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.

If the North Korean government wanted to find evidence of unicorns, it would be found.

I would say "Cuban Missile Crisis"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
List of countries that would support Japan versus China:

USA
Canada
UK
Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea


List of countries that would support China versus Japan:

North Korea

Unfortunately, 'support' is a very loose term. It can mean anything from 'sending politely worded diplomatic messages of encouragement', to 'sending warships'. And frankly, I do not see us (the UK) doing anything to harm our trade with China over a couple of uninhabited rocks in the China Sea. It quite simply isn't our problem.

Even if the US loses their gak and goes in all guns blazing, we conveniently have the precedent of the Falklands to stay out of the fight. And I can't see many of the above nations doing much either.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
List of countries that would support Japan versus China:

USA
Canada
UK
Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea


List of countries that would support China versus Japan:

North Korea

Just curious, how did you come up with that list of who helps Japan? Not all of those have defense treaties with Japan as far as I know. Some of those I would seriously doubt can afford to contribute anything meaningful (due to domestic politics, fiscal considerations, or actual military capability).

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
List of countries that would support Japan versus China:

USA
Canada
UK
Poland
France
Belgium
Holland
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
Australia
New Zealand
The Philippines
South Korea


List of countries that would support China versus Japan:

North Korea

Just curious, how did you come up with that list of who helps Japan? Not all of those have defense treaties with Japan as far as I know. Some of those I would seriously doubt can afford to contribute anything meaningful (due to domestic politics, fiscal considerations, or actual military capability).

ASEAN and the USA have defence treaties with Japan. NATO has a defence treaty with the USA, bringing in most of Europe.

ASEAN includes most of the Asian nations except India. In a conflict between China, their most prominent rival, and everyone else, who would they be most likely to support?

I can see some countries lending support in a UN effort if China starts nailing South Korean targets.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

NATO has a defence treaty with the USA, bringing in most of Europe.

NATO only has an obligation if the US is attacked. If Japan goes to war with China, and the US goes to war alongside it because of its own treaty obligations, we're not bound to do anything we don't want to do.

And thanks to the Falklands, we have a precedent for sitting out a conflict we don't want, even if the the US does try and invoke it. The US long since failed to meet their obligations on that score.

GWOT COTW ditto.

In other words, we also have an excuse to get involved if we want to.

I do notice that India was not listed as one of the countries that would be on China's side.

That would be a mistake in my opinion.

They signed a defense agreement this year on their borders and they do a significant amount of trade now.

They have recently been conducting joint naval drills.

NATO would not jump in if the US or another NATO country is not attacked. Hell, they couldn't afford the war against Libya.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GWOT COTW ditto.

In other words, we also have an excuse to get involved if we want to.

I hate to say it, but why on earth would we WANT to get involved? I mean, taking on a world power at the other end of the world, over a couple of uninhabited rocks? I can't imagine anything that could run more opposite to UK interests. I don't think even Blair would have been crazy enough to run with that one.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I do notice that India was not listed as one of the countries that would be on China's side.

That would be a mistake in my opinion.

They signed a defense agreement this year on their borders and they do a significant amount of trade now.

They have recently been conducting joint naval drills.

India and China have been eyeing each other and engaged in a small scale game of cat and mouse for a few decades now. India also opposes Chinese territorial expansion in the South China Sea, as it interferes with certain contracts the Indian Government has made with varying other Asian governments.

Saying India would support the Chinese because of joint naval drills is like saying the Russians would support them (as they've also done them).

Depends if shipping in South China Sea starts getting nailed by "accident" by CHina and UK decides to send warships in to protect their interest (Their shipping) If the container, petrol ships flying UK flags do not avoid South China Sea if bullets start flying.

 Jihadin wrote:
Depends if shipping in South China Sea starts getting nailed by "accident" by CHina and UK decides to send warships in to protect their interest (Their shipping) If the container, petrol ships flying UK flags do not avoid South China Sea if bullets start flying.

I cannot conceive of a single good reason, politically or militarily, for China to send warships to attack the commercial shipping of a power with greater maritime strength than it, that is not engaged in hostilities against it. Even more so when the aforementioned shipping would be quite a ways away from the actual combat zone (around the Senkaku islands).

No one said the Chinese had brilliant strategy. I doubt their Navy would last long once the U.S. got involved any way. Their fleet is lacking.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
No one said the Chinese had brilliant strategy.

No, but if one postulates that the Chinese military might do something, one usually needs a reason for believing that other than 'those silly Chinese people don't know anything about war, and could do all kinds of crazy stupid things!'.

We're a little advance to be doing ship to ship firing. Looking missiles either from ships aircraft and/or mainland. Example be "Silkworm".

 Jihadin wrote:
We're a little advance to be doing ship to ship firing. Looking missiles either from ships aircraft and/or mainland. Example be "Silkworm".

I'm not arguing particularly over they'll do it. I'll repeat with a slight edit for you:-

I cannot conceive of a single good reason, politically or militarily, for China to attack the commercial shipping of a power with greater maritime strength than it, that is not engaged in hostilities against it. Even more so when the aforementioned shipping would be quite a ways away from the actual combat zone (around the Senkaku islands)

If you can, please bring it up.

So anti ship missiles are 110% positive that it can hit the right target?

 Jihadin wrote:
So anti ship missiles are 110% positive that it can hit the right target?

So hang on a minute. Your argument that Britain might enter into a war against China, is because the Chinese might be firing missiles at shipping a very long way away from the combat zone, and might accidentally miss and hit a British ship?

Man, that is some of the longest stretching for a reason to go to war that I have ever heard.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
They most likely aren't recreating the rise of the 3rd Reich, but they've increased their military spending by roughly 800% over the last 13 years..

And yet the United States still spends four times that amount.

And won't stop anytime soon, because we're not stupid enough to try and reach parity for a fair fight.

The amount spent is never an accurate accounting of the capabilities of the forces. How much does a US trooper get paid? In his retirement? How much are his medical costs from service to death? How much to the Chinese pay for those types of costs? That is just one example of why direct $$ to $$ spent doesn't really tell the story.

Not to mention we actually have a Navy. Something China is only now starting to dabble in.

Last big Chinese foray into the open ocean in force was with some guy named Zheng He in the 1400s.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not to mention we actually have a Navy. Something China is only now starting to dabble in.

Last big Chinese foray into the open ocean in force was with some guy named Zheng He in the 1400s.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-panel-china-navy-power-growing-pacific-151501867--politics.html

http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Backgrounder_China's%20Naval%20Modernization%20and%20Implications%20for%20the%20United%20States.pdf

They're just "starting", but they're aiming big. They'll be a major naval power by the end of the decade if they continue this trend. Largest and most capable in the Pacific, after ourselves.

I wonder how much of their increased military spending is just because of an expanding navy.

It could largely account for the increase, its not something they can really cut corners on. Like soldier pay and benefits.

 CptJake wrote:
The amount spent is never an accurate accounting of the capabilities of the forces. How much does a US trooper get paid? In his retirement? How much are his medical costs from service to death? How much to the Chinese pay for those types of costs? That is just one example of why direct $$ to $$ spent doesn't really tell the story.

Bingo. We spend just as much on personnel costs as China's defense budget. The numbers they pay their troops are kept close at hand, but I read a story that they are offering their troops a $900 a year bonus to attend college. This demonstrates two things. 1, that they aren't paying their troops a lot in comparison to us, and 2 that the money they are paying them goes relatively far, if $900 a year is supposed to cover education costs. A point I've always liked to make when comparing how much the Chinese spend on their budget compaired to ours, is that their money tends to go further due to the value of things. Their MBT, which is supposed to be equivalent to our M1-A1 (which probably isn't equivalent, but still formidable), costs 1/3rd what the M1 costs. The Chinese, to use a pun, certainly do get more bang for their buck.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not to mention we actually have a Navy. Something China is only now starting to dabble in.

Last big Chinese foray into the open ocean in force was with some guy named Zheng He in the 1400s.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-panel-china-navy-power-growing-pacific-151501867--politics.html

http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Backgrounder_China's%20Naval%20Modernization%20and%20Implications%20for%20the%20United%20States.pdf

They're just "starting", but they're aiming big. They'll be a major naval power by the end of the decade if they continue this trend. Largest and most capable in the Pacific, after ourselves.

Eh. I'd disagree, somewhat. Naval power is naval air power, these days, and you can't just gin up a naval aviation program in a couple years. Until there's nothing in the air but unmanned aircraft, they're going to be way behind.

What's the old saying? The most powerful navy in the world is the United States Navy. The second most powerful navy in the world is a United States Navy carrier group. Everything else comes third or worse.

I have always wondered when sometimes too much high tech stuff is just too much.

Get 2 battle tanks instead of 1, with the only difference being some extra snazzy electronic equipment.

Look, Dakkadakka is not a Political Science forum. No offence. UN security council countries don't go to war with each other. end of story.

There's always a first time.

walkiflalka wrote:
Look, Dakkadakka is not a Political Science forum.

You've obviously not read anything in Off-Topic before then...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I have always wondered when sometimes too much high tech stuff is just too much.

Get 2 battle tanks instead of 1, with the only difference being some extra snazzy electronic equipment.

Especially since the Chinese tanks have equipment that is supposed to screw over our special electronic equipments.