Most of the western press has been sleeping on the developments concerning the Spratly Islands and the brewing tension between the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, and China. It's mostly the Philippines and Vietnam agitated at China but it threatens to broaden into something more significant because Japan is throwing its weight around as well. Korea has its own island disputes with Japan at the moment too which adds further complications.

I live in the region but I don't have any money invested in SE Asia at the moment. I honestly think a regional conflict could be a nice way to pop the property/financial bubble building up in Asia. However, the long term economic blow back of an actual regional war is uncertain. It's also interesting to consider that China could stand to lose 40+ million men without even batting an eye.

I just hope the U.S. doesn't get involved we don't need more of our tax dollars being wasted on nonsense.

(05-15-2014 11:40 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  I just hope the U.S. doesn't get involved we don't need more of our tax dollars being wasted on nonsense.

Don't worry... In one way or another the US will find a way to get involved.

No.

It's just posturing. All of these countries have too much to lose if they go to war.

If it becomes war, the U.S will get involved.

The best way to get yourself out of a debt problem is to tell your conquered foe "You're no longer getting back the money we owe you."

China owns a shed load of U.S debt.

This is the best way to repudiate it it, rather than paying it back.

The welfare gravy train can then fire up once again when the balance sheet is repaired.. choo choo!

It won't cost the U.S anything, they'll also get reparations to fork the bill.

All it will cost them will be the sons of the lower classes, and the elite view them as expendable anyway.

There was protests against Chinese companies near I where I live (industrial zone), factories and offices was smashed and everything, the protesters most likely did it just for the money.

Diplomatic risks grow with China’s rise:

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/860580.shtml

Quote:The South China Sea disputes should be settled in a peaceful manner, but that doesn't mean China can't resort to non-peaceful measures in the face of provocation from Vietnam and the Philippines. Many people believe that a forced war would convince some countries of China's sincerely peaceful intentions, but it is also highly likely that China's strategy would face more uncertainties.

Lets put it this way, without the US and before them the British Empire that area of the world would have seen many more wars.

They just don't like each other. Japans xenophobic history towards other nations is proof of this.

(05-16-2014 01:23 AM)Suits Wrote:  No.

It's just posturing. All of these countries have too much to lose if they go to war.

Yet brinkmanship sometimes gets way out of hand and everyone involved loses the plot completely. Exhibit A: World War 1.

The two sides involved:

The Triple Entente: Britain, France, Russia
The Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire

The outcome? Four of the six lost their empires and massive amounts of territory. Russia ended up with a bloody revolution and regime change. Even for Britain and France, the loss of life and money were enormous. More than that, though, it knocked the very stuffing out of Western civilisation and set up WW2 (shortly after which, both Britain and France lost their empires). Europe has never regained its position of preeminence in the world since 1918.

Who did WW1 benefit? The U.S., Italy and Japan (maybe some others, including the newly created countries out of the former empires in some cases). The latter two squandered their gains later anyway.

In hindsight, WW1 seems utterly mad. People also have all sorts of explanations for why it was obvious that there was going to be a major war. Here's the kicker though. I remember watching a presentation by Niall Ferguson once (who thinks WW1 was utterly insane also, and lays the blame for it primarily at the feet of Britain) and he mentioned that one of his graduate students had done work examining the bond market in the lead up to WW1. The bond market did not see the war coming at all. Read that last sentence again. Despite all the analysis after the fact by historians and so on, the whole thing was totally unexpected at the time.

These things are always fine until they're not. Does this mean that I think there will be war? No. I certainly hope that there won't be. Yet to categorically believe that there won't be war seems a little naive regarding history and a little too trusting in the rationality and coolness of heads in a war cabinet meeting.

This could, or maybe even should, be Asia's century. Yet they could piss it all away. One hundred years ago, who would have believed that Europe would be in the situation it is now? One quarter of the world's land surface alone was owned or controlled by Britain, with many other places being influenced by them. Only Ethiopia (or Libya too?) in Africa was not controlled by a European power.

(05-16-2014 05:33 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:23 AM)Suits Wrote:  No.

It's just posturing. All of these countries have too much to lose if they go to war.

Yet brinkmanship sometimes gets way out of hand and everyone involved loses the plot completely. Exhibit A: World War 1.

The two sides involved:

The Triple Entente: Britain, France, Russia
The Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire

The outcome? Four of the six lost their empires and massive amounts of territory. Russia ended up with a bloody revolution and regime change. Even for Britain and France, the loss of life and money were enormous. More than that, though, it knocked the very stuffing out of Western civilisation and set up WW2 (shortly after which, both Britain and France lost their empires). Europe has never regained its position of preeminence in the world since 1918.

Who did WW1 benefit? The U.S., Italy and Japan (maybe some others, including the newly created countries out of the former empires in some cases). The latter two squandered their gains later anyway.

In hindsight, WW1 seems utterly mad. People also have all sorts of explanations for why it was obvious that there was going to be a major war. Here's the kicker though. I remember watching a presentation by Niall Ferguson once (who thinks WW1 was utterly insane also, and lays the blame for it primarily at the feet of Britain) and he mentioned that one of his graduate students had done work examining the bond market in the lead up to WW1. The bond market did not see the war coming at all. Read that last sentence again. Despite all the analysis after the fact by historians and so on, the whole thing was totally unexpected at the time.

These things are always fine until they're not. Does this mean that I think there will be war? No. I certainly hope that there won't be. Yet to categorically believe that there won't be war seems a little naive regarding history and a little too trusting in the rationality and coolness of heads in a war cabinet meeting.

This could, or maybe even should, be Asia's century. Yet they could piss it all away. One hundred years ago, who would have believed that Europe would be in the situation it is now? One quarter of the world's land surface alone was owned or controlled by Britain, with many other places being influenced by them. Only Ethiopia (or Libya too?) in Africa was not controlled by a European power.

True and I appreciate the in depth contribution, but everyone already knows who will win an Asian war.

Since China isn't currently in the empire building business, with it's focus on economy, I think it is safe to say that major war will only occur if some entity is dumb enough to think that they can take on "you know who."

Regardless, I definitely plan to remain in denial for as long as possible, since I have a lot to lose (my life) if things go south.

I was under the impression most wars is sanctioned by a small group of elites who plan, organize and action wars to realise their aims which is mostly to do with self gain.

China has 200 million surplus males, yes? Why would they avoid war?

(05-16-2014 08:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  China has 200 million surplus males, yes? Why would they avoid war?

So that the elites who have multiple wives don't lose everything.

(05-16-2014 08:25 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  China has 200 million surplus males, yes? Why would they avoid war?

So that the elites who have multiple wives don't lose everything.

How would the elites lose anything by sending 200+ million surplus males into battle?

Our elites have already profited quite nicely off the Ukrainian war.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33751-...#pid725347

The idea that elites don't like war has no basis in history or present reality.

(05-16-2014 08:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:25 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  China has 200 million surplus males, yes? Why would they avoid war?

So that the elites who have multiple wives don't lose everything.

How would the elites lose anything by sending 200+ million surplus males into battle?

Our elites have already profited quite nicely off the Ukrainian war.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33751-...#pid725347

The idea that elites don't like war has no basis in history or present reality.

China (and particularly the elites that aren't living like peasants) benefit significantly from inter-regional trade.

I can't imagine being at war with a country's key trading partners would do anyone any good.

(05-16-2014 08:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:25 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  China has 200 million surplus males, yes? Why would they avoid war?

So that the elites who have multiple wives don't lose everything.

How would the elites lose anything by sending 200+ million surplus males into battle?

Our elites have already profited quite nicely off the Ukrainian war.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33751-...#pid725347

The idea that elites don't like war has no basis in history or present reality.

China (and particularly the elites that aren't living like peasants) benefit significantly from inter-regional trade.

I can't imagine being at war with a country's key trading partners would do anyone any good.

This shows your lack of understanding of war. It's not about "China."

It's about the men who run China. Millions of regular Chinese might suffer, but the guys in charge make billions upon billions.

(05-16-2014 08:45 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:25 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  China has 200 million surplus males, yes? Why would they avoid war?

So that the elites who have multiple wives don't lose everything.

How would the elites lose anything by sending 200+ million surplus males into battle?

Our elites have already profited quite nicely off the Ukrainian war.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33751-...#pid725347

The idea that elites don't like war has no basis in history or present reality.

China (and particularly the elites that aren't living like peasants) benefit significantly from inter-regional trade.

I can't imagine being at war with a country's key trading partners would do anyone any good.

This shows your lack of understanding of war. It's not about "China."

It's about the men who run China. Millions of regular Chinese might suffer, but the guys in charge make billions upon billions.

Damn it. Over three years on the continent, thousands of hours of language study, a degree in the region and 100 books read, all for nothing.

Ok, time to start from scratch. Fortunately, there is hope, as Samseau has proven himself an expert on yet another global region.

(05-16-2014 08:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:25 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  China has 200 million surplus males, yes? Why would they avoid war?

So that the elites who have multiple wives don't lose everything.

How would the elites lose anything by sending 200+ million surplus males into battle?

Our elites have already profited quite nicely off the Ukrainian war.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33751-...#pid725347

The idea that elites don't like war has no basis in history or present reality.

China (and particularly the elites that aren't living like peasants) benefit significantly from inter-regional trade.

I can't imagine being at war with a country's key trading partners would do anyone any good.

Britain and Germany were huge trade partners before WWI and that didn't stop them from going to war with one another. Nazi Germany and the USSR were significant trade partners before Operation Barbarossa.

Disparate foreign policy interests and differing national goals lead to conflict. When it's armed conflict, even a small dustup can spiral out of control. Trade, historically, has little to no effect on whether nations decide to go to war with one another or not. There are usually other considerations that are more important.

National security interests > economic interests

I can't imagine the consequence of the next world war. WWII ended with a nuke. Now, how many nukes do we have in the world?

The next world war would be self-assured mutual total destruction if one country is pissed off enough. It's not even about the economic interest once the war starts. It's more about pride... if we go down, we'll take everyone else with us too.

(05-16-2014 10:13 AM)MiscVs Wrote:  I can't imagine the consequence of the next world war. WWII ended with a nuke. Now, how many nukes do we have in the world?

The next world war would be self-assured mutual total destruction if one country is pissed off enough. It's not even about the economic interest once the war starts. It's more about pride... if we go down, we'll take everyone else with us too.

WWII ended with a nuke in part because it was total war and the other side had no way to retaliate against the US with a similar weapon.

I think it's more likely that nukes will be used on accident rather than on purpose, these days.

In fact, they kind of limit what a nation can do to another one. You really can't invade a nuclear armed power with a conventional army waging total war because the nation with the nukes would likely do massive damage to to the invading army's country.

It's worth noting that throughout the Cold War the US and the USSR never directly came to blows (although there were a few close calls) in part because of the threat posed by MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). We did, however, actually come pretty close to accidentally launching nukes at one another a couple times. And I believe there was a Soviet leader (Andropov?) who was almost convinced they could take out all our nukes in a first strike.

(05-16-2014 05:33 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  One quarter of the world's land surface alone was owned or controlled by Britain, with many other places being influenced by them. Only Ethiopia (or Libya too?) in Africa was not controlled by a European power.

Ethiopia was independent. Liberia is the other uncolonized African nation you are thinking of.

(05-16-2014 08:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:25 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  China has 200 million surplus males, yes? Why would they avoid war?

So that the elites who have multiple wives don't lose everything.

How would the elites lose anything by sending 200+ million surplus males into battle?

Because war is incredibly expensive when it involves your nation directly and your opponents are similarly advanced proximate military threats with the ability to severely disrupt your trade relations, wipe out much of your population, and damage your infrastructure. A major conflict involving China and several East Asian powers has the potential to create serious losses in men and material to China, which would not bode well for economic growth (ex: shrinking an already shrinking labor force further, sucking up a lot of money and many resources that currently are used to fuel economic growth, etc).

China, a nation already grappling with how to deal with an aging population and keep on growing in spite of it, doesn't need a war. Growth is the priority of the Chinese government, and war isn't good for growth.

Quote:Our elites have already profited quite nicely off the Ukrainian war.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33751-...#pid725347

Our elites won't be in the thick of the conflict in Ukraine. They do not care much about the country - little to lose, plenty to gain.

Chinese elites, in the event of a major conflict in their region involving China and several of their regional rivals, would be in far closer proximity to the conflict and any consequences of it. The conflict would represent a direct threat to their bid to maintain economic growth (which depends heavily on trading relationships that could be annihilated by a major conflict). American involvement (directly or indirectly on the side of China's opponents in East Asia) would only exacerbate that threat. The Chinese do not want this - a major conflict in East Asia is not in their national security or economic interests right now.

War is coming, it may be nuclear this time.

Watch the Ukraine situation, notice how the coverage has died.

(05-16-2014 08:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  Damn it. Over three years on the continent, thousands of hours of language study, a degree in the region and 100 books read, all for nothing.

Ok, time to start from scratch. Fortunately, there is hope, as Samseau has proven himself an expert on yet another global region.

Your three years are nothing in the face of four-thousand years of Chinese history. The land of sun-tzu is not afraid of war.

But you are a product of your time. Many people today believe war is something that no one wants, or that war is a relic of the past.

<--- Me laughing at that idea. It's so naive!

Such child-like thinking is oblivious to the realities of humanity. There are scores of men who are more than happy to sacrifice millions upon millions of men for their own gain.

War is the normal state of man, and peace is the aberration.

Today's extended peace we've had since WW2 is one of the longest peacetimes in all of recorded history, and is an extreme aberration. It is obvious this will not last.

WWI is a great example of how countries go to war despite destroying their economies.

Another one was the 100-year war between France and England.

Another was the Islamic invasions.

Another was the sack of Constantinople in the 4th crusade.

Another was the Mongol invasions.

Another was the Peloponnesian war.

The examples are endless.

War has nothing to do with a country's interests, and everything to do with the interests of the men in charge. If a leader thinks war will profit him (not his country or his people) he will do it.

(05-16-2014 11:57 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  Damn it. Over three years on the continent, thousands of hours of language study, a degree in the region and 100 books read, all for nothing.

Ok, time to start from scratch. Fortunately, there is hope, as Samseau has proven himself an expert on yet another global region.

Your three years are nothing in the face of four-thousand years of Chinese history. The land of sun-tzu is not afraid of war.

But you are a product of your time. Many people today believe war is something that no one wants, or that war is a relic of the past.

<--- Me laughing at that idea. It's so naive!

Such child-like thinking is oblivious to the realities of humanity. There are scores of men who are more than happy to sacrifice millions upon millions of men for their own gain.

War is the normal state of man, and peace is the aberration.

Today's extended peace we've had since WW2 is one of the longest peacetimes in all of recorded history, and is an extreme aberration. It is obvious this will not last.

WWI is a great example of how countries go to war despite destroying their economies.

Another one was the 100-year war between France and England.

Another was the Islamic invasions.

Another was the sack of Constantinople in the 4th crusade.

Another was the Mongol invasions.

Another was the Peloponnesian war.

The examples are endless.

War has nothing to do with a country's interests, and everything to do with the interests of the men in charge. If a leader thinks war will profit him (not his country or his people) he will do it.

This. Totally this. No elite have ever been worse off after war. Kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Nicholas, Charles 1 of Austria, Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai Shek, Tojo, and Saddam are just straw men. Everyone knows that war only affects the lowest rung of society- especially war between industrial nations!

And the whole "everyone's economy is now intertwined" would be completely inconsequential: it's not like China is the largest market for Japanese exports, or that Japan is the fourth largest market for Japanese exports. After all, elites don't need money or anything.

Quote:Because war is incredibly expensive when it involves your nation directly and your opponents are similarly advanced proximate military threats with the ability to severely disrupt your trade relations, wipe out much of your population, and damage your infrastructure. A major conflict involving China and several East Asian powers has the potential to create serious losses in men and material to China, which would not bode well for economic growth (ex: shrinking an already shrinking labor force further, sucking up a lot of money and many resources that currently are used to fuel economic growth, etc).

China, a nation already grappling with how to deal with an aging population and keep on growing in spite of it, doesn't need a war. Growth is the priority of the Chinese government, and war isn't good for growth.

You are making the same mistake as rudebwoy:

Quote:War is coming, it may be nuclear this time.

Watch the Ukraine situation, notice how the coverage has died.

You guys are assuming the wars of tomorrow will be like the wars of the past. Wars are never faught the same way.

For example, in Ancient Greece they used phalanxes and lines of citizen-soldiers. In Rome they used legions of professional soldiers with calvary, artillery, and long lines of supplies. Genghis Khan relied almost exclusively on his cavalry as well as sophisticated road communication system (look this up - it was amazing) so he could cover ground fast and steamroll his opponents before they could organize.

Crossbows eventually changed warfare in some French battle that resulted in the end of melee combat as a dominant form of winning. Then guns and gunpowder came along. Then trench warfare, followed by atomized tanks, and finally the nuclear bomb.

So why assume this century's wars will be anything like last century's wars? It seems obvious to me that it will not. I think the future of warfare has already been established in the Ukraine conflict. Because direct military invasions are too dangerous and risk nuclear conflict, instead the strategy will be to destabilize, cause a revolt or revolution, and then move in with "help" to "normalize" the situation.

So with the South China sea story, we are already seeing the small encroachment of territory:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-15...-china-sea

Against the Philippines, who has no nuclear bombs, they will be powerless to resist China. And since China is not using a full scale invasion, they are not as risk of nuclear war. Likewise with Vietnam, the Chinese will just edge along the borders, use their superior economic might to slowly shake down opposing economies until the citizens are destitute and unhappy and wait for the inevitable revolt.

Then once chaos strikes, as it did in Ukraine, you hold a "referendum" and move in the troops after it vote passes with a super-majority. Now, I am not saying the Vietnamese will vote to let in the Chinese. Rather they will fall into disarray and vote for something against their interests, and China will capitalize on it. That will be the general pattern for Asia.

War is different today - no longer with countries invading - so instead the focus will be on sparking civil unrest, economic decline, and general chaos so a more organized force can move in unopposed and without much international outrage.

Of course, I could be wrong. There might be giant nuclear disaster on the horizon. Who knows? But I think the Ukrainian example is instructive. Far easier to take down countries today without invading just by destabilizing them from within.

^^^ You're correct when you say that wars are not fought the same way they used to. Right now, I'm studying international politics with a focus on East Asia, and from what experts have claimed, the area is sort of an anomaly. With the Chinese purposely manipulating their currency to keep the renminbi less than the dollar, to the Japanese proposing an end to the Article IX armistice treaty by 2020, the East Asian front seems ready to blow at any minute. One things is for certain; wars are fought differently now. Asymmetrical warfare reigns supreme, where counterinsurgency is the name of the game. With the world interconnected, it's difficult to wage war without having other nations coming in to check your movements. The Russian position is different, since the country has the ability to power Europe with their resources and the like. However, China is in a different situation:



When looking at the map, China is in a rather tough spot. The country is surrounded by Russia, NK, India, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Now compare that to the Global Firepower Index:

Russia, India, SK, and Japan are amongst the top 10 militaries in the world. Taiwan and Vietnam aren't too shabby either, with both countries taking the 17th, and 23rd rankings respectively. Add in the fact that most of the nations mentioned are either:

A) Allies with the U.S.
B) Had a conflict with China in the past or
C) Both

Makes it tough for China to really make a drastic move. Even with their new missile testing and the displays of military might, it wouldn't work in their best interest to go start some grand war campaign, unless they went cloak and dagger. Cyber and/or economic warfare sound more plausible, rather than rolling tanks down the Kunming-Bangkok Expressway. With that being said, anything can happen.