shots only include the super-carriers. We have those little tug boats the rest of you call carriers too.

A 40,000 ton flattop is hardly a tug boat, and yes I detect the tantalizing fragrance of sarcasm. But the LHA/LHD flattop is a maritime legal fiction just as much as Japan's "aircraft carrying" destroyers which are conspicuously absent. Which I'm sure I complained about the last time this graphic was trotted out on Dakka.
As we all know carriers are evil and whoever has the most is bent on global domination.

I just think the amount aircraft carriers you have must make it ridiculously expensive and the number of carriers you have is overkill.

**Albatross**

Meh, I assume that the Americans believe that having such massive capabilities are an effective deterrent. Which is hard to argue against, really.

Also, their current set-up is probably a lot cheaper than the cost of all-out war with their nearest competitors. There's a lot to be said for maintaining a huge advantage over your rivals - it stops them getting any funny ideas, for one. That's basically what did for us around the turn of last century. We let the Germans get too close and they challenged us. By 'us' I mean Britain.

I wasn't personally involved, obviously.

My personal belief is that countries should probably overspend on their militaries - better to have it and not need it, as they say.

**Grey Templar**

Squigsquasher wrote:
Oh, China, what are we going to do with you?

Guys. They're stupid fething rocks. Stop arguing over them.

The stupid fething rocks have oil underneath them. China wants, no, NEEDS oil.

**LordofHats**

China has large swathes of domestic oil already in their territory untapped. What they don't want is competition in the region.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, but they also want the Oil. better to have it, it is non-renewable so you should try and get as much of it as you can.

**LordofHats**

Yeah but they don't 'NEED' this oil. They only want it so the other kid on the block can't have it (and if they get to show off their fancy jets all the merrier).

**Grey Templar**

In a way, yes they do. china has a growing economy and has a massive hunger for it. They are simply planning in advance a hundred years or so.

Or they may be thinking they can sell the oil to the rest of the world.

its not a case of wanting something for no reason other than having it.

**Cheesecat**

Albatross wrote:
Meh, I assume that the Americans believe that having such massive capabilities are an effective deterrent. Which is hard to argue against, really.

Also, their current set-up is probably a lot cheaper than the cost of all-out war with their nearest competitors. There's a lot to be said for maintaining a huge advantage over your rivals - it stops them getting any funny ideas, for one. That's basically what did for us around the turn of last century. We let the Germans get too close and they challenged us. By 'us' I mean Britain.

I wasn't personally involved, obviously.

My personal belief is that countries should probably overspend on their militaries - better to have it and not need it, as they say.

Yeah, that is actually true so long as other sectors (like education, healthcare, etc) aren't suffering too badly due to excessive military spending.

**KalashnikovMarine**

If China was really hungry for oil and didn't mind going to war they'd go after the Siberian reserves. Russia would be a land and air battle, and except for the thought that it could go nuclear, it's not a fight the Russians could win.

These little rocks are ALL about squaring off with the United States, directly challenging the president and Navy's counter to China in the Pacific.