News Stories

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by JokerD

Wasn't the US oil embargo one of the reason Japan gave for invading South East Asia in the first place?

Sorta, but it's actually a pretty complex sequence of events.

1920s: IJA proposes "Strike North" doctrine planning an attack into Siberia and Mongolia.
IJN proposes "Strike South" doctrine planning expansion into Southeast Asia.

1937: Japan invades China and gets stuck into a quagmire with no end in sight.

1939: IJA attack into Mongolia is crushed at Khalkin-gol by the Red Army.
"Strike North" doctrine loses influence and the "Strike South" doctrine becomes preeminent.

1940: The Netherlands and France surrenders to Germany.
Japan invades and conquers French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia).
As a response, The U.S. imposes trade, but not oil, embargo on Japan.

1941: With access to Indochina and Thailand, Japan decides to enact "Strike South" with the primary target being the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and British Malaya.
Any attack into Indonesia from Vietnam can be threatened from the Phillipines, so "Strike South" has to first take on the U.S.
The IJN plans out attack on Pearl Harbor.

July 1941: The U.S. imposes oil embargo on Japan.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Actually no, Japan took it as an Act of War and bombed Pearl Harbor instead. The Embargo took place only after Japan start going invading everyone.

South East Asia wasn't big on oil, it was mostly Rubber (tires) IIRC. China's Manchuria had all the liquid dinosaurs I believe.

The largest oil deposits weren't discovered in Manchuria until after the war.

~1941 production
Manchukuo: 1 million bbl/year
Japan: 2.7 million bbl/year
Taiwan: 1 million bbl/year

Indonesia: 65 million bbl/year

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

THE reason to be precise. Originally, the Army's plan to invade the USSR was more favored. Navy top brass never wanted war with USA but they lost control over the lower ranks who were calling for war in the Pacific to resolve the embargo issue

Why would anyone even want to invade Siberia and Mongolia to begin with? The only thing of any value there was Vladivostok, and it's certainly not worth the cost of another war. And with the IJA already embroiled in an unwinnable war, it's really remarkable how utterly insane the "Strike North" strategy was. I sort of think that Zhukov did Japan a favor by quashing those ambitions.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

China is playing the money game in SEA. They keep dangling wads of cash and cheap exports in front of us and we bit, one by one. One thing about Malaysia is that it is close to "death by import", the economy hasn't been very productive and they relied alot on raw materials to sustain their GDP. Whatever trade deals they cut with China isn't going to help them because of China's export orientation, moreso that of manufactured goods rather than assembly goods; in fact, they will doom us (SEA) all politically and economically if they don't do something about their country's financials.

At least Vietnam, Cambodia and Brunei are changing their economic strategies to be less reliant on superpowers. Malaysia isn't.

I don't think that the countries in Southeast Asia have much chance of escaping the Chinese sphere of influence. It's gaining power much quicker than any of them are, and American influence is going to wane sooner or later.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I don't think that the countries in Southeast Asia have much chance of escaping the Chinese sphere of influence. It's gaining power much quicker than any of them are, and American influence is going to wane sooner or later.

The problem is the overlapping spheres of influence - US isn't going to leave their presence taken over and losing the vital raw material trade route, especially through the Taiwan-Japan-Malaysia-Singapore route.

China aimed for Malaysia because it controls two sides of the crossing sea-route to Africa-Europe; it is unable to acquire complete interest in Singapore because of the generally anti-mainlander stance of the population; no matter how much the governement tries to force it down the throat of the local population, mainlanders will always be remembered as "job market spoilers" admist the crazy level of inflation and overpopulating demographic. With the incumbent party losing support thanks to its own stupidity, China has better chance to cash in on Malaysia's financial inadequacy - with great success.

Here is an interesting analysis of the influence-war by Robert Kaplan :

Beyond the geographic power play by Russia in Greater Europe, and China's nascent attempt at a two-ocean commercial strategy, there are the smaller great games being engaged between China and India in Greater South Asia, between Russia and China in Central Asia, between China and Japan in northeast Asia and between China and smaller powers in Southeast Asia.

In Greater South Asia, China and India compete for influence in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar. China built a new deep-water port for Sri Lanka and helped its Sinhalese Buddhist regime win a civil war against Hindu Tamils by supplying it with arms while the West did almost nothing. But Sri Lanka's very proximity to India, and its inextricable links with it through the Tamil community, means China cannot ultimately dominate Sri Lanka. Bangladesh holds the key to the opening of trade routes beneficial to both southwestern China and India's poor and troubled northeast. Thus, both Beijing and New Delhi compete for influence in Dhaka. Nepal has a long and badly policed border with India so that influence in Kathmandu is vital for New Delhi, even as China has been attempting to establish a military and diplomatic bridgehead there. Myanmar, once part of British India and home to an Indian middleman-minority before World War II, is where China has built a port and pipeline for natural gas. Here is where India's and China's geographic interests truly crosshatch, and thus why both are active there: with India involved in its own port and pipeline projects.

In Central Asia, where Russia has military and economic links with several former Soviet republics, China has been investing in concessions for minerals and hydrocarbons, even as it has been constructing pipelines and trying to build a rail system from the former Soviet Central Asian republics to western China. Indeed, the scholars Raffaello Pantucci and Alexandros Petersen of the United Services Institute in London and the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington have documented in detail how China, despite obstacles, is constructing an "inadvertent empire" in Central Asia.

As for maritime East Asia, from Japan in the north to Indonesia in the south, China has been steadily expanding its influence in recent years and decades through its naval, economic and political reach. China's perceived aggression has been an element in the waning of Japanese quasi-pacifism and the rebirth of nationalism in Japan, with probable military consequences. Chinese-Japanese sparring over islands in the East China Sea has to be seen in this light. The same with island disputes in the energy-rich South China Sea: the result of expanding Chinese naval power, even as the military and institutional capacities of countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines have grown, too, over the course of the decades. Rather than grope toward a post-historical nirvana in which nationalism wanes and the power of the individual waxes triumphant, capitalist prosperity in Asia since the 1970s has culminated in military expansion and thus a simmering battle for space and power.

In short, Eurasia from Europe to the Pacific is engaged in various king-of-the-hill turf battles, in which geography is paramount and ideas relatively insignificant.

US stumbled and now it is now a competition of who has the most money; looks like the income divide is going to widen this century.

[Ridwan]

Looks like this multiple front great games will more likely end in stalemate everywhere.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The problem is the overlapping spheres of influence - US isn't going to leave their presence taken over and losing the vital raw material trade route, especially through the Taiwan-Japan-Malaysia-Singapore route.

China aimed for Malaysia because it controls two sides of the crossing sea-route to Africa-Europe; it is unable to acquire complete interest in Singapore because of the generally anti-mainlander stance of the population; no matter how much the governement tries to force it down the throat of the local population, mainlanders will always be remembered as "job market spoilers" admist the crazy level of inflation and overpopulating demographic. With the incumbent party losing support thanks to its own stupidity, China has better chance to cash in on Malaysia's financial inadequacy - with great success.

Here is an interesting analysis of the influence-war by Robert Kaplan :



US stumbled and now it is now a competition of who has the most money; looks like the income divide is going to widen this century.

I still don't get why the Chinese building up their navy is such an "aggressive" thing. By all accounts, the Japanese Navy is "competitive" against China's. China has a single Aircraft Carrier, which isn't even a functional battle platform (more as a training platform). People all over the world claim Chinese Destroyer fleets are "ancient" and "obsolete." Yet every 10 minute or so the Pentagon has to remind us the Chinese threat.

So why the heck is everyone soiling their panties over Chinese Navy built up? Even if China's coastal water shrank so much you could walk in it, China would still have one of world longest coastlines.

[AnimeFan188]

There's Over Twice as Much Magma Under Yellowstone Than We Thought:

"Everyone knows that Yellowstone is home to a super-volcano—but it turns out that
the magma reservoir it sits atop is at least 2.5 times larger than we previously
thought."

See:

http://gizmodo.com/theres-over-twice...han-1455877277

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The problem is the overlapping spheres of influence - US isn't going to leave their presence taken over and losing the vital raw material trade route, especially through the Taiwan-Japan-Malaysia-Singapore route.

China aimed for Malaysia because it controls two sides of the crossing sea-route to Africa-Europe; it is unable to acquire complete interest in Singapore because of the generally anti-mainlander stance of the population; no matter how much the governement tries to force it down the throat of the local population, mainlanders will always be remembered as "job market spoilers" admist the crazy level of inflation and overpopulating demographic. With the incumbent party losing support thanks to its own stupidity, China has better chance to cash in on Malaysia's financial inadequacy - with great success.

There's currently no conceivable scenario wherein the U.S. loses control of any of their trade routes. Nobody in the Southeast Asia wants conflict with the U.S., and as a consequence, the region simply is of less strategic importance to them.

On the other hand, no place in the world is more important to China than the Strait of Malacca. Therefore, the investment of these two countries is always going to be unequal.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Here is an interesting analysis of the influence-war by Robert Kaplan :

Normally, I don't think all that highly of Stratfor, but this article is pretty good. Money speaks, and it's a question of who offers the most.

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Looks like this multiple front great games will more likely end in stalemate everywhere.

I don't think that it looks like a stalemate anywhere; at least not until India can ramp up their game.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I still don't get why the Chinese building up their navy is such an "aggressive" thing. By all accounts, the Japanese Navy is "competitive" against China's. China has a single Aircraft Carrier, which isn't even a functional battle platform (more as a training platform). People all over the world claim Chinese Destroyer fleets are "ancient" and "obsolete." Yet every 10 minute or so the Pentagon has to remind us the Chinese threat.

Bear in mind that the Pentagon's main goal is to secure a bigger budget. If they can play up China more, then Congress will give more money to the USN.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

So why the heck is everyone soiling their panties over Chinese Navy built up? Even if China's coastal water shrank so much you could walk in it, China would still have one of world longest coastlines.

Countries like the Philippines can legitimately be worried by China's expansion - they don't have any navy of note, and they'd be very vulnerable if a conflict arises.

China's naval expansion has little to do with coastal defense. The new ships are designed to protect Chinese interests in Africa, in the Indian Ocean, the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

There's currently no conceivable scenario wherein the U.S. loses control of any of their trade routes. Nobody in the Southeast Asia wants conflict with the U.S., and as a consequence, the region simply is of less strategic importance to them.

On the other hand, no place in the world is more important to China than the Strait of Malacca. Therefore, the investment of these two countries is always going to be unequal.


Normally, I don't think all that highly of Stratfor, but this article is pretty good. Money speaks, and it's a question of who offers the most.


I don't think that it looks like a stalemate anywhere; at least not until India can ramp up their game.


Bear in mind that the Pentagon's main goal is to secure a bigger budget. If they can play up China more, then Congress will give more money to the USN.


Countries like the Philippines can legitimately be worried by China's expansion - they don't have any navy of note, and they'd be very vulnerable if a conflict arises.

China's naval expansion has little to do with coastal defense. The new ships are designed to protect Chinese interests in Africa, in the Indian Ocean, the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea.

You mean....like the American Navy?

[willx]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

You mean....like the American Navy?

If I told America to run a gigantic fiscal deficit and have all their households burdened by staggering household and consumer debt -- would you do that too!? Huh!?

[Ithekro]

Save that the American Navy doing power projection is not a new thing. It is a holdover of a time when the Philippines was a U.S. Territory, World War II, and the Cold War as the British and French Empires retracted.

The United States still has a bunch of Pacific Island territories beyond Hawaii and agreements with many nations to assist in providing military defense. One of those being Japan.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Save that the American Navy doing power projection is not a new thing. It is a holdover of a time when the Philippines was a U.S. Territory, World War II, and the Cold War as the British and French Empires retracted.

The United States still has a bunch of Pacific Island territories beyond Hawaii and agreements with many nations to assist in providing military defense. One of those being Japan.

So the basis of American logic can be summed as "We got it first so you can't have it"

[GDB]

No, it's "Do as I say, not as I do".

[Ridwan]

I just hope for a Chinese regime change soon...

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

You mean....like the American Navy?

They share similar concepts, but China is acting in a much more limited capacity. China doesn't have the global reach, permanent naval presence and the navy is meant to supplement the most important trade routes. And really, I don't think they're interested in much more than that. Moreover, the USN can be seen as the primary expression of American power in many countries while the PLAN is way down on the totem pole.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Save that the American Navy doing power projection is not a new thing. It is a holdover of a time when the Philippines was a U.S. Territory, World War II, and the Cold War as the British and French Empires retracted.

The United States still has a bunch of Pacific Island territories beyond Hawaii and agreements with many nations to assist in providing military defense. One of those being Japan.

I'm not exactly sure how doing it for a long time is supposed to make any kind of difference. China has seen a need for a stronger navy for a long time, and this is the first chance they've had to acquire the ability so that's what they're doing.

Originally Posted by Ridwan

I just hope for a Chinese regime change soon...

Why would anyone want that? Any major regime change in China is going to be a lot more belligerent than the current government. Bear in mind that the CCP has been careful to choose the coolest heads as their leaders, and that the general populace wants to express their newfound power more forcefully.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I still don't get why the Chinese building up their navy is such an "aggressive" thing. By all accounts, the Japanese Navy is "competitive" against China's. China has a single Aircraft Carrier, which isn't even a functional battle platform (more as a training platform). People all over the world claim Chinese Destroyer fleets are "ancient" and "obsolete." Yet every 10 minute or so the Pentagon has to remind us the Chinese threat.

Besides Japan (totally defensive) and Korea (slowly aggressive), who do you think can stand up to the "ancient" and "obsolete" PLAN?

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

So why the heck is everyone soiling their panties over Chinese Navy built up? Even if China's coastal water shrank so much you could walk in it, China would still have one of world longest coastlines.

All of PRC's naval neighbors happen to have their own long coastlines. If PRC wants to be aggressive, it can force the opposite side to overextend.

[ArchmageXin]

Besides Japan (totally defensive) and Korea (slowly aggressive), who do you think can stand up to the "ancient" and "obsolete" PLAN?

Everybody and their Mom, because they would all hide behind America the second a bullet is fired?

Why would anyone want that? Any major regime change in China is going to be a lot more belligerent than the current government. Bear in mind that the CCP has been careful to choose the coolest heads as their leaders, and that the general populace wants to express their newfound power more forcefully.

Exactly. Because regime change in Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Russia (from USSR) and Palestine has all gone well right?

[willx]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

I just hope for a Chinese regime change soon...

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Exactly. Because regime change in Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Russia (from USSR) and Palestine has all gone well right?

Oh boy ..

Well, that quote aside .. I think people are free to dislike a government but not dislike the country, no?

Ridwan has been a pretty consistent critic of the U.S. as well as any and all governments, let's not through around snark that's unnecessary.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by willx

Oh boy ..

Well, that quote aside .. I think people are free to dislike a government but not dislike the country, no?

Ridwan has been a pretty consistent critic of the U.S. as well as any and all governments, let's not through around snark that's unnecessary.

?

Isn't it true though? All of them had an American assisted regime change, and not all of them went off well. Suffering is certain though~

[willx]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

?

Isn't it true though? All of them had an American assisted regime change, and not all of them went off well. Suffering is certain though~

I think the problem is the definition of "regime change" -- if Ridwan was referring a democratic protest and uprising -- does that qualify? Would it be good? Would it be bad? There would definitely be chaos for a while.

Spoiler:

1) Iran had an American assisted regime change .. but also an "Islamic Revolution" regime change. Which is good or bad. Both? People suffered under a Tyrant in the first case. "Enemy of the western world under the other" -- (Yes, the Western World shot first)

2) Afghanistan is a mixed bag. As a third party it's hard to say whether it's better or worse. There's militant violence, yes, but is it really worse now than before?

3) Egypt - What do you consider regime change? U.S. backed military El Baradei? Democratic elections that then elected an Islamic fundamentalist? The

4) U.S.S.R - This one is the one I have the most trouble with.. it's constantly argued that the USSR was better for Russia as a country .. but was done so at a terrible human cost. Russia now as a country is less "great" but on average there is less direct human suffering ..

Overall one thing that gets lost in these kind of conversations is the separation between: Government - Country - People

What's good for each of those things depends on what you define as "good" and may or may not be good for the others simultaneously..

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Why would anyone even want to invade Siberia and Mongolia to begin with? The only thing of any value there was Vladivostok, and it's certainly not worth the cost of another war. And with the IJA already embroiled in an unwinnable war, it's really remarkable how utterly insane the "Strike North" strategy was. I sort of think that Zhukov did Japan a favor by quashing those ambitions.

As dumb as it was....I actually think that is better than war against the USA...

And if you want to talk about dumb,

The whole China war was a big waste of resources anyway. Japan being a maritime power, they should have followed ambassador Nomura's recommendation of pulling out of China and maintaining joint control of Pacific with the US.

[ganbaru]

Grenade blast in Russian courthouse kills 2: Interfax
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9A00AS20131101

Insight: Property hot spots renew easy-money bubble fears
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9A004Z20131101