China warns US naval exercise may lead to conflict

[The Northerner]

TENSIONS OVER disputed areas in the South China Sea continued to intensify at the weekend as China warned the United States that its joint naval exercise in the region has raised the risk of armed confrontation.

China has territorial disputes with practically everyone in the region about the South China Sea, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan, and defence experts believe that the next conflict in the region will probably relate to one or other of these issues.

Recent weeks have seen a maritime standoff between the Philippines and China in disputed sovereign seas near the Scarborough Shoal, west of a former US navy base at Subic Bay.

An article in the Liberation Army Daily warned that the standoff could turn into full-on conflict and said it was largely the fault of the US, which has been staging joint military exercises in the region with the Philippine navy. China refers to the area as Huangyan Island, and says it is “an inherent part of China’s territory”.

Earlier this month, American and Filipino troops launched two weeks of annual naval drills around the Philippines. The editorial said the exercises would lead “towards military confrontation and resolution through armed force”.

Read more: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0423/1224315048178.html


Besides imperialism and provocation, I really can't find any good reason for the US military to be stationed in Asia or in any other continent or country.

[Hugabear]

1. The MIC would love a war with China

They have been trying to build up China as the 'next big adversary' for years.

[unkachuck]

2. +1000!

[msongs]

3. gotta keep the price of oil jacked up by fear...and why DOES Obama want military manoevers there? nt

[lpbk2713]

4. Tonkin Gulf incident revisited.

MIC could always hope.

[Zalatix]

5. China's not such a nice player, either. Ask the Tibetans. Or better yet, ponder this:

"China has territorial disputes with practically everyone in the region about the South China Sea, including the Philippines, Vietnam.........."

I'm not sure that there could be a clearer sign here that China is not a nice neighbor to have next door.

In short: China wants the United States out of the way so they can bully other nations around them.

Still, though, I can't say I endorse any kind of war with China. We could simply block their exports to the U.S. and that alone would drive them into total, apocalyptic ruin.

[Uncle Joe]

6. We would need to defend the Philippines if China attacks them.

Thanks for the thread, The Northerner.

[The Northerner]

11. And this need for "defense" isn't an excuse to provoke another country?

[Uncle Joe]

13. No, China needs no excuse, the decision and power as to whether they wish to be provoked is theirs'.

If an aggressor nation in intent on attacking, they will attack regardless of perceived provocation, appeasement didn't stop Germany nor did the statement by Great Britain and France of defending Poland.

Having said that if appeasement hadn't been the policy for years prior to the onset of WWII, perhaps Great Britain and France's statement of support for Poland would've carried more weight in Germany's deliberations.

[zoff]

14. MDT

Correct Uncle Joe. There is the Mutual Defense Treaty, which in short, states that 1 bullet fired against the Philippines is a bullet fired at the USA.

[DeSwiss]

7. Precarious situation, eh?

I don't think China wants to, nor can they take us on fully -- militarily -- yet.

On the other hand, we can't fight a sustained war without their cheap electronics for our war toys. Not to mention all that pretty money we get to print when they buy those pretty bond thingies from us. Oh, wait.....

- Hmmm, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive......

K&R

[provis99]

8. the conflict is over oil, of course.

Geologists have surveyed the Spratly Islands in the South China sea, and believe there is a huge reserve of oil there. Vietnam, China, the Phillipines, and others all want the oil.

[Uncle Joe]

9. It's over food as well,

those are rich fishing grounds

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Resources, for us oil

for them both oil and food...

Oh didn't a few tree huger predict increased conflict due to silly shit like climate change?

They can't take on us YET, and even that is questionable since two out of four military arms are truly really broken, but they produce the electronics for our shit.

[Poll_Blind]

12. The US and China have kept the machinery of Empire idling yet well-oiled in...

...their own way for the last three decades if not much longer. Both of them have entire classes of people whose whole professional lives exist to be drones keeping this machinery ready for the big day.

Could a war break out over this? Possibly.

But I'll tell you something, winning that war is maybe more dangerous than losing it. You have China, the Soviet Union and America. If China and America fight, and America wins, it could be seen as a major threat to the Soviet Union. If China wins, same. If China and the Soviet Union fight, the victor in such a conflict would be seen as an enormous threat to the United States.

Every way you cut it, any serious conflict between any two of those countries will always eventually bring in the third.

My opinion? The players know this dynamic and so there will be no big war, just many smaller ones. Whether the smaller ones engulf an entire country, like the Phillipenes, I dunno. But this is how wars will be, will have to be, unless either of those three somehow fragment into smaller states.

I'm interested in the criticism of that "Mexican Standoff" dynamic between the Big Three. Anyone disagree with that and can explain an alternate way in which they think a war between any two would work?

PB