Why Asiatic Countries will never go to War with the US

This thread is in particular about the major (non-psychotic) Asian countries: China, Japan, South Korea specifically, but it can not extend to Vietnam, Thailand, India and etc...nations dependent upon commerce to now survive.

View Point Asia

This discusses powerfully the Garrisoning of Asia by the United States.

Chalmers Johnson explains why Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea detest American troops in their countries; but don't dare let them go.

The peace that's allowed Asia to become a major economic power is due to American Garrisoning and Garrisoning is unpopular but necessary. And the Asian nations know this.

The old hatreds are not enough to allow business to prosper: China almost rejected Japanese business when Japan began a slight military build-up. Japan does not have a current robust military program because of American Garrisoning.

This is a good commentary I think.

Dude, except command economic nations, EVERY country depends on commericial activities and trade to survive.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
This discusses powerfully the Garrisoning of Asia by the United States.

The peace that's allowed Asia to become a major economic power is due to American Garrisoning and Garrisoning is unpopular but necessary. And the Asian nations know this.

What was that again?? Stratrf your humour knows no bounds!!!
India and China are the fastest growing economies in the world with growth rates of 9-10%! They are the biggest regional powers and soon to be the future super powers in a couple of decades from now.

And all this without so-called American Garrisoning.
So what are we talking about here? I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at. Is the peace at present between countries in South Asia because of American Garrisoning? Lol, you're outta sinc!

If America were ever so stupid to wage a war with lets just say Red China, then you can be assured that there will be a fight that cannot be won.

You kill 10 of them and they kill 1 of you but it is you, in the end who will tire of this game.

As far as Im concerned, the US sucks at wars and the Asians are the last bunch one would want to carpet bomb.


Peace

Originally posted by The_Voice
If America were ever so stupid to wage a war with lets just say Red China, then you can be assured that there will be a fight that cannot be won.

You kill 10 of them and they kill 1 of you but it is you, in the end who will tire of this game.

As far as Im concerned, the US sucks at wars and the Asians are the last bunch one would want to carpet bomb.


Peace

You've got a point there. That last sentance of yours; 'As far as Im concerned, the US sucks at wars.' strikes me as being one of the most down to Earth and correct statements i've heard about the US's ability to fight and win wars, in a long time.

The Chinese ground the US led UN forces to a standstill in Korea - the US couldn't win the war on the ground in Vietnam (nor the did the country as a whole have the stamina to last it out in Vietnam - the Americans didn't despose Saddam in 1991; they merely booted the Iraqi's out of Kuwait - the Americans left Somalia with their tales between their legs - if you remember, the Americans didn't technically win a war in Afghanistan (it was a war, in the traditional sense of the word, but for the crucial first months of the conflict, they only had army special forces and CIA operatives on the ground working together with the Northern Alliance to root the Taliban out of the major cities. Afghanistan wasn't secured on the ground, which is one of the reasons the Taliban are now coming back into play in the South of the country) - then you had Iraq. The Americans went all the way this time - defeating Iraq's conventional forces on the ground, securing the entire country and the capital in a matter of weeks. Then they topped that off with the capture of Saddam....but three years later, the Americans are still in Iraq, fighting a bunch of rag-heads with AKs and mortars.

That's one of the reasons it doesn't surprise me that when you go and talk to the plebs on the streets in the Middle East and South-East Asia, they don't respect the US. Who cares if these people don't 'like' the US (even though they listen to US rap music and drink Coca-Cola), at least they should have a healthy respect for the you.

I know i'm going on here a bit, but i'll just say one last thing. We all the know the Americans are contemplating invading Iran; what they need to do is go the whole hog this time. No pussy-footing around; if you're gonna go to war with another country, use all the aces you've got up your sleeve. Whatever Donald's faults, I respect the man for what he is - a master military strategist and politician. But it appears the Rumsfeld Pentagon's got some sort of hard-on for special forces and other unconventional weapons systems and processes. The Americans, if they're going to go into Iraq, need to put a good number of armoured and mechanized regular and national guard units on the ground. The rest of the world will be left with no misunderstandings that the Americans aren't ready to commit to a fight and win it. Wars aren't supposed to be fair or fun - you're supposed to fight them and pick up the pieces afterward.

I really fail to comprehend the outcome of this discussion. Is there something that I am missing out?

dont mess with chinese

Originally posted by mikesingh
And all this without so-called American Garrisoning.

Then again, if the americans left the japanese to their own devices, china would probably be a province in the japanese empire.



As far as the point of the discusion, it seems like the opening poster is saying that, while there are problems with US occupation/pressence throughout asia, it is because of that pressence that there hasn't been more widespread fighting between nations. The so-called pax americana effect. And that, because of this relative peace, the economies of the region, like china and india, have been able to grow.

This seems to most strictly only apply to the US holding the japanese back, and the US blocking the advancement of communism in the continent, as in southeast asia and korea.

So agian, think about how a re-Imperialized japan would be acting torwards a more 'red' china, or what india woudl have to do if it was surrounded by Red Chinese Satellite Repulics. I wouldn't say that I entirely agree with the economic success being the 'result' of the US, nor that because of such a state that the asian countries won't go to war with the US (i think the threat of utter nuclear desctruction handles that), it is a valid point.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Then again, if the americans left the japanese to their own devices, china would probably be a province in the japanese empire.



As far as the point of the discusion, it seems like the opening poster is saying that, while there are problems with US occupation/pressence throughout asia, it is because of that pressence that there hasn't been more widespread fighting between nations. The so-called pax americana effect. And that, because of this relative peace, the economies of the region, like china and india, have been able to grow.

This seems to most strictly only apply to the US holding the japanese back, and the US blocking the advancement of communism in the continent, as in southeast asia and korea.

So agian, think about how a re-Imperialized japan would be acting torwards a more 'red' china, or what india woudl have to do if it was surrounded by Red Chinese Satellite Repulics. I wouldn't say that I entirely agree with the economic success being the 'result' of the US, nor that because of such a state that the asian countries won't go to war with the US (i think the threat of utter nuclear desctruction handles that), it is a valid point.

You've GOT to be kidding me!!
For the better part part of the 2nd half of the 20th century India, China and the US have been at each other's throats. Any single one had major issues with the other two.


And FYI if the Japanese had not been pushed out of China, they would not have advanced into India.
Japan was infact fuding the armed independance movement in India around the early 1940s.

Stopping communism in Asia??!
All the major asian power have communism deep rooted in them.
Russia and China: no need for an explanation.
India: The communist parties play a major role in today's governing democratic coalitions
(Although in recent times IMHO their leaders have become increasingly senile! :lol

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Daedalus3]

The US would have no chance in a major war against the Chinesse. I love the way Americans assume that events happen in the world becasue of American Intervention or non-intervention. You would think the world was call the US!

I love how not a single person here listened to a well respected Asian Analyst and instead invented their own crack-pot and stupid theories.

If you'd listen to the discussion I'm sure the majority of you would have more intelligent things to say...as of yet only Nygdan was able to formulate an intelligible and realistic responce.

Everybody listened.. but not everyone agrees aye?
Analyst are analysts.. They provide points of view, not the stark truth.

'Asian analysts' with 'field experience' are probably the resident asians(asians who stay in Asia) themselves, don't you think? They(we/I) find it rather 'quaint' when they're(we're/I'm) told that the peace/economic prosperity/ halt of communism in Asia(one HOPES you're not including the middleeast in Asia ) is because of American Garrisoning.

As far as the point of the discusion, it seems like the opening poster is saying that, while there are problems with US occupation/pressence throughout asia, it is because of that pressence that there hasn't been more widespread fighting between nations. The so-called pax americana effect. And that, because of this relative peace, the economies of the region, like china and india, have been able to grow.

Do you have any proof backing this statement or is this your judgement? I am sure the world can progress ahead without US being the supercop. I understand the motives of US being a supercop obviously for their own interest, which country doesnt? How do you contribute the growth of these two countries to the peace being maintained by the US.
Just to refresh the point, India still has ongoing problems with Pakistan. Now and then you here problems in Jammu and Kashmir. Hindu and Muslim having issues of their own. China has its own dramas.

Both countries have their share in their growth. I think too much credit is being given here..........

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Everybody listened.. but not everyone agrees aye?
Analyst are analysts.. They provide points of view, not the stark truth.

'Asian analysts' with 'field experience' are probably the resident asians(asians who stay in Asia) themselves, don't you think? They(we/I) find it rather 'quaint' when they're(we're/I'm) told that the peace/economic prosperity/ halt of communism in Asia(one HOPES you're not including the middleeast in Asia

) is because of American Garrisoning.

Daedalus...plenty of Americans believe in aliens at Area 51...plenty believe that Bush is a "liar"...plenty believe that jobs going overseas is "bad".

So why then would I care what stupid opinions many Americans have about themselves?

As such...do you really think that because you are from some country in Asia; that you automatically have more insight into the situation there than people who make it their lives to determine policy?

You have nothing to do with policy...and if you're an Asian...you have almost nothing to do with your government either.

So you might as well not act enlightened on basis of geography.

I would agree with this as of now, and in the past. However, it doesn't quite take into account what happens if American influence is eclipsed in the region by Chinese influence. In such a scenario, you could end up with two powers of equal or near equal strength competing with one another.

It will become more difficult for American to keep its troops and influence over the Pacific with China's growing economic power. May not lead to war, but it would make it possible.

I also think that a nation like India, sitting right next to China will probably develop a strained relation with China. Both will want to spread their influence in the world, and want economic dominance of the region.

The best scenario for a war, as I see it, is China vs. India. India would seem to be the dog in this war, which would lead me to believe America would be likely to take their side in any conflict. I could see an anti-Chinese force developing throughout the region. This is about the only way I can see America retaining its position in not only the Pacific, but the world.

For the time, though, America does have China boxed in. No war is likely until China is capable of projecting power beyond its own borders, or some catastrohpic economic event (Great Depression type).

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


Daedalus...plenty of Americans believe in aliens at Area 51...plenty believe that Bush is a "liar"...plenty believe that jobs going overseas is "bad".

So why then would I care what stupid opinions many Americans have about themselves?

As such...do you really think that because you are from some country in Asia; that you automatically have more insight into the situation there than people who make it their lives to determine policy?

You have nothing to do with policy...and if you're an Asian...you have almost nothing to do with your government either.

So you might as well not act enlightened on basis of geography.

Since when did western asian analysts determine foreign policy for asian countries?
Or are we the 51st, 52nd, 53rd states now? no wait I forgot to count Iraq, a load of other middle eastern countries, Japan, S Korea etc etc..

And policy has nothing to do with Area 51 and/or aliens. That at best is a strawmans arguement you're trying to pull.

Infact I have more to do with the policy in my country than some far off western analyst because I have something which is called a VOTE.
I am not saying that ALL western analysts or even this one are mentally/analytically inferior to resident asians vis-a-vis policy. All I'm saying is that this very particular opinion pax-americana type garrisoning if you will is absolutely preposterous. You can maybe apply that those annexed countries(S Korea/Japan) of yours but that my friend is not Asia in its entirety.

And with respect to Any future sino-Indian conflicts, all I can say is that Indian foreign policy views its relations with China and the US as two completely separate entities.
Many war scenarios concerning India and China have been run, rerun, and run again in the ATS weapons/ aircraft fora and the general consensus is taht the aggressor is usually going to be the one who ends up at a disadvantage. This is because neither country (esp China) has a serious long term power projection capability to wage war on a country of the sizes we're talking about.
Infact the only thing that freaks the beejezus out of the Americans is this new understanding that is developing between India,China and Russia to forge an alliance (someday) which will rival any other bloc on this planet.
That is why the US wants into this region bigtime.

About Bush being a Liar? Well those guys have got 'international' support there

Oh yeah ok...if you think that the economies of Asia is anything without Japan and Korea (which without them being congenial towards China, China would have virtually no economy either) then by all means...exclude the importants of American Garrisoning.

The fact is that China (to which this post is specific) is too dependent upon the US to go to war with the US...as is any major power there.

Since when did western asian analysts determine foreign policy for asian countries?

An analyst doesn't dicatate any policy, he analyzes and predicts. A nations foreign policy won't differ much by who is in charge. Democracy or dictatorship, it's really irrelevent. A nation's foreign policy is all about what will benefit the nation, and it is usually all about what is possible and what isn't.

I am not saying that ALL western analysts or even this one are mentally/analytically inferior to resident asians vis-a-vis policy. All I'm saying is that this very particular opinion pax-americana type garrisoning if you will is absolutely preposterous. You can maybe apply that those annexed countries(S Korea/Japan) of yours but that my friend is not Asia in its entirety.

Neither China nor India can act without taking those garrisons, or American cash into consideration.

And with respect to Any future sino-Indian conflicts, all I can say is that Indian foreign policy views its relations with China and the US as two completely separate entities.

This is an absurd idea. You can't take an action with one country without taking into account how another will respond. America can't even keep its relations with Saudi Arabia and Canada seperate. A nation has to have a global strategy.

Many war scenarios concerning India and China have been run, rerun, and run again in the ATS weapons/ aircraft fora and the general consensus is taht the aggressor is usually going to be the one who ends up at a disadvantage. This is because neither country (esp China) has a serious long term power projection capability to wage war on a country of the sizes we're talking about.

It's nice to see what the great military minds of ATS think. However, both nations are increasing military capability, China especially.

Infact the only thing that freaks the beejezus out of the Americans is this new understanding that is developing between India,China and Russia to forge an alliance (someday) which will rival any other bloc on this planet.

What understanding? It makes no sense at all for any of the nations involved. Russia and India will both find themselves competing with China in the region. You can be a global player if you don't have control over your own region.

India and Russia will have two options in the next century. Oppose China, or submit to China. China has no need of either to compete, or even surpass America.

That is why the US wants into this region bigtime.

America doesn't want or need in. It has dominated the region since the end of WW2. America has had growing influence in the Pacific since the 19th Century.

The fact is that China (to which this post is specific) is too dependent upon the US to go to war with the US...as is any major power there.

This is awfully shortsighted. Ameirca holds the cards now because China has an undeveloped economy. China knows this, and will take steps to advance their economy.

America's current policy on China is weak. It will not be able to keep the Chinese in check at the current rate.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
This is because neither country (esp China) has a serious long term power projection capability to wage war on a country of the sizes we're talking about.

Actually china has more power projection capability. Its changed hands in these 2 years.

If you think about it chinas Su-XX fleet number in the hundreds. each with inflight refueling could go all the way to australia

[edit on 29-3-2006 by chinawhite]

I just typed a hreculean response to all the above posts and lost it to some stupid session problem!!! @#$!$#$!@#$!#$!@# ARRRRGGGGGGGGHHH!!!