12-31-2016, 01:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2016, 01:34 AM by Warren Dew.)
(12-25-2016, 08:16 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: When did Russia threaten the US? China repeatedly threatens war with the US, over Taiwan and over the South China Sea, but not Russia.
(12-24-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: China has rattled sabers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, but had never threatened war with the US. In fact, their artificial island activities in the South China Sea only started after the US had abandoned its prior regular traversals of the area with carrier battle groups due to the sequester, leaving a power vacuum.
Meanwhile, Russia has actually invaded two nations friendly to the US, Georgia and Ukraine. Notice how China has not invaded Taiwan. Russia has also done saber rattling, and in some cases that saber rattling has been explicitly nuclear.One could make a similar argument for the Senkaku Islands, and for the South China Sea. These are all very real threats of war with the US.
- In 2005, China passed an "Anti-Secession Law" that required
China to take military action against Taiwan if Taiwan takes any
formal steps towards independence. Even simply talking about
independence could trigger the Anti-Secession Law.
- The US has a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. This was put into
place decades ago to guarantee that China would not invade Taiwan,
since doing so would automatically trigger war with the US.
- The Anti-Secession Law is threatening invasion anyway, and
statements by Chinese officials almost on a daily basis reinforce that
threat.
- Therefore, China is threatening war with the US almost on a daily
basis.
The comparison with Russia, Crimea, South Ossetia and Abkhazia is very interesting to me. Russia invaded those regions and annexed them, but there was never a hint of war from either side. By contrast, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would lead to war within six hours.
Your arguments rely on data that are decades out of date. The US hasn't had a mutual defense treaty with the government in Taiwan since 1979. The official policy of the US is the "One China policy", so secession of Taiwan is against US policy as well as against mainland Chinese policy. It is possible that the US would remain aligned with Taiwan in the case of secession, just as the US was aligned with Georgia when the Russians invaded them and occupied South Ossetia, but that still boils down to China merely threatening military action where the Russians have actually carried out such action.
As for the Senkaku, also known in Taiwan as well as the mainland as the Daiyu, China and Taiwan are aligned against Japan in their claims. It's far from clear that the US has a dog in that fight.
As for "hint of war", it's not a coincidence that the Russians ceased their advance in Georgia the moment US transport planes touched down there. They were returning Georgian troops from Iraq, where they had been fighting alongside US troops, proof that there was a de facto alliance between the US and Georgia.
Quote:(12-23-2016, 05:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Non-crisis wars are fought on rational considerations, such as by counting numbers of missiles.
Crisis wars are like sex. They're driven by raw emotion, DNA and hormones, and are often completely inappropriate and irrational.
From a purely rational point of view, the South never had a chance of beating the North, and Japan never had a chance of defeating America. And yet those wars went forward. Go figure.
(12-24-2016, 11:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The South thought they were likely to be able to secede peacefully; essentially their miscalculation was in failing to realize that the North would fight the war like a crisis war. Japan miscalculated similarly with respect to the US.
My understanding of your own theory is that this kind of miscalculation is exactly what causes crisis wars: people lose direct memory of the previous crisis war and aren't careful enough not to get into another one. Am I wrong? Are you saying people actually become insane about starting wars? That makes your theory a lot less credible, in my opinion.
You've answered your own question. The South and Japan made miscalculations based on totally self-delusional considerations, involving xenophobia and nationalism. This is similar to the erotic self-delusion that occurs when someone believes that an affair won't harm his or her marriage.
I'll try to keep in mind that when you talk about "delusion" and lack of rationality, you're including actions that can only be identified as mistakes with the benefit of hindsight.
Quote:(12-23-2016, 02:43 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In the SCO schema, which John stubbornly refuses to acknowledge as an alternate outcome to his pet crystal ball, Russia provides the long range nuclear fire power whereas the PRC provide short to medium range nuclear firepower. Russia provides the global heavy bomber force although the updated Tu-16s of the PLAAF will over time add to this. Naturally the PRC provides the millions of cannon fodder troops. In the SCO Axis model, the Allies would face a nearly unwinnable war. The Fourth Reich (which I believe the SCO to be) may end up conquering the Earth (and beyond)
(12-23-2016, 05:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: It's totally incomprehensible how you keep pushing this bizarre SCO theory. No country is going to go to war with the US because it belongs to a political group like the SCO. Why on earth would Kazakhstan go to war with the US? For that matter, why would Russia?
The Chinese people have this "China Dream," where they completely replace the US as the principal superpower in the world, with Chinese navies controlling the seas from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian ocean to Africa and the Mideast. It's a dream that's completely emotional, erotic, nationalistic, self-delusional, irrational, unrealistic, inappropriate, and disastrous.
(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Is it only Chinese that have that delusional dream, or do the US and Russia have similar delusional dreams? If the latter, can you describe the US and Russian versions? If the former, why only Chinese? Do you think their skin color or eye shape makes their thinking alien?
These days, when someone encounters an argument or view that he doesn't like, it's typical to dive into the sewer and respond to the argument by saying that the person making it must be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, deplorable, a hater, a tea-bagger, sexist, or any of the other assortment of personal attacks that typically come from the left. I don't know if diving into the sewer in that way helps you in discussions with other people, but it certainly won't help you with me.
If you've been following what I've been writing for any period of time, then you know that I talk about an increase in nationalism, xenophobia and racism on a worldwide basis during this generational Crisis era. I've given numerous examples of delusional views held by politicians in many countries, including America, Europe and the Mideast. Just a couple of days ago I characterized a statement by the US State Dept. spokesman as "particularly laughable and moronic." In the last couple of years, I've written frequently about the delusional views of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin, as well as by Chinese officials. This is the same kind of self-delusion that led Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and the South to attack Fort Sumter.
(12-24-2016, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I know a lot of Chinese people, and none of them have that dream. Granted, a few leaders of the Chinese military would like to do that. And if it's limited to the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, it would hardly be replacing the US as the principal superpower, since it wouldn't even touch the Atlantic or Europe; it would be limited to regional power. Even then, China has been careful not to move except when the US has abandoned the field, for example by keeping their (our) carriers in home port rather than patrolling the seas, including the western Pacific.
You can google the words "China Dream" and see that I'm not making this up, despite what your Chinese friends are telling you.
I googled it and it appears from several sources that you are indeed making it up. All the sources I read say the "China Dream" is something cognate to the "American Dream" - at most a hope that Chinese can be as prosperous as Americans. I have not been able to find any sources saying anything about replacing the US as the principal superpower, nor about Chinese navies controlling the Pacific or Indian oceans.
Quote:When you say "China has been careful not to move [except when the US has abandoned the field]," I have no idea what you're talking about. China has been "moving" to heavily militarize the South China Sea, which the US has not "abandoned," despite the fact that these military "moves" have been declared illegal by the UN Tribunal in the Hague.
You should investigate the historical movements of the carrier battle groups of the US Seventh fleet. Prior to 2013, these battle groups engaged in forward patrols which regularly traversed the South China Sea. Starting in 2013, with the sequester, the carrier battle groups remained in home port, except when one carrier was on station off Arabia supporting operations in Afghanistan. From the standpoint of naval presence, the US abandoned the South China Sea. It is not a coincidence that the artificial islands started getting built just when the US left a power vacuum there.
