Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military Conflict 'Looms' Between China And Japan
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 9-27-2012 | Malcom Moore

Posted on 09/27/2012 7:11:25 PM PDT by blam

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: MarMema

Well you are entitled to your opinion, as much as I am to mine. However, the facts are on Japan’s side. Japan has administered the islands. China ceded any claims after their defeat to Japan in the 1894 war. That alone should be enough. The USA administered the islands after the defeat of Japan in WWII. China made no claims for the islands, until the discovery of oil and natural gas fields. The USA returned the islands to Japanese rule in 1972. China is making noise now, to distract their people from economic woes. Taiwan is jumping on the bandwagon, because they think they are the rightful rulers of China (ain’t happening anytime soon). The Taiwanese fishing boats had no business going into traditional Japanese waters, and Japan was within their rights to remind them. There, clear enough?


41 posted on 09/27/2012 9:36:37 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

All agreed to except the Taiwanese have been fishing those waters for a long time and just now encountered the resistance.


42 posted on 09/27/2012 9:40:22 PM PDT by MarMema (freedom for Amir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: blam

No it doesn’t. Not unless Pres. Obama lets Iran get a nuke. All bets are off then, and we’ll finally see if Japan has been secretly building nukes for just this occasion .


43 posted on 09/27/2012 9:50:29 PM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

Wait, actually Japan just purchased these islands last week from a private owner. Until then everything was fine. I had forgotten about that.


44 posted on 09/27/2012 9:51:08 PM PDT by MarMema (freedom for Amir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
Heh. Did you see Bibi's address to the UN today?

Not sure what is more scary...Iran or the fact that fish are so important suddenly in the waters off China.

45 posted on 09/27/2012 10:15:46 PM PDT by MarMema (eh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

The Taiwanese fishing boats were accompanied by military gunboats from Taiwan, which was an aggressive action for simply fishing. The Japanese showed restraint by only using water hoses on the fishing boats.

Yes, Japan purchasing the islands from the Japanese private owner was a catalyst. Guess they wanted to keep the owner from selling to the highest offer! Plus he maybe also had a gun to his head to make a deal (been watching too many spy movies). No one knows why this happened, other than the fuss over oil and gas potential there.


46 posted on 09/27/2012 11:02:03 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: All

I do not think the chicoms will back down. If the chicoms back down in the case of the Senkakus with the Japanese, it sets bad precedence against other claims the chicoms have, to include but not limited to, the Scarborough Shoal (Philippines), Spratleys (numerous countries), and off-shore oil blocks (Vietnam). It is to the chicoms benefit to make an example of the Japanese for other South China Sea countries to ponder before making counter-claims or standing up against them. I think the chicoms prefer to bully every claimant individually than deal with them collectively and this might include having the US stay in the sidelines so they can get away with this strategy. The ball is the the Japanese court; interesting to see what their next move might be.

Regards.


47 posted on 09/27/2012 11:55:21 PM PDT by Sine_Pari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

This will end badly, very badly. China has nukes. Japan doesn’t.


48 posted on 09/28/2012 12:21:00 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Yes, China does have nukes. Japan also has ABM capability, so there is some level of defense against that threat.


49 posted on 09/28/2012 6:14:09 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MarMema; Molon Labbie; Strategerist

Should Japan be humiliated and forced to back down, or worse yet, suffer a devastating defeat, while the US fails to back them, there would probably be great pressure for them to develop nuclear weapons for protection to counter China. After all, they would not be able to count on the US “nuclear umbrella” if they couldn’t count on The US in a conventional conflict. Of course an arms race would mean that defense contractors would be able to readily peddle their wares, but these things rarely end well. However, I’d like for them to be able to handle this without the US - we simply can’t afford it. Our forces are stretched to the breaking point and we really don’t have the money.


50 posted on 09/28/2012 6:24:10 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that evil, foreign, muslim, usurping bastard out of MY White House!" FUBO GTFO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

In Taiwan, they do what China tells them to do or else.


51 posted on 09/28/2012 12:40:37 PM PDT by MarMema (eh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

I agree. Iran is enough to worry about right now.


52 posted on 09/28/2012 12:44:20 PM PDT by MarMema (eh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Japan would need the US’s nuclear umbrella unless it could assemble a couple on the fly and test one in the Pacific. That would be pretty interesting.


53 posted on 09/28/2012 1:07:33 PM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson