Article

2005-11-09 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pheating Glasing1720 2005-11-09 18:47|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1
Well, he's got a point. I don't see the US flyin' F18s into Chineese ships anytime soon.

Posted by macofromoc 2005-11-09 20:27|| 2005-11-09 20:27|| Front Page Top

#2 I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
Isoroku Yamamoto

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-09 20:32|| 2005-11-09 20:32|| Front Page Top

#3 This guy's the Japanese Buchanan, right?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 20:51|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-11-09 20:51|| Front Page Top

#4 "Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."

At least he has that part right. As to any comparison with Iraq: A nation of Iraq's dimensions poses no threat to America. Should a country the size of China attack the United States, there will be nary a peep even as our casualties swiftly passed the 10,000 mark.

Saying that America would "certainly" lose a war with China is pure-dee horseradish. Yet one more reason to build the missile defense shield and bankrupt China as they try and duplicate it.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-09 20:52|| 2005-11-09 20:52|| Front Page Top

#5 "In case of war, seek other sources for economic goods"

Think nobody else would provide the radios, toys, parts, after a startup delay? China needs us more than we need them. We can find other suppliers. They can find no market to replace the US

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-11-09 21:05|| 2005-11-09 21:05|| Front Page Top

#6 As for Japan building up its own defense capability, Ishihara said the United States is the country most opposed to such a move, while China is next in opposition. Ishihara also said the security treaty between Japan and the United States is "so undependable."

Yo Ishi... your degree finance or phys Ed? Damn sure wasn't in military history or political science. You need to hit Blockbuster and rent a few WWII movies, get spun up on the 20th Century. Your plane leave for Tokyo soon? Can't wait to see a little nip in the air.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-09 21:13|| 2005-11-09 21:13|| Front Page Top

#7 the United States has found that the deaths of only 2,000 troops in Iraq has created major domestic problems

The US will be paying for the Sheehan Legacy for years.....

Posted by wakeupcall 2005-11-09 22:21|| 2005-11-09 22:21|| Front Page Top

#8 correction...decades

Posted by wakeupcall 2005-11-09 22:22|| 2005-11-09 22:22|| Front Page Top

#9 Nah, in a few months it will be Cindy who? People are just not gonna want to go through that Jane Fonda crap again for any extended period. One Hanoi Jane is enough. Clones are a non-start. Besides, I'm sure you've noticed, she ain't no Jane Fonda.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-09 22:28|| 2005-11-09 22:28|| Front Page Top

#10 As long as the Clintons and aligned continue to work to influence national politics, AMERICA WILL ala PC "Victory = Defeat [includ Stalemate]". DemoLefties as a class are gener RINOS-CINOS, at least btwn now thru 2008 - CLINTONISM > Stalemate/Armistice = USA is partially defeated already and soon will be de facto defeated.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-11-09 22:29|| 2005-11-09 22:29|| Front Page Top

#11 He is correct, but he is incorrect. Pardoxically, while China has huge reserves of manpower it could use to overwhelm US forces in some circumstances; this reserve is an excess.

By this I mean that not only would they be willing to throw away the lives of as many as 300 MILLION men, but that they would be GLAD to do so. The loss of these extra people would be of tremendous benefit to China. Right now, they are just unproductive extra mouths to feed. With little education and little value to their economy, they are to China like an equivalent number of giant rats. Their very lives menace China like no other threat.

And China has long ago concluded that unless the US were to invade deep into China, these men would be of little use. That China would stand a far better chance in a conflict, with reaching for some kind of technological parity. Their armed forces have been slashed in size, and the emphasis has changed from quantity to quality.

And yet this is not the only scenario.

Their next door neighbor, India, has a similar problem of excess males; and one that threatens India. So, here is the great question:

Is their demographic imbalance a greater threat than a foreign enemy? And if so, would they use a war as an excuse to correct this imbalance?

This is to suggest that China and India may well get into a fight before China and the US. A fight that is a horrific deception. Both sides keeping their conventional armies in the rear area, as an unused "second eschelon", while they commit vast numbers of poorly-equipped inductees to senseless and useless World War I-style battles, with the intent to mutually attrit their own forces.

That is, to send them to fight in some vast, tractless desert, far away from any city or town, with no other objective than to slaughter each other. Provided only with copious amounts of high explosives, artillery, and machine guns, even their rations and water limited. To defeat the enemy is to get their food for yourself.

The Demographic War.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-11-09 22:43|| 2005-11-09 22:43|| Front Page Top

#12 Anonymoose: Unless the Formosa thing errupts, I suspect the India scenario is most likely in the near term. That may be enough to deter, the ugliness of nuclear war revisited, et al. Both India and China have a long standing, and well cultivated "get along" problem. Our strategy will undoubtedly be to go directly to the political power centers and severe the head of the dragon(s). Sounds plausible until you realize it is their strategy as well. Nobody is going to look too good after this one. The next decade or so will be very interesting indeed.

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-09 22:54|| 2005-11-09 22:54|| Front Page Top

#13 China now has the best target on the planet.
3-Gorges Dam
That is followed by Egypt with the Aswan..

That makes for a real "glass house".

Posted by 3dc 2005-11-09 23:00|| 2005-11-09 23:00|| Front Page Top

#14 Besoeker: I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
Isoroku Yamamoto

Please stop quoting made-up movie dialogue. Yamamoto never said this.

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-09 23:13|| 2005-11-09 23:13|| Front Page Top

#15 Please go find some nice hot sand and pound it!

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-09 23:15|| 2005-11-09 23:15|| Front Page Top

#16 Class act.

Posted by Pappy 2005-11-09 23:28|| 2005-11-09 23:28|| Front Page Top

#17 Class act.

Posted by Pappy 2005-11-09 23:28|| 2005-11-09 23:28|| Front Page Top

#18 Apologies for the double post.

Ishishara has a track-record of opening his mouth and inserting both feet. Then again, Governor of Tokyo is about as high an office as he'll ever achieve.

Posted by Pappy 2005-11-09 23:32|| 2005-11-09 23:32|| Front Page Top

#19 I hope you are right Pappy. Nobody from here would ever travel to the Japanese capital and say that kinda stuff. The former mayor of Paris moved up a notch however..... :-(

Posted by Besoeker 2005-11-09 23:35|| 2005-11-09 23:35|| Front Page Top

#20 Anonymoose: By this I mean that not only would they be willing to throw away the lives of as many as 300 MILLION men, but that they would be GLAD to do so. The loss of these extra people would be of tremendous benefit to China. Right now, they are just unproductive extra mouths to feed. With little education and little value to their economy, they are to China like an equivalent number of giant rats. Their very lives menace China like no other threat.

This is more or less what white supremacists and eugenicists thought in the 19th century as they surveyed the vast rabble of the Orient and what they perceived to be the subhuman dregs of their own societies (in the New World, Jews, Italians and Irishmen). But this view - scientific though some erroneously thought it was - is profoundly ahistorical. Throughout history, rulers have ventured abroad not merely to conquer land, but to acquire peoples - entire races and ethnicities. Without people to cultivate it, land is merely forest. Without people, there is no commerce. Without people, there are no crafts. Without people, the sea is merely a vast fishery for other nations to exploit. The Romans could have killed every last one of their subject peoples, but they kept them alive because cadavers don't pay taxes. The Mongols could have wiped out everyone they conquered, but an empire consisting of live Mongols and tens of millions of cadavers wouldn't be worth much.

The rulers of populous countries that are also poor use their large populations as an *excuse* for their misrule. The fact is that a large population is an asset, not a liability. Canada and the US both have similar GDP per capita and similar land areas. But what makes the US a superpower is the fact that it has 10 times Canada's population. India was the British Empire's Jewel of the Crown not because it had huge natural resources (those were mainly tapped out by the time the British East India Company showed up), but because it had a huge pool of human resources.

The population density of mainland China is lower than most of East Asia - Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore are all more densely population by far, but also more prosperous.

Take Hong Kong - it has a population of 7m and a population density of 7000 people per sq km. It imports 90+% of its food and all of its raw materials. Compare it with China, which has a population of 1.2b and a population density of 128 people per sq km, and imports less than 50% of its food and raw materials. Given that Hong Kong has 50 times the population density of China and is self-sufficient in just about nothing, you would think that China should be richer than Hong Kong. But the reality is that Hong Kong has something like 20 times China's GDP per capita. Overpopulation theories are a bunch of bunk.

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-10 00:19|| 2005-11-10 00:19|| Front Page Top

00:19 Elmenter Snineque1852
23:35 Besoeker
23:32 Pappy
23:30 trailing wife
23:28 Pappy
23:28 Besoeker
23:28 Pappy
23:22 Phil
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:22 muck4doo
23:20 trailing wife
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:18 trailing wife
23:15 Besoeker
23:14 trailing wife
23:13 Elmenter Snineque1852
23:13 Besoeker
23:10 trailing wife
23:10 Bomb-a-rama
23:03 Besoeker
23:03 JosephMendiola
23:00 3dc
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:57 Pappy