Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

War: China vs. U. S. A. and Japan


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
36 replies to this topic

#21 Stormynature   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3415

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:07 PM

You may also wish to consider that China possessing ownership of a large amount of the US debt is not conducive to China opening up an open war. There is enough historical evidence to show that financial penalties applied to losing countries as well sanctions as well other financial measures would provide the US a way to throw their entire debt into such a thing as wartime reparations resulting in an insta-fix to the US economy.

 

Given that all economies are ultimately linked, it is not really feasible for such a major world-wide economy such as America’s to simply be destroyed flat-out by a single nation (other than by America itself). That just can’t happen in a short time, though it is possible over a long period, slowly. But over that period America would have enough time to fight back and raise its economy by itself.

 

You have misinterpreted what I meant which is most likely my fault. I tend to be cryptic at times. What I meant by my statement is not that China would destroy America's economy, but rather that they would be providing an opportunity for America to repair its own economy (by means such as suggested above) if they (China) chose to engage in an armed conflict.

 

 

 

edit: of course the implication being that China utlimately lost said conflict


Edited by Stormynature, 02 March 2013 - 10:12 PM.


Sponsor:

#22 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 14244

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:05 PM

You have misinterpreted what I meant which is most likely my fault. I tend to be cryptic at times. What I meant by my statement is not that China would destroy America's economy, but rather that they would be providing an opportunity for America to repair its own economy (by means such as suggested above) if they (China) chose to engage in an armed conflict.

I was actually replying to samoth on that point. Both of you took the same founding idea and went in opposite directions with it. I tend to agree with your side more.


L. Spiro
It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#23 Stormynature   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3415

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:09 PM

I was actually replying to samoth on that point. Both of you took the same founding idea and went in opposite directions with it. I tend to agree with your side more.

 

My apologies went back and re-read your post and saw the link sentence of yours.



#24 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31800

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:12 PM

There is enough historical evidence to show that financial penalties applied to losing countries as well sanctions as well other financial measures would provide the US a way to throw their entire debt into such a thing as wartime reparations...

Depends, when the US finally realized that they could not the Vietnam war, they promised billions in reparations in order to bring it to an end... but then never paid a cent, and instead seized Vietnamese assets and ended up "winning" via economic means instead of military means.

That's not a good historical precedent for them to have set... but yes, I guess if you're just cancelling debts instead of demanding something, there's not much the other side can do but start another war laugh.png



#25 Stormynature   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3415

Posted 03 March 2013 - 12:32 AM

Depends, when the US finally realized that they could not the Vietnam war, they promised billions in reparations in order to bring it to an end... but then never paid a cent, and instead seized Vietnamese assets and ended up "winning" via economic means instead of military means.

That's not a good historical precedent for them to have set... but yes, I guess if you're just cancelling debts instead of demanding something, there's not much the other side can do but start another war

 

Sadly America does have a history of not honouring treaties unfavourable to them whilst enforcing treaties unfavourable to others. I must admit though I was thinking more in terms of the Treaty of Versailles...which indeed did lead to another war as you mention.


Edited by Stormynature, 03 March 2013 - 12:33 AM.


#26 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5032

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:31 AM

Look, if China sells those bonds, then China's going right down with the US and the rest of the world economy. There will be turmoil in the world market. It's not as if this is a one way thing. Who will the Chinese sell those cheap manufactured goods to?

You can look at it from another angle: Right now, they're selling their goods to someone who is never going to pay them. It is impossible to be ignorant of this. Nothing on the world is worth less than a piece of US money or an US cheque. Well, maybe an US credit card.

The only reason why these things are nevertheless "worth something" is because a) the USA are bullying everyone with wars and embargos (but a country the size of China needs not be afraid of that) and b) because there is a silly notion of "trust" and "handing off debts" in this world. Meaning that if someone tells you that they promise to pay, you pretend to trust their word, because there is likely some bigger fool who will believe you and give you money (which, itself, isn't backed by much but a promise) in return for a bond on those debts.

Who would buy the bonds/certificates if China threw them at the market? Nobody, this isn't necessary at all. Assume China throws a billion US dollars (or two) on the market. US dollar rate will go down to zero in 10-20 seconds. Automated traders will catch up a significant drop and immediately sell everything they have to avoid being the last fool to sell, amplifying the effect further and finally causing a crash that nobody can absorb (this happened in March 2000, although on a much smaller scale). The USA will be incapacitated within minutes. There's not enough money in the world to stop such an avalanche, so dollars and anything related to them will be toilet paper in minutes.

People will revolt in the streets. But also, institutions like law enforcement and the military are paid in dollars, and they wouldn't risk their butts knowing it's just toilet paper they work for. It's hard to start a war when your soldiers no longer follow you, when there's burning cars in the streets, and when your people are knocking at your door wielding pitchforks. It is also a very unlucky condition when the people who drive the heavy tanks and wield the machine guns are unhappy. You really want to be able to pay them, because when you can't you're totally fucked.

Would this affect the rest of the world? Certainly. Would this destroy a few other countries? Probably, at the very least it would destroy every major bank in Europe (who have significant enough dollar investments so they wouldn't recover). Would this destroy China? Unlikely. It would certainly be "uncomfortable", but not necessarily much more.
There's this saying "I care as much as if someone topples a sack of rice in China". This is reciprocal. They're big enough so they need not care, and unlike everyone else, they have production lines for everything. We can't do without China, but they can do without us. And they know that.

Heck, you wouldn't even be able to buy a T-shirt if China wasn't making them. Everything you need for your daily life comes from China. Including 95% of the parts in the computer you're using to read this (the other 5% are probably from Taiwan...).

Without them, we're simply unable to survive as it is. But that's not true for them.

Nobody will want to risk this. Nobody.

And that's why I'm sure there will be no war. The USA may shake an angry fist and maybe they call back their ambassadors (oh how very sorry the Chinese will be about this serious punishment!) but in the end, if China chooses to take those isles, then that will just be it.

#27 Dwarf King   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1912

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:57 PM

words words...

Would you care to modify that comment? I find it rather rude and not on topic at all. Many Europeans, Canadians and USA citizens are Asian people, you do know this right?


Edited by Dwarf King, 05 March 2013 - 07:57 AM.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"

Albert Einstein

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education"

Albert Einstein

 


#28 ddn3   Members   -  Reputation: 1323

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:20 PM

The major powers will never engage in direct conflict esp over some small islands whose economic value is dwarfed by the value of the trading and potential future revenue of the nations lost in any direct war ( ie nuclear war ). China wants to flex its power projection and will play a game of brinkmanship, Japan wants to asserts its territorial rights ( in its mind ) and also is weary of an every increasingly powerful China, the US both fears, needs China and is conflicted since it has no direct involvement in the dispute other than being an ally of Japan.

 

If Japan attacks China it will be on its own, the US will not engage in a nuclear war over islands worth less than a trillion dollars in potential value on the side of the aggressor in a local territorial dispute. Now if China attacks Japan that is quite different.. bound by its own treaties it will have to intervene and it will probably escalate to a nuclear war. For that to happen China has to think it can win, which no one in China leadership is that dumb ( US has 10x more nukes than China ). So most likely outcome is Japan either cedes the islands or engages in in a single sided war which it will lose the island either way .. ie like the Falklands. If the US plays it right and forces both China and Japan to enter into some sort of arbitration or shared management of the island that is possible too, probably best case for Japan. Depends if the US has a strong leadership and China blinks.. we'll see..



#29 Jacob Jingle   Members   -  Reputation: 223

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:42 AM

Would you care to modify that comment?

No, I'm pretty sure the majority of the people here know what I meant. Like most Americans, Canadians, Eurabians, and the like, I don't know enough about the people to wager on a war or not.

 

Note: the last time America thought they knew the people of that region, it walked into another world war and a nuclear bomb being dropped. Both events(War with Japan) were completely avoidable. (Plus let's not forget how our ally in that region at the time was Mao)

 

I find it rather rude and not on topic at all.

Rude/Off topic??? Do you really mean this or is this just fake PC outrage?

 

Many Europeans, Canadians and USA citizens are Asian people, you do know this right?z

In the context of our conversation I wasn't talking about assimilated people. I also wasn't saying they were actually insane or that they were actually aliens. I apologize to anyone who thought I was.



#30 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 14244

Posted 05 March 2013 - 03:44 AM

No, I'm pretty sure the majority of the people here didn’t care what I meant.

Fixed.
 

Rude/Off topic??? Do you really mean this or is this just fake PC outrage?

Fairly obvious that it was heart-felt since your post is the only one posted by a real human that I have seen get deleted by a moderator in a very long time.

If the 2 halves of your brain added up to more than 2 brain cells you would have seen this fairly easily.
I can’t believe in this century we still have dopes who are so delusional as to believe that they would have grown up the same way even if they had been born in a different location, especially one which they somehow consider beneath them now.
If you grew up there, you would agree. Period.
And no, you are not above being a South-American cannibal if that is where your birthplace puts you.


I will not go off-topic again.
This is my thread and you will not be a racist prick in it again.
Failure to comply will result in me pestering admins and moderators to use the full force of the warning-hammer without prejudice. Which may or may not lead to long-term future minor complications to you.
You have been warned.


L. Spiro
It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#31 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:07 AM

Seems like everyone is focused on China's foreign policy.  What about what's going on

inside of the country?  There's a lot of discontent in China (corruption, incompetence,

unfair treatment of migrant workers, pollution, legal theft of property, etc.) and the people

aren't as happy with the CCP as many would have you believe.

 

One very popular boogie man is Japan.  Nowadays Japanese culture is either uber-kawaii

or has a thing for tentacles (no, I'm not being nice or fair :) ), but back in WWII, Japan's

treatment of its conquered subjects was horrid.  To their credit, the Japanese have

apologized and made some reparations, but for a domineering regime like the CCP, a

boogie man is convenient.

 

Before anything else, there were Chinese citizens coming over and "protesting".

They're agitators.  The newspapers in China write about this, everyone is temporarily

distracted and the CCP buys some time.

 

And no, no war over these islands.  Whatever resources they contain, China can buy

from others.  Also, if US has to turn on China, China loses its biggest trading partner.

US will suffer higher prices, China will have an entire population that's pissed off and

ready storm the Bastille.

 

Japan and US know this.  The Japanese are just tired of idiots coming on Japanese

soil (as recognized by international law) and don't want to keep looking like pansies

after shaming themselves to hell and back after WWII.



#32 kryotech   Members   -  Reputation: 935

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:01 PM

Look, if China sells those bonds, then China's going right down with the US and the rest of the world economy. There will be turmoil in the world market. It's not as if this is a one way thing. Who will the Chinese sell those cheap manufactured goods to?

You can look at it from another angle: Right now, they're selling their goods to someone who is never going to pay them. It is impossible to be ignorant of this. Nothing on the world is worth less than a piece of US money or an US cheque. Well, maybe an US credit card.

The only reason why these things are nevertheless "worth something" is because a) the USA are bullying everyone with wars and embargos (but a country the size of China needs not be afraid of that) and b) because there is a silly notion of "trust" and "handing off debts" in this world. Meaning that if someone tells you that they promise to pay, you pretend to trust their word, because there is likely some bigger fool who will believe you and give you money (which, itself, isn't backed by much but a promise) in return for a bond on those debts.

Who would buy the bonds/certificates if China threw them at the market? Nobody, this isn't necessary at all. Assume China throws a billion US dollars (or two) on the market. US dollar rate will go down to zero in 10-20 seconds. Automated traders will catch up a significant drop and immediately sell everything they have to avoid being the last fool to sell, amplifying the effect further and finally causing a crash that nobody can absorb (this happened in March 2000, although on a much smaller scale). The USA will be incapacitated within minutes. There's not enough money in the world to stop such an avalanche, so dollars and anything related to them will be toilet paper in minutes.

People will revolt in the streets. But also, institutions like law enforcement and the military are paid in dollars, and they wouldn't risk their butts knowing it's just toilet paper they work for. It's hard to start a war when your soldiers no longer follow you, when there's burning cars in the streets, and when your people are knocking at your door wielding pitchforks. It is also a very unlucky condition when the people who drive the heavy tanks and wield the machine guns are unhappy. You really want to be able to pay them, because when you can't you're totally fucked.

Would this affect the rest of the world? Certainly. Would this destroy a few other countries? Probably, at the very least it would destroy every major bank in Europe (who have significant enough dollar investments so they wouldn't recover). Would this destroy China? Unlikely. It would certainly be "uncomfortable", but not necessarily much more.
There's this saying "I care as much as if someone topples a sack of rice in China". This is reciprocal. They're big enough so they need not care, and unlike everyone else, they have production lines for everything. We can't do without China, but they can do without us. And they know that.

Heck, you wouldn't even be able to buy a T-shirt if China wasn't making them. Everything you need for your daily life comes from China. Including 95% of the parts in the computer you're using to read this (the other 5% are probably from Taiwan...).

Without them, we're simply unable to survive as it is. But that's not true for them.

Nobody will want to risk this. Nobody.

And that's why I'm sure there will be no war. The USA may shake an angry fist and maybe they call back their ambassadors (oh how very sorry the Chinese will be about this serious punishment!) but in the end, if China chooses to take those isles, then that will just be it.

 

I get what you mean by war not happening for financial reasons. However, I disagree when you say that China could absorb a global financial meltdown. Let's look at what would happen if US currency became moot. The US would be out of the picture for good. The next countries to go would be most of the European countries, like the UK, France, Germany, etc. I don't see Middle Eastern oil producing countries absorbing such an impact either. Japan would not stick around too long either. So let's assume that China does not go moot. Somehow, miraculously, even though demand for the yuan will drop, they 'survive'. China's economy is export dependent. Therefore, they need people to sell their cheap product to. So who would theoretically be unaffected by an American collapse? Latin America? They would be hit very badly. Russia? Maybe, but Russia is not exactly enough to make up for the dissipated trade. African countries? Again, they would not be able to make up the deficit, as there simply isn't much of a market. India? Again, unlikely. So that doesn't leave China with many options does it? China has no market for its goods within the country. One thing that we must understand is that China is a heavily export dependent country. If those exports disappear, all the gains they've made will disappear with the exports. The cash they've accumulated will not be enough to support an enormous country, the large majority of which is poor. Moreover, China has been known to inflate its numbers....so if we throw that in their, then the situation changes. 


Kryotech

#33 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 14244

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:36 PM

Seems war is likely, but not (at first) between China and Japan, but between North Korea and X.

 

New sanctions drawn by the U. N. have prompted a reply from North Korea in which they explicitly state that they will put an end to the 1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean war.  Which is North Korean for “We will attack someone.”  Since the cease-fire was between North Korea and the United Nations, it is not clear who exactly they will attack, but likely candidates are South Korea, Japan, and…

…Alaska.

North Korea believes they are still actually in a state of war, claiming that the treaty was not a peace treaty but an armistice.

 

Their threats have done nothing against the sanction, which is expected to take effect this week.  If the sanction is “matter-of-fact” and if North Korea’s threats are “matter-of-fact”, then going to war is “matter-of-fact”.

 

It was previously asked what Korth Korea would gain by going to war.

Apparently their 30-year-old leader seems to think there is something, but most likely he is simply put into an impossible situation.

They see Westerners as bullies and strongly want to appose them if for nothing other than martyrdom.  If he is to maintain the (misguided) respect of his country he has to stand up against America.  It is not likely that he considers any possible chance of winning any war, but his original plan to gain the respect of his people has backfired.

 

His original stance was to gain the respect of his minions by defying the United Nations and proceeding with military upgrades and nuclear weapons studies.

Unfortunately, once you start doing that as a means of gaining respect from your people, you have absolutely no choice but to keep going until war eventually breaks out and your country is destroyed.  Expecting the United Nations to bend and suddenly give you a free pass is simply not realistic.

 

The people do not like America and he played on that without thinking far enough ahead due to his lack of experience and young age.

 

 

My opinion: It is about time, and still too little.

I am tired of sanctions and “if you ignore us again”.  They will ignore you again.  Get a clue.  They don’t even have a choice anymore, as any backing down would undo all his hard work to get the respect of his “people”.

I am glad these are the toughest sanctions ever put into place, but:

#1: They should be tougher.  As in complete full 100% sanctioning.  Not reducing medical aid and food to 50% or 20% of normal, but 0% of normal.

#2: And it should have been done in the last sanctions so that this time would be military action instead of more sanctions.

 

 

It is time to put an end to North Korea.

I have actually dated someone from North Korea (who wanted me to go to North Korea) and I do not say this out of prejudice for the people but rather for love.

Look at the difference between South Korea who are thriving and happy and North Korea who are starving and delusional.  It is time to set them free and show them what it means to have freedom, money, and even food.  Not to be forced to live inside their own little snowglobe but to be free to slowly and quietly invade and take over Japanese media.

 

 

A war with North Korea is economically viable as it would be one of the shortest wars in history.  They would not be backed by a single country in this instance.

In fact it would actually be a good thing in the long-run as once Korea is re-united it would mean the same number of allies for America, but one that is bigger and more profitable.

So let’s just hurry it up, for the sake of the people.

 

 

L. Spiro


Edited by L. Spiro, 05 March 2013 - 05:37 PM.

It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#34 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7559

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:48 PM

America won't invade NK because, despite how annoyed they are that them, China are still on their side.

If you shoot at NK China will have to get involved. The only thing likely to sort out NK would be China deciding 'enough is enough' and doing it themselves at which point NK becomes another part of China.

Granted, the region would be more stable but you won't see a united Korea from this.

Edit:
I'm also not convinced it would be a 'quick' war either.
NK have man power still and, depending on the state of the population with regards to their impression of the west, the population is still large enough that you might end up entrenched in a war you can't get out of.

Out of the USA and China the latter has a better chance of taking control without having to wipe out most of the population to do it.

Edited by phantom, 05 March 2013 - 05:52 PM.


#35 TheChubu   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4756

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:54 PM

Look at the difference between South Korea who are thriving and happy and North Korea who are starving and delusional. 

That's not quite true. At least it doesn't suggest so the fact that the main cause of death of young and middle aged people in South Korea is suicide. That doesn't says "happy" at all. Thriving yes, happy... It doesn't looks like.

 

Are the North Koreans happy? I don't think so either. But its no excuse for skewing the comparison to make it look worse than it is.


And no, you are not above being a South-American cannibal if that is where your birthplace puts you.

Would you care to modify that comment?

Edited by TheChubu, 05 March 2013 - 05:54 PM.

"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

 

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator


#36 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3679

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:35 PM

No one wants the government of NK to collapse because that would precipitate the largest (perhaps) refugee crisis ever. Of course, neither does anyone want to get nuked or invaded. I think we're set to play provocation-sanctions-aid game for some time to come.


-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#37 BladeOfWraith   Members   -  Reputation: 245

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:27 PM

It is time to put an end to North Korea

Yes, America should liberate North Korea like we liberated Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Only good things can come of this!

 

A war with North Korea is economically viable as it would be one of the shortest wars in history.

Indeed. Wars in Asia are known for their brevity.

 

 

In fact it would actually be a good thing in the long-run as once Korea is re-united it would mean the same number of allies for America, but one that is bigger and more profitable.

Exactly. I mean, North Korea and South Korea are like two peas in a pod. They have so much in common economically and culturally, that it makes perfect sense to jam them into a single country based on racial heritage. That has proven to be a smashing success all through Africa and the Middle East.

 

Trying to force impoverished countries into unions with wealthy countries is one of the hallmarks of the EU. Ever since the former bloc countries were brought in, things have been so stable and the EU seems to have a brighter future than ever!


"You can't say no to waffles" - Toxic Hippo





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS