China says it will attack Japan if it goes nuclear

Originally posted by JamesinOz



I personally don't believe India will pose a major threat to Australia going forward, as I believe they may have their hands full in their own region, and will be forced to focus their military resources closer to home out of necessity.

cheers & thanks
James

I would think so too.. but then when a foreign navy holds carrier exercises of your coast then you tend to get a little jittery aye?
India is not "blockaded in the Indian Ocean as China and (now) Russia are in the pacific(and atlantic)..
THey enjoy an "overwhelming" superiority over the Pakistani Navy and can infact blockade the entire pakistani coastline if desired..
Not even the USN can dictate terms here..

Yes..thats partly because there are no hostilities between the IN and USN, but there have been incidents where a IN destroyer group has popped up in the Persian Gulf w/o prior intimation to the USN..And the USN was quite perplexed in those situations, esp. since that region was(is) sensitive..

Infact I remember a radio con between the captains of a USN Frigate and a IN Destroyer at the Mouth of the P Gulf.. Read it in a newspaper..


USN Captain:undentified vessel !!Identify yourself !!

IN Captain: This is the INS Bombay (I think)..Good evening to you.

USN Captain: Good Evening.. What a pleasant surprise!..
Pray tell me what you are doing so far from your regional waters??

IN Captain: But my dear sir! I'm only about a 1000km from my coast! Pray..what are YOU doing so far from your regional waters??!!

So you see the IN is more or less free to roam the Indian ocean..
And it has more power projection capabilities (As of now) as compared to the Aussie NAvy..
Not to insinuate that the Aussies and Indians view each other as threats, but just pointing out that the Indian Ocean is well "warmly" contested!!



[edit on 6-7-2005 by Daedalus3]

India's aircraft carriers+submarines ensure that the Indian ocean is the Indian Ocean

Originally posted by Daedalus3
THey enjoy an "overwhelming" superiority over the Pakistani Navy and can infact blockade the entire pakistani coastline if desired..
Not even the USN can dictate terms here..

Good God! If not even Pakistan can stop them the US Navy doesn't stand a chance!

Yes..thats partly because there are no hostilities between the IN and USN, but there have been incidents where a IN destroyer group has popped up in the Persian Gulf w/o prior intimation to the USN..And the USN was quite perplexed in those situations, esp. since that region was(is) sensitive..

Don't get the wrong impression just because somebody didn't tell one of our frigates that you were coming. Nobody on this planet has even nearly as many eyes, ears, or guns on the sea as the USN. India is neither hostile nor a threat, so go figure that no emergency alert was sent to our ships.

Not to insinuate that the Aussies and Indians view each other as threats, but just pointing out that the Indian Ocean is well "warmly" contested!!

I hate to be a nationalist prick, but there's no such thing as a contested Ocean. There are however many oceans where none of the regional powers are advanced enough to notice when a Los Angeles class attack sub is running drills on them. The Aussies could definately use a real Navy, but their government is never gonna pay for that when they know dang well that Americans love them and their beer too much to let anything bad happen to them.

Before I go any further into the strategic situation re: Indonesia I want to think on it for a day or two, because I'm already beginning to think that I have overestimated India's chances of making a move on Indonesia without American consent, and since India seems to be planning to share Central Asia with Russia in an uneasy alliance with China (which China may be destined to betray) I don't see America consenting. I just need to mull over a few of the possible scenarios and decide who can count oun whom before I speculate further.

The few solid things I can see in this situation however are
1. Chinese presence in Tajikistan is nearly inevitable. Russia can consent to this, or they can have it taken from them economically/diplomatically.
2. India can not independently access Central Asia while Pakistan is not on somebody else's leash.
3. Central Asian nations can not be independent without access to the sea, and are thus destined to be somebody's puppet/colony. Afghan history is a great example of this.
4. American influence is going to be a crucial factor in Central Asia, and the extent of American influence hinges directly on the control of either Iran or Pakistan- probably Iran.
5. Indonesia is a noteworthy but expensive prize in all this, and the relationship of involved nations to Australia, Britain, and America will be decisive in the scenario.

Once I've mulled over possible interactions between Pakistan, India, Russia, and China with America and Australia I'll be able to give a more reliable projection.

The big scenarios I can see so far look roughly like this:
1. Russia and India let China into Tajikistan, China eclipses Russia's importance in the region, this leaves India something of an odd man out, and gives China a great deal of sway in the region with or without invading anybody.
2. Scenario 1 but India snuggles up to China and lets Russia become irrelevant on their own. China may or may not stab India in the back later.
3. Russia and India deny China Tajikistan, China has a choice between reacting against either India or Russia in one of several places.
4. America gains control over Central Asia via Iran, Afghanistan, and possibly Turkmenistan- India stabs Russia and China in the back and sticks with America.
5. 4, but India sticks with China and America turns to Pakistan as its second-choice ally in the region. Maybe then India and CHina look jointly at Indonesia and the Pacific, maybe even as far as Australia.

I'm sure there are other scenarios too. I'm just sort of feeling my way through this. You've got to consider multiple angles based on multiple measurements or you get a 1 dimensional projection which may completely miss the decisive factors.

Of course we pretty well off the Japan topic anyway now. We should probably create a seperate thread. I'll get back to you all later. I'm exhausted.

Read these threads :

India allows US Navy to operate from its naval bases >>

India & US sign 10-year defense pact >>

India is not viewed by the US as a threat because it is not hostile and is just not a threatening or war-making nation.

Infact the US has offered PAC-3's, F-16 block 70's & Super Hornets to India.

And the Indian navy is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more powerful that the Aussie one,

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Read these threads :

India allows US Navy to operate from its naval bases >>

India & US sign 10-year defense pact >>

India is not viewed by the US as a threat because it is not hostile and is just not a threatening or war-making nation.

Infact the US has offered PAC-3's, F-16 block 70's & Super Hornets to India.

And the Indian navy is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more powerful that the Aussie one,

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]

yeah yeah yeah...I've heard all about the Indian navy thinking the Indian Ocean is it's own private lake....coincidentally, the Aussie government built a navy base on its Indian Ocean coast 30 years ago which is the U.S. navy's 2nd biggest nuclear sub base outside of America...oops, was I supposed to say that, oh well, lol. Got that down Chinawhite?

Anyways, I know India has been beating the Pakis at cricket lately, I'm just afraid that if the tide turns things could end in tears on the sub-continent.

The Indian Ocean may be India's lake, but we all know which navy OWNS the Indian Ocean...and as such will make sure that everyone plays by the rules...

Originally posted by JamesinOz
Anyways, I know India has been beating the Pakis at cricket lately, I'm just afraid that if the tide turns things could end in tears on the sub-continent.

Its Australia that we always struggle against in cricket

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by JamesinOz
Anyways, I know India has been beating the Pakis at cricket lately, I'm just afraid that if the tide turns things could end in tears on the sub-continent.

Its Australia that we always struggle against in cricket

lol, well at least thats one advantage we have over India

I'm just a bit concerned about any disagreements between the Pakis and India that can't be resolved over a game of cricket....

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by Daedalus3
THey enjoy an "overwhelming" superiority over the Pakistani Navy and can infact blockade the entire pakistani coastline if desired..
Not even the USN can dictate terms here..

Good God! If not even Pakistan can stop them the US Navy doesn't stand a chance!

Yes..thats partly because there are no hostilities between the IN and USN, but there have been incidents where a IN destroyer group has popped up in the Persian Gulf w/o prior intimation to the USN..And the USN was quite perplexed in those situations, esp. since that region was(is) sensitive..

Don't get the wrong impression just because somebody didn't tell one of our frigates that you were coming. Nobody on this planet has even nearly as many eyes, ears, or guns on the sea as the USN. India is neither hostile nor a threat, so go figure that no emergency alert was sent to our ships.

Not to insinuate that the Aussies and Indians view each other as threats, but just pointing out that the Indian Ocean is well "warmly" contested!!

I hate to be a nationalist prick, but there's no such thing as a contested Ocean. There are however many oceans where none of the regional powers are advanced enough to notice when a Los Angeles class attack sub is running drills on them. The Aussies could definately use a real Navy, but their government is never gonna pay for that when they know dang well that Americans love them and their beer too much to let anything bad happen to them.

Before I go any further into the strategic situation re: Indonesia I want to think on it for a day or two, because I'm already beginning to think that I have overestimated India's chances of making a move on Indonesia without American consent, and since India seems to be planning to share Central Asia with Russia in an uneasy alliance with China (which China may be destined to betray) I don't see America consenting. I just need to mull over a few of the possible scenarios and decide who can count oun whom before I speculate further.

The few solid things I can see in this situation however are
1. Chinese presence in Tajikistan is nearly inevitable. Russia can consent to this, or they can have it taken from them economically/diplomatically.
2. India can not independently access Central Asia while Pakistan is not on somebody else's leash.
3. Central Asian nations can not be independent without access to the sea, and are thus destined to be somebody's puppet/colony. Afghan history is a great example of this.
4. American influence is going to be a crucial factor in Central Asia, and the extent of American influence hinges directly on the control of either Iran or Pakistan- probably Iran.
5. Indonesia is a noteworthy but expensive prize in all this, and the relationship of involved nations to Australia, Britain, and America will be decisive in the scenario.

Once I've mulled over possible interactions between Pakistan, India, Russia, and China with America and Australia I'll be able to give a more reliable projection.

The big scenarios I can see so far look roughly like this:
1. Russia and India let China into Tajikistan, China eclipses Russia's importance in the region, this leaves India something of an odd man out, and gives China a great deal of sway in the region with or without invading anybody.
2. Scenario 1 but India snuggles up to China and lets Russia become irrelevant on their own. China may or may not stab India in the back later.
3. Russia and India deny China Tajikistan, China has a choice between reacting against either India or Russia in one of several places.
4. America gains control over Central Asia via Iran, Afghanistan, and possibly Turkmenistan- India stabs Russia and China in the back and sticks with America.
5. 4, but India sticks with China and America turns to Pakistan as its second-choice ally in the region. Maybe then India and CHina look jointly at Indonesia and the Pacific, maybe even as far as Australia.

I'm sure there are other scenarios too. I'm just sort of feeling my way through this. You've got to consider multiple angles based on multiple measurements or you get a 1 dimensional projection which may completely miss the decisive factors.

Of course we pretty well off the Japan topic anyway now. We should probably create a seperate thread. I'll get back to you all later. I'm exhausted.

wow Vagabond, thats one hulluva chess board! good work!

"hello Rummy, just forget about the joint chiefs and log into ATS instead ok?"

Funnily enough, your comments about Uncle Sam liking Aussies too much to let us get invaded is actually historically accurate...in WW2 Roosevelt promised Churchill that the European theatre would get the lions share of U.S. military resources...while secretly ordering Nimitiz to defend Australia at all costs!

That's because the US needed Australia as a base to launch operations against Japan, if Japan took Australia it was all over for the US. Japan would control the entire south Easter area and the US would be limited to only Hawaii.

Originally posted by JamesinOz


Got that down Chinawhite?

lol. i am as austrailan as a am chinese

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by JamesinOz


Got that down Chinawhite?

lol. i am as austrailan as a am chinese

I know buddy, I'm only having a lend of you

Originally posted by JamesinOz


I know buddy, I'm only having a lend of you

ok lol

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That's because the US needed Australia as a base to launch operations against Japan, if Japan took Australia it was all over for the US. Japan would control the entire south Easter area and the US would be limited to only Hawaii.

I'm more than happy for America to use Australia as an oversized aircraft carrier anytime it wants to- Mandarin's a bloody hard language to learn!

During the first half of the last century, bloody conflict between China and Japan lay at the center of Asian international politics. But some recent events, most notably the cruise of a Chinese nuclear submarine through Japanese waters (preceded by a circumnavigation of the key US territory of Guam), has given new substance to what has long been every strategist’s nightmare.

These developments have also given the lie to the widespread opinion that the only foreign policy issue China cares about or might fight over is Taiwan. If that is the case, why go out of your way to make an enemy of Asia’s real super power: namely, Japan? The focus of tension is migrating north, from the Taiwan Strait to the territorial waters of Japan—which extend, let us recall, as far south as Shimoji-shima, some 250 miles northeast of Taiwan--to Korea, and perhaps to Russia.

Now it is becoming clear that even the Japanese have limits, but we cannot know exactly how they will react as these limits are breached, except that they will do so effectively, as a politically united state.For half a century Japan’s has been a sterling record of purely defensive military policies, eagerness to negotiate and join international organizations, and a willingness to dig deep financially to support relief, peacekeeping, development, and other worthy projects. But now, as happened in the 1920s when the Washington treaty security system broke down, Tokyo finds herself facing unexpected and real threats, for which no obvious answers are at hand.The root problem is that the US nuclear umbrella—the threat that any nuclear attack on Japan would be answered by the United States—is no longer credible, because potential attackers would have the ability to hit and incinerate large portions of the United States.

So what is Tokyo to do, faced by a China that regularly and quite flagrantly violates Japanese sovereignty while denouncing Tokyo in her state controlled media, and supports a North Korea that evidently possesses nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, as it demonstrated by the firing over Japan of a Taepodong I missile in 1998.

The answer is now clear: Tokyo has decided fundamentally to change its military posture and develop the sorts of weapons necessary to counter what is now openly named as a threat from China. Oddly, this response seems to have taken China by surprise, and shocked Beijing. For Japan is incomparably more sophisticated than China in military technology and in practice—she has perhaps the finest antisubmarine warfare (ASW) capability. We may be certain that when the Japanese put their minds on it, the military they create, despite what will be its clearly defined and limited missions, will unquestionably prove vastly superior to anything China can build or buy.

This is a massive and completely unnecessary setback for Beijing. Indeed, the gratuitous alienation of Japan must be ranked as one of China’s three greatest strategic mistakes since 1949 (the first was not sending an envoy to see US Ambassador Leighton Stuart in Nanjing, and thus sacrificing the possibility of good relations with Washington; the second was so threatening India that she decided to become a full-fledged nuclear power, which meant that in any future eventuality China would potentially face a two front war).

Japan is a democracy and a free country: it makes its decisions deliberately, through extensive consultation, and having made them, tends to stand by them—unlike autocratic China, where the leader has traditionally enjoyed the proverbial whim of iron. What this means is that in the years ahead, Japan will move steadily to upgrade its cooperation with its allies, its intelligence gathering capabilities, and its ability to detect, preempt, or destroy any attacking force—from land, sea, air, or space. I suspect that deterrence, based on an ability to strike back, will also be part of this mix.

The cruise of the submarine (noisy—one suspects so that no one would miss it) has done too much damage. Japan remains willing to talk, but in the future, we may expect her, as TR put it, to “speak softly but carry a big stick.”

Nor does China help her case by constant harping on Prime Minister Koizumi’s perfectly legitimate visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, to memorialize Japan’s war dead and as he makes explicit, pray for peace, or by calling for "accuracy" in the Japanese textbooks that are, admittedly, vague about World War II and the atrocities Japan committed. But does China have the standing to make such comments? Her own textbooks are profoundly misleading and confusing, and millions continue to honor the shrine of Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square—Mao, who was personally responsible for the deaths of far more Chinese than were the Japanese, themselves no mean killers.

China’s evident desire to demonstrate her military muscle is eliciting responses among her neighbors that will effectively hem her in. Already Chinese strategists are writing about the pattern of “nuclear encirclement” that has been produced almost entirely by their own actions.

But Japan has learned her lesson: she is interested in the defense of herself and her neighborhood, not aggression or empire building.

China has succeeded in shifting the focus of tension on her coast from an island of 22 million people to one having perhaps 130 million, as well as the world’s second largest economy and superb levels of education and technological competence. This has been a very unwise move for China.

Read the full version ...

Nor does China help her case by constant harping on Prime Minister Koizumi’s perfectly legitimate visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, to memorialize Japan’s war dead

you article shouldn't even be posted. do you know what the Yasukuni Shrine is????

Its the chinese version of NAZIS. they worship class A convicted war criminals.. germans wouldn't go worship the grave of hitler

[edit on 7-7-2005 by chinawhite]

Originally posted by JamesinOz

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That's because the US needed Australia as a base to launch operations against Japan, if Japan took Australia it was all over for the US. Japan would control the entire south Easter area and the US would be limited to only Hawaii.

I'm more than happy for America to use Australia as an oversized aircraft carrier anytime it wants to- Mandarin's a bloody hard language to learn!

It is. Way too different to Cantonese. Couldn't learn it. Learn Cantonese if you have to. Pronunciation is a lot more straightforward. Although I have to admit, the I personally like the sound of Mandarin better than Cantonese, but then again I speak cantonese and my friends who speak mandarin all say cantonese sounds better.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Nor does China help her case by constant harping on Prime Minister Koizumi’s perfectly legitimate visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, to memorialize Japan’s war dead

you article shouldn't even be posted. do you know what the Yasukuni Shrine is????

Its the chinese version of NAZIS. they worship class A convicted war criminals.. germans wouldn't go worship the grave of hitler

Cool down..that's just what the article reads..its not like i wrote that. Just another China-Japan analysis.

They way i see it its just a shrine to pay homage to your nation's dead.

One must recall " The good that men do is interred with their bones; the bad lives after them"

Originally posted by D

Originally posted by JamesinOz

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That's because the US needed Australia as a base to launch operations against Japan, if Japan took Australia it was all over for the US. Japan would control the entire south Easter area and the US would be limited to only Hawaii.

I'm more than happy for America to use Australia as an oversized aircraft carrier anytime it wants to- Mandarin's a bloody hard language to learn!

It is. Way too different to Cantonese. Couldn't learn it. Learn Cantonese if you have to. Pronunciation is a lot more straightforward. Although I have to admit, the I personally like the sound of Mandarin better than Cantonese, but then again I speak cantonese and my friends who speak mandarin all say cantonese sounds better.

hi D,

my Cantonese speaking friends say the same thing, although of course the whole of China shares an ancient and sophisticated culture...North and South.

cheers
James

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by chinawhite
Nor does China help her case by constant harping on Prime Minister Koizumi’s perfectly legitimate visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, to memorialize Japan’s war dead

you article shouldn't even be posted. do you know what the Yasukuni Shrine is????

Its the chinese version of NAZIS. they worship class A convicted war criminals.. germans wouldn't go worship the grave of hitler

Cool down..that's just what the article reads..its not like i wrote that. Just another China-Japan analysis.

They way i see it its just a shrine to pay homage to your nation's dead.

One must recall " The good that men do is interred with their bones; the bad lives after them"

I think a lot of the noise from China about Japans history has a wider underlying agenda, although I do believe the Japanese could take a leaf out of Germanys book in terms how to deal with what happened in the past.....carefully.

Originally posted by JamesinOz

I think a lot of the noise from China about Japans history has a wider underlying agenda, although I do believe the Japanese could take a leaf out of Germanys book in terms how to deal with what happened in the past.....carefully.

the japanese might be all nice to western wartime loses againest japan but when it comes to asians the japs tell them to @#$% off