It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DaTroof
Goodbye Japan!
That was easy to figure out.
Originally posted by CristobalColonic
Originally posted by DaTroof
Goodbye Japan!
That was easy to figure out.
What, so the Chinese would run the Japanese through with their own samurai swords, returning the favour owed to then since c.1937? Or are you implying the US would be impotent in the face of China's great newfound might?
Perhaps you mean no one would risk their economic relationship with China to help Japan and would just let the island nation sink...?edit on 6-2-2013 by CristobalColonic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Spookycolt
China won't go to war over a few islands.
The losses they would take economically outweigh the benefits they would gain from military action.
Its really that simple.
Originally posted by DaTroof
Between Fukushima and inevitable future EQ activity, it's not worth supporting as a long-term economic ally.
Originally posted by CristobalColonic
Originally posted by DaTroof
Between Fukushima and inevitable future EQ activity, it's not worth supporting as a long-term economic ally.
So the US's word means... nothing?? How would that look on the world stage- letting an ally sink despite allegiances?
Moreover, isn't the US built on its military might? Shying away from an opportunity to demonstrate thus effectively declares the US's inferiority and paves the way for the relinquishing of its 'superpower' status...!
Originally posted by DaTroof
Does anyone's word mean anything? Ally shmally. Japan has gotten more isolationist in the last 10 years, and frankly it's a nuclear disaster that they've hid facts about. They're as much our friend as China or any other export nation.
Originally posted by mypan
Mazda: down 45%
Honda: down 54%
Nissan: down 41%
Toyota: down 44%
Contrasted with:
GM: up 14%
Ford: up 48%
Originally posted by KonigKaos
Nearly all of there population lives on the coast line 2-3 well placed nukes bam 500 million plus gone in minutes
Originally posted by nottelling
You say that as if the Chinese leadership doesn't see war as a viable, quick and easy means of population and resource control. 1 million plus male soldiers who will never find a woman remember...
Originally posted by nottelling
If China and Japan started a shooting war over some pissant islands with lots of fish
Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by CristobalColonic
China won't go to war over a few islands.
The losses they would take economically outweigh the benefits they would gain from military action.
Its really that simple.
Slapping face, name calling and the old "mom he took my cookie" is to me what Japan and China are doing to bad it has to be done with weapons of war.
By Robert H. Wade, professor of political economy at the London School of Economics. Cross posted from Triple Crisis
The current dispute between China and Japan over a few barren islands inhabited by goats – called Diaoyu in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese – looks at first sight to be a mere territorial spat. But it has escalated to a very dangerous level in recent months — first words, then actions of police forces, now actions of air forces, and, behind all these, both sides have mobilised all their military, political, economic, diplomatic, and cultural energies to engage in the dispute. It is more fundamental than normal territorial disputes, because the very identities of the two countries are at stake.
A strong narrative has taken hold in the West and much of East Asia about China’s behaviour, which starts with the proposition that China is the provocateur. Examples include, “China sows new seeds of conflict with neighbours”;[1] China has adopted an “increasingly sharp-elbowed approach to its neighbors, especially Japan”;[2] “China…has launched a new campaign of attrition against Japan over the Senkaku islands…. Beijing has sought to challenge Japan’s decades-old control, despite the risk that an accident could spiral out of control”.[3]