China establishes 'air-defence zone' over East China Sea

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.

**Tyran**

Seaward wrote:
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.

Yeah because a larger military would save the US of the Chinese nukes if it comes to war... oh wait it doesn't.

US military main function is dickwaving, it could easily crush any other military in the world with only a fraction with its power, but nukes make war with any other nuclear capable country a stupid idea.

**Grey Templar**

Which is why we've invested in the ability to shoot nukes down.

Not to mention a massive amount of our own nukes.

Nukes really are the best deterrent to their own use. Even if a real war started, nobody wants to pull that trigger. Only people who'd be stupid enough to actually set a nuke off would be terrorists.

**Jihadin**

That "Mutually Assured Destruction" Doctrine we all have to say kept everyone finger off that trigger.

**Tyran**

They are a deterrent to existential threads.

Yeah China isn't going to use them for something as petty as a proxy war or a skirmish, but if the US goes crazy and tries to invade mainland China, then China is going to say "back off or I will start the Apocalypse"

**Grey Templar**

And nobody is interested in invading China. We are interested in keeping them in their place.

Any war against them would be a war of containment.

**Tyran**

Which isn't going to happen, China isn't going to attack Japan while Japan is under the US protection, and Japan isn't going to attack China because it would lose the US support.

**Bromsy**

Tyran wrote:
Which isn't going to happen, China isn't going to attack Japan while Japan is under the US protection, and Japan isn't going to attack China because it would lose the US support.

Well, thank Odin that's settled, let's all go home.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Grey Templar wrote:
Which is why we've invested in the ability to shoot nukes down.

Not to mention a massive amount of our own nukes.

Nukes really are the best deterrent to their own use. Even if a real war started, nobody wants to pull that trigger. Only people who'd be stupid enough to actually set a nuke off would be terrorists.

There's a small country in the same area under discussion that would like to remind you of it's existence.

**Ketara**

Things are getting interesting.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/24/uk-china-japan-idUKBRE9AM0EG20131124

Xinhua said the latest rules came into force on Saturday and China's air force conducted its first patrol over the zone. The patrol included early warning aircraft and fighters, it said.

Japan, for its part, scrambled fighter jets on Saturday afternoon against two Chinese reconnaissance planes over the East China Sea, the Japanese Defence Ministry said.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/23/china-japan-usa-pentagon-idUKL2N0J80MP20131123

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Saturday that the U.S. military would not change how it conducts operations in the East China Sea after what he called a "destabilizing" attempt by China to alter the status quo in the region.

"This announcement by the People's Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25050493

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has described China's move to create a new "air defence identification zone" over disputed waters as "dangerous".

China's action had "no validity whatsoever on Japan", Mr Abe added.

On Sunday, Yang Yujun, a spokesman for China's Ministry of National Defence, said Japan's reaction was "absolutely groundless and unacceptable". "We strongly require the Japanese side to stop all moves that undermine China's territorial sovereignty as well as irresponsible remarks that misguide international opinions and create regional tensions," Mr Yang said. He also demanded that the US "earnestly respect China's national security [and] stop making irresponsible remarks for China's setup of the East China Sea Air Defence Identification Zone"

In other words, both the US and Japan have told China to get bent, in more diplomatically worded language. And I'm not surprised. Just look at the actual area China seems to be trying to impose air control on! It's three quarters of the way to Japan!

**Mr. Burning**

It'll be informative for China as the well get to practice intercepts and stage runs against a carrier group.

Interesting the ADIZ also covers Taiwan from the NE

**KalashnikovMarine**

Heh any further out and it'd be covering fore sure Japanese islands like Oki.

**Frazzled**

Ketara wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25062525

China has demarcated an "air-defence identification zone" over an area of the East China Sea, covering islands that are also claimed by Japan.

China's defence ministry said aircraft entering the zone must obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".

The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are a source of rising tension between the countries.

Japan lodged a strong protest over what it said was an "escalation".

Since President Xi Jinping took power a year ago, he has overseen a more muscular effort to assert Chinese control over disputed territories in East and South China seas.

His nationalist approach, backed-up by large increases in spending on the armed forces, is welcomed by many in China. But it has led to increasing tension with almost all of China's neighbours. Many, like Japan, have defence agreements with the United States, which has long sought to preserve the balance of power in Asia.

The fear is that one small incident, for example between Chinese and Japanese vessels or aircraft, could escalate rapidly into a far wider and more serious crisis.

"Setting up such airspace unilaterally escalates the situations surrounding Senkaku islands and has danger of leading to an unexpected situation," Japan's foreign ministry said in a statement.

Taiwan, which also claims the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, expressed regret at the move and promised that the military would take measure to protect national security.

In its statement, the Chinese defence ministry said aircraft must report a flight plan, "maintain two-way radio communications", and "respond in a timely and accurate manner" to identification inquiries.

"China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not co-operate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions," said the statement.

It said the zone came into effect from 10:00 local time (02:00GMT) on Saturday.

State news agency Xinhua showed a map on its website covering a wide area of the East China Sea, including regions very close to South Korea and Japan.

Responding to questions about the zone on an official state website, a defence ministry spokesman, Yang Yujun, said China set up the area "with the aim of safeguarding state sovereignty, territorial land and air security, and maintaining flight order".

"It is not directed against any specific country or target," he said, adding that China "has always respected the freedom of over-flight in accordance with international law".

map of east china sea and declared air defence zone
"Normal flights by international airliners in the East China Sea air-defence identification zone will not be affected in any way."

The islands have been a source of tension between China and Japan for decades.

In 2012, the Japanese government bought three of the islands from their Japanese owner, sparking mass protests in Chinese cities.

Since then, Chinese ships have repeatedly sailed in and out of what Japan says are its territorial waters.

In September this year, Japan said it would shoot down unmanned aircraft in Japanese airspace after an unmanned Chinese drone flew close to the disputed islands.

China said that any attempt by Japan to shoot down Chinese aircraft would constitute "an act of war".

Last month Japan's defence minister, Itsunori Onodera, said China's behaviour over the disputed East China Sea islands was jeopardising peace.

BBC World Service East Asia editor Charles Scanlon says the confrontation over the small chain of uninhabited islands is made more intractable by conflicting claims for potentially rich energy resources on the sea bed.

But the issue has now become a nationalist touchstone in both countries, making it hard for either side to be seen to back down, he says.

So.....in a potential escalation, whereby Japan sends in an aircraft to blow up a Chinese drone in what has now effectively been declared Chinese airspace, what happens next? Do any of you think the Chinese would take the next step of going to a war footing with Japan? Do the US get involved? If the US get involved, does that drag in everyone in NATO into a squabble over a handful of uninhabited islands on the other side of the world?

I'm inclined to think it's a 'no' the the latter one, but the rest seems plausible enough from where I'm sitting. Certainly, nations have gone to war over more stupid reasons.

Time for Japan to break out the Robot Suit Gundams. Here's to one war in Asia we should stay out of (ok maybe sell them both stuff).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

List of countries that might mistakenly get into a war with China over Japan?
US maybe
UK maybe.

Any conflict breaking out would quikly result in the end of South Korea as a state as NK invades.
No, let Japan settle their own affairs. Its not our fight. Neither party is an ally to the US in reality. No matter who loses, we win.

**Tyran**

Frazzled wrote:

List of countries that might mistakenly get into a war with China over Japan?
US maybe
UK maybe.

Any conflict breaking out would quikly result in the end of South Korea as a state as NK invades.
No, let Japan settle their own affairs. Its not our fight. Neither party is an ally to the US in reality. No matter who loses, we win.

I'm almost sure that SK wins that one.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Time for Japan to break out the Robot Suit Gundams.

This is the ideal answer to most problems.

**Easy E**

Just more nationalistic sabre rattling to keep the average Chinese citizen's mind off the craziness going on in their own country. China is a melting pot with many competing interests. These interests can be kept in line for the moment with propoganda and mutual self-interest. However, they do not have the "emergency vents" of a ballot box to keep these groups together forever.

In China's future is a lot of unrest due to labor issues, burgeoning national identities, demands for democratization, social inequality, and other culture issues. Think of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or even Guilded Age US history.

Of course, I could be very, very wrong.

**chaos0xomega**

Just a two points I wanted to make:

1. The US has the most powerful and capable military in the WORLD. Unfortunately, that military is spread out over the WORLD, and not entirely concentrated in one area like the Chinese military. Yes, we have a larger, more capable Navy than the Chinese, unfortunately that Navy is spread out across the entire world, and unlike the Chinese we won't be able to concentrate the entire Navy in theeater because we have obligations elsewhere. The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out. Unless there is a doctrine change somewhere, they are also on track to become the most powerful Navy in the Pacific.

2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Time for Japan to break out the Robot Suit Gundams.

This is the ideal answer to most problems.

Indeed. Heartbreak of psoriasis - robot suit gundam. Need some ketchup for you hot dog? - robot suit gundam...

**Seaward**

chaos0xomega wrote:
The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out.

That isn't saying much. Again, you can't just create competent naval aviation in a year, or even in a decade. You can't create effective naval aviation using refurbished Russian carriers, because those sucked even when they were first built.

**CptJake**

Seaward wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out.

That isn't saying much. Again, you can't just create competent naval aviation in a year, or even in a decade. You can't create effective naval aviation using refurbished Russian carriers, because those sucked even when they were first built.

As long as they are content to play in the box they have currently drawn, they have no need for naval air. Land based works just fine. Unless they are trying to project power much further out they are good with what they have.

**Mr. Burning**

CptJake wrote:
Seaward wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out.

That isn't saying much. Again, you can't just create competent naval aviation in a year, or even in a decade. You can't create effective naval aviation using refurbished Russian carriers, because those sucked even when they were first built.

As long as they are content to play in the box they have currently drawn, they have no need for naval air. Land based works just fine. Unless they are trying to project power much further out they are good with what they have.

The Chinese are also exponentially improving their military assets and their operations. The longer they have the better they will become.

**chaos0xomega**

CptJake wrote:
Seaward wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
The Chinese are on track to become the second most powerful Navy in the world by the end of this decade as someone else pointed out.

That isn't saying much. Again, you can't just create competent naval aviation in a year, or even in a decade. You can't create effective naval aviation using refurbished Russian carriers, because those sucked even when they were first built.

As long as they are content to play in the box they have currently drawn, they have no need for naval air. Land based works just fine. Unless they are trying to project power much further out they are good with what they have.

What CptJake said. Thats the problem with so many military "thinkers" today. They thing that to be an effective match against us you have to have equivalent capability, and that is definitely not the case. China has realized it doesn't need to be a global military power to be a global economic and political power, it has all the resources it will need basically sitting in its back yard, and as such only needs to assert regional dominance to be an effective counterpoint to the US (or anyone else) in the economic and political spectrums. China doesn't need American style power projection to defeat the US in a shooting war, because if it does go to war with us, they will fight us on their terms, which means we will go to them, and when that occurs they are in a better position to fight us than we are them. Their only real near field competition are India and Russia, who they are attempting to build better relations while simultaneously equipping themselves with technology and doctrine to defeat those very same threats as well.

And as for Russian carriers sucking, again, the problem with American military thinkers. Russian (more precisely Soviet) naval aviation was not and never was intended to be used in the same manner as American naval aviation. Those carriers, and the capabilities they brought to the field, were more than adequate for their intended roles.

**djones520**

Good summation Chaos.

**whembly**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Just a two points I wanted to make:

2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).

Um...

While China holds a gak ton of the US' debt... I think CHINA would loath for the US to get involved. They want us to keep up with the payments after all.

**Grey Templar**

Maybe we should remind them of that. Get them back in their own waters.

**djones520**

whembly wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Just a two points I wanted to make:

2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).

Um...

While China holds a gak ton of the US' debt... I think CHINA would loath for the US to get involved. They want us to keep up with the payments after all.

We are, by treaty, obliged to aid Japan in a conflict over the Islands in question. Yet China is still provoking over them. What does that say?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Japan also owns far more of our debt, people forget that.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
whembly wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Just a two points I wanted to make:

2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).

Um...

While China holds a gak ton of the US' debt... I think CHINA would loath for the US to get involved. They want us to keep up with the payments after all.

We are, by treaty, obliged to aid Japan in a conflict over the Islands in question. Yet China is still provoking over them. What does that say?

I don't know... can the Chinese be rationalized?

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

We are, by treaty, obliged to aid Japan in a conflict over the Islands in question. Yet China is still provoking over them. What does that say?

Which treaty?

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Japan also owns far more of our debt, people forget that.

That's true... but China's isn't insignificant.

**chaos0xomega**

whembly wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Just a two points I wanted to make:

2. The argument that we are Chinas largest trading partner and their economy is dependent on ours, etc. as a reason why there won't be a war is invalid. History is full of examples of nations that engaged in war with one another despite the economic incentive not to, this is especially clear in World War 1 (in the case of the US and Germany who were major trading partners, didn't stop the Germans from torpedoing american shipping bound for other ports), and World War 2 (Germany and the Soviets were likewise huge trading partners, we all know how that went down).

Um...

While China holds a gak ton of the US' debt... I think CHINA would loath for the US to get involved. They want us to keep up with the payments after all.

Again, history shows that that isn't enough to prevent a war from breaking out. World War 1 and World War 2 in particular both show us that economic interdependence is not a barrier to war. In fact, thats actually a theory that has been debated in scholarly circles for the better part of a century, and experience has shown that the side trumpeting globalization as a means to global peace is sadly misguided.

Also, the "gakload" of American debt that China holds is only 8% of the gross, and hardly a major % of Chinas total holdings in foreign debt, and the US only accounts for 17% of Chinas exports, and that number is dropping, so the idea that we are so economically tied to one another that war would destroy our respective economies is actually a myth perpetrated by people that don't know the reality of the situation.