Could China and Japan Go to War over Diaoyus/Senkakus?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world ... world&_r=0

Today's news that China targeted Japanese warshipsreally disturbs me. For those who do not know, the two powers have been fighting over seven tiny islands that the Chinese call the Diaoyus, and the Japanese call the Senkakus. The two countries have been escalating provocations, but they mostly consisted of intimidating fishing vessels and things like that. Targeting warships, which apparently both sides have now done, is the most serious provocation yet.

I am deeply concerned East Asia is becoming what Europe was just before World War I, a patchwork of entangled alliances that could ignite war over a small event. China and Japan are the respective second and third largest economies, and any war, even a brief and bloodless war, can disrupt the world economy. More worrying to me as an American, the U.S. would get involved in some capacity. The U.S. has a longstanding defense treaty with Japan (meant, oddly enough, so Japan would never need a military), and we may have to fight for Japan under international law.

I am also somewhat concerned by the U.S.'s recent reassertion into the region. In recent years, the U.S. has taken action to strengthen other alliances in the region, and create new bonds with Singapore, Australia, India, and other regional powers. Even if the current dispute settles, who is not to say a similar conflict could erupt in the South China Sea, or over the disputed territory between China and India? The geopolitical game the U.S. has quietly been playing is starting to have real consequences.

So I leave it to you guys to discuss if China and Japan could actually go to war. If so, will the U.S. get involved? Might a war turn into World War III?China targeted a Japanese warship

The US wrote some shameful thing to the Japanese that encouraged militarism and aggression... wonderfully ironic considering Pearl Harbour.

The islands have belonged to Japan historically.

And the only reason the two countries care about the islands is because of natural resources; no one actually lives there.

And yes the US technically has a defence treaty with Japan. But I think Japan has a pretty strong military considering they don't have a "military."

Like what? I honestly do not know.

I know that some U.S. military general (forgot who or which branch) says that China is rewriting its maritime history and reclaiming territories it has no right to. That is probably true, and there are indeed ongoing disputes in the South China see that China has no real legitimate grounds to engage in. This general also said he was speaking as a private citizen. Still, such bellicose rhetoric is not constructive for the U.S.

They do, but they have never used it. They are constitutionally barred from deploying military for combat overseas, though considering they claim the Senkakus, they do not see deployment as unconstitutional.

Actually, until the 1990s, Japan engaged mostly in "checkbook diplomacy", where they simply paid nations to secure their interests. They have not even deployed military at all until the First Gulf War, and I understand that was a medical unit. Given their very deep pacifism since World War II, I find it strange the Japanese people support throwing their military weight around.

There is a new naval arms race heating up in east asia. Japan, China, India, and other countries, are all beefing up their navel strength. China may soon been a bigger naval power than Britain.

There are other islands that china is bickering over- like those islands in the south that theyve been in a dispute with Vietnam over.


If you get the island-then you can claim the sea bed around it- thus the minerals in the seabed, and the fishing grounds in the water.

So more could be at stake than just little uninhabited islands.




A brief Falkland Islands type war between China and Japan probably would give the stock market a heart attack. But its not going to happen in the next eight weeks.

at this juncture Japan could not serious fight a war. It does not have a full army. It has a "self defense" force which is more like a local militia. Japan does not have a major league navy nor does it have an air force capable of a real fight. Japan is protected by the United States. We (the U.S.) are the Japanese armed force.

ruveyn

Thats interesting. Are Japanese citizens therefore allowed to join the US army, USAF, USMC and US Navy?

Not as foreign nationals. The U.S policy to defend Japan is purely a political and economic policy. The Japanese remain Japanese the UnitedStateseans remain UnitedsStateseans. There is no loss of Japanese sovereignty.

ruveyn

starting to kindof understand Japanese resentment of Americans and Japanese anti western xenophobia in that case. I'd be pissed off if I was a right wing Japanese patriot.

Explains why Japanese ultra nationalism and imperial revisionism has been on the rise in recent years.

So are you saying that you 'understand' German neo naziism as well?
Not sure what you are saying here.

Its surprising that you find this stuff surprising.

You seem to lack some basic recent history.

That set up between the USA and Japan was the result of WWII ( i hope you are aware).

As a UK person, I assume that you're aware that Britain, France, and the USA, occupied west germany for decades because the germans started and then lost WWII.

Substitute the Pacific for Europe, Japan for Germany, and have just the USA in the roll of the allies, and you have the same story. Japan was the axis agressor, who losses the war it started, and then gets occupied by the USA. But after the war (like the germans) they are more than happy to have the USA do the heavy lifting of defending them against the communist bloc during the decades of the cold war while they build up their economy. And we are happy to have them disavow militarism.

Um, entirely different thing. After World War 2 the USA and Soviet Union didnt strip the Germanies of their right to indigenous armed forces.

I actually think the DDR was an improvement over nazi Germany. Although pseudo theocratic murdering nutcases the imperial Japanese were, I cant help feeling their ancient culture was neutered by the west and turned into the bastardised 'hello kitty' plastic facsimile of Japan we see today.


Yes, It was also prolonged by the USA's desire to have a convenient outpost in East Asia to use against the Russians in the event of a nuclear exchange. No better way to prevent your own country becoming a primary target than by storing your missiles and planes in someone else's back yard.

Otherwise why did they mantain their military interests there long after Japan ceased to be a threat?

Germany has a small military for home defense, and has not been invited by Nato to join in 'police actions' like the gulf wars. Very similiar to Japan's situation.

Britain France and The USA all kept troops in germany LONG after Hitler was defeated to defend themselves against Russia (just like japan became part of the US's defense perimeter on the far side of the pacific against china and russia.

You assert "that they are different situations", and then proceded to enumerate the similarities.

Thanks for repeating what i said.

another big and very significant difference, is that unlike the two Germanies, Japan at no point was a member of either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. It had no specific beef with the soviet union, but its percieved belligerence against it was a point of expedience for the United States when it would otherwise have been a non participant of the cold war.

Last edited by thomas81 on 06 Feb 2013, 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's the Armitage and Nye paper from CSIS...

“Together, we face the re-rise of China and its attendant uncertainties…..

Japan even if it did have a proper military no way could it stand up against China's military. China learned lessons in WWII and their army and navy are the biggest in the world in terms of numbers.