AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Current Series > Gundam

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-11-21, 22:35   Link #41
Itadakimasu!
tsun tsun lover
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 26
Send a message via MSN to Itadakimasu!
Aside from the Military difficulties of attacking either of the Koreas, China would probably prefer cooperation than hostility.

Once again I must state that from an east asian political perspective it just doesnt make sense to waste resources, damage your economy and risk hostility from your people via war weariness when you're faced with an energy crisis...
__________________
Is it THAT fun to watch incompetent people win?
Itadakimasu! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-21, 22:39   Link #42
Kang Seung Jae
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Aside from the Military difficulties of attacking either of the Koreas, China would probably prefer cooperation than hostility.

Once again I must state that from an east asian political perspective it just doesnt make sense to waste resources, damage your economy and risk hostility from your people via war weariness when you're faced with an energy crisis...
Yes, and the only possible nation NOT being in this is Japan because (unfortuantely) I believe China and either/both of the Koreas would use the anti-Japanese sentiment for internal stability.

I believe that's a possible factor for Japan being in the Union.
__________________
Kang Seung Jae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-21, 22:58   Link #43
SoldierOfDarkness
The Dark Knight
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think?
Age: 28
Quote:
My theory is that nations banded together because of MUTUAL difficulties, difficulties that would drive adversaries to cooperate. Russia is only aligned with China today because of the US. Is it simply too difficult to imagine that Russia, China and India would pool their resources together and integrate in such a way as to ensure that they remained a global force, albeit united?Historical Precedents for this are rife.
That's what I've been trying to say for the past posts.

It's a do or die situation. Either you join up and build the elevators or stay put and rot. It's more beneficial for major powers close to each other to link up to ensure their survival.
SoldierOfDarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-22, 03:32   Link #44
Tak
☭ автомат Калашникова ☭
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Neu Herzogtum Zeon
Well, this discussion now pretty much moved from its originally fictional aspect to real-world politics. I guess that could not be helped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness View Post
It's a do or die situation. Either you join up and build the elevators or stay put and rot. It's more beneficial for major powers close to each other to link up to ensure their survival.
What you say is true, and I would believe it. But I won't, because Japan found a way out of this. Therefore, I am led to believe that choices are there, and with the arrangements made in 00, they are simply not the most plausible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
It's not the matter of being a Korean, but a person who's been in the military long enough to know the current power status.


If you were in the military, then you have my respect. Although to claim that you know 'enough' of current power status may be a bit of a stretch. The Korean government will feed you what they know, but how much do they know is a question. China simply isn't very transparent when it comes to military build up or spending. We have a ballpark estimate, but we really don't know where all their money went to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
China cannot mobilize its entire forces to Manchuria in a few days, and their air force is too weak to handle Korea ATM. If North Korea wasn't an issue, the China would break with trying to have enough forces to counter Korea AND Taiwan.
China already has a 400,000 strong garrison along the boarders of North Korea. They are already there! In Manchuria! Moreover, they have nothing to worry about Taiwan, because there is absolutely no way in another hundred years that Taiwan will ever launch an attack on the mainland. In fact, if China grants Taiwan its independence, the island would be overjoyed, and whatever happen to the Koreas will be their least of worries. China has that option of leaving Taiwan alone, and they simply won't be hurt by it, in fact, it may be even better for the Chinese economy!

Moreover, no matter how President Kim of NK is disliked throughout the rest of the world, he is and forever will be China's buffer boy. The Chinese government is extremely fine with the idea of having both SK and NK messing themselves up, it certainly make China's job easier.

Besides, if China wanted to really punish SK for whatever reason? Why bother sending an army, after all, China has a large arsenal of short-ranged missiles capable of hitting just about anywhere in SK. And if you are suggesting that Korea might prevail in an all-out artillery war with China? Well, you have my blessings, and good luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
Of course, in the future, things might change, but thinking Korea was always a weak country, kowtowing to the "Middle" Kingdom is one-sided propaganda.
No, I agree with you. I do not believe Korea always kowtowed to the Middle Kingdom, but the fact is, they did, once in a while. Lets just give an example, the first Sino-Japanese war that resulted in the Treaty of Shimonoseki was fought on Korean soil. Whenever there is a problem with the two East-Asian rivals that resulted in warfare, its almost always fought on Korean soil. You really have to wonder just how much power exactly, did Korea have that would deter both China and Japan from using its soil as a battleground all the time.

I also cannot help but to note that whenever Korea experienced its greatest autonomy, it very often came at a time when China was suffering from some Hunnic invasion, or if it screwed up itself internally and a civil war followed. During the time when China experienced its own golden age, and that China 'really' wanted Korea for some reason, it more often succeeded in its military expeditions.

Browsing through history, I cannot think of one case when Korea made an aggressive foreign policy prior to the 20th century. When was the last time Korea had an aspiration in the mainland and actually achieved it? When Korea experienced its greatest autonomy, I bet they simply wanted to be left alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Much of the technology employed in S-V was Korean Warfare era stuff, and the Chinese were outgunned by the VA. Chinese military modernization began in the 80s, not the 90s, after 1979.
You are going under the assumption that China had lost the war against Vietnam, but they claimed otherwise. Perhaps they were still in self-denial at that point, but regardless, no evidence suggest that China went to war against Vietnam because China wanted to subjugate the South-Asian state. There are good reasons to believe that China simply attacked Vietnam so it could irritate Moscow to a degree, and at least in that, China succeeded. I also mentioned, the attack occurred precisely at the end of the 'Friendship' treaty between China and Russia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Simply stating that the Chinese "are highly competitive" and "have an agenda" simply attaches labels that can be placed on any self interested nation:
How much aspirations do China have for the world is one thing, but one cannot deny that they are 'highly competitive' and want to insert their influence over Asia. Whether you want to believe it or not, China does throw its weight around, and they are felt by some of China's traditional enemies, such as Japan, and Taiwan. To actively interfere with other countries' foreign policy is well, not a very nice thing to do, to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Chinese leadership (and Asian leadership in general) is usually rather subtle and passive.
Then you must recall that historically, China also had very little serious competition. Especially after the Mongols were pacified to a greater degree. Things changed since then, especially after the European incursion.

Chinese leaders are getting more and more assertive these days, and you can feel it. Perhaps being Chinese or living in China might be a different issue, but certainly when I travel to Japan or to Taiwan, I can feel China is throwing its weight around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Over their history China has showed little of the aggressive expansion of many other nations. Confucianism is the key to this, and confucian values of stable government and judicious rule is anathema to the instability wrought by warfare.
Confucianism was part of the influencing force, but certainly not the primary one, since it proved so worthless during the warring states period. Traditionally, China did not express aggressive expansionism because of one thing, China had expanded what appeared to be the 'limit'. It is after all, an immense country, and at one point, it included much of South-Asia as well as Korea. Certainly, you have to wonder if there are other places to expand to. For the agrarian Chinese culture however, expanding northwards just doesn't seem to be a proper resolution.

Moreover, China realized the importance of trade and commerce. It yields more income trading with Arabs than to actually conquer them, which the Tang dynasty did, with success, until it became inevitable that internal problems caused the Tang dynasty to implode and their influence over Central Asia and the Middle East declined drastically as a result.

China did not start as a wholly unified country. Anyone who studied China's warring states realize that very well. It was not until the Qin Dynasty did China once again came under a unified banner, and that was accomplished through excessive violence. Although the Qin Dynasty lasted less than 20 years, it did set the foundations to the Chinese Empire for later generations. One thing you cannot deny, China fought more wars than any country in the world, and until the 20th century, they were also unsurpassed in their bloodiness.

Whenever China mobilizes for war, 200,000 men was the norm, in addition to almost infinite reserves. For Europe? If the combined strength of Europe during the Middle Ages could reach just 50% of that number, that would have been considered very lucky!

Edward Gibbon, the famous English historian of the 18th century once remarked that "the fallen in the battlefields of China made European warfare look like mere skirmishes". Not exactly what Confucius had hoped for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Blue Water navies are a sign of world power, not of aggression.
It won't start out as an aggression, but it will eventually come to that. Anyone who studied world history will immediately point out that two strong powers cannot co-exist. Of course, in the course of China's ascendancy into the world stage, it must posses what other world powers posses, which includes none other than a strong military. Regardless, despite what China may claim as the purpose of procuring advanced military equipment, it does make its neighbors worry, because they know there is no way in hell they will be able to compete with China's population and almost unlimited resources.

And as I have mentioned before, China loves to throw its diplomatic weight around. It makes its neighbors very uncomfortable. Moreover, lets get to the fundamentals. China is not a democracy, and human rights in China is well, secondary. Not a pretty picture for many.

China also knows very well that cooperation, at least with selected countries, is far more important than hostility. China knows all too well that turning Asia into a battlefield is not in its best interests. Yet, China does expand its influence globally, whether it is to cozying up African countries or peace missions to keep the UN happy, China's influence IS expanding, by leaps and bounds if I may add. China isn't actively hostile to the US or anyone today is partially because China is not ready to make that one aggressive move, nor is it necessary right now.

Here is what I see, decades down the road, some poor Middle-Eastern country would become the source of conflict between Chinese and American interests, and then a series of battles are fought.

But hey, its a conflict over a foreign land that both sides simply couldn't care less.

- Tak
Tak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-22, 03:58   Link #45
Kang Seung Jae
神聖カルル帝国の 皇帝
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Korea
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak View Post
China already has a 400,000 strong garrison along the boarders of North Korea. They are already there! In Manchuria! Moreover, they have nothing to worry about Taiwan, because there is absolutely no way in another hundred years that Taiwan will ever launch an attack on the mainland. In fact, if China grants Taiwan its independence, the island would be overjoyed, and whatever happen to the Koreas will be their least of worries. China has that option of leaving Taiwan alone, and they simply won't be hurt by it, in fact, it may be even better for the Chinese economy!

Besides, if China wanted to really punish SK for whatever reason? Why bother sending an army, after all, China has a large arsenal of short-ranged missiles capable of hitting just about anywhere in SK. And if you are suggesting that Korea might prevail in an all-out artillery war with China? Well, you have my blessings, and good luck.
400,000 soldiers that will get massacured in the first few minutes of the war is not much. And yes, I mean it. Currently, the technolongy of the Chinese PLA ground force is behind enough for one Korean division to roll over at least 3 Chinese. And I'm not kidding here. Add in air strikes, and you have a good Manchurian Meatshield.

Of course, you mentioned missiles and artillery. If they start launching the missiles, they would use up their stock, meaning that they wouldn't have the trump card against Taiwan. Plus, artillery would be useless when the Korean side has enough to counter the entire artillery force of China and still have some left over.

Yes, China's speading is unknown. But if they can't match up the amount spent per soldier, then it's going to be tough to counter the cruise missiles, Aegis "destroyers," and other toys that the Koreans have.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak View Post
No, I agree with you. I do not believe Korea always kowtowed to the Middle Kingdom, but the fact is, they did, once in a while. Lets just give an example, the first Sino-Japanese war that resulted in the Treaty of Shimonoseki was fought on Korean soil. Whenever there is a problem with the two East-Asian rivals that resulted in warfare, its almost always fought on Korean soil. You really have to wonder just how much power exactly, did Korea have that would deter both China and Japan from using its soil as a battleground all the time.

I also cannot help but to note that whenever Korea experienced its greatest autonomy, it very often came at a time when China was suffering from some Hunnic invasion, or if it screwed up itself internally and a civil war followed. During the time when China experienced its own golden age, and that China 'really' wanted Korea for some reason, it more often succeeded in its military expeditions.

Browsing through history, I cannot think of one case when Korea made an aggressive foreign policy prior to the 20th century. When was the last time Korea had an aspiration in the mainland and actually achieved it? When Korea experienced its greatest autonomy, I bet they simply wanted to be left alone.
Japan only became a major power after their unification under Hideyoshi (yes, Nobunaga nearly succeeded, but he died before realizing his dream). Before that, only the pirates were of any threat to the powers of East Asia. In short, you're basing East Asian politics on the last 500 years (and Japan really only became a Great Power with the Meiji Restoration), which is completely different from 1500 years before it.

China only succeeded in "conquering" Korea only once: the Early Han, when they defeated Early Joseon. After that, they have never been able to subdue the territory north of the "Great" Wall until the Qingf Dynasty opened to door to the Northern Frontier, resulting in the massive migeration that outnumbers the Mongols and the Manchus.

Of course, you might talk about "Chinese" Dynasties. However, if you look at which dynasties were able to control the North, it was only the Han that's the real Chinese. The rest are foreign dynasties, which came from the NORTH. In other words, China itself was almost never powerful enough to crack the Northern nomads until the Qing.

As for aggressive Korean foreign policy: Is the Early Joseon-Han War, Goguryeo's expansion to northern and western Manchuria, Balhae's war against Tang which resulted in it's reannexation of Liaodong and temporary occupation of Shandong Peninsula, and the Goryeo wars against Khitan, Yuan and Ming non-aggressive?



In short: How about reading up history and getting out of the historical shell of the past 500 years?







Coming back to the original topic: I think the Russian split is possible, if Russia's central government got destabilized. It's the question of why India doesn't have much political power that's the mystery.
__________________
Kang Seung Jae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-22, 04:37   Link #46
SuperKnuckles
Anime Hobbyist
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak View Post
During the course of the war, Korea was never able to summon an army larger than 30,000 men, and with the Japanese closing onto China's front-yard (Manchuria), obviously the Ming Dynasty couldn't just sit there and wait for the whole thing to be over. The last thing the Chinese wanted was to have somebody violating their northern boarders. Chinese foreign policy during the time take that possibility very seriously, and with wars against the Mongols still in process, the Chinese were simply not in the mood for an additional enemy, wherever they came from. Otherwise, initially, the Ming Dynasty was more willing to wait it out, hoping the Koreans and Japanese armies to exhaust themselves.
That's not entirely true since Chinese went in there because they clearly saw the Japanese as a threat. Korea was way too close for comfort and they KNEW it.

Quote:
As for your claim on how ancient Korean kingdoms were supposedly strong and unified
You're stuffing words in my mouth. I never said they were unified. But they were strong nation fully one thousand years before the Japanese invasion. We're talking ANCIENT times here. Not the relative medieval times of Asia.

Quote:
let me remind you that Korea was subjugated during the times of China's Han Dynasty, the Three Kingdoms, the Tang Dynasty, the Song Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty and later the Qing Dynasty. When Korea was able to maintain its autonomy, it was also during a time when China was in chaos. The Koreans prevailed during the Sui Dynasty exactly because it was entering the last stages of its existence, as it was engaged in a series of wars that would later be replaced by a vastly more powerful Tang Dynasty.

The Koreans never made much military expeditions into the mainland, and for a good reason. They know they can't expect to win.
The 'subjugation' was not complete. They remained Koreans and China generally did not subjugate them the way they did with their own clans (and now, Nepal). Also, it was never about making military expeditions in order to conquer, but to maintain their own status. Korean empires did do just that for along while and with adequate forces for them to stay aloft as Korean entities. Even at their weakest points of the Korean empires, China never invaded, never slaughtered them but simply kept them at an arm's length. That was the status quo until Japan decided to crash the party not once but twice leading up to World War 2, though China was powerless to help Koreans at the time.

Quote:
Except all the evidence today point out to the contrary. Japan is rearming.
They are, but they probably can't even come close to the armament of South Korea, North Korea or even Taiwan unless they radically change their constitution. That hasn't happened yet.

Quote:
On paper, it is true that South Korea posses an army of some half million men. Although you fail to keep in mind that they are there, mostly for the purpose of deterring North Korea, which has an army in the millions, despite how outdated they may be. I am not even factoring the 400,000 strong Northern China army stationed at the boarders of North Korea.
Not entirely as of now. They're still too vital a corner-nation to let down arms even if North Korea was under control.

Quote:
How much can the SK Army do when an emergency occurs remain to be seen. Although I highly doubt it can take much punishment once China decides to join the fray.
I doubt China will because they still do hold the Koreas at an arm's reach. Not to the point of open hostility. If anything, they will hold Japan back like they have done for thousands of years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
As for aggressive Korean foreign policy: Is the Early Joseon-Han War, Goguryeo's expansion to northern and western Manchuria, Balhae's war against Tang which resulted in it's reannexation of Liaodong and temporary occupation of Shandong Peninsula, and the Goryeo wars against Khitan, Yuan and Ming non-aggressive?
Good point, but they were against individual provinces of smaller Chinese factions rather than THE ENTIRE CHINA. That's what people needs to understand. Just as Korea was a small but fighting groups of factions, so were the Chinese at that point. Korea in ancient times were always pretty competitive to the Chinese neighbors (though obviously not enough to conquer. But who says you need to conquer in order to compete?).

China always has kept Korea as a separate entity. They never went to Korea and said "you are Chinese, you belong to us". The empires have always kept themselves apart even with some subjugation in the way of taxes through various points of ancient times.

Also, the Mongolian thing is not a good analogy because the Chinese fell like domino bricks to them before reaching Korea, to middle east, India and to Japan (if the divine wind incident didn't happen).

Back to the point with Gundam 00, now I think it may be a bit more plausible for Korea to join HRL. But nowadays, Japan and Korea are decently friendly nations (compare that to the open hostility not 100 years ago) so I think alliances can go either way really. But I still say Union alliance of Japan + Korea + Americas makes a lot more sense.

Last edited by SuperKnuckles; 2007-11-22 at 04:49.
SuperKnuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-22, 05:36   Link #47
Itadakimasu!
tsun tsun lover
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 26
Send a message via MSN to Itadakimasu!
Chinese conflict has always been internecine. Whereas European aggression was greatly reduced after Westphalia and colonialism, China has only ever been savage in unifying the "middle kingdom". Do not mistake the search for unity with the path of domination. Even under the Nationalists in the 1900s, Chinese nationalism was aimed at promoting democracy and helping the peasantry and the poor.

AS for the claim that "no two world powers can exist at the same time" you have got to be joking. History is littered with examples of such powers coexisting, and many of the times the decline of one has been based on their internal problems rather than external elements.

Various rivalries existed for long periods from the renaissance to the industrial revolution.

Furthermore, "throwing diplomatic weight around" is highly relative. China can't begin to compare to the US... any warning of invading Taiwan (a domestic issue) would be treated as more egregious than the US's ridiculous preemptive strike on Iraq... You've taken this entirely out of context.

The assertion that China has a poor human rights record is one I won't disagree with. But how does that assist your point in any way? Should I mention bring out my law experience and explain all the ways in which many Western democracies are abandoning HR in order to "combat terrorism"? Rendition perhaps? I won't go into it since I don't see how it helps your assertion that the HRL became the way it is through Chinese Aggression.

Positing that "interfering with another nation's foreign policy is not a very nice thing to do" makes no sense in real terms... foreign policies are not conducted in a vacuum... look at the US and Iran for example... how are they supposed to conduct relations (even indirectly) without interfering with each others FP?

Summing up:
1. You fail to consider the practical difficulties of its occurrence
2. You don't even begin to consider the 'best alternative' to your theory of Chinese Aggression, despite them being raised by a host of others
3. You base your argument entirely on this pseudo-fictional belief that China is some sort of aggressor nation on par with Nazi Germany and its Lebensraum/Anschluss policies, ignoring the blatant reality that FOREIGN POLICY just isn't that simple
__________________
Is it THAT fun to watch incompetent people win?
Itadakimasu! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-22, 11:48   Link #48
Tak
☭ автомат Калашникова ☭
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Neu Herzogtum Zeon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
Of course, you mentioned missiles and artillery. If they start launching the missiles, they would use up their stock, meaning that they wouldn't have the trump card against Taiwan. Plus, artillery would be useless when the Korean side has enough to counter the entire artillery force of China and still have some left over.
Why are you assuming that China will use missiles against Taiwan when the latter shows absolutely no aggressive tendencies towards China? As I have mentioned, Taiwan just want to be left alone, and there is very little reason for them to be involved in case China conduct any aggression towards Korea.

Besides, you stated earlier that China cannot mobilize its forces to Manchuria, I am simply pointing out that they already did.

Before you start believing that China will again, use century old-tactics of human wave attacks, think again. I already mentioned earlier that cooperation, for now, is the key. They are not ready for any aggressive foreign politics yet, but times will change, and its inevitable.

Hey, and one Korean per 3 Chinese isn't bad, certainly the latter can afford it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
[COLOR="royalblue"][B]Japan only became a major power after their unification under Hideyoshi (yes, Nobunaga nearly succeeded, but he died before realizing his dream). Before that, only the pirates were of any threat to the powers of East Asia. In short, you're basing East Asian politics on the last 500 years (and Japan really only became a Great Power with the Meiji Restoration), which is completely different from 1500 years before it.
I am not basing history on the last 500 years. Evidence point out to the contrary. Do you think that 1500 bit was the first time Japan invaded Korea? Not so. The first invasion occurred sometime during the latter part of the Jin Dynasty, and another during the Tang Dynasty. Yes, both attempts failed, but the point is, they tried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
China only succeeded in "conquering" Korea only once: the Early Han, when they defeated Early Joseon. After that, they have never been able to subdue the territory north of the "Great" Wall until the Qing Dynasty opened to door to the Northern Frontier, resulting in the massive migeration that outnumbers the Mongols and the Manchus.
Could have fooled me. Historical atlas all point out that during the times of Han Dynasty, Three Kingdoms as well as the Qing Dynasty and others, Korea was part of the Chinese Empire.

And the great wall was never intended for the Koreas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
The rest are foreign dynasties, which came from the NORTH. In other words, China itself was almost never powerful enough to crack the Northern nomads until the Qing.
Now you are making a big assumption, and I was not talking about nomads, we are talking about the Koreas here. Unless you are referring to the Koreans as 'nomadic' then sorry, I don't know when Koreans were elevated to that status. As for your claim that the 'rest' of the Chinese dynasties came from the NORTH, you have made a mistake in generalization, I would like to point out, that the dynasties such as the Song, Tang and Ming were all domestic dynasties. I need not remind you that the Tang Dynasty succeeded in their military expeditions against Korea.

And really, to say anything is foreign within China is, well, a stretch. As if the Chinese people had always been pure-bred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae View Post
As for aggressive Korean foreign policy: Is the Early Joseon-Han War, Goguryeo's expansion to northern and western Manchuria, Balhae's war against Tang which resulted in it's reannexation of Liaodong and temporary occupation of Shandong Peninsula, and the Goryeo wars against Khitan, Yuan and Ming non-aggressive?
Sporadic aggression against territories that China had not consolidated over is well, nothing to be proud of, really. As you have said it yourself, those acts of aggression were "temporary".

My question had been "Did Korea achieved its aspirations?" No, as within less than a generation, whatever Korean 'aggression' that had existed dissipated, forced back to the origin where it started (if Korea got lucky), or worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKnuckles View Post
That's not entirely true since Chinese went in there because they clearly saw the Japanese as a threat. Korea was way too close for comfort and they KNEW it.
That is absolutely not true. When Pyongyang fell, and King Seonjo informed the Ming Emperor AGAIN of the Japanese threat, what was the result? A 5,000 men task force, an army so small in Chinese standards that they provided almost aid whatsoever to the situation.

And I mentioned, Japan had became a threat when it was imminent that Japan will soon violate the Northern Chinese boarders, which is the last thing China wanted.

Wait, I already said that, why am I repeating myself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKnuckles View Post
They are, but they probably can't even come close to the armament of South Korea, North Korea or even Taiwan unless they radically change their constitution. That hasn't happened yet.
I am afraid that if you just look at raw data in regards to manpower, then you do not fully comprehend the extent to the Japanese rearmament program. Japan is also very involved, globally in providing armed assistance. However, due to past sensitivities, they are not publicized, and families are advised not to mention where their sons, those who served in the Japanese armed forces in foreign lands, had gone. Japan retains one of East Asia's most professional armed forces, to say they are not close to the armies of South Korea, NK or TWN is false. Moreover, total rearmament may happen within this generation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKnuckles View Post
Not entirely as of now. They're still too vital a corner-nation to let down arms even if North Korea was under control.
I don't think that had anything to do with what I said. I originally asked the question if SK is able to handle both the threats of NK and China, not if SK should let-down arms under any circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Chinese conflict has always been internecine. Whereas European aggression was greatly reduced after Westphalia and colonialism, China has only ever been savage in unifying the "middle kingdom". Do not mistake the search for unity with the path of domination. Even under the Nationalists in the 1900s, Chinese nationalism was aimed at promoting democracy and helping the peasantry and the poor.
Internecine is still bloody, and remained to be far bloodier than other contemporary conflicts around the world. If you had not pointed out to the examples of Confucius, I would not raise Chinese wars as an example. It sounded ridiculous to use Confucius to assert a supposedly peace-loving China when all examples point out to the contrary. Chinese wars may appear internecine, but guess what? China is not homogeneous, its an immense territory littered with many people and many different ideas. You don't think that is a potential cause for war? Yeah, European conflicts are easier to pick out because they are divided into well-organized cultural, social and national entities. China may not have that clear distinction, but people is people. Besides, as I mentioned already, China did not always exist under a unified state. There are times when China was divided, reunified, divided again. By the same token of your argument, stating that Chinese conflicts are only between Chinese people, I can very well state that European conflicts are also internecine, because they involved mostly Europeans!

On a side note, I love the Han Dynasty, I really do. Just to throw something here, do you know how Attila the Hun, the Scourge of God came about? China is partial to blame here to have created him. After all, was it not for the Han Dynasty's extremely successful northern campaigns that ended with possible genocide and forceful displacement of the Huns, these nomads as we know it, probably wouldn't end up before the doorsteps of Eastern Europe, casuing such a ruckus that not even Rome could handle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
History is littered with examples of such powers coexisting
Co-existing by making some poor bastard out of nowhere a flash-point is hardly co-existence at all. Powers like Rome and Sassanid Persia fought endlessly for the domination of Eastern Europe and near-orient territories.

And don't give me the bit where China and Rome co-existed peacefully. They don't even know each other existed, except from rumors and hearsay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Various rivalries existed for long periods from the renaissance to the industrial revolution.
And the result of those rivalries were the Four-Years War, The Thirty-Year War, the Eighty-Year War... etc. Yeah, there were rivalries alright, but they didn't co-exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Furthermore, "throwing diplomatic weight around" is highly relative. China can't begin to compare to the US... any warning of invading Taiwan (a domestic issue)
Here you go. You believe that Taiwan is a domestic issue, when others will immediately dispute that. Certainly the Taiwanese don't think so. China's claim on something being domestic is also other people's problem. Under any circumstances should China subjugate Taiwan, Japan will flip. Why? Because China just destroyed Japan's lifeline. Besides, China wouldn't be as reactionary these days had it not been for the fact that Taiwan is the most pro-Japanese country in Asia.

Traditionally, China's incorporation of Taiwan was even less complete than their efforts in both Korea and Vietnam, not to mention China had 'voluntarily' seceded Taiwan to Japan as a result of the first Sino-Japanese War, under the statement that Taiwan was a wasteland and not worth keeping. Clearly, China didn't want it then.

Now the Chinese wants it, for reasons so obvious its disgusting. How funny is that? Hey, daylight robbery! Not to mention China wasn't even the first to subjugate the island, before that, there were the Spanish, the Dutch, and an infamous pirate known to the rest of the world as Koxinga, and he did not represent China.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Positing that "interfering with another nation's foreign policy is not a very nice thing to do" makes no sense in real terms... foreign policies are not conducted in a vacuum... look at the US and Iran for example... how are they supposed to conduct relations (even indirectly) without interfering with each others FP?
Don't compare it to the US, nobody ever said what we have done these days weren't silly! Nobody here stated that the war against Iraq was justified. If anything, the responsibilities of paying for the reconstruction of Iraq belongs to us, the poor citizens who voted George the 2nd to be president!

But when it comes to purely diplomatic exchanges, we do not interfere say, the Iraqi prime minister's decision to host the Iranian president. In contrast, China interferes all the time with who Japan, the United States or others in their decision to host individuals as their guest of honor. They also have a tendency to force foreign corporations to abide by its less-than-humane laws at home, or arrest foreign reporters without a clear evidence. Those, unfortunately, are not domestic issues, as they clearly go into conflict with foreign countries.

And, as I said, China is not ready to take a overly aggressive stance. Decades down the road? Who knows. China is now going global, and Chinese people are human, too. Chinese people have ambitions, wherever that ambition leads them I do not know, but it surely will impact this world greatly, for better or worse.

- Tak

Last edited by Tak; 2007-11-22 at 12:06.
Tak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-22, 20:39   Link #49
Dean_the_Young
Has a life IRL
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Sphere
I can understand Tak's hesitation of the Union's presence in the Pacific, but I also have my own problem with Japan and Australia being in the Union that I don't think he mentioned, and that is "where's the Philippines?" (And to a lesser extent, Taiwan).

With India in the HRL (and for the record, I think they're a more significant member than people have been suggesting), it makes a fair amount of sense for the Indio-sphere (including the Indonesian isles) to also be part of the HRL. And under the vague Anglo-sphere mentality, I can also understand why Australia and the south pacific islands that don't really matter would be in the Union, even if the idea of a pipeline from the Union across the Pacific is hard to believe.

But why Japan, and not also the Philippines? The Philippines have a strong historical connection to the US as well, since the Spanish-American War calling US-Philippino ties significant would be an understatement, but there's one other thing that gets me; the Philippines geo-political role of standing between Japan and much of the oceanic trade from Asia. Pearl Harbor was started because Japan's economic lines were under threat by US naval forces in the Philippines, who could interdict Japanese trade with colonies/suppliers at will.

So while Japan might not have colonies on the mainland, shouldn't the principle still apply? If 00 Japan were to find itself in war with the HRL, they would start off flanked on three sides by hostiles; Russia to the north, China to the west, and the Philippines from the south. HRL naval blockading would be much easier from a triangle that cuts off Japanese reinforcement from any direction but North America than it would if a Australia-Philippine-Japan supply line could be established. (Obviously, the Australian part would have to swing East of the HRL tower and Indonesia, but then it could go up to the Philippines.)

So why put the Philippines (and Taiwan, which has similar advantages of a sort) into the HRL, if it is neither part of the Indosphere or Sinosphere? I can understand mainland Asia joining an expansionist, mammoth China-India-Russian alliance for the inverse of why Britain wasn't overrun by Germany; the countries of mainland asia lack a huge moat. But Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and Taiwan don't. And while Taiwan I could wave away as having been invaded in a Sino-American War that happens in the next 200 years which sees the US watch Taiwan overrun, the Philippines not so much.

So personally, that's my big beef with the Pacific area. If a Pacific-defensive pact were to have formed as Tak suggests, the Philippines would have been a vital member. (Potentially, such a pact could have formed in the backstory, but have been assimilated by the Union when the Union was the first to recover from the economic chaos ten years ago with an orbital tower and offered energy to the alliance. Of course, that would be the kind of thing never mentioned in the anime.)

So yeah, that's my two c.
Dean_the_Young is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-22, 22:09   Link #50
Itadakimasu!
tsun tsun lover
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 26
Send a message via MSN to Itadakimasu!
No where did I assert that China was 'peace loving'. The search for stability and pacifism are two entirely different concepts and I never confused them. Blood thirstiness in the pursuit of unification, especially in ANCIENT times, where moral codas where so valued because they weren't always adhered to, by no means indicates that China is going to savagely burst over its borders and attempt a suicidal move by taking on regional powers.

I fail to see causation between the argument that China's success in repelling the Northern Tribes somehow MEANT that it was responsible for the westward push. COuldn't you then argue that if the Europeans had been half as successful then there'd be no such responsibility for this "Scourge of God" ? You really are drawing a long bow there.

European conflicts ARE internecine, until of course they became involved in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, Asia and the New World !

When I raised the issue of coexistence, I refer to periods of the industrial age and the renaissance... Today coexistence is almost imperative given the proliferation of WMDs.


Why shouldn't I compare with the US? I'm pointing out that FOREIGN POLICY exists as a DIALOGUE between nations.... your argument that "China interferes with other nations' FP" was too laughable not to point out its hypocrisy... Did Japan interfere with China's FP when they invaded pre ww2? Its not just a case of the US... its a case of your using sophist arguments and repeatedly bashing against a wall of irrational China-phobia.

Given the INSURMOUNTABLE points raised by others on this forum about the practical difficulties of your so called "Chinese domination" coming about through some form of aggressive imperialist action, why is it so difficult for you to accept that OIL SHORTAGES, and ENERGY CRISIS as yet unprecedented in world history would not be able to push geographically proximate nations into supranational organizations? Maybe China is the leader because it acted first? Or it bankrolled much of the Heaven's Pillar?

Is that soo difficult to accept that you must force upon us some extreme alternative where China has somehow pacified 1 billion Indians, Overrun the Korean Peninsula, somehow coopted the greater part of East Asia into a modern version of the Greater East Asian Coprosperity Sphere?

Your myopic view on foreign policy is more horrifying than the rather far fetched premise of Gundam 00 in the first place!
__________________
Is it THAT fun to watch incompetent people win?
Itadakimasu! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-23, 07:36   Link #51
SuperKnuckles
Anime Hobbyist
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak View Post
That is absolutely not true. When Pyongyang fell, and King Seonjo informed the Ming Emperor AGAIN of the Japanese threat, what was the result? A 5,000 men task force, an army so small in Chinese standards that they provided almost aid whatsoever to the situation.

And I mentioned, Japan had became a threat when it was imminent that Japan will soon violate the Northern Chinese boarders, which is the last thing China wanted.

Wait, I already said that, why am I repeating myself?
You're not saying anything I haven't. I hope you understand that. Also, none of that debunks the fact that Korea was a crucial buffer nation even in those times. China could've waited until Korea was fully subjugated, but the Chinese would not risk it. It's not a full on alliance, but it's not a hostile reception either. That's the general respect the empires had on each other.

Quote:
I am afraid that if you just look at raw data in regards to manpower, then you do not fully comprehend the extent to the Japanese rearmament program. Japan is also very involved, globally in providing armed assistance. However, due to past sensitivities, they are not publicized, and families are advised not to mention where their sons, those who served in the Japanese armed forces in foreign lands, had gone. Japan retains one of East Asia's most professional armed forces, to say they are not close to the armies of South Korea, NK or TWN is false. Moreover, total rearmament may happen within this generation.
The armed forces of Japan are limited by their own legislature UNLIKE SK and Taiwan which are rabidly building up force JUST to stay stable. Armament of Japan is more of an issue of luxury for them rather than the sheer need of Korea and Taiwan. I never said Japanese forces were incompetent or totally weak, but they are not a battle-ready group. They only provide assistance at the most and never had the fully offensive capabilities of other nations.

Quote:
I don't think that had anything to do with what I said. I originally asked the question if SK is able to handle both the threats of NK and China, not if SK should let-down arms under any circumstances.
You're only saying that under that weird angle in that SK is to be attacked by everyone. SK still has a massive force that still provides some balance to the area even if they may not be able to handle everything by themselves. It's the same situation as Israel, which is technically HUGELY out numbered by Muslim nations, yet their formidable force still provides some security in itself. Also, if SK is attacked by a total foreign force like China, I doubt NK could sit still unless they are truly that entrenched with Chinese politics. NK could swing either way really.

Quote:
And, as I said, China is not ready to take a overly aggressive stance. Decades down the road? Who knows. China is now going global, and Chinese people are human, too. Chinese people have ambitions, wherever that ambition leads them I do not know, but it surely will impact this world greatly, for better or worse.
That is doubtful. To tangle with Japan/Korea and other nations surrounding it is certain suicide even for the numbers Chinese military can put out. Japan and Korea still have a lot of binding military and economic partnership with America and JUST because you build up arms, it doesn't mean it'll always be used. Just like in Gundam 00, it could be Zero Sum Game. Just building it up to show off and intimidate rather than to actually use.

PS- Itadakimasu, I agree with every single one of your points.

If China was such a monstrosity in military, they would not have left so many tribes in the north in relative safety, let Korea thrive by itself or leave the lucrative Japanese islands alone. Hell, why not invade India in its weaker eras? China did not. Even when it could have.

Back to the point about Gundam 00 alliances, I doubt the relationships will be hostile between Chinese and rest of Asia, but I still doubt a full alliance. Taiwan/Japan/Korea are too west-centric nowadays to be cared to be under Chinese subjugation. Even today, they openly express that. Friendliness is fine, but they don't treat China like their masters.

Last edited by SuperKnuckles; 2007-11-23 at 07:50.
SuperKnuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-23, 13:57   Link #52
Tak
☭ автомат Калашникова ☭
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Neu Herzogtum Zeon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Why shouldn't I compare with the US? I'm pointing out that FOREIGN POLICY exists as a DIALOGUE between nations.... your argument that "China interferes with other nations' FP" was too laughable not to point out its hypocrisy... Did Japan interfere with China's FP when they invaded pre ww2? Its not just a case of the US... its a case of your using sophist arguments and repeatedly bashing against a wall of irrational China-phobia.
You sound as if I was making the US look better than their Chinese counterparts in regards to foreign policy. I didn't, and I wholeheartedly admit that whatever we are doing these days, its becoming sillier and sillier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
European conflicts ARE internecine, until of course they became involved in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, Asia and the New World !
And I am sure China never had stakes in territories outside of its boarders (as if we ever had a definite description of that). I already gone over how many times China had invaded Korea & Vietnam. Today, it controls the Xinajiang province, which is hardly Chinese, as its inhabitants speak more Arabic than they do Chinese. We can also go on with Tibet or inner Mongolia, and we all know how Chinese they are.

You simply proved that might makes right. That is all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Is that soo difficult to accept that you must force upon us some extreme alternative where China has somehow pacified 1 billion Indians, Overrun the Korean Peninsula, somehow coopted the greater part of East Asia into a modern version of the Greater East Asian Coprosperity Sphere?

Your myopic view on foreign policy is more horrifying than the rather far fetched premise of Gundam 00 in the first place!
I said nothing about China overrunning India. In fact, I stated quite the opposite. I stated earlier that, in regards to the China-dominated 'League', does not the INDIANS and RUSSIANS have something to say about that? Don't stuff words in my mouth.

As for the Korean Peninsula, all of our discussion based on that particular subject matter reflects the past, not present. In case should China opt for a aggressive stance against Korea, the latter must have done something really stupid to incite that. Otherwise, presently, I don't see why China can't leave it alone.

As for foreign policy:

Please do not give me that 'China is innocent' look. Just recently, China and Russia held a joint military exercise in Russian territory, as a sign of cooperation and friendship. Before this however, China had held several exercises in Beijing and the boarders between China and Russia. One Russian observer noted that: "These exercises have little to do with the takeover of Taiwan, but rather aimed at conducting warfare over open plains, such as Siberia". Several articles published by BBC written by Russian journalists and translated English also indicated that "Our traditional advantages, including an extensive territory and immense population, is being stomped on its head by our southern neighbor"

Coincidently, the discovery of oil in Siberia could make Russia world's largest petroleum supplier in a few decades after OPEC. How about that?

A joint military exercise is not always a sign of friendship, but also mutual observation, to see what each side can do.

China protested heavily when India allowed Dahlai Lama to visit the United States couple months ago, and they are now using a boarder incident involving an Indian bunker construction to threaten 'further' actions. How about that?

The Chinese government also love to make Japanese ambassadors uneasy. They love to let their puppet Kim throw rockets across Japanese water, incite a reaction, and then back their SK counterparts to try and convince Japan not to 'overreact'. How very nice of them.

And I love it when Chinese submarines stalk US and Japanese ships, then tell us not to over-react.

Of course, we know China talks and/or does shit whenever Taiwan holds an election. First it was missiles, then followed by squadrons of fighters. I wonder what they are going to pull from their hats next year.

Yes, and whenever these problems do rise, and are noted by foreign observers, the Chinese government would immediately go "Oh, its an internal problem". Uh-huh.

Sorry bud, I am hardly convinced.

Thus, if I am far-fetched, you are DELUSIONAL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
Given the INSURMOUNTABLE points raised by others on this forum about the practical difficulties of your so called "Chinese domination" coming about through some form of aggressive imperialist action
Right, and I am supposed to believe any of you have the insider story and experienced with foreign policy as well as foreign intelligence. Right on. Is that like saying, if three robbers voted to rob a certain individual, one can also call that democracy? Yeah.

I am just making an opinion here 'mate, and while I respect your opinions, I can't agree with you. But if you believe your statements must be the absolute truth, you have the right to be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKnuckles View Post
The armed forces of Japan are limited by their own legislature UNLIKE SK and Taiwan which are rabidly building up force JUST to stay stable. Armament of Japan is more of an issue of luxury for them rather than the sheer need of Korea and Taiwan.
Did I not already say Article 9 might be abolished by our generation? With that gone, there will be no legislature to limit Japan's rearmament.

Please do not try to convince me that Japan's rearmament is a luxury. In facing a growing China, Japan's influence is dwindling. There is absolutely no reason to believe South Korea would come to their aid, or vice versa, should war erupt on the Asian mainland. The best way to go about that is to help themselves. Moreover, China is building an oceanic navy. What else do you do with an oceanic navy if not for extending your influences? Do you honestly believe China might just sit tight while the US take the initiative, aggressively? I don't think so. China is a large country, with words to keep, and promises to be liable for, in addition to pride and nationalism.

China is already poking holes while the US isn't looking, and although direct confrontation might not become a reality in our generation, the best way to maintain one's autonomy and independence is to help oneself, or end up being some big-powers' playground. So no, my dear friend, Japanese rearmament is not a luxury, its an absolute necessity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKnuckles View Post
It's the same situation as Israel, which is technically HUGELY out numbered by Muslim nations, yet their formidable force still provides some security in itself.
Except they also have nukes and American support. I am not even going to talk about the almost obscene Jewish lobbyist groups. You take away American support, and I wonder how long it would last. The same with South Korea, once it is isolated diplomatically, good luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKnuckles View Post
If China was such a monstrosity in military, they would not have left so many tribes in the north in relative safety, let Korea thrive by itself or leave the lucrative Japanese islands alone.
That is where you are wrong. China did not just leave so many northern tribes alone. Historically, when China gets its acts together, it sent expeditions northward. The Han expeditions were infamous because it commenced almost wholesome slaughter of norther tribes, displaced them, and forced them to move Westwards. In the Ming Dynasty, Chinese troops stormed Mongolia and burnt its capital to ashes, ruins which are still visible today.

You might ask why they did not stay in the north. Let me ask you then, what IS in the north? NOTHING. Shit can't grow in the north, and for an agrarian people such as the Chinese, the North is worthless! Its more expensive to stay than to leave them alone. Likewise, Napoleon did not occupy Russia for long because Russia yielded nothing to his efforts. The winter was decimating his troops and he found no good resolution in Russia that would help reinforce his armies.

Did China always let Korea thrive by itself? No. Do I need to point out specific examples when China sent forces to pacify Korea and prevailed?

And whats the point of taking Japan? Its not even that fertile, with only 20% of its land capable of growing anything of value. With little natural resources on hand, Japan require a large import economy. Not something the Chinese can afford in the long run, why bother? Besides, we know China's streak in governing islands, they SUCK AT IT!

Bottom line, its economics, pure and simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKnuckles View Post
Hell, why not invade India in its weaker eras? China did not. Even when it could have.
Because its not necessary? India was not much of a threat to China, militarily or politically. It never quite had the kind of influence China had.

China is an immense Empire, with large open lands for a population that never seemed to fear the lack of space (it might now, but thats another story). Its got fertile ground in almost every direction, why desiring for more? Even with 1 billion people in China today, I can still be at a place where you just don't see a single soul.

And a campaign into India is not cheap. When Timur the Lame invaded India during one of its military expeditions, most of his troops were already lost to various diseases. If not for the fact that India at the time offered no significant resistance, Timur could not have succeeded.

An earlier example would have been Alexander the Great, but he too, among many things, lost many men due to diseases in the near-east that his men was just not ready for.

- Tak (And as stated before, whatever I post are mere opinions. How much do you agree or disagree with my opinions is up to you, but these are my own, formed through my own experiences. That is all)

Last edited by Tak; 2007-11-23 at 17:08.
Tak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-23, 23:11   Link #53
Sun-Ku
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Why dont you believe that Politics, internation relationship and love and hate inbetween can change in the huge span of 300 Years?
Europe is a great example for bloodthirsty neighbourhating warthriving Nations into the first inernational Union (in Progress) of mankind?

Thousand years of hatred and mistrust in Asia? the laughable timespan of 50-60 Years in the matter of South Korea and Taiwan?
England and France fought frigging 100 years long. Germany and France had 1500 Years of neverending conflicts and wars. Europe was the cause of Two Worldwars.

And yet we live in the European Union. No hate between the nations that fought against themselves for 1500 Years. (Except for towel wars in hotels and soccer)
The need for a power bloc and the economical exchange between this nations unified Ancied hatred.

300 Years is a long timeline for a change in the Asian Countrys


Specially Economics Import and Export is a huge peacekeeper, so that Japan is more fitting in the HRL than in the Union if you take the economic bounds between china and Japan in consideration.


Edit: As for chinese might: they can simply crush the US with a selling of their Dollar deposit. (well 1929 was childs play if that comes to this ^^)
__________________
Sun-Ku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-23, 23:52   Link #54
Dean_the_Young
Has a life IRL
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Sphere
Alright, even I have to respond here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun-Ku View Post
Why dont you believe that Politics, internation relationship and love and hate inbetween can change in the huge span of 300 Years?
Europe is a great example for bloodthirsty neighbourhating warthriving Nations into the first inernational Union (in Progress) of mankind?
Hate to break into Euro-nationalist moment here, but there was an earlier voluntary union of separate states into a free trade, foreign-policy alliance about 200 plus years ago. You might have heard of it, it's the successor state of a confederation and is now called the United States of America?

Quote:
Thousand years of hatred and mistrust in Asia? the laughable timespan of 50-60 Years in the matter of South Korea and Taiwan?
You'll want to clarify this. It's a historical fact that Asia, like the rest of the world, has been nasty and unplesant for thousands of years. The situation of post-WW2 has only been around since, well, post-WW2

Quote:
England and France fought frigging 100 years long. Germany and France had 1500 Years of neverending conflicts and wars. Europe was the cause of Two Worldwars.
Please get your facts accurate. England and France fought for far more than 100 years, while Germany the nation (not the peoples, who were many states) has yet to meet its bicentennial.

And further more, those nations only stopped beating eachother about the head when there was a looming outside threat to bring them together.

Quote:
And yet we live in the European Union. No hate between the nations that fought against themselves for 1500 Years. (Except for towel wars in hotels and soccer)
The need for a power bloc and the economical exchange between this nations unified Ancied hatred.
I'm sorry, I don't think Italy got the message in regards to the mass expulsions of Romanians. Or the nativist tensions that have risen over the twin specters of East European and muslim immigration. Or the often racist-toned debate of whether Turkey should enter the EU. No western europeans who wished for Poland as a whole to shut up and just go along with the rest of the EU. No bitter trade and subsidy disputes that often go in favor of the larger countries.

Nope, Europe is happy peninsula that has no more hate amoungst itself.

300 Years is a long timeline for a change in the Asian Countrys


Quote:
Specially Economics Import and Export is a huge peacekeeper, so that Japan is more fitting in the HRL than in the Union if you take the economic bounds between china and Japan in consideration.
Out of curiosity, were you aware that France's largest trading partner was Nazi Germany? No? Didn't think so. Trade is not a guarantee. The US traded alot with the Soviets, but MAD was a very real possibility, idealist claims to the contrary.


Quote:
Edit: As for chinese might: they can simply crush the US with a selling of their Dollar deposit. (well 1929 was childs play if that comes to this ^^)
Except, of course, that China knows that if it crushes the US dollar, it sets forth a world-wide economic trainwreck that will hurt China's export economy most. Saying China could crush the US economy is like saying that the US cush make China glow green; true, but not particularly relevant considering the cost of doing so.
Dean_the_Young is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-24, 02:21   Link #55
SuperKnuckles
Anime Hobbyist
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak View Post
Did I not already say Article 9 might be abolished by our generation? With that gone, there will be no legislature to limit Japan's rearmament.
They key word is "might". They haven't yet and it still is questionable if they will or if their neighboring nations will let them make full out military forces when their defense forces fulfill a lot of defensive roles just fine as it is now.

Quote:
Please do not try to convince me that Japan's rearmament is a luxury. In facing a growing China, Japan's influence is dwindling. There is absolutely no reason to believe South Korea would come to their aid, or vice versa, should war erupt on the Asian mainland. The best way to go about that is to help themselves. Moreover, China is building an oceanic navy. What else do you do with an oceanic navy if not for extending your influences? Do you honestly believe China might just sit tight while the US take the initiative, aggressively? I don't think so. China is a large country, with words to keep, and promises to be liable for, in addition to pride and nationalism.
I think you're being incredibly disingenuous with the way Chinese do politics. Every major nation on the Earth has military expeditions and China modernizing their arms isn't the same thing as building it for an attack. Also, with the economic situation MORE than affable between the Eastern Asian nations, invasion simply does not make any political or monetary sense. The one that attacks first will simply give all the allies of other nations to fight back with all they have. That is not something China can ever risk as long as other nations have capable militaries and more important still: very favorable economic relationships.

Quote:
China is already poking holes while the US isn't looking, and although direct confrontation might not become a reality in our generation, the best way to maintain one's autonomy and independence is to help oneself, or end up being some big-powers' playground. So no, my dear friend, Japanese rearmament is not a luxury, its an absolute necessity.
At this point, with all the US support still remaining in Japan, it IS a luxury. I'm not saying it WILL continue to be one. As for the foreseeable future goes, there is no credible threat of an attack. Even by North Koreans shooting missiles into Korean/Japan sea, an actual threat of an attack is still low. Again, diplomacy reasons alone keeps that from happening. NK and China are far from being desperate enough to risk a huge war. Especially when both allies have nuclear capabilities. Especially with nations that have American support.

Quote:
Except they also have nukes and American support. I am not even going to talk about the almost obscene Jewish lobbyist groups. You take away American support, and I wonder how long it would last. The same with South Korea, once it is isolated diplomatically, good luck.
They do have the support, but Israel as a military nation is very capable by itself. It had a long history of fighting the wars by themselves and succeeding due to their own capabilities. Just being armed by the States isn't going to account for well trained soldiers. Also, South Korea really can't be isolated diplomatically due to heavy economic ties and relatively benign relationship with Japan and US compared to China. You're only going by some absolute worst case scenario which will never happen any time soon.

Quote:
That is where you are wrong. China did not just leave so many northern tribes alone. Historically, when China gets its acts together, it sent expeditions northward. The Han expeditions were infamous because it commenced almost wholesome slaughter of norther tribes, displaced them, and forced them to move Westwards. In the Ming Dynasty, Chinese troops stormed Mongolia and burnt its capital to ashes, ruins which are still visible today.
But did they stay there and stabilize when they clearly could have? No. Did they make a point to invade and stay in a foreign nation? No. They are not quite like the Roman empire in the way they subjugate. The British burnt and destroyed the American capital but that doesn't mean they stayed for the long haul and totally subjugated America either.

Quote:
You might ask why they did not stay in the north. Let me ask you then, what IS in the north? NOTHING. Shit can't grow in the north, and for an agrarian people such as the Chinese, the North is worthless! Its more expensive to stay than to leave them alone. Likewise, Napoleon did not occupy Russia for long because Russia yielded nothing to his efforts. The winter was decimating his troops and he found no good resolution in Russia that would help reinforce his armies.
You're confusing battle worthiness of fighting in harsh climates to that of actual subjugation of entire nations.

Quote:
Did China always let Korea thrive by itself? No. Do I need to point out specific examples when China sent forces to pacify Korea and prevailed?

And whats the point of taking Japan? Its not even that fertile, with only 20% of its land capable of growing anything of value. With little natural resources on hand, Japan require a large import economy. Not something the Chinese can afford in the long run, why bother? Besides, we know China's streak in governing islands, they SUCK AT IT!

Bottom line, its economics, pure and simple.
China simply getting involved here and there to that of it being an invasionary force like you keep putting it are different. China controlled a lot of harsher lands in the Manchu and northern Chinese reasons just fine (some of them DESERTS) and they identify those lands as theirs per their nationalistic drive to unify their own land. I'm not saying China never was involved in foreign affairs because they clearly were. But where they a foreign-nation stomping invaders? No. Not as far as their history indicates.

Quote:
Because its not necessary? India was not much of a threat to China, militarily or politically. It never quite had the kind of influence China had.
You just said it's all about economics yet you turn 180 and say it isn't about economics this time around? India has always been a lucrative nation as a Silk Road crossroads nation. There were PLENTY of economic incentives to take it if China could. But they didn't because they simply were not the type to invade entirely foreign nations.

Quote:
China is an immense Empire, with large open lands for a population that never seemed to fear the lack of space (it might now, but thats another story). Its got fertile ground in almost every direction, why desiring for more? Even with 1 billion people in China today, I can still be at a place where you just don't see a single soul.
You're backpedaling again. You just said before that their burgeoning numbers and arms will lead them to attack foreign nations. And yet you are saying they didn't in the past? To me, the answer is simple: China is all about unifying their own kind. It was never about going beyond borders for them. A few foreign interventions does not count as it being some absolute imperial force that conquers.

Quote:
And a campaign into India is not cheap. When Timur the Lame invaded India during one of its military expeditions, most of his troops were already lost to various diseases. If not for the fact that India at the time offered no significant resistance, Timur could not have succeeded.

An earlier example would have been Alexander the Great, but he too, among many things, lost many men due to diseases in the near-east that his men was just not ready for.
I fail to see how disease and unfortunate circumstances dictate those failed efforts. Also, India is right on China's back door, so the problem of lugging along war rations simply is not a foreseeable problem even for ancient China.


Sun-Ku, I feel that the whole France/Germany conflict thing is overplayed. The ancient Francs and Huns were not exactly modern French and Germans. Their identity hasn't even been fully shaped even 1000 years ago. Also, these types of ancient conflicts tends to happen because they're simply competitive nations in close borders. Korea, Japan and China were embroiled in so much inter-conflict because they were so competitive throughout various eras with a lot of ebbs and flows of political and military strength. I don't think it's entirely possible to equate modern relationships with those of the ancient. Surely there are some feelings of rivalry, but does that equate to open bloodlust? I wouldn't say that for absolute certainty. I'm not saying there won't ever be wars, but in the modern, more economically driven rivalries, I think the traditional military wars is feeling awfully dated.

Last edited by SuperKnuckles; 2007-11-24 at 02:46.
SuperKnuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-24, 10:23   Link #56
Sun-Ku
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Hate to break into Euro-nationalist moment here, but there was an earlier voluntary union of separate states into a free trade, foreign-policy alliance about 200 plus years ago. You might have heard of it, it's the successor state of a confederation and is now called the United States of America?
Yeah colonized states with the same Language and no History .... what a breakthrough.

Quote:
You'll want to clarify this. It's a historical fact that Asia, like the rest of the world, has been nasty and unplesant for thousands of years. The situation of post-WW2 has only been around since, well, post-WW2
I wont deny that, its the opener argument for the thousend years of bloodthirst and wars in Europe. Europe did a union Asian can do it too.

Quote:
Please get your facts accurate. England and France fought for far more than 100 years, while Germany the nation (not the peoples, who were many states) has yet to meet its bicentennial.
100 Year war between England and France, ring a bell? Of course they fought longer then that with peacetimes inbetween. the hundread year war was only the longest in Europe and was frigging long.
Germany/Holy Roman Empire/German States was always competeting inbetween Like Great Brittain, Japan and China in Ancient and Feudal Times.


Quote:
And further more, those nations only stopped beating eachother about the head when there was a looming outside threat to bring them together.
Thats the Point is it not? Why cant that work for the Asians? In Present Time there are blocs forming like the EU and The AU (Mexico usa and Canada with their plans and the whole Amero Currency thing anyone?)
Asia must work togother to survive economical.


Quote:
I'm sorry, I don't think Italy got the message in regards to the mass expulsions of Romanians. Or the nativist tensions that have risen over the twin specters of East European and muslim immigration. Or the often racist-toned debate of whether Turkey should enter the EU. No western europeans who wished for Poland as a whole to shut up and just go along with the rest of the EU. No bitter trade and subsidy disputes that often go in favor of the larger countries.

Nope, Europe is happy peninsula that has no more hate amoungst itself.
whats the difference between this and the East/westcoast "wars" or the racsist hate towards black and Latins in the US?

Poland was boycotting an important reform thats not hate thats politics. The big net contributor in the EU have bigger Influence, whats the Problem?
Turkeyproblem is not Racsist, it is a human rights Problem

Quote:
Out of curiosity, were you aware that France's largest trading partner was Nazi Germany? No? Didn't think so. Trade is not a guarantee. The US traded alot with the Soviets, but MAD was a very real possibility, idealist claims to the contrary.
In the Present trade is more important then ever. Germany could got to war with france in present time, but the tradeloss would break the neck of both the countrys befor they even reach the border.

Quote:
Except, of course, that China knows that if it crushes the US dollar, it sets forth a world-wide economic trainwreck that will hurt China's export economy most. Saying China could crush the US economy is like saying that the US cush make China glow green; true, but not particularly relevant considering the cost of doing so.
If they want to go to war/ or provoke the US why not? if they are at war, its the same neverthless. They loose their Export, the us looses their currency stability. ---> Economy Peacekeeper.
__________________
Sun-Ku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-24, 11:30   Link #57
neoeagle
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itadakimasu! View Post
In our current political climate, Korea, India are more aligned with the US. However, given that it's probably much, much cheaper to get energy from the HRL space elevator, and given that China/Russia would probably require more assistance constructing the space elevator (thus giving minor players much more leverage), I can see how the HRL formed.

This whole distrust of China and belief that it wants to become hegemon seems to implicitly ignore the fact that the Chinese are usually unwilling to commit to armed conflict, especially on a large scale. Ever since the whole 'people's war' doctrine got shown to be laughable in the Sino-Vietnamese conflict, China has realised the futility of such wide ranging 'total war' strategies, and has instead focussed on deterrent power (nuclear) and limited, high tech warfare.

The likelihood that any such high tech conflict can actually succeed is thrown into doubt by the US foray into Iraq. Imagine having to pacify India, the world's second most populous nation!
china and India both are peaceful nations.However they have been abused by west, so they are arming themselves.If you look at long history they have rarely started a war.They have been invaded so many times.
West portrayal of china as buggy man always makes me laugh I have nothing to fear from Chinese;However for west, history shows they will kill and colonize for resources if given the opportunity.

Last edited by neoeagle; 2007-11-24 at 11:42.
neoeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 00:24   Link #58
Cherudim Arche
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
I have a question regarding how mobile suit units are tested and used before mass production, including prototypes and variants of the gundams and grunts.
Cherudim Arche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 01:11   Link #59
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Gundam 00 line mobile suits appear to be built much the same way as regular war machines are: first, a design is proposed, then a few prototypes are built in order to test the effectiveness and feasibility of the design. Afterwards, the prototype is tweaked to the desired parameters, its bugs are ironed out until it is finally deemed ready for production. In general, the production models are vastly superior to its prototypes.

As for Gundams, it's magic.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 11:23   Link #60
Dean_the_Young
Has a life IRL
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Sphere
Quote:
Originally Posted by neoeagle View Post
china and India both are peaceful nations.However they have been abused by west, so they are arming themselves.If you look at long history they have rarely started a war.They have been invaded so many times.
West portrayal of china as buggy man always makes me laugh I have nothing to fear from Chinese;However for west, history shows they will kill and colonize for resources if given the opportunity.
China hardly qualifies as a peaceful nation, unless by peaceful you mean "ends up being humiliated in the last two hundred years over and over." China has been in more wars than the US, and has been in low intensity conflicts for decades. Sino-Japanese War at the turn of the century, declaring war on Germany as part of WW1, the Sino-Japanese War leading to WW2, the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, support and "advisors" during the Vietnam War (though Russia was the big sugardaddy), the Chinese-Vietnam War, various border flareups with Russia, war with India, numerous firefights over the Taiwan Straights, various Maoist insurgencies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas, military and economic theft, the list goes on. And you know what? In the last hundred years, the fights with "teh evi1 west" that China has had have been of China's choosing. You can argue that the Chinese people are as peace loving as anyone else, but the Chinese leadership which oversaw Korea, the Great Leap Forward, the Shining Path, and others can hardly be called "peaceloving victims of the west."
Dean_the_Young is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.