Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China Creates Air Defence Zone Over Japan-Controlled Islands, Issues War Threat

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the halt-who-goes-there dept.

China 519

cold fjord writes "France24 reports, "Beijing on Saturday announced it was setting up an 'air defence identification zone' over an area that includes islands controlled by Japan but claimed by China, in a move that could inflame the bitter territorial row. Along with the creation of the zone in the East China Sea, the defence ministry released a set of aircraft identification rules that must be followed by all planes entering the area, under penalty of intervention by the military. Aircraft are expected to provide their flight plan, clearly mark their nationality, and maintain two-way radio communication allowing them to 'respond in a timely and accurate manner to the identification inquiries' from Chinese authorities. The outline of the new zone ... covers a wide area of the East China Sea between South Korea and Taiwan that includes the Tokyo-controlled islands known as the Senkakus to Japan and Diaoyous to China. "China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions," according to the ministry. ' The Politico adds, "Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Saturday the United States is 'deeply concerned'" over the move. Spiegel Online has background on the conflict with Japan and on related regional issues. This announcement follows the recent publication in Chinese state media of maps showing nuclear strike plans against the U.S."

cancel ×

519 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

War (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 8 months ago | (#45509395)

... and so it begins.

Begins? (5, Insightful)

game kid (805301) | about 8 months ago | (#45509429)

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:Begins? (2)

Cryacin (657549) | about 8 months ago | (#45509481)

War never changes.

Re:Begins? (3, Interesting)

lookingglass (2935519) | about 8 months ago | (#45509671)

War. War never changes. Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage. (many thanks to Fallout 3)

Re:Begins? (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 8 months ago | (#45509893)

That's literally true. Japan and Russia at least are still at war.

Re:War (2)

phrostie (121428) | about 8 months ago | (#45509469)

every few years i get the crazy idea that we've out grown this sh#t.

but no, not this time either.

Re:War (5, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | about 8 months ago | (#45509745)

Civil War seems more likely. All of this posturing seems to be more intended to impress their own people then outsiders and can be read as a government nervous about keeping its all powerful image to an increasingly wealthy population.

Re:War (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45509785)

This. When you have internal dissent at home, you make up external existential threats.

Hell, it works for us doesn't it?

Most of this will be about internal politics (4, Interesting)

gilgongo (57446) | about 8 months ago | (#45509403)

Far east Asian foreign policy is even more about playing off internal factions than it is in the West. I bet this is just a case of the Chinese making nasty noises in the hope that a) somebody will be placated, and b) Japan will know this and just play along until things die down.

The chances of nukes and bang bangs over this are very, very low. See also North Korea.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (2)

gilgongo (57446) | about 8 months ago | (#45509441)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands [wikipedia.org] :

"The island group consists of five uninhabited islets and three barren rocks."

In other words, purely symbolic and having no real impact on anyone. These ain't no Falkland Islands.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (5, Informative)

dugancent (2616577) | about 8 months ago | (#45509459)

They don't care about the islands, they care about the water around them. They are abundant in fish and oil/natural gas.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45509801)

Hell, we can fix this in one jiffy.

A bunch of bottom trawlers to wipe out the fauna.

Haliburton and friends to set up some side drilling rigs at the periphery of the military zone and make some very long straws.
Then all you have is some stinking desert.

The free market wins again. No need for the military folk.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (5, Informative)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 8 months ago | (#45509487)

It's far more than symbolic. Controlling the islands grants access to the large Economic Exclusion Zone around them and the fishing fields, oil/gas resources and any other natural resources..

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (1, Informative)

Razalhague (1497249) | about 8 months ago | (#45509575)

Yup. This isn't about the land, this is about the sea around it.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (2)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 8 months ago | (#45509813)

A lot of these island disputes would go away if these "economic exclusion zones" were redefined from "N km from the shore" to "minimum(N, sqrt(area of island)) km from shore". It would make more sense, as well.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509891)

The are a number of legitimate small island nations that would suffer greatly under the new definition.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (3, Interesting)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 8 months ago | (#45509975)

Try this definition [un.org] . It's really special. Amusingly, in a dispute between US fisherman and the Canadian government, lawyers once successfully argued that scallops are not "sedentary species" because they don't push against the bottom to move themselves. USA loves this "continental shelf" extension past the old 200 mile limit for claiming petroleum resources in the Gulf of Mexico.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (4, Informative)

hargrand (1301911) | about 8 months ago | (#45509529)

It's more than purely symbolic. There are extensive undeveloped natural resources in the area which the Chinese would like to control. The islands also lie at a strategic location between the Pacific and the East China Sea, and just north of Taiwan. If the Japanese, Americans and Taiwanese do nothing to abate this, the Chinese will be emboldened to act more aggressively in the area.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (3, Informative)

gtall (79522) | about 8 months ago | (#45509967)

Not just this area, China is claiming all the ocean down to the Philippines. China has driven several of the SE Asian countries closer to the U.S. Even Vietnam wants to cuddle closer to the U.S.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509617)

What the other repliers said... whilst adding that even the Falkland Islands ain't no Falkland Islands since there's yet to be any oil production afaik.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45510047)

But it's about control over this:
https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/404084141156626432/photo/1
which is not symbolic at all.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509493)

The chances are low, but the possible damage is so high than even a 1% chance of it happening is too high to be accepted.

Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509839)

very, very low

China is asserting itself. If it senses weakness in the US it will attack unarmed perimeter nations. That's the way of the species. The Chinese government has never ceased its war mongering propaganda about foreign powers; the West, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Its subjects support this aggression and will support more. Apologists that give reason to pretend otherwise will be the cause of great violence, as usual.

..and now you see why (0, Flamebait)

xtal (49134) | about 8 months ago | (#45509425)

We need an updated, modern, and effective nuclear arsenal.

If you don't defend your way of life, bad men will come and take it from you. Sometimes they are the bad men, and sometimes you are. History is funny that way.

I don't have any problem with nuclear weapons - they're a fact of life now. I just want ours to be the best.. and if anyone launches, it needs to be understood, completely, your entire right to exist as a nation. There can be no other peace.

Reality, sometimes, is grim stuff.

Re:..and now you see why (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509533)

The issue is that it is often some few people at the top who are in secret bunkers ordering the missiles fired, where us wage drones living in large cities take the blast. When we incendiary bombed Germany factory workers were the main targets. I don't think it will be too much different now.

Re:..and now you see why (1)

xtal (49134) | about 8 months ago | (#45509971)

I expect anyone who launches a nuclear war will have to come out of the bunkers, sooner or later.

Re:..and now you see why (5, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | about 8 months ago | (#45509645)

"I don't have any problem with nuclear weapons - they're a fact of life now. I just want ours to be the best."

I agree. Knowing that our nukes are shinier than China's will make our death so much more satisfying.

Re:..and now you see why (1)

xtal (49134) | about 8 months ago | (#45509981)

I'm more interested in knowing that in the time between when a launch is detected and confirmed on the west coast of North America, their fate as a nation will be sealed forever and all time, thus ensuring MAD is upheld.

Re:..and now you see why (1)

dk20 (914954) | about 8 months ago | (#45509737)

Sometimes those "wars" are on the other side of the world and don't really impact you?

Re:..and now you see why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509747)

Now you see why when we have an opportunity to cut a mutually satisfactory deal with Iran, we take it. We can't afford to wage simultaneous wars all over the globe.

Cue SDI (3, Interesting)

Shavano (2541114) | about 8 months ago | (#45509433)

I want to disable those missiles during their launch phase. Or better, hack their software so they detonate immediately when ordered to launch. That is how I want the NSA to spend its money. And of course making sure they can't do the same to us.

Re:Cue SDI (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509665)

On a similar line, what's more likely? Chinese-made chips inside USA missiles or American-made chips inside Chinese ones? Maybe the war has already been fought and won.

Re:Cue SDI (5, Informative)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about 8 months ago | (#45509759)

Maybe the war has already been fought and won.

That's how Sun Tzu says to do things. The victorious warrior wins first and then goes to war, while the defeated warrior goes to war first and then seeks to win.

Re:Cue SDI (1, Troll)

jythie (914043) | about 8 months ago | (#45509767)

Given how often Chinese companies copy US designs verbatim, it is actually a bit of a toss up there.

Re:Cue SDI (1)

JonBoy47 (2813759) | about 8 months ago | (#45509999)

The current US enduring stockpile consists entirely of weapons designed, and physically manufactured, prior to the end of the Cold War. Many of the delivery systems (the Minuteman III and Trident II come to mind) are similarly antique. Virtually all of China's domestic "R&D" has been the product of reverse-engineering. Today they're able to rip off western manufacturers who've been railroaded into setting up shop in "joint ventures" with domestic concerns. Back during the Cold War the best they were able to do was rip off the Soviets, who were themselves ripping us off...

Blast those yellow reds to hell ? (1)

burni2 (1643061) | about 8 months ago | (#45509717)

You just started a fire!

Re:Cue SDI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509769)

That's great until it fails to work, after you plan around the capability. Better to preemptively create situations where accidents happen.

Seems "normal" enough? (0)

dave562 (969951) | about 8 months ago | (#45509437)

So basically China finally had radar that is accurate enough to deliver SAMs into that air space. Now they want people who are using it to register themselves.

I am sure that there is some Internet analogy that fits here. Something about Authoritative SAM Controllers and properly registered airline assets?

"Aircraft are expected to provide their flight plan, clearly mark their nationality, and maintain two-way radio communication allowing them to 'respond in a timely and accurate manner to the identification inquiries' from Chinese authorities. "

Maybe the Chinese are upset about not having a more powerful voice over ICANN, and this is how they are expressing that frustration?

Re:Seems "normal" enough? (0)

dave562 (969951) | about 8 months ago | (#45509623)

Pro "Normalcy" post moderated -1 right off the bat?

Hmmmmmm.

Re:Seems "normal" enough? (5, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | about 8 months ago | (#45510011)

It doesn't have anything to do with ICANN. It has everything to do with China realizing it cannot keep expanding its economy without a lock on a lot more natural resources. They've already claimed most of the S. China Sea all the way down the Philippines. Their "deals" in Africa are designed to lock in their claim to Africa's natural resources. They have even expressed an interest in making claims in the Arctic.

Put quickly, there is no governor on China's ambitions. Their domestic politics requires them to keep their young people supplied with enough interest in economic gain so that they don't turn to political interests. They also see the U.S. as a declining power.

This is only the beginning. It will be rough century.

How is this Spongeworthy? (-1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 8 months ago | (#45509449)

Sorry for the Seinfeldism but how is this high tech, geek/nerd related? This is saber rattling. Now if you had maybe a science connection like "China Air Defense System Causes Jellyfish Bloom in China Sea!" or "China Air Defense Grab Causes Large Tsunami" then I might be interested.

Re:How is this Spongeworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509501)

>stuff that matters

It's an escalation of an ongoing territorial dispute between two nations with bad enough blood between the two as it is. I'd say this falls into the 'stuff that matters' category.

Re:How is this Spongeworthy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509629)

Most of our gadgets are built in China - a good portion of those are designed in Japan. China vs. Japan seems extremely relevant to anyone who plays video games, at least... if we care about the console war, we should maybe care about an actual war.

Re:How is this Spongeworthy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509765)

Shut up.

Re:How is this Spongeworthy? (4, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#45509835)

Sorry for the Seinfeldism but how is this high tech, geek/nerd related? This is saber rattling. Now if you had maybe a science connection like "China Air Defense System Causes Jellyfish Bloom in China Sea!" or "China Air Defense Grab Causes Large Tsunami" then I might be interested.

Then submit [slashdot.org] a better article. :)

Stand down or hot war. (1)

jthill (303417) | about 8 months ago | (#45509457)

Those have to be their options, or the arrogant idiots driving this move will never quit.

Re:Stand down or hot war. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509563)

Uhmm... I'm not sure if it's really the smartest thing in the world to do to issue a penultimatum to an entity that's genuinely powerful enough to take you down and out of the game, permanently.

Re:Stand down or hot war. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509965)

In what way is a nuclear war a better option than endless border disputes?

Well. (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | about 8 months ago | (#45509495)

I guess China wrote off our debt-marker now. Can our debt drop by a couple trillion?

One big flood (2)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 8 months ago | (#45509505)

China is always just about one big flood away from revolution. I wonder if they are trying to set up a distraction.

Re:One big flood (4, Funny)

dk20 (914954) | about 8 months ago | (#45509751)

You mean their own "war on communism/drugs/terror"?

Free Tibet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509515)

Gotta say, I am not impressed by mods, loading this comment poorly, whenever an article about China's politics comes up.

China/CCP has occupied Tibet and because of cheap consumer products and cheaper ethics, many ignore the human rights abuses, including the UN....

Wither the artists against Apartheid, that helped Free South Africa? Small chance of a boycott against China :-/

Fundamentals need to be reassessed. The UNHDR of 1948, is a excellent starting point.

China/CCP is such a switched on place, the Dalia Lama is labelled as a terrorist. Still, so was Steve Biko & Nelson Mandala.

Free Tibet Forever!

Re:Free Tibet! (3, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 8 months ago | (#45509933)

So they can go to what? The previous brutal theocracy that was considered by historians to be one of the more brutal regimes of the time?

For all the rage that chinese deserve, Tibet is not one of the places they deserve it for. The only reason we here in the West view the issue as such is because of current Dalai Lama's skilled diplomacy.

Read up on region's history. Theocratic system that they had in place makes current chinese government look better than Swiss. And let's not forget that over half of the region is now ethnic han. Are you planning on some ethnic cleansing on the side?

for internal consumption_fear not China (0, Troll)

globaljustin (574257) | about 8 months ago | (#45509523)

TFA is practically Chinese Government propaganda...

Someone is bucking for a promotion, or angling for some kickbacks on new radar systems...

China is a 3rd world country wholly dependent economically on the US...China's economy is only as good as the 'Full faith and credit' of the US Bond's it is based on

China's military is not a threat. Japan, the US, Korea, and Russia will all oppose anything they would do, ***and they know this***

China is a **communist country*** with **state controlled media**

China is North Korea lite...the diet coke of North Korea

Re:for internal consumption_fear not China (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 8 months ago | (#45509739)

China is a 3rd world country wholly dependent economically on the US...China's economy is only as good as the 'Full faith and credit' of the US Bond's it is based on.

That's about 20 years out of date.

Re:for internal consumption_fear not China (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509811)

Actually it was never correct. China is in fact a second-world country.

Re:for internal consumption_fear not China (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about 8 months ago | (#45509877)

I don't know what propoganda you have been reading but in practical terms this is just not the case. China has a working modern industrial base, and natural resources to power it. The Chinese also have a command economy and a central bank run by the ruling party.

Yes they have lots of their wealth invested in our bonds, which they would very likely be deprived of if a armed conflict broke out. It would not derail their economy though. Right now all that money owed in bonds is effectively in the mattress for some future use. Compared to our side the trade where all that money is doing work in the present day economy. The price shock on the issuing of new debt with a major buyer suddenly out of the market might very well do us more harm than any good that could come of the write down. We'd have at least a short term economic disruption on our hands; China would be much more business as usual. That is just the financial part...Now think about all the supply chain issues we would face.

Re:for internal consumption_fear not China (1)

dk20 (914954) | about 8 months ago | (#45510053)

Europe surpassed the US as China's largest export market.
Wonder what would happen to the US economy if the "full faith and credit" was questioned?

The US and China are both locked in pretty tight with each other and they both know it.

Escorts (2)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 8 months ago | (#45509531)

It's expensive, but call their bluff and escort every craft in that airspace.

Re:Escorts (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509555)

They've considered this, but have found that strapping prostitutes to the hard mounts would have little to no safety benefits.

China just wants to expand its sphere of influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509569)

Now that should sound familiar. The only question is whether they will plan and execute an attack against the U.S. I don't think it's a coincidence that they are beating the drum while the U.S. President and Congress appear quite weak to outsiders.

What will be the power keg that sets off the next major conflagration? Time will tell.

Re:China just wants to expand its sphere of influe (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45510035)

If China wanted to bring the US to its knees, all it would have to do is embargo shipments of iPhones and iPads. Enraged Americans would burn Washington DC to the ground & lynch the elected officials who made it happen. And if that didn't do the trick, China's government could widen the iOS embargo to include our friends in Europe, at which point the EU would seize NATO's military assets and attack us with them until China lifted the embargo and allowed Apple products to flow freely into their nations again.

Don't appease aggression (2)

schwit1 (797399) | about 8 months ago | (#45509601)

It only makes the aggressor more aggressive. If you want a history lesson see Munich 1938.

I have to wonder if the Chinese are using Obama's appeasement of Iran's nuclear program as an opportunity to test the west.

Re:Don't appease aggression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509771)

It's "obama's appeasement" to offer an alternative to Israeli war drums, riiiiight.

Re:Don't appease aggression (5, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 8 months ago | (#45509787)

Err, dont look now, but this is *exactly* the internal logic in China that is leading them to assert themselves like this. Only they see the US as the aggressive power that's been appeased for too long already, and that case actually seems a bit stronger than the reverse. It's not like China allied with Mexico and started supplying them with weapons and encouraging them to stir up old border disputes - but that's exactly what the US is doing in e.g. the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, etc.

Re:Don't appease aggression (5, Informative)

gtall (79522) | about 8 months ago | (#45510059)

Yes and no. Vietnam cuddled up to the U.S., not the other way around. They felt threatened by China. Can you imagine that?

The Philippines told the U.S. to go suck eggs years ago when they closed the U.S. bases. Then the Muslims in the south got armed and pissed, the Philippines decided a bit of military training with U.S. advisers would be acceptable. But China next decided they owned the entire S. China Sea right down the Philippines. The Philippine government then more or less said, "bases, shmases, let's be buddies again like the good old days when you booted out the Japanese."

China brought increased U.S. involvement in SE Asia on themselves.

Re:Don't appease aggression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509807)

Not to be confused with the Chinese using the quagmire in the middle east, or the reach-around from GWBush, or the flight of US capitol to East Asia that's been happening for the past 20 years. Granted, Obama normalizing relations in the region so we can swing to Pacific could some how be seen as appeasement.

Only partly joking... (1, Interesting)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 8 months ago | (#45509619)

I have kids, whenever I have two kids who behave like this, the first thing I do it take away whatever they are fighting over.

What would happen (I say someone, but not completely jokingly) if the US sent in a Carrier Battle Group, claimed the uninhabited islands for ourselves and set up a base, proclaiming "if you two can't work it out, neither one of you can have them. Thanks for the gift...

Yes, I know it isn't that simple, but maybe it should be sometimes when two nations behave in such a manner.

Re:Only partly joking... (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 8 months ago | (#45509683)

our Carrier Battle Groups use Chinese Chips.

Re:Only partly joking... (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 8 months ago | (#45509993)

Actually, Intel makes many of its CPUs right here in the US. I would imagine (and hope) that one of the requirements of the US military is that our CPUs and technology must be produced here for national security reasons.

Re: Only partly joking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509685)

Japan has done nothing to deserve losing these islands.

Re: Only partly joking... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 8 months ago | (#45509885)

Except invading Poland, twice.

Re:Only partly joking... (1)

FunkyRider (1128099) | about 8 months ago | (#45509695)

Oh stupid yankees how ignorant can you get?!

Re:Only partly joking... (1)

HangingChad (677530) | about 8 months ago | (#45509795)

Except it's halfway around the world for us and in their backyard. If the world needs policeman, then the world should put up the money to pay for them.

Re:Only partly joking... (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 8 months ago | (#45510013)

Well, ok then... we could just take the oil out of the ground and the fish out of the sea around the islands as payment then. :)

I kid, I kid... I think...

Re:Only partly joking... (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 8 months ago | (#45509823)

Then we'd have both China and Japan mad at the US, and they'd still be mad at each other. Sadly, you can't treat nations like children, even when they behave like it. Especially not when those nations are the second and third largest economies in the world.

Re:Only partly joking... (2)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 8 months ago | (#45510067)

That brings something up that has bothered me for awhile.

If China and Japan have the second and third largest economies in the world, why don't their military forces reflect that?

The USA has military forces that would completely swamp both nations in all respects, other than manpower.

Why do we have such forces and they don't? Are we kidding ourselves and just feeding the military-industrial complex, or is the military there to be world police?

Our Navy has 12 aircraft carriers, equal to every other country on Earth, and our carriers are actually good, compared to countries like Spain that have a small little jump jet carrier that is actually smaller than our old WWII carriers.

What do we have that for, if not to use it?

Perhaps we should either use it and get some return on that investment, or perhaps we should cut the military in half and balance our budget and leave everyone alone.

I might be ok with either solution, but it seems like we have a big expensive stick, then do nothing with it.

PS. The above might sound a bit crazy or rambling, it is more outloud thoughts rather than meant to push any one point. I'd be much happier if China and Japan would just get along.

Re:Only partly joking... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509837)

What would happen (I say someone, but not completely jokingly) if the US sent in a Carrier Battle Group

And Americans wonder why people of other nationalities look at them funny?

You realise you are fulfilling the Team America World Police stereotype by even suggesting that, right? This is a territorial battle between China and Japan, leave it to them to sort out or fight it out over on their own. Radical concept, I know, but just because something happens, it does not require you to sit your ass in the middle of it just because you can.

I have kids, whenever I have two kids who behave like this, the first thing I do it take away whatever they are fighting over.

Ah, "daddy knows best", I hear that worked out really well for Native Americans, and then the African Americans. Paternalistic racism, the "solution" that just keeps on giving! Daddy America has gotta teach them stupid chinks how to behave like real people, huh?

Re:Only partly joking... (2)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 8 months ago | (#45510065)

> This is a territorial battle between China and Japan, leave it to them to sort out or fight it out over on their own.
> Radical concept, I know, but just because something happens, it does not require you to sit your ass in the
> middle of it just because you can.

Actually, it does. AFAIK, Japan is constitutionally prohibited from having more than a token, purely-defensive military, and totally depends upon the US for its protection. A loss for national sovereignty and pride, but an epic win for saving cold hard cash in perpetuity that allows them to outsource 99% of their military needs to us, and forces us to pick up the tab.

Re:Only partly joking... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 8 months ago | (#45509949)

Because US behavior is better? Your case is like calling a biker gang to gang rape everyone involved in a neighborly spat.

Easy (3, Funny)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 8 months ago | (#45509651)

Every country should boycott stuff made there in protest.

Oh wait...

Don't look now (1, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 8 months ago | (#45509655)

...but theres nothing the US can do to stop them. Maybe prior to 2000, maybe prior to 1990, but after years of appeasements, transfers of critical technology, and currency manipulations, the Chinese have the US by the short and curlies. Nobody wants to say it, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

The real question is, does the US draw out some long embarassing, expensive, futile detente where they ultimately lose, or (my preference) just say Fuck It, boot the UN, cut off foreign aid, stop being the world's policeman, and let the chips fall.

Re:Don't look now (4, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | about 8 months ago | (#45509773)

...but theres nothing the US can do to stop them. Maybe prior to 2000, maybe prior to 1990, but after years of appeasements, transfers of critical technology, and currency manipulations, the Chinese have the US by the short and curlies. Nobody wants to say it, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

And if the US were to start patrolling the region, pointedly ignoring Chinese demands, what precisely do you think the Chinese would do about it? "Accidentally" shoot down a US plane?

Re:Don't look now (4, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 8 months ago | (#45510043)

They would pointedly ram a few ships with fishing boats for real. Then post nice picture of US marines shooting up peaceful looking fishermen. You know, like Greenpeace does, and like Chinese have been doing to US anti-sub ships for years now.

Then, after a major scandal, if US still decided to stick to its guns and not bow down and apologize (as it likely would as at that point, any politician trying to do otherwise would likely go the way of JFK very quickly), you'd have a real cold war on your hands. We're talking breakdown of trade relations, sanctions and likely worldwide economic depression that would follow splitting of the world in two. You'd likely have NATO on one side, and Russia backed China with all its vassal states on the other with most of Latin America leaning strongly to support China, Australia dithering leaving NATO to avoid complete economic meltdown when they suddenly can't sell their mining produce to it any more and other massive geopolitical reverbations. It would also completely untie chinese hands in places like Nothern Africa to stop acting covertly in buying everything with money they have, and start making open offers to the countries of the region to join their side in exchange for massive trade benefits. And they could afford it far better than US or EU, that are currently stuck in a serious long term economical financial mess already which would be massively exacerbated by massive loss of trade with China.
China would be suffering essentially the same consequences, with US and EU getting the ability to openly assault its strongholds in Easten Africa both financially and via military means "oh they are harboring terrorists!", as well as likely putting up heavy pressure on Latin America to cut down on trade.

Essentially it would be a massive loss for everyone in the world save for third world countries, who would likely benefit greatly from two sides investing in them strongly to keep them in their sphere of influence. Which is why it would never happen - if there still are politicians in the West who are not wholly owned by corporate elite, they would be promptly assassinated or removed from power via other means to avoid such a disastrous outcome.

Re:Don't look now (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45510003)

Don't look now ... but theres nothing the US can do to stop them.

Depends on what it is that needs to be stopped, how badly China wants to do it, and how badly the US wants to stop it. If all that is going on are speeches and radar beams, there isn't much to stop. If China starts sending fighters or missiles into the area, there are things that could be done.

The US plans on keeping 11 carrier strike groups [navy.mil] around, for the moment. It is doubtful they would or could all be deployed simultaneously, but even 1 is nothing to sneeze at. China has a variety of things they could try against them, but it is uncertain how effective they would be.

The possibility of miscalculation leading to war is non-trivial if China keeps ratcheting up their aggression.

Re:Don't look now (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about 8 months ago | (#45510055)

Nobody wants to say it

Everyone says that all the time, dude. But for some reason the Chinese never seem to actually use this stranglehold they have the US in, even a little.

Buy Local (1)

SeanBlader (1354199) | about 8 months ago | (#45509659)

That's as good a reason as any to only buy products made by your own country. I'd consider only buying Motorola phones made in the US if they continue.

J.Kimmel show kid says "Kill everyone in China!" (3, Interesting)

burni2 (1643061) | about 8 months ago | (#45509697)

Ok, will China go to war ? I think there is no default choice here, because chinese rulers decide a bit machivellistic, and therefore they have recognized that
China cannot sustain it's own growth of population, wealth(=CO2 Emission), industrial production(=Self polution) these factors lead to social unrest and
this is the last thing the rullers want. Looking back into the past(Tienamen Square Masacre) there is a chinese solution to social unrest - use the patriots view and direct it to an outside scapegoat / enemy.

Japan is the enemy number one, also for historic reasons - japanese nationalism has done it's part in the situation we are in now (masacres, rapes, torture / WWII)
and Japan is an easy enemy because on the one hand it's military force is specialised in defending(the main islands) but what comes in handy is the blood & death bonding with the U.S.

So in reality China wants to demonstrate strength against the U.S. and Japan comes in second(Shinzo Abe - tries to alter the "National Defense Force" into a "National Offense Force" and what gives me the creeps is that Japans tendency for nationalistic thinking is very similar to the chinese view.

China is in a deadlock situation for it's ambitions as a regional superpower, from the military capacity they are. (Nukes, Missiles, Destroyers, Subs, (experimental)Carriers)

The deadlock consists of
Japan:
- Japan is under direct U.S. protectorate, if China attacks, U.S. are about to react.
- China must find out if the U.S. will react or just play the non aggression card and give up on some rocks in the boiling sea

Taiwan
- U.S. allies
- like swizerland - if someone attacks, they will secure the country by trip/tank mines and asymetric tactics, the only chance to win
for China without paying an extreme death toll would be to blast Taiwan of the earth (Nukes)

Vietnam
- they don't like China, and feel threatened by China, espicially when China held back some good for vietman during the war

Philipines
- U.S. allies

And well those deserted rocks in the boiling sea are the weakest target, but are a lithmus test for the unconditional military support for Japan to be supported by the U.S. But if China's leaders don't watch their steps closely they could really "kill everyone in China".

And here we go again (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509701)

China has always been the agressor in this case, these islands always belonged to Japan until China recently found interest to it.
Like South Korea, this country uses agression, lies and provocation instead of politics.
There's no way this country of liars should be trusted.

Re:And here we go again (1)

dk20 (914954) | about 8 months ago | (#45509947)

They have disputed ownership of those island for a long time now so clearly they have not "always belonged to japan" or they wouldn't be in dispute. China claims they owned them since the early 1500's. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/771456.shtml#.UpJ81rVDsic [globaltimes.cn] There are always two sides to any story...

Please no links to Washington Times (0)

linuxguy (98493) | about 8 months ago | (#45509803)

When you link to Washington Times (crackpots), you undermine anything you have to say.

How is this news for nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509889)

This is just normal news. Yawn...

The US is the worst superpower... (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 8 months ago | (#45509929)

except for all the others.

If it does come to nuclear war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509951)

At least with all the leaks of late, from Manning and Snowden, the fact that we have had a quick launch star wars capability (suborbital anti-ICBM laser system) for the past one and a half years remains a secret. Oops!

War will come to this region (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509973)

Since WW2, the USA has worked to hold an entire section of our planet in geopolitical SUSPENDED ANIMATION. America maintains a massive military presence in South Korea, purely to prevent Korea reuniting, and becoming the 2nd place power-house in the region (China is obviously the no1 super-power), displacing Japan from the no2 spot.

America has FORCED Japan to be a military nuclear power (yes, those Plutonium producing Japanese power plants exist to produce fuel for Japanese nuclear warheads), in order to 'persuade' Japan that its de facto dominance of the region is secure, and doesn't need further overt military action.

Japan CANNOT place nice with its neighbours in the long term. Japan will once again use whatever power its military industrial complex can provide in an attempt to assert its dominance. Meanwhile, every other nation in Japan's vicinity was the victim of unthinkable Crimes against Humanity carried out by the Japanese in WW2, without Japan ever saying "sorry", offering proper remuneration, or reforming its highly racist society. Remember, the worst Japanese war criminals were assisted by the USA to become powerful, influential figures in Japan's post-war recovery.

A united Korea will provide a narrow window for a massive, unprovoked attack by Japan. The window represents the time required for the industrialised capitalist South to exploit the nuclear expertise of the North. Japan will not wait for a re-united Korea to reach the level of military nuclear competence that will forever dissuade another Japanese attack.

Japan's time in the sun is well and truly over. Look at how Russia dealt with its nuclear disaster with an incredible energy, and world class engineering. Contrast with Japan, leaving its vastly worse nuclear disaster to irradiate the entire region total unchecked. Japan doesn't manage problems, only its people. Rather than looking for solutions, it tells the people that there really isn't a problem in the first place- Stalin style.

Every Asian nation in the region is rising, while Japan declines. In the logic of the Human Race across thousands of years of history, Japan 'NEEDS' a war. And today, as Obama's sickening terrorist attacks against the popular secular regime of Syria show, you don't even need a reasonable sounding excuse.

So why does Japan appear to 'provoke' China (a full war against China would leave the Japanese mainland islands uninhabitable for thousands of years, wiping Japan from the history books)? Because THIS is how the grand chessgame is played. Japan increasing needs to ACT like the region's No2 power, and that means appearing to be willing to 'step up' to the 'champion'. But the leaders of Japan merely want an excuse to put their nation on a war-footing, in readiness for war with Korea.

My prediction (0)

tftp (111690) | about 8 months ago | (#45509983)

I think China made the winning move in this game. Possession is 90% of the law. Japan is too civilized to start bombing. The USA will not act to fight over those small islands and a patch of water around them. A conflict with China would be far more dangerous. The USA has no money in the bank and no weapons to win a war of that type. Japan was too slow, and they lost those islands for now to a more attentive opponent. Given that Japan has very few friends in the area, that's the end of the conflict. Do not be surprised if tomorrow China ships a small number - say, a million - of Chinese citizens to work on those islands. Within a month the islands will become a fortress.

The US has been helping them (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45509995)

We've been helping China. In the 1990s, we gave them Most Favored Nation (MFN) status. We did this not because their government was democratic, because we wanted to profit from trading with them. Since then, we've transferred factories there, sold companies to them, and are currently educating many of their students [chronicle.com] .

It would be wonderful if Chinese aggressiveness discouraged American companies from moving their factories to China, but I don't think that will happen.

Easy defeat (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 8 months ago | (#45510051)

The United States and Japan can easily defeat China. Let's party!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>