One of China's most popular newspapers warned on Tuesday that nations involved in territorial disputes in the South China Sea should "mentally prepare for the sounds of cannons" if they remain at loggerheads with Beijing.
Source
One of China's most popular newspapers warned on Tuesday that nations involved in territorial disputes in the South China Sea should "mentally prepare for the sounds of cannons" if they remain at loggerheads with Beijing.
11 comments:
Now I see why we need long range submarines?
More like a real carrier air wing for the U.S. Navy and not the obsolete one.
Not sure though how 1 or 2 Aussie subs of the coast of China with some cruise missiles are really a deterrent to China? Or you need a lot more or you have to go nuclear tipped, if not you just piss them off with a couple of destroyed bunkers.
Let's say China stays this course and just gets stronger militarily and turns aggressive over the years, I don't see how Australia or anyone else in the region can deter them with their conventional inventory, you need the US conventional forces and nuclear umbrella to make up the difference.
The Aussie subs are designed to interact with the American fleet.It stops thier maritime trade, especially oil and gas. Nobody in their right mind would mention cruise missiles.
I understand there is a need for diplomacy however, lets not dance around the PC table for fear of upsetting China.
China are going to be a problem in the not too distant future & the possibility of a military exchange between China & its neibours that would draw in the US is very real.
I don't see how Australia sinking a couple of tankers of oil destined to China will be a deterrent to Chinese aggression. Not only that but thanks for the environmental damage to everybody's shores. If you can't hit them where it hurts, couple of torpedoes ain't going to cut it.
Does Australia hope to "blockade" China with a couple of subs? What kind of impact would this have on internatinal commerce and civilian shipping?
If AUS subs are interacting with US Navy, don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but pretty sure China will be more troubled by USN than anything Australia has in inventory.
" thanks for the environmental damage to everybody's shores"
That is the best I have heard.
"What kind of impact would this have on internatinal commerce and civilian shipping?
If AUS subs are interacting with US Navy, don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but pretty sure China will be more troubled by USN than anything Australia has in inventory. "
That is the whole idea, stop international commerce, hurt their feelings and thir trade, cut off their oil in conjunction with the USN. Since when would Australia act unilaterally.
By the way Nico, it is serious at that stage.Do you think China would respect your feelings and worry about environmental"damage"?
Hu and Obama are set to have a little pow wow in the near-future, which is a good thing of course, as long as there is a clear, well calculated and definite game plan and strategy going into such a complex meeting.
Unfortunately, there's so much overlapping economic, financial and geopolitical crap going on right now (domestic, regional and global) and especially with the world economic slow-down and financial crisis, it's not an easy time in relations anywhere to deal with. And unfortunately, a hawkish and easily tipped-insecure PRC just adds a few more firecrackers to the show when things are jumpy enough as they are.
One thing on the plate difficult for China to deal with are real internal issues longer-term, with prolonged inflation coupled with the need to transition to a domestic-demand model, away from being dependent on foreign demand (thus avoiding a so-called 'hard landing').
The persistent currency 'misalignment' issue though, as well as the significant intellectual rights violations e.g., are just a couple small twists of added pressure adding to the problem, as there is seemingly no clear way out of those problems in the near-term. But what unfortunately makes it worse to deal with, is also the US-side Legislative politics taking the issues into their own hands during economic turmoil with potentially face-losing legal capital, at a time when the USG needs to leverage legal tools the most to Confront Beijing face to face. Just one more part of the conundrum.
But what can become a convenient release valve for internal pressures (or possible incentive for hawks to gain reputation)... is the more overt concern of harmful 'threatening' rhetoric coming out as cited, which only negatively impacts the region as a whole and escalates the circular problems.
One can hope things will cool down a notch between now and the meeting.
Interesting, do not upset the poor Chinese.
"But what can become a convenient release valve for internal pressures (or possible incentive for hawks to gain reputation)... is the more overt concern of harmful 'threatening' rhetoric coming out as cited, which only negatively impacts the region as a whole and escalates the circular problems."
Nobody is suggesting hawkish moves, just economic reality, if they fudge the currency, do the same.
Hey they need Australia more that we need them.Where else would most of their resources come from?
Africa, eventually, but not for more than a decade, and they will do it anyway.
Stuff them
Sorry about the lack of clarity on that view. It was actually implying 'hawkish forces' and rhetoric from within the Beijing camp doing the harm, not so much political overreaction from the US side - which nonetheless is still a bad chess move on the US's side as it takes away legal capital when facing Beijing. In my view at least.
Personally though, I think a strong position for the US to play would be to simply match and mimic PRC style of foreign affairs methods, move for move. Speak the PRC language.
Perhaps something like... Bow head and very softly speak of; "the great offense and pain caused to US by the neglect of affirmative Beijing enforcement on Intellectual property stealing. Simply ask why, why are you causing so much harm to US and the rest of world by inaction by Govt to properly enforce Intellectual Property rights of others? Is this an official strategy to cause such great offense and harm to the world? The Americans are deeply offended and will need to contemplate how to respond to this direct harm caused."
A real zinger like that maybe... something along those lines could probably open a few eyebrows and even provoke some introspection, not gutsy rhetoric to further gain an upper hand. imho.
Post a Comment