China's expansionist strategy
"a drive from within the Pentagon to fund hypersonic weapons" - another boondogle to be financed by the long suffering taxpayer in other words.
I can't see the advantage of a hypersonic weapon in a fight with China - you'd have to be sure you could hit every one of their anti-carrier batteries to risk a CVN in close to Taiwan.
I can't see the advantage of a hypersonic weapon in a fight with China - you'd have to be sure you could hit every one of their anti-carrier batteries to risk a CVN in close to Taiwan.
Can you provide a basic outline of your military experience/expertise please? No matter the topic, you seem to have a definitive opinion.
Same as everyone else on here Coastie. The people who really know don't/can't post
You post a lot on the US politics forum - are you a politician?
You post a lot on the US politics forum - are you a politician?
You feel the need to fill the void as those can know don’t/can’t post? Doesn’t that by definition mean you don’t know?
Safe to say you’ve not analyzed the pros and cons of hypersonic weapons using the relevant materials that would be needed to make that decision.
Safe to say you’ve not analyzed the pros and cons of hypersonic weapons using the relevant materials that would be needed to make that decision.
That’s a map of all US military bases in Eurasia. There should also be a flag above Okinawa, and one above Guam which isn’t in the picture. Of course this doesn’t include carrier battle groups or long range air power.
China I think has a small base in Djibouti and some smaller bases on some shallow islands in the South China Sea.
So remind me again which superpower is the “expansionist“ one?
Thread Starter
Yes, of course,
It's not like the US bases are there for no purpose.
Some countries have demonstrated their determination to "annex", invade and subvert independent nations, their legitimate governments and their people.
Tell me which nation was under threat in the South China Sea that required the uninvited annexation of islands in the direct path of international trade routes, and then require vessels and aircraft to request permission to pass through those international waters? All the while surrounded by military assets.
Sometimes it is necessary to squeeze the puppet back into it's box. Very few countries have the capability to project that influence.
IG
It's not like the US bases are there for no purpose.
Some countries have demonstrated their determination to "annex", invade and subvert independent nations, their legitimate governments and their people.
Tell me which nation was under threat in the South China Sea that required the uninvited annexation of islands in the direct path of international trade routes, and then require vessels and aircraft to request permission to pass through those international waters? All the while surrounded by military assets.
Sometimes it is necessary to squeeze the puppet back into it's box. Very few countries have the capability to project that influence.
IG
And then you state that purpose:
Good on you for stating what US military bases are actually used for!
The key being in the name - South China Sea. It’s complicated but China does have a little more right to be in the area than the US.
Imagine if you a will a map like I posted of Eurasia but instead of North America. All the way across the Canadian border, the Mexican border and on Cuba and the Caribbean there were Chinese flags denoting Chinese bases. How do you think Americans would feel? Can you see how China reacts in a similar situation?
Hasnt the US Navy just admitted they can’t defeat China in a conflict scenario. That’s a long way from “squeezing them back into a box”.....
Some countries have demonstrated their determination to "annex", invade and subvert independent nations, their legitimate governments and their people.
Tell me which nation was under threat in the South China Sea
Imagine if you a will a map like I posted of Eurasia but instead of North America. All the way across the Canadian border, the Mexican border and on Cuba and the Caribbean there were Chinese flags denoting Chinese bases. How do you think Americans would feel? Can you see how China reacts in a similar situation?
Sometimes it is necessary to squeeze the puppet back into it's box. Very few countries have the capability to project that influence.
IG
IG
Thread Starter
Dr dre
The South China Sea does not belong to China, any more than it does to all the other nations that border it such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei and Taiwan. A number of which are subject to a direct threat from bases established on disputed Islands annexed by China. That why the nations under threat are seeking protection from the USA and other nations against what is intimidation and coercion.
Your assertion regarding hypothetical Chinese bases on the borders with Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and even Cuba is ridiculous. These nations are not seeking defence assistance from other nations because of a direct military threat, and there is no potential stranglehold on trade between these nations and any other country in the world. Commercial and Military vessels of all nations are fully entitled to travel wherever they wish in International waters. Naturally they will be shadowed because some will be capable of aggression and intimidation. Even the Russians and the Chinese pass through the English Channel without let or hindrance. Some do not even announce their intentions by radio and other vessels must be redirected to stay clear of them.
Do not take for granted everything that you read regarding US capabilities in an election year. Everyone wants their piece of the pie when it is served up. You can also be assured that if the time comes to act, the USA will not act alone.
I see that your location is : The World - is that an aspiration?
IG
The South China Sea does not belong to China, any more than it does to all the other nations that border it such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei and Taiwan. A number of which are subject to a direct threat from bases established on disputed Islands annexed by China. That why the nations under threat are seeking protection from the USA and other nations against what is intimidation and coercion.
Your assertion regarding hypothetical Chinese bases on the borders with Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and even Cuba is ridiculous. These nations are not seeking defence assistance from other nations because of a direct military threat, and there is no potential stranglehold on trade between these nations and any other country in the world. Commercial and Military vessels of all nations are fully entitled to travel wherever they wish in International waters. Naturally they will be shadowed because some will be capable of aggression and intimidation. Even the Russians and the Chinese pass through the English Channel without let or hindrance. Some do not even announce their intentions by radio and other vessels must be redirected to stay clear of them.
Do not take for granted everything that you read regarding US capabilities in an election year. Everyone wants their piece of the pie when it is served up. You can also be assured that if the time comes to act, the USA will not act alone.
I see that your location is : The World - is that an aspiration?
IG
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....
Imagine if you a will a map like I posted of Eurasia but instead of North America. All the way across the Canadian border, the Mexican border and on Cuba and the Caribbean there were Chinese flags denoting Chinese bases. How do you think Americans would feel? Can you see how China reacts in a similar situation?
.....
Imagine if you a will a map like I posted of Eurasia but instead of North America. All the way across the Canadian border, the Mexican border and on Cuba and the Caribbean there were Chinese flags denoting Chinese bases. How do you think Americans would feel? Can you see how China reacts in a similar situation?
.....
After Mao, China demonstrated more patience in politics than the US and USSR/Russia, but who can guarantee that it is forever?
Thread Starter
Well if you want to go back we could start with 1945 and the Yalta agreement for the Allies to stop their advance at Berlin. The Russians did not.
As for missiles 15 minutes from Moscow, I lived with the 4 minute warning for years in the 60's and 70's from a country that did not keep it's side of the deal.
China was simply waiting until they could steal the military technology of the West and reverse engineer it to the point where they can now threaten their smaller neighbours
IG.
As for missiles 15 minutes from Moscow, I lived with the 4 minute warning for years in the 60's and 70's from a country that did not keep it's side of the deal.
China was simply waiting until they could steal the military technology of the West and reverse engineer it to the point where they can now threaten their smaller neighbours
IG.
Dr Dre,
China is an undemocratic, tyrannical, authoritarian, repressive dictatorship which tramples roughshod over human rights, and will never embrace anyone's rights to self determination.
China persecutes its own Muslim minority Uighur population.
China has persecuted Falun Gong adherents.
China imprisons and executes political opponents.
China illegally occupies Tibet, and has practised repression and ethnic cleansing.
China hectors, bullies and threatens Taiwan.
China has shown itself to be without honour when it comes to Hong Kong.
Let's not bother arguing about what China has and hasn't done during the COVID crisis, and whether the spread of the virus beyond China was deliberate, or whether it has merely been exploited by China. Let's not waste time condemning Chinese cyber attacks against Western infrastructure.
But do let's look at your characterisation of the South China Sea.
Have you looked at a f*cking map? Have you seen how much of the area within the nine dash line is far closer to China's neighbours than it is to China itself? Have you worked out how much of it is international waters? Can you seriously characterise the PRC as anything other than aggressive and expansionist?
China is an undemocratic, tyrannical, authoritarian, repressive dictatorship which tramples roughshod over human rights, and will never embrace anyone's rights to self determination.
China persecutes its own Muslim minority Uighur population.
China has persecuted Falun Gong adherents.
China imprisons and executes political opponents.
China illegally occupies Tibet, and has practised repression and ethnic cleansing.
China hectors, bullies and threatens Taiwan.
China has shown itself to be without honour when it comes to Hong Kong.
Let's not bother arguing about what China has and hasn't done during the COVID crisis, and whether the spread of the virus beyond China was deliberate, or whether it has merely been exploited by China. Let's not waste time condemning Chinese cyber attacks against Western infrastructure.
But do let's look at your characterisation of the South China Sea.
Have you looked at a f*cking map? Have you seen how much of the area within the nine dash line is far closer to China's neighbours than it is to China itself? Have you worked out how much of it is international waters? Can you seriously characterise the PRC as anything other than aggressive and expansionist?
Thread Starter
Jacko
One might also have included as a despotic proxy, that other haven of freedom and expression - NK. Being used to lubricate China's credentials for forays further to the South.
IG
One might also have included as a despotic proxy, that other haven of freedom and expression - NK. Being used to lubricate China's credentials for forays further to the South.
IG
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are the facts that I studied in the course of WWII history.
1. The agreement (Protocol) concerning division of the post-war Germany (occupation zones) including Berlin was signed by the USSR, UK and US on Sept. 12, 1944. In Feb 1945 during the Yalta conference it was just confirmed (they more talked about Europe on the whole) and also France was later (March 1945) added to the "club".
2. USSR was following the agreements. Though its army lost about 80K during the battle for Berlin, the pre-agreed zones were then given to the allies.
Eisenhower did not attempt to fight for Berlin, and it was his decision. Some say that he decided to save lives of his soldiers (letting the Russians to do this hard job). Some say that he decided not to conflict with the USSR since the latter promised to declare war on Japan in 2-3 months after Germany was defeated (and it declared).
Sorry for an off-topic....
Van,
You have a very good grasp of some of the facts, but are also ignoring key aspects of the Yalta agreement, and of Stalin's failure to honour the commitments he made to the USA and UK.
The Russian view of Yalta was that she recognised and respected the agreed spheres of influence, stuck to the agreed occupation zones in Germany and Austria and left Greece and Turkey well alone.
I believe that Stalin probably assumed that all the stuff in the Yalta agreement about establishing democracies in the former occupied nations and axis allies was irrelevant hot air and window dressing purely intended for public consumption in the USA and UK. I suspect that he genuinely believed that Russia would be left alone to run its sphere of influence exactly as it saw fit. Perhaps he was encouraged in this belief by the supine return of the Cossacks who had fought on the German side?
But the Western Powers believed that the provisions of the Yalta agreement guaranteeing free and fair elections in all liberated European and former Axis satellite countries would be honoured, and viewed it as being of paramount importance. The Allies agreed to recognise the pro-Soviet Lublin government in the short-term, but only with the proviso that it should be "reorganized on a broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland and from Poles abroad."
It should be obvious to anyone that Stalin failed to live up to his side of the bargain on this!
Having gone to war to try to save Poland from domination by one totalitarian dictatorship, it was never likely that the UK and France would happily see Poland dominated by another one.
It was Stalin's unwillingness to implement this free and democratic aspect of Yalta that led directly to the Cold War, and ultimately to the defeat and collapse of the USSR.
You have a very good grasp of some of the facts, but are also ignoring key aspects of the Yalta agreement, and of Stalin's failure to honour the commitments he made to the USA and UK.
The Russian view of Yalta was that she recognised and respected the agreed spheres of influence, stuck to the agreed occupation zones in Germany and Austria and left Greece and Turkey well alone.
I believe that Stalin probably assumed that all the stuff in the Yalta agreement about establishing democracies in the former occupied nations and axis allies was irrelevant hot air and window dressing purely intended for public consumption in the USA and UK. I suspect that he genuinely believed that Russia would be left alone to run its sphere of influence exactly as it saw fit. Perhaps he was encouraged in this belief by the supine return of the Cossacks who had fought on the German side?
But the Western Powers believed that the provisions of the Yalta agreement guaranteeing free and fair elections in all liberated European and former Axis satellite countries would be honoured, and viewed it as being of paramount importance. The Allies agreed to recognise the pro-Soviet Lublin government in the short-term, but only with the proviso that it should be "reorganized on a broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland and from Poles abroad."
It should be obvious to anyone that Stalin failed to live up to his side of the bargain on this!
Having gone to war to try to save Poland from domination by one totalitarian dictatorship, it was never likely that the UK and France would happily see Poland dominated by another one.
It was Stalin's unwillingness to implement this free and democratic aspect of Yalta that led directly to the Cold War, and ultimately to the defeat and collapse of the USSR.
Jackonicko,
A nice summing up of China in post 151.
A nice summing up of China in post 151.
Having gone to war to try to save Poland from domination by one totalitarian dictatorship, it was never likely that the UK and France would happily see Poland dominated by another one.
It was Stalin's unwillingness to implement this free and democratic aspect of Yalta that led directly to the Cold War, and ultimately to the defeat and collapse of the USSR.
It was Stalin's unwillingness to implement this free and democratic aspect of Yalta that led directly to the Cold War, and ultimately to the defeat and collapse of the USSR.
UK and France were provided the opportunity where Stalin indicated a willingness to provide 1 million men with tanks, aircraft and artillery to German border in summer 1939 to prevent German invasion, UK and France ignored it with the senior UK/French people indicating there would be no discussions, a week later Molotov - Von Ribbentrop pact was agreed.
The free and fair democracy concept is great until one looks at this bringing Hitler to power, allow him swallow up Austria, take over Czechsloakia (as agreed by free and democratic countries) and allow other despots to power. This almost allowed UK under Lord Halifax to offer a peace treaty with Germany who would then have sent all its military against Russia. Russia would look at UK with its Empire and see a country proclaiming Democracy while holding onto its Empire by military means. It is difficult to envisage why Stalin would trust the west.............. by 1944 Russia has seen 3 Western invasions, WW1, Russian Civil war and WW2.
Democracy is a wonderful flawed concept that man uses to achieve its own ends at the expense of others.
The other methods are even worse.
Remind me who was seeking to shut these ?
"I suspect that he genuinely believed that Russia would be left alone to run its sphere of influence exactly as it saw fit."
From all I've read Stalin never gave it a thought - he had the boots on the ground and that was that. What he was determined to avoid was any military clash with the west as the USSR was in dreadful shape - plus they had no A-bomb. He was quite happy to hang the Greek CP out to dry (they were, in modern terms "non-core") and allow the division of Berlin but any idea that he ever had any intention of "free and democratic" elections in E Europe is crazy. Of course Churchill realised this but Roosevelt was taken in by "uncle Joe" to some extent - besides - he had a large number of voters at home who had roots in E Europe - Churchill didn't.
From all I've read Stalin never gave it a thought - he had the boots on the ground and that was that. What he was determined to avoid was any military clash with the west as the USSR was in dreadful shape - plus they had no A-bomb. He was quite happy to hang the Greek CP out to dry (they were, in modern terms "non-core") and allow the division of Berlin but any idea that he ever had any intention of "free and democratic" elections in E Europe is crazy. Of course Churchill realised this but Roosevelt was taken in by "uncle Joe" to some extent - besides - he had a large number of voters at home who had roots in E Europe - Churchill didn't.
As soon as Hong Kong is assimilated you have to think Taiwan is next......
