Skip to comments.China and Japan Talk War
Posted on 09/26/2012 6:04:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Drudge Report revels in juxtaposing high-contrast headlines. By visually grouping conflicting storylines, the website's digital editors have made the ironic jolt an editorial art form.
Last week, on Sept. 19 (the date will prove to be important), a trio of Drudge-linked articles delivered a geopolitical jolt, of the dry throat and think-about-it variety.
The headlines, in Drudge jolt order: (1) Panetta: New Asia Focus Not Aimed to Contain China ... (2) Chinese General: Prepare for Combat With Japan ... (3) Beijing hints at bond attack on Japan ...
The common theme is obvious: a looming, perhaps immediate, conflict in Asia pitting Japan against China, with the U.S. backing Japan. If Headline One is a pulled punch (Drudge links to an AP story where U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tries to convince Chinese diplomats that the U.S. isn't trying to contain China, even though it is), Headline Two certainly isn't. Prepare for combat sends an electrifying message. Click the link, and The Washington Free Beacon says Gen. Xu Caihou, China's top military commissar, sees China's escalating maritime dispute with Japan over three uninhabited islets as casus belli. (The Chinese call the islands the Diaoyus; the Japanese the Senkakus.)
Headline Three suggests China may crush Japan via economic strangulation, a morally superior form of devastation, in lieu of high explosive bloodshed. Indeed, the linked Daily Telegraph essay notes China is Japan's biggest creditor. Chinese financiers boast they can "punish" Japan for several things. (Remember the date, Sept. 19?) The essay also suggests China is probing the resiliency of the U.S.-Japan alliance. (Re: Headline One.)
Last week's China-Japan saber-rattling percolated beneath U.S. major media's belated focus on the 9-11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the Obama administration's unraveling (and utterly wrong) initial explanation of that tragic event's cause.
The Mideast is dangerous. Iran's murderous government, which seeks nuclear arms, is a major problem. Arab Spring democracies are fragile. But a major East Asian war would send the world into a sustained economic depression -- and for that matter, a Sino-Japanese economic war might, as well.
With China and Japan -- and the U.S. -- engaged, bet that North Korea's nutcase regime attacks South Korea. And the chain-reaction continues.
Southeast Asia: China has quarrels with several nations over South China Sea maritime boundaries, and its disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines could quickly turn violent. What does Taiwan do?
Central and South Asia: Does China's regional rival, India, react? The border dispute that provoked the 1962 Sino-Indian War is not fully settled. What about Russia?
Pacific Ocean and Beyond: If the U.S. backs Japan, does the war go global and nuclear?
These are just a few of the geopolitical questions and prospective calamities stirred by "Chinese General: Prepare for Combat With Japan."
So this week the Sept. 22 issue of the eminent Economist Magazine made a China-Japan war its cover story, asking the question: Could China and Japan go to war over a handful of tiny, uninhabited islets? On the magazine cover, a giant sea turtle, its head poking through the ever-so-slightly disturbed Pacific surface, answers, "Sadly, yes."
Don't diss the turtle. As insane, destructive, impoverishing and stupid as this war would be, the Economist notes that naval confrontations easily escalate. Two opposing warships collide, and then someone shoots. The Economist knows diplomacy, aimed at resolving island sovereignty disputes, can fail, and that deterrence has a role. Recall Drudge Headline One, where Panetta says the U.S. pivot to Asia isn't really 21st century containment.
Such a tangled mess of disputes, intertwined economies and conflicting interests. Add historical grudges.
Sept. 19, 1931: On that day, the morning after what became known as the Mukden Railroad Incident, Japanese soldiers attacked the Chinese garrison at Mukden (Shenyang), and then invaded Manchuria. You can make a case that Japan's Mukden aggression was the first bloodletting in what we now call World War II. A lot of Chinese think so.
Apparently this has already escalated into an Oriental 9!$$ing contest of sorts:
This world is getting to be like a dynamite factory on fire; we can only wonder which stick will go off first.
Only this time around, the dynamite is nuclear and very few of us can even be bothered to run around trying to piddle out the flames.
What’s this we hear about the NWO planning for a massive global depopulation?
Surely just a coincidence...(?)
If you look on a map you will see that there is a large body of water between Japan and China. Any "shooting war" will first pit Japans naval forces against China's naval forces. Not a sure thing for China by any means. Japan also has a pretty good air force too.
Are we not obligated to aid Japan if they are attacked?
If I were a betting man I would put my money on Japan.
I suppose in and all out war, yes, but the US was a party to the agreement which gave these island to China, so very unlikely the US would get directly involved in this dispute.
Having a million man army does not much mean much if you can’t get the army to the enemy. Japans’ Navy and Air Defenses forces are first class. Chinas’ are untested. If China has an edge it is in missiles China has 1000’s of land based missiles (most of which are aimed at Taiwan).
Sounds like old times—War will come between these two ancient rivals—it will just to see who is dominant in Asia. My money is on China because they have more to lose. USA is too weak and too distracted to keep the peace. My bet—the bad guys have co-ordinated there moves—they will all happen at once—a half dozen bold moves all in the same week. We couldn’t even handle a bunch of riots well—that and Obama’s weakness will see a move before the election—Thats my theory.
Well the real battle for dominance in Asia is between China, India and Russia, not Japan. This fight with Japan is over oil, fishing and transit rights in the western pacific.
Exactly - think of how much debt China owns from both countries...if due to conflict the chinese held debt is simply wiped from the books?
As a result, in the shooting war how much stronger would the yen and dollar get and how much weaker the yuan - with the inherent purchasing power shifts to stoke the war engines on the shooting side of the war?
China’s position militarily is not as strong as many think - as they have ticked off nearly everyone to their south and east. Should NK join them then it could very well end up a complete front with India attemepting to hold firm at the choke points with China and Pakistan(or possibly thrust to liberate Tibet and drain resources if they join the allies). Thailand, Vietnam, Phillipines, SK, Japan, and Australia pushing from the E/SE. At the same time China’s moslem radicals would make an attempt to break in the west to join their “brothers” in the “new caliphate”.
Russia emerges as the question mark of the day. Does she stand pat? I don’t see her joining China, but possibly heading west herself to take back what some feel are “lost territory of their own” and thereby bring poland and europe into the fray proper, or potentially trying to gain ground from China/Mongolia given the opportunity?
Interesting times my friends ....