Conflict with China a ‘high likelihood’, says top Australian
Not gonna happen today, tomorrow, nor the next day.
But absolutely Australia needs those alliances (that Trump tried so hard to dismantle) with pacific rim countries and with the US to face an ever more assertive China in the future.
Australia came close to falling to another Asian power, during World War Two. Japan. And relied on Britain, and the US, to survive then.
Australia is low hanging fruit. Low in population and rich in rescources that a densely populated rapidly industrializing country, like Japan in the Forties, and China today, would want to grab.
But there is another region much like that- hard to defend, low population density, storehouse of mineral wealth, that also dangles in front of China's covetous eyes even closer to China than Australia. That place is Siberia. The largest part of China's ally -Putin's Russian Republic. So thats one thing Aussies can be thankful for. Putin's Russia is in more immediate danger of having it's limbs devoured by China than is Australia. Lol!
China can do both...in addition to Africa and South America simultaneously.
It cannot project raw military power in every direction like that. Not yet. The US is the only superpower that can do anything like that now. Though China is seeking to gradually build up long term soft economic leverage in Africa, South America, and even in Europe ( and even here in North America) as we speak.
I'm sure the Celts, the goths and the Egyptians said the same thing about the Romans
China has watched how European colonists did the very things you are speaking about over a couple of hundred years. China know they have time on their side. If a handful of British adventurers and their paid mercenaries could take over the entire Mughal empire then why should China think they couldn't do the same?
Why did you bother making this post?
We are talking about right now. Not in the long run.
Your contention was that RIGHT NOW China has the military capability of seizing control of the whole Pacific Ocean from the USA and then can project power via sealift across oceans to invade other continents. Any military expert would laugh at that contention.
But now you are changing your story, and now claim that you meant in the long run, and not the immediate present. I implied that they are building up soft power and ARE a threat in the long run. So you changed your story to actually agree with me, but continued to argue with me anyway, and you make lame historic analogies that dont prove your point ( you cant prove your point even when you're right ha ha).
Britain in India is nothing like anything that can be repeated today. And it took a hundred years for Britain to take over India anyway. Its the US that is analogous to the Roman Empire, not China. Our string of pacific bases on the far side of the Pacific is analogous to the Roman frontier at its height.
For China to do what you ORIGINALLY claimed that they could do, which is to invade other continents, it would in effect be restarting the Pacific Theater of world war two. But with China taking on the role played by Japan as the instigator and aggressor in the war.
The interesting question is "could China repeat what Japan did in December of 1941, and seize control of Southeast Asia, and of the entire of the western Pacific in the few weeks after Pearl Harbor?".
The answer is that its hard to say. Japan had certain advantages that China doesnt have today. But also had disadvantages that China doesnt have.
You are projecting your own views that China think in short term like a a western government that thinks in terms of 3-4 years for the term of their government.
But the Chinese think quite differently to western Europeans. The Chinese leadership/military think/plan ahead for years (even hundreds of years). They watched and learned from early history the rise and fall of empires. They are both expanding (on multiple fronts) and consolidating their global power slowly and steadily.
To those who say we are getting excited about nothing and the threat is greatly exaggerated,
what about this threat to bomb Australia if we dare interfere over Taiwan?:
https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/chin ... 28a0543e34
Editor-in-chief of the stridently pro-Communist Global Times newspaper, Hu Xijin, made the extraordinary comments in an editorial advising Beijing how it should react should Australia join the US in protecting democratic Taiwan from invasion.
“Australia must know what disasters it would cause to their country,” he said in the tub-thumping piece published late on Friday.
what about this threat to bomb Australia if we dare interfere over Taiwan?:
https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/chin ... 28a0543e34
Editor-in-chief of the stridently pro-Communist Global Times newspaper, Hu Xijin, made the extraordinary comments in an editorial advising Beijing how it should react should Australia join the US in protecting democratic Taiwan from invasion.
“Australia must know what disasters it would cause to their country,” he said in the tub-thumping piece published late on Friday.
I'm quite happy to let China take Taiwan, they consider it an internal problem.
23 million Taiwanese are not going to be happy about a Chinese takeover.
(Note: for comparison, population of Australia is 25 million)
Taiwanese are predominantly mainland Chinese, the nationalist leader Chang Kai Shek escaped there with thousands of nationalists and took over the island displacing the indigenous Gaoshan people long ago.
Well, yeah... but isn't that a bit like saying the Caribbean islands were populated by African slaves who displaced the natives - so it's OK if an African nation wants to take over Jamaica, since they're all of the same race?
I mean, I know that's not the best analogy, as we're talking more recent history when it comes to Taiwan, and deeper cultural and linguistic ties. But surely the point is not the race / ethnicity of the population so much as whether they are self-governed? The fact is, the population of Taiwan at present is subject to the governance of the Republic of China and not the People's Republic of China.
Edited to add: I have no political axe to grind here, I wouldn't be against a unification of China and Taiwan if it was undertaken by peaceful negotiations. My concern is if China were to try and take it by force, against the will of the Taiwanese government and people.
Last edited by MrsPeel on 09 May 2021, 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
But the Chinese think quite differently to western Europeans. The Chinese leadership/military think/plan ahead for years (even hundreds of years). They watched and learned from early history the rise and fall of empires. They are both expanding (on multiple fronts) and consolidating their global power slowly and steadily.
you're the one "projecting your own thoughts". Not me.
I am the one who stated that china thinks in the long term. You are the one who spouted ignorant nonsense about how China AT THIS MOMENT has capabilities it doesnt have. Stop trying to pin your own ignorance onto me please.
Last edited by naturalplastic on 09 May 2021, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
I mean, I know that's not the best analogy, as we're talking more recent history when it comes to Taiwan. But surely the point is not the race / ethnicity of the population so much as whether they are self-governed? The fact is, the population of Taiwan at present is subject to the governance of the Republic of China and not the People's Republic of China.
Its the same old quandary. Do you stand up to the adversary? Or do you appease them?
Hitler made a series of territorial demands. England and France gave in. The last one was giving pieces of Czechoslavakia to Hitler in the agreement signed at Munich by Chamberline. The accepted narrative is that that just encouraged Hitler to get more aggressive and led to WWII. Chamberlain was and still is villified for "appeasement". After that we said "no more Munichs" as we went into the cold war. During the cold war we vowed stand up to aggression. The result was..quagmires like Vietnam. So the next generation said "no more Vietnams" just like their parents had said "no more Munichs".
If China threatened Taiwan...what should a western alliance do? Stand up to china and vow to defend Taiwan? Or try to buy peace by letting them have Taiwan?
I dont see an obvious answer.
I mean, I know that's not the best analogy, as we're talking more recent history when it comes to Taiwan. But surely the point is not the race / ethnicity of the population so much as whether they are self-governed? The fact is, the population of Taiwan at present is subject to the governance of the Republic of China and not the People's Republic of China.
Its the same old quandary. Do you stand up to the adversary? Or do you appease them?
Hitler made a series of territorial demands. England and France gave in. The last one was giving pieces of Czechoslavakia to Hitler in the agreement signed at Munich by Chamberline. The accepted narrative is that that just encouraged Hitler to get more aggressive and led to WWII. Chamberlain was and still is villified for "appeasement". After that we said "no more Munichs" as we went into the cold war. During the cold war we vowed stand up to aggression. The result was..quagmires like Vietnam. So the next generation said "no more Vietnams" just like their parents had said "no more Munichs".
If China threatened Taiwan...what would a western alliance do? Stand up to china and vow to defend Taiwan? Or try to buy peace by letting them have Taiwan?
I dont see an obvious answer.
That's how it's done nowadays. No one wants to be assigned "the agressor" because this would earn them open enemies - so instead, more subtle, shadowy moves are made.
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
I'm not too knowledgeable on political matters, so feel free to correct me.
My reading of the situation is that China is leaning on Australia in the hope that we will depart from our solidarity with the US in favour of maintaining economic ties with China.
If they can succeed in that, it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated response to any military action or expansion. It fragments the opposition.
Divide and conquer.
Its the same old quandary. Do you stand up to the adversary? Or do you appease them?
Hitler made a series of territorial demands. England and France gave in. The last one was giving pieces of Czechoslavakia to Hitler in the agreement signed at Munich by Chamberline. The accepted narrative is that that just encouraged Hitler to get more aggressive and led to WWII. Chamberlain was and still is villified for "appeasement". After that we said "no more Munichs" as we went into the cold war. During the cold war we vowed stand up to aggression. The result was..quagmires like Vietnam. So the next generation said "no more Vietnams" just like their parents had said "no more Munichs".
If China threatened Taiwan...what should a western alliance do? Stand up to china and vow to defend Taiwan? Or try to buy peace by letting them have Taiwan?
I dont see an obvious answer.
Agreed.
I don't like the idea of appeasement, especially with regard to a takeover of a self-governed de-facto state of 23 million. And would China stop there?
But I can't stand the idea of war either.
It's a no-win situation.
As I recall, China has informally established two "Red lines" which would prompt a Chinese invasion of Taiwan:
1) If Taiwan attempts to declare itself an independent country
2) If the US attempts to station troops on Taiwan
If neither of these happen, China is likely content to simply engulf Taiwan through the sheer influence of its growing economy, as it is already doing.
what about this threat to bomb Australia if we dare interfere over Taiwan?:
https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/chin ... 28a0543e34
Editor-in-chief of the stridently pro-Communist Global Times newspaper, Hu Xijin, made the extraordinary comments in an editorial advising Beijing how it should react should Australia join the US in protecting democratic Taiwan from invasion.
“Australia must know what disasters it would cause to their country,” he said in the tub-thumping piece published late on Friday.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has backed Defence Minister Peter Dutton in warning Australians that we need to be prepared for military conflict with China.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subsc ... de=premium
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Australian police fed 13-year-old’s ISIS Special Interest |
05 Feb 2024, 10:07 am |
Another New Virus in China |
09 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm |
high functioning vs classic autism |
23 Mar 2024, 2:38 pm |
Bigoted students run Brooklyn High School |
06 Mar 2024, 7:49 pm |